The Red Pill Review

So I actually went ahead and did the disservice to my psyche by watching The Red Pill. Why did I do this? Well I can only assume it's because my Asperger's knows no bounds. But all jokes aside, I'm just gonna come out with it: This is by far the worst movie I've ever watched. It's one of the whiniest, angstiest, and ill-informed movie anyone could hope to make. Apparently the film is so powerful that it has the ability to change any feminist's mind. Well thankfully I'm one of the smart ones who wasn't sucked in by manipulative agenda setting and framing. All I did after the movie was over is break the disc. No I'm not kidding. I legit broke the CD because I don't want anyone else wasting their money on this. The rumours weren't shitting you. It really does use every dirty, underhanded tactic to make you feel sorry for a group that has zero likability for good reason. Let's take a look at The Red Pill and why it does not deserve anyone's time.

First, time for a brief explanation of what the movie is. It was directed by Cassie Jaye, and is essentially her first try at film making. Well if this is any indication, she's not very good at it. The movie, which is actually a documentary but whatever, is supposed to be a feminist's adventure to the men's rights movement. It doesn't make sense for her to try and delve into the movement since anyone in it will give you an apt idea of what it is; just a bunch of angry white men who think women are the scum of the earth and the root of men's supposed eradication. They're pretty much what people think feminists are like, but they take it to even bigger extremes. Cassie feels a bit generous though, and wants to hear them out. She finds various MRAs, some popular, some not, and evaluates their experiences and why they turned to the MRM to begin with. And let me tell you, these interviews so to say are just the biggest indicator that Cassie cherrypicked as much as she possibly could to make this documentary. It's at a point where I'm starting to think she paid these people to say what they did. 

She interviews several MRAs based on MRA talking points. And by some random surge of magic she was able to find men who've been screwed in divorces, male DV victims who had no access to shelters, and men who've attempted suicide. Now you're probably asking "but these are genuine concerns aren't they?" and you'd be right. The problem is, this is simple appeal to emotion. You know, that thing that feminists are constantly accused of doing? If feminists were to go around grabbing random female rape/abuse victims, women who became pariahs for having abortions or suffered permanent genital damage from reckless abortionists, or women who've faced street harassment and had shell shock because of it, everyone would be like "THAT'S NOT OPPRESSIVE CUZ IN DA MIDDLE EAST THEY'D HAVE BATTERY ACID THROWN ON THEM" as if the Middle East is just the yardstick of how bad you have it, even though there are higher levels of female oppression in non-Arab majority nations. Hell, Africa's violent misogyny could make King Salman shudder. Another example is the decriminalisation of DV in Russia signed by Putin not too long ago. Oh and Australia. Just Australia. 

To better explain why these instances Cassie selected were cherrypicked, I'm gonna pick them apart one by one. Let's talk about divorce courts since MRAs seem to bring that up the most. They like to think that men are always and forever treated like subspecies garbage in divorce court. This is not true, like, at all. Sure, there are fathers who are cheated due to vindictive parents, but those cases are in the minority, and there are studies that show that fathers who fight for custody (and I mean actually try to win it) are more likely to get it 70% of the time. Most custody cases are usually mutual, and both parents decide that the mother is more suited to raise the kids. There are other factors like mothers taking care of the kids and that pesky gender norm that resigns women to be child bearers for all their lives. If child custody is such an issue, maybe it's time to reconsider what the real culprit is. That's the problem with this documentary, all it did was highlight why men need feminism more than MRAism. That'll become more apparent as this review continues. 

Next I wanna discuss male domestic violence. According to the MRM, 40% of domestic violence victims are male, and there are no shelters for men only, and the only ones that do exist hold both genders. This is utter horseshit if you couldn't tell already. The real statistics are 15% of men being victims of spousal abuse. That doesn't mean it ought not to be taken seriously, but men aren't actually at much of a risk as MRAs would try to tell you. Now regarding the amount of shelters, yes it's true that some unisex shelters exist, but they're actually in very small numbers. This is because victims of either gender aren't very comfortable being with one another (though it's mostly women being afraid of being around men). Fear not, despite what you might hear, Arkansas's all-male shelter is not the only all-male shelter in the whole country, just the first one in the state. Here are some numbers: There are currently 1,500 shelters for female victims and 500 for male victims. Those are some equally vapid numbers judging how there's 300 million people in America. Sure these shelters can house hundreds of people, but that's still not enough. What's even worse is that there are 3,800 animal abuse shelters. The country literally has more protection of animals than human beings getting the shit kicked out of them by their partners, and I think that's something everyone can come together on and say that's pretty damn bad. As for why there are less men's shelters than women's shelters? Well that's not really sexism and more so pragmatic thinking. Since women are victims of DV more than men, it'd only make sense that they'd have more resources open to them (and even then they still can't get a hold of them, so there goes that argument). But yes, there needs to be more shelters in the country for each gender. 

Lastly, the suicide argument. Now I've already made a blog post about suicide and its relation to gender, but for a quick refutation, men are often told to repress their emotions as a construct of the patriarchy, not other women. Plus, men use more brutal methods like guns and jumping from high ground. The problem is men being shamed for showing emotion which is apparently a bad thing and an extension of misogyny since crying and weakness is considered feminine. Not getting pussy is not a reason to drink a whole bottle of rubbing alcohol. Stop trying to say it is. 

Now here's where things get REALLY bad, as if the misinformation wasn't bad enough on its own. Cassie invites some of the most reprehensible MRAs onto the documentary and through some bullshit editing tricks, she paints them as the heroes. She gets Paul Elam, a guy who thinks that women who get drunk are begging to be raped, Warren Farrell, who thinks that women shouldn't have the right to vote (or any right for that matter), and Honey Badger Radio, a group of female MRAs who just act like the way MRAs portray women in general. They all say their usual debunked bollocks and Cassie just eats it all up like a schoolgirl on her first day at a new school. She also invites feminists onto her documentary. So who does she get? Fucking Big Red. You know, that one feminist with the pixie cut who's been used as a strawman of feminism since like 2010? Yeah, her. For fuck's sake, you couldn't have displayed your bias any more than if you chose Anita Sarkeesian. Oh wait you wouldn't do that because she's actually been harassed by MRAs and her experiences would shatter your documentary in 3 seconds flat. I understand now.

So this next thing I'm about to bring up isn't necessarily about the movie itself, but it does kinda put things into a much bigger perspective and it really makes the whole thing make sense. Not the actual bullshit in the documentary, I mean why she made it. You see, when Cassie flew back to Australia, she was interviewed and the story of a boy being killed by his father in a domestic abuse situation came up. Her response? Applying gender to where she could push an agenda. She highlights the fact that the victim was male and not the fact that the perpetrator was male. Judging how the overwhelming majority of homicides, rapes, muggings, assaults, and spousal violence instances are caused by men, that not only is a flagrant display of ignorance but it really shows that she really doesn't care about the greater good and would rather shower men with a victim complex. 
AGAIN, SOMETHING THAT FEMINISM HAS BEEN CRITICISED FOR TIME AFTER TIME. 

To conclude the review, this documentary is not to just be chuckled at and assumed to die in the recesses of a Best Buy. This is a danger to anyone. It willfully spreads lies and makes you sympathise with a group that condones violence against women and only pretends to care for men. Do not watch this. At all. Don't even try to see what it's like. You have nothing to gain from it. There are SO many better things you could be watching. If you want a better documentary that evaluates the idea of masculinity and its negative repercussions on males in modern times, check out The Mask You Live In. It's a well directed and better paced film that actually recognises the root cause of men's issues without trying to make it look like feminists are Galactus in a bad mood. Better still, just watch something of actual substance, because The Red Pill isn't gonna give you that. 

I'm Comin' Out (I Want The World To Know)

I'm sure I've caught your attention with that apt Diana Ross reference in the title. So in honour of pride month, I think it's time I revealed a rather newly developed characteristic about me.

I am bi-romantic.

For anyone unaware, bi-romance is not a sexual orientation, but a lesser form of bisexuality. What it means is that I'm romantically and physically attracted to both genders, but my sexual orientation remains the same, which in my case would be heterosexual. Bi-romance is probably a lot more common than most people would imagine, but it's often glanced over, possibly because of how trivialised it is by the media. You know what I'm talking about, having two drunk straight girls make out with each other in a movie or male athletes slapping each other's fannies in the locker room. 

Who can be bi-romantic? Well, anyone really. With bisexuality it's kinda obvious that you'll go for men and women, but bi-romantics don't go all the way. For instance, a gay man can be only sexually attracted to men, but can still want a romantic relationship with a woman. For me, I'm still happily married to my husband, by I sometimes would think about taking some female friends on a lovey-dovey date (with lots of kissing of course ;D). Now I've never acted on my bi-romantic urges and quite frankly I don't see myself doing so in the foreseeable future, but I do wanna be more open about it. Bi-romance is also common amongst asexuals, who are indifferent to intercourse. Whilst they remain abstinent, it's not unheard of for them to have make out sessions with their partners. They might even grope them too. Nudity might also be involved in bi-romantic relationships

I'm not expecting to be worshipped for my unique orientation nor do I beg people to, I just want everyone to get a clearer understanding of what bi-romance is. Who knows, you might actually have a friend or acquaintance who is bi-romantic, and now you'll know how to interact with them or what they're like. This was kinda a short one, but I'm hoping I tided you over until I finish the Red Pill review.