Hacker Cinema
The Red Pill
2016 · Film · documentary · 118 min
Directed by Cassie Jaye
When a feminist filmmaker sets out to document the mysterious and polarizing world of the Men’s Rights Movement, she begins to question her own beliefs. Chronicling Cassie Jaye’s journey exploring an alternate perspective on gender equality, power and privilege.
13 positive1 negative1 mixed9 neutralfrom 24 commenters
Where to watch
No streaming data for this title.
27 comments on Hacker News
Correction, thanks to dri_ft:
The film maker responsible for The Red Pill is Cassie Jaye.
Alex Lee Moyer was behind TFW No GF.
I feel the same about "The Red Pill" movie and couldn't see how the criticism aligned with the reality. What I do see often is that entrenched actors and groups will attack, with specially reserved ardor, any artist or production taking a position of understanding and shared interest between groups or actors that are meant to be at odds.
With this movie, the critics could have said the filmmaker, Alex Lee Moyer, avoided the most misogynistic fringe that could be associated with the Men's Rights movement and been correct but that would undermine the safe thing to say, that the _entire_ Men's Rights movement is fringe and misogynistic.
I'm not especially interested in Men's Rights but I thought the movie was a refreshing surprise, commend the risk taken by the creator, and hope people continue to take risks when the evidence leads them into the unexpected.
PS: The film maker went on to make "TFW No GF" which followed and explored lonely, young men. Searching "Alex Lee Moyer", the second result is a Rolling Stone article on this movie with the headline, "‘TFW No GF’ Is a Deeply Uncomfortable Portrayal of Incel Culture". Here are just a couple quotes that show how much bull this director has had thrown her way for her troubles:
> This non-judgmental approach has made many viewers deeply uncomfortable, with writer Eric Langberg tweeting that the film is “one of the most irresponsible docs I’ve ever seen,” leading to a barrage of abuse from incels on Twitter.
> But even if you believe that objectivity is the best approach to capturing a subculture marked by misogyny, violence, and racism, it’s hard to accept the argument that the film’s relationship with its subjects is wholly objective in the first place.
Clearly, how dare she go and explore this sub-culture by meeting and filming some of its members, willing or not, without reminding the audience that these are bad people that say bad things on the internet and laugh at bad jokes.
MensLib is overflowing with the kind of male feminist who will sling around "incel" as an insult for even the most milquetoast of takes.
And since the Red Pill documentary (bad name, middling content) was mentioned, I'll also point out that one of the feminists who featured in it was later outed as a sex pest, despite desperately trying to position himself as One of the Good Ones™:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Kimmel
At best, MensLib types are annoying sycophants. At worst, they're wolves in sheep's clothing. In both cases, it's comedy.
That's not to say that Andrew Tate et al. aren't issues as well, but at least they're dressed appropriately.
What's interesting is that I recently watched The Red Pill Documentary. I recall when it was released that the director, Cassie Jaye a self professed feminist was pilloried absolutely everywhere for giving a voice to Mens Rights Activists. The actual documentary is quite milquetoast.
What it is, is her engaging with the ideas around how in some ways men are disadvantaged in modern society. It's fascinating to me that the fundamental issue in the red pill is, whenever someone tries to point out where society is failing boys and men no-one listens and they get shouted down.
As pointed out by Corrine Barraclough, of the Australian tabloid newspaper The Daily Telegraph, who said in her review of the film that "the message of The Red Pill is compassion" and the film made her "wonder why feminists tried so hard to silence this crucial conversation."
It's funny how these sort of posts only seem to bring up male suicide when talking about feminism. It's almost like they don't actually care about male suicide as a problem just as a handy cudgel to be used against feminism. Yet when the conversation turns to things which actually have a major impact on suicide among men like toxic masculinity, they often deny such things even exist or is really just an attack against men. This is clear if you just take a look at a few more posts from the above poster. The only time they ever bring up issues with men is to contrast them with "how easy" women have it. It's got gems like this:
> "- Cult of female employment as their main role in society, which, in positions of power, happens to soften the stance towards criminals and deconstruct structures (hierarchies, things that worked to develop our nations, justice system). I don’t know the ratio for Cali but in France, 76 to 81% graduates of ENM (main school for judges) are female since 1977, and we basically free the criminals because they have compassion for them."
> "So I never demanded anything from my father up to the point I needed him. At 35 years old I told him modern women were unmanageable and my life was turning sour, and I needed help, I needed people to understand that men are being mistreated by the system, but I said it with ample documentation (you could watch the excellent movie The Red Pill, which depicts pretty much the complexity of our position), and that the only answer of society towards us is “Incel”. By the time I asked my father, I had already created some networks through politicians, but on the topic that interests me, all still had the same dismissive position, because promoting men doesn’t work politically. I’m saying that so you don’t say that I hadn’t walked my walk."
> "There aren’t many ways besides violence to be heard by people who refuse to hear us. I’ve already tried words! And more importantly for me: I’ve already tried taking positive action."
Well, there are male empowerment movements. Have a look at the documentary The Red Pill by Cassie Jaye.
It's really disingenuous of the article to not look in the mirror and acknowledge what is happening.
What happens when males are the default oppressor, masculinity deemed toxic and male empowerment movements are actively boycotted?
It reminds me of that documentary "The Red Pill" in which an ex-feminist turned into a Men Right's activist after looking at the data.
It's good sign that someone on the school side recognise the damage happening.
Still, she holds ridiculous beliefs that make me think the problem will never be solved by schools who have staff that is uniquely biased in one direction and can't even realise their bias.
How can you even think that "Believe the woman" is a good starting point? Imagine if the gender were reversed and it was "Believe the man", how outraged would people be?
In our justice system, people are innocent until proven guilty.
Sure, this makes it harder to catch perpetrators but it limits innocent people from being trapped and blackmailed.
It's funny how she criticises people who feel like feminists hate all men and then proceed to do the same thing by saying that MRA groups contribute to a culture of misogyny. There are surely fringe hateful people in both groups: you can easily find misandrist feminists and misogynist men right's activists.
There's a documentary about one part of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Red_Pill
Or you could look at the most extreme examples the other commenters are trying to present as the norm.
Old farts always assume what we ask for is illegitimate.
I remember a “HR Collective Negotiation” teacher in my masters (one of the top schools of France). He said “When you need to fire 193 people, don’t ask for 400 to come back to 200. Ask for 193 and negotiate until you get it.”
I’ve always applied this rule in my life. (Socially it doesn’t work at all, but I do it because I’d like to see a world that works on sincere values).
So I never demanded anything from my father up to the point I needed him. At 35 years old I told him modern women were unmanageable and my life was turning sour, and I needed help, I needed people to understand that men are being mistreated by the system, but I said it with ample documentation (you could watch the excellent movie The Red Pill, which depicts pretty much the complexity of our position), and that the only answer of society towards us is “Incel”. By the time I asked my father, I had already created some networks through politicians, but on the topic that interests me, all still had the same dismissive position, because promoting men doesn’t work politically. I’m saying that so you don’t say that I hadn’t walked my walk.
So apparently I’m able to make about 3 million dollars, between one startup which IPO’ed and my own company which has 6 employees. But I’m still not good enough for women, and worthy of being treated as the scum of the earth.
So I asked my father whether at least in my family, the upsides of men could be acknowledged, and if in addition to admiring my sister’s climb of Everest, we could acknowledge that we could give men the same kind of help for finding affection as we give women at work. I gave specific examples and came back on several angles. My father refused to respond to my demand, treating me as a spoilt brat every single time.
I do not see, when one has already contributed to society more than his father’s entire life of taxes (along with thousands of hours of volunteering, don’t assume I’m only talking in money, it’s just a symbolic result), what gives society the right to treat us as a tax slave and never give us love in return. I’ve always tried to be the kindest of all, but that’s also a receipe to be stepped upon, which seems to be an attitude that we think is totally ok for women.
There aren’t many ways besides violence to be heard by people who refuse to hear us. I’ve already tried words! And more importantly for me: I’ve already tried taking positive action.
Remains violence.
Just saying.
Why was that flagged?
Here's a link to the website for The Red Pill, a documentary by a feminist who talked to men's rights activists. You may not agree with the subjects of the documentary, but the perspective is interesting, and was interesting to the feminist filmmaker who created it.
I guarantee whoever flagged me for recommending it did not watch it himself (yes, it was a dude)
http://theredpillmovie.com/
You might find the documentary The Red Pill illuminating
I looked for the vouch link but couldn’t find it.
Anyone who is interested in the subject should watch the “red pill” documentary.
Appalling.
A similar thing happened to Cassie Jaye (with Red Pill) a former feminist who decided to make a documentary on men's right activists and ended up recognising men have problems to.
There's a good reason MRAs are sometimes anti-feminism: because feminists are sometimes anti-men. A few examples:
That documentary I mentioned, The Red Pill (which is not related to the reddit sub), faced a lot of opposition from feminists and screenings were cancelled because of it.
Affirmative action in Swedish universities ended because feminists were opposed to the fact that affirmative action was helping men (who are vastly underrepresented in Swedish universities). The education minister, from a party that has traditionally supported feminism and affirmative action, said: "The education system should open doors -- not slam them in the face of motivated young women". The message is clear: equality for women, but not for men.
The infamous Dear Colleague policy for handling sexual assault allegations on campus blatantly ignored the rights of men, and suffered many defeats in court, but continued to be popular with feminists until the "non-feminist" MRAs ended it.
I looked at the other subbreddit you mentioned, MensLib, a few times before it was locked down, and I never saw them opposing feminist policies that hurt men.
I'm willing to engage with you if you're willing to move past attributing all good things and only good things to feminism and slandering anyone who opposes feminist overreach. If you can't acknowledge that feminists, like any other special interest group, sometimes advocate their own interests at the expense of others, you've deified them in a completely unwarranted way.
(Also, the Reddit sub TheRedPill is not an MRA sub and doesn't claim to be; it's a sub advocating a "sexual strategy" and their introduction clearly says "I'm not here to parade the concepts of Men's Rights". It's not related to the film I mentioned and has nothing to do with this discussion. I honestly don't know why you brought it up, except perhaps in another attempt to slander MRAs.)
The Red Pill documentary by (feminist!) Cassie Jaye opened my eyes to what MRAs are all about. It's a fascinating watch, and I'd honestly be astonished at anyone who comes away from watching it thinking that they have no legitimacy.
Her TED talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WMuzhQXJoY
Just watched a documentary about a female investigating the mens rights movement. It was very eye opening and some of the things they talk about hit home being a man. Its called The Red Pill[0].
Its not about the crazies on reddit by the way. It starts off a bit rough talking about controversial article written by mens rights activists, but just keep watching, I swear they explain it.
[0]: https://m.imdb.com/title/tt3686998/
I would have agreed with you, but after having seen the documentary The Red Pill (2016), I'm more sympathetic to the GP. I think it's difficult for the people on the progressive/women's/feminist side of the debate (in which I included myself) to even listen to the "men's" side - it's a complex of interconnected issues. But I think that documentary at least might be a good starting point for discussion. I found it fascinating, and a very important film.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3686998/
Edit: Maybe downvoters might like to say why. Thanks.
> #HimToo
I haven't heard of this specifically, but the #MeToo movement bothers me greatly, because it implies that we suddenly learned you needed consent for sex; like it was some new revelation.
If you look at CDC numbers, just as many men are assaulted sexually as women, but yet the #MeToo movement felt very one directional and didn't talk about assault inclusively of all people.
The #BelieveWomen campaign actually goes directly against one of the principal tenants of progressive ideology: Innocent until proven guilty (a tenant of #BlackLivesMatter).
The point is these issues are COMPLEX! They are not simple. And when they're not simple, you need to be able to discuss them openly, and frankly. Deplatforming totally fucks that up. People who have never been on to Gab assume it's all hate speech and right-wring religious stuff (I mean .. it is .. or was, but most people didn't actually see it for themselves...they just heard about it and hated).
A good counter example: the documentary The Red Pill, where a feminist interviews several people in the Men's Rights movement and learns it was nothing like how it was portrayed as. She had an entirely incorrect view of what they themselves stood for because of all those people yelling at their platform.
De-platforming increases polarization. I know it's a meme, but we do live in a society. We need to be able to discuss our differences and find a synthesis between the thesis/anthesis to move forward in a way that's as fair as we can be to everyone.
When you push people off platforms, there is no longer speech and discussion. There is only "for us or against us." If you are a feminist in every way, but think trans-women should still be men on their birth certificates, then suddenly you're an anti-Trans, TERF, Fascist, Nazi and nothing you said should be listened to because you're wrong.
That's the direction we're heading, and that is sad and terrible. Most humans do act in good faith, and are reasonable, and we need to learn to listen again.
I think this field - sociology - and the humanities in general have become so much politicised that it is very hard to find articles on subjects like these which do not read like an action plan for some or other political group. While I could not get the article through Wiley I did find it on Sci-Hub:
http://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12476
And yes, with lines like "... Given that hegemonic masculinity persists as the dominant gender norm in the United States, the results from this study suggest that further increasing father involvement may require changing the current gendered structure of society ..." it could just as well have been a point of action for some feminist organisation as a research article. This in return will cause the article to be dismissed out of hand by those on 'the other side' - often describing themselves as being 'red-pilled' after Cassie Jaye's documentary 'The Red Pill' on the subject of modern feminism versus the men's rights movement [1].
In my own opinion this article does not pass the muster as it tries to fit the concept of fatherhood in an ideological framework which only fits those who are already on board. While the actual term 'toxic masculinity' is not used it is clear that the concept is seen as valid and as a driving factor behind the supposed failure to be 'good fathers'. In short, it tries to portray a causality between the acceptance of 'modern gender ideology' (in contrast to 'traditional gender ideology') and good fathering. This is a political standpoint, not a scientific conclusion and as such this article and the conclusions drawn in it lose their relevance.
[1] http://theredpillmovie.com/
I would recommend learning more about the things you hate.
I used to hate modern art. I thought it was only for obnoxious people. Then I decided to take a college course on it and it's my favorite period of art because I learned to understand it. For the same reasons, I decided to take a course on the black power movement. My parents were racist so I was probably racist so I wanted to learn more. I learned about the Civil rights movement and discovered many personal heroes. I used to dislike John McCain and politics even though I knew very little about either, until I saw a documentary about McCain and learned he was literally a hero. I used to think finance, statistics, and programming were for smart people unlike me, until I learned more and developed a love for it.
I used to think the red pill was complete trash until someone forced me to watch the red pill documentary. It led to a painful breakup where we both weren't able to empathize with each other's traumas. I could not empathize with his pain of feeling inferior (because that's my status quo) and he could not empathize with the systemic oppression and violence against women (physical, sexual, and emotional). I feel he felt that his father may have been taken advantage of, abused and used financially and feared that for himself. While I watched my father abuse my mother, emotionally and financially, and feared that for myself. It was strange how we both felt strongly about both sides, the same problem, except we were passionately divided simply because of gender. I learned a lot and probably will always be learning from that experience.
Every time I've challenged my views, I've been rewarded.
Two books I've enjoyed or am enjoying that are about chaos:
Evicted by Mathew Desmond covers American poverty from a housing perspective.
The Big Short covers the 2008 financial crisis and it's much more informative than the film.
> Through the project we protect groups like LGBTQ organizations targeted in the Middle East, journalists covering political corruption in Africa, human rights workers in Asia, and bloggers on the ground covering the conflict in Crimea.
And in occident? Do they protect MRAs and Christians?
I love how their view of political targeting is limited to what the West wants to impose to all countries. Yet, the organization “A Voice For Men” was flagged as hate speech for funding the movie The Red Pill (2016), the most censored movie of 2017 in occident. If they haven’t identified them as political oppression victims, they don’t know much about Free Speech.
I agree with the distinction between mens rights activism and the red pill. These and other male subcultures (MGTOW etc) always seem to get lumped together by people who want to discredit them. A documentary about men's rights being called "The Red Pill" certainly didn't help in this regard.
But my question to the grandparent comment was meant to be more like, why should making some fairly uncontroversial (and evidence-backed) assertions require putting on any sort of 'hat' at all?
I'm not saying I agree with all of the red pill philosophy, but it's amazing how some people automatically go on the defensive when this stuff comes up.
Do you have data to back up the claims that a) prostate cancer and its consequences kill less people than breast cancer and b) that men aren't systematically victimized by society?
For the latter, I'd say that this topic is inherently sex-specific and thus in a way, has to be sexist. Obviously we wouldn't be talking about prostate cancer if it was leukemia, but it is not. Discussing the survival rates across genders is a legitimate topic and it might turn out that men at more danger - apart from prostate cancer, keep in mind that men commit much more suicides [1], usually take much riskier jobs and in some countries are forced to participate in the army. As a source, I would recommend The Red Pill movie by Cassie Jaye - a woman who called herself feminist until she actually researched what masculism is about.
Also, it doesn't have to be a "battle of the sexes" as you put it. Working on male health does not mean stopping research on female health - it's just that prostate cancer definitely isn't getting enough exposure. It would be great if we learned to acknowledge that we can fight for our gender's rights without shouting how the other one oppresses us.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_differences_in_suicide
On that same note, there's a recent documentary called "The Red Pill" about men's rights.
Considering the main version of the memo that was circulated was doctored (and the article stated they had doctored it), I wouldn't put much stock into anyone having bothered verifying it. But I don't think that's the reason nobody has quoted the document, it's because nobody bothered to do their research.
"Professional" journalism really isn't doing it's job well at the moment. Everyone just copies the same article contents and titles, and nobody does any actual research. It's quite apparent if you read two articles by similar publications on the same topic -- they contain effectively the same contents which tells me that very little independent research is done.
There was a particularly striking recent example of this, when the director of the movie "The Red Pill" was being interviewed on Australian TV. The questions being asked of her came from people who clearly had only seen the movie trailer, and upon asking whether they had seen the movie (she had sent them links to stream the movie for free several times) they said they "couldn't get it to work". Which means that they objectively were conducting an interview without the faintest clue what the subject was.
For a recent example of this see "Red Pill", a documentary about the Men's Rights movement.
They were backed via Kickstarter and promised backers a "pre-release" download. Because they wanted to be eligible for an Academy Award nomination they ended up releasing the movie in LA (and New York I think?) for the minimum run necessary and then waited another couple of months for the official release as digital download.
Because of the Academy Award rules they held back the "pre-release" downloads until just before the release of the digital download version. They angered a lot of backers by saying it was still technically a pre-release because the digital download hadn't been available yet although the film had already been in cinemas and available for private screenings for months at that point.
It's a good example for bad communication. Especially when upset backers were basically told the "pre-release" would happen at the last possible moment to combat file sharing, but that's another tangent.
Let's look at it another way. Ban all hate groups, or don't ban any of them. However, don't pick and choose.
I don't agree with Neo Nazis. I hold Neo Nazis with the same contempt that I hold feminists. Why not apply the policy for all hate groups?
For example, in Australia we refuse to acknowledge the approximately 25% of violence and abuse by females within the household. The worst case statistic is NSW ("Twice as many female victims (19,488) as male victims (9,261) in New South Wales."). Not one of these victims is given a voice! http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/4510.0~2014~Main%20Features~Experimental%20Family%20and%20Domestic%20Violence%20Statistics~10000
Also check http://www.oneinthree.com.au/
You will see that men who are victims of domestic violence are turned away from support groups. This doesn't surprise me as there is an aggressive campaign to ignore male victims from media, government and community support groups.
I conducted a Google search from 2015 to determine that 100% of references in the Australian media stated that domestic violence was a "male only" behaviour and the only victims represented were female. I checked over 2000 references! In other words, 2000 of 2000 references represented one gender with relation to violence.
If you listen to Cassie Jaye (the feminist who created the documentary The Red Pill), she says that feminists in media refuse to acknowledge male victims because it will take money away from female victims. In other words, if you are a boy or a man who is beaten or abused, feminists insist males get no representation or support. It's almost a complete media kibosh throughout the western world. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itSTzV29bS0
So, why is Twitter not banning prominent feminists? or, why isn't Twitter banning all media outlets who support such hateful messages that insist that some victims of violence should be ignored? This is a fundamental breach of human rights! You can't get much worse!
Check media references for an absence of any of the following, 80% of suicide victims are male 25% of domestic violence is by a female 90% of incarceration is male
You will also notice that Cassie Jaye said she was suppressed by feminists. Cassie also said that she was advised by feminists not to represent any issues that impact men. This would explain the media suppression across all western countries.
If you're going to ban a hate group, why not include feminism. It's certainly one of the biggest and most active groups today and actively violates human rights. I've given plenty of pointers in this single post alone to build evidence.
There is almost universal silence from the overwhelming majority of feminists on this topic. It's a sad indictement of the overwhelming majority of the feminist movement. Check media, documentaries from 2016, support groups, even discussion forums. The message is consistent and it consistently breaches human rights.
So, should Twitter ban hate groups? If you really must silence hate groups, then ban them all. And like you, I dislike spending so much of my time fighting hate groups like feminism because there is no impartiality on the topic. How extreme do you need to get before people will speak up?