Cassie Jaye on Laci Green & Media Backlash

Drew_TNBD

G'wan... tally this shit up with yer bullshit blinkered worldview...

guitarfishbay

Haven't seen the film, I assume you have?

Interview is interesting. I feel like this woman's experience could happen to many people who speak out on certain issues.

Drew_TNBD

I have seen the film yes. It was a bit vanilla if I'm honest. I was already familiar with the subject material and the personal stories. The backlash against the movie is more interesting than the movie itself to me.

Lewy

Interestingly I went down a massive rabbit hole of a lot of vids about this the other day, including the Rubin report with Laci Green on it.

There's no debate, the reactions are ridiculous and unjustifiable, ranging from threats of physical assault through to saying "how dare you ask that question, the simple act of asking that question invalidates my existence". Not sure which of those is more corrosive actually.

But in the interest of balance, I imagine you could also find plenty of backlash for anyone on the far right who says "hey I've been speaking to some feminists and they have some really interesting things to say". They'd basically be shouted down as cucks.

guitarfishbay

People should be able to explore counter arguments to their beliefs.  I'd say 'willing' instead of able, but that might be expecting too much, so best to let those willing be able, if that makes sense.

mellowsun

I don't get people's obsession with the minutiae of what feminists and SJWs say or do. 

Why do sad keyboard warriors see them as a threat?

digitalscream

mellowsun said:

I don't get people's obsession with feminism and SJWs. 

Why do sad keyboard warriors see them as a threat?

Why do you feel it necessary to write off anybody who's concerned about it as "sad keyboard warriors"?

This modern, extreme approach to feminism has very real consequences and effects; this isn't just an online thing, and that's what The Red Pill is all about. Perhaps you'd be better off actually watching the film before commenting, given that your demographic is precisely the one that it's aimed at?

mellowsun

digitalscream said:

mellowsun said:

I don't get people's obsession with feminism and SJWs. 

Why do sad keyboard warriors see them as a threat?

Why do you feel it necessary to write off anybody who's concerned about it as "sad keyboard warriors"?

This modern, extreme approach to feminism has very real consequences and effects; this isn't just an online thing, and that's what The Red Pill is all about. Perhaps you'd be better off actually watching the film before commenting, given that your demographic is precisely the one that it's aimed at?

Well I'll check out the film on iTunes.  But the fact that men tend to get a raw deal in family courts has been a problem for decades, nothing to do with recent 'extreme' feminism.  Men suffer from eating disorders and domestic violence too, but again, this is not new.

I'm not sure beyond Twitter storms what the very real consequences of 'extreme' feminism are, tbh it has passed me by, although I work in female-dominated sectors (publishing and healthcare).  

I do note that it gets some forum posters very angry and upset over on SC, so hopefully watching the film will help explain this.

Many of these new feminists are very young, and young people often espouse extreme views which they then modify later. Laurie Penny was similar - arguably she has been 'red pilled' too, based on her friendship with a US alt-right commentator who's name escapes me.

But outside YouTube and Twitter, I still fail to see the significance of all this.

Lewy

digitalscream said:

This modern, extreme approach to feminism has very real consequences and effects

Not least of all on grown up sensible real world feminists who are trying to make valid arguments and are constantly undermined by association to a bunch of idiots.

digitalscream

mellowsun said:

digitalscream said:

mellowsun said:

I don't get people's obsession with feminism and SJWs. 

Why do sad keyboard warriors see them as a threat?

Why do you feel it necessary to write off anybody who's concerned about it as "sad keyboard warriors"?

This modern, extreme approach to feminism has very real consequences and effects; this isn't just an online thing, and that's what The Red Pill is all about. Perhaps you'd be better off actually watching the film before commenting, given that your demographic is precisely the one that it's aimed at?

Well I'll check out the film on iTunes.  But the fact that men tend to get a raw deal in family courts has been a problem for decades, nothing to do with recent 'extreme' feminism.  Men suffer from eating disorders and domestic violence too, but again, this is not new.

I'm not sure beyond Twitter storms what the very real consequences of 'extreme' feminism are, tbh it has passed me by, although I work in female-dominated sectors (publishing and healthcare).  

I do note that it gets some forum posters very angry and upset over on SC, so hopefully watching the film will help explain this.

Probably also worth looking up Erin Pizzey - she was one of the first to set up shelters for women as victims of domestic violence in the 70s. After a while, she found that most of the victims she encountered were also abusers themselves, so she started to ask questions like, "Should we be spending some of this money setting up shelters for men, too?". Long story short, the end result was death threats, harrassment (against her and her family) and one of her dogs was shot and left on her doorstep.

That's one of the big concerns, really, because the funding for such things is controlled by the "accepted wisdom" that feminism = right and men != victims. There are a lot of vulnerable men out there (it's hard to get numbers from reliable studies, because there's rarely any funding for studies that might show accurate numbers, but it seems to average around 30-40% of victims of domestic violence and intimidation), but that "accepted wisdom" prevents their support getting any focus or funding.

That's where the "real world" consequences are; in any given country, it's a zero-sum game. More funding for support for men (or any at all) reduces the available funding for the women's organisations. That's what's at the core of Erin Pizzey's argument - there's a lot of money in "big feminism", and they'll do whatever it takes to protect that money.

That's just a summary of what I've found when I've looked in the past...obviously, if you're inclined, I'd encourage you to look it up yourself (I try not to just parrot other people's opinions, so I wouldn't expect you to either).

There is, of course, the modern aspect of it all, which is sorta-kinda a different issue - the approach of shouting down everyone who doesn't agree with them, insulting them, threatening them and harassing them to the point where they can't put their thoughts forward. I don't know where it originated, but I first noticed it about 7 or 8 years ago...from feminists and SJWs. It's very effective - they create so much noise and social stigma around any alternative "signal" that it's impossible to find - but it most definitely isn't right.

digitalscream

Lewy said:

digitalscream said:

This modern, extreme approach to feminism has very real consequences and effects

Not least of all on grown up sensible real world feminists who are trying to make valid arguments and are constantly undermined by association to a bunch of idiots.

That's the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, in a nutshell.

Lewy

digitalscream said:

Lewy said:

digitalscream said:

This modern, extreme approach to feminism has very real consequences and effects

Not least of all on grown up sensible real world feminists who are trying to make valid arguments and are constantly undermined by association to a bunch of idiots.

That's the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, in a nutshell.

I don't know what that means

digitalscream

Lewy said:

digitalscream said:

Lewy said:

digitalscream said:

This modern, extreme approach to feminism has very real consequences and effects

Not least of all on grown up sensible real world feminists who are trying to make valid arguments and are constantly undermined by association to a bunch of idiots.

That's the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, in a nutshell.

I don't know what that means

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

mellowsun

digitalscream said:

Probably also worth looking up Erin Pizzey - she was one of the first to set up shelters for women as victims of domestic violence in the 70s. After a while, she found that most of the victims she encountered were also abusers themselves, so she started to ask questions like, "Should we be spending some of this money setting up shelters for men, too?". Long story short, the end result was death threats, harrassment (against her and her family) and one of her dogs was shot and left on her doorstep.

That's one of the big concerns, really, because the funding for such things is controlled by the "accepted wisdom" that feminism = right and men != victims. There are a lot of vulnerable men out there (it's hard to get numbers from reliable studies, because there's rarely any funding for studies that might show accurate numbers, but it seems to average around 30-40% of victims of domestic violence and intimidation), but that "accepted wisdom" prevents their support getting any focus or funding.

That's where the "real world" consequences are; in any given country, it's a zero-sum game. More funding for support for men (or any at all) reduces the available funding for the women's organisations. That's what's at the core of Erin Pizzey's argument - there's a lot of money in "big feminism", and they'll do whatever it takes to protect that money.

Thanks for the info. This does seem to me to be a particularly US problem, given the lack of public resources, and there is more an extreme reaction on both sides - remember how doctors performing abortions were murdered by anti-abortionists some years back?

I'm not sure here there is money in 'big feminism' but perhaps, as in other areas of life, we are about to get the worst that the US has to offer.

Here, women's services for domestic violence and refuges have been cut drastically, and women are still far more likely to die at the hands of a male partner than the other way round. 

That's not to say that men don't need support, they do. I guess services should be available to all that need them, not based on gender.

[Edit: changed 'suffer' to 'die' as the mortality stats back this up but not the general DV stats on assaults, where your 30-40% figure is probably correct]

Lewy

digitalscream said:

Lewy said:

digitalscream said:

Lewy said:

digitalscream said:

This modern, extreme approach to feminism has very real consequences and effects

Not least of all on grown up sensible real world feminists who are trying to make valid arguments and are constantly undermined by association to a bunch of idiots.

That's the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, in a nutshell.

I don't know what that means

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

I was looking it up while you were typing this response....so how are you applying that here?

earwighoney

mellowsun said:

I'm not sure here there is money in 'big feminism' 

Lawrie Penny's Patreon would suggest otherwise! 

CabbageCat

Lewy said:

digitalscream said:

Lewy said:

digitalscream said:

Lewy said:

digitalscream said:

This modern, extreme approach to feminism has very real consequences and effects

Not least of all on grown up sensible real world feminists who are trying to make valid arguments and are constantly undermined by association to a bunch of idiots.

That's the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, in a nutshell.

I don't know what that means

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

I was looking it up while you were typing this response....so how are you applying that here?

I don't get it either. Your point - that sensible feminists are having their credibility damaged by mad feminists - seemed quite logical to me.

Just like silly Fathers for Justice shenanigans damage the credibility of men's rights supporters.

guitarfishbay

See also the wage gap debate.

It is often presented as though a man doing the exact same job as a woman gets paid more.  This is illegal and rightly so.

However that's not really what the statistics show - they show that on average men earn more than women, across all the fields of work undertaken by people, so it's not as straightforward as is presented, and thus the goal of 'equal pay' in this scenario is actually quite different and requires a different approach to just looking at equal pay for the same work.

Government Source - November 2016

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-gender-pay-gap

What is the Gender Pay Gap?

The gender pay gap is an equality measure that shows the difference in average earnings between women and men.

The UK gender pay gap is at its lowest level ever - just over 18 per cent.

The gender pay gap does not show differences in pay for comparable jobs. Unequal pay for men and women has been illegal for 45 years.

What are the causes of the Gender Pay Gap?

The causes of the gender pay gap are complex and overlapping:

• A higher proportion of women choose occupations that offer less financial reward (e.g. administration). Many high paying sectors are disproportionately made up of male workers (e.g. information and communications technology).

• A much higher proportion of women work part-time, and part-time workers earn less than their full-time counterparts on average.

• Women are still less likely to progress up the career ladder into high paying senior roles.

What is Government doing about the Gender Pay Gap?

The government is taking action by:

• Requiring large employers, including the public sector, to publish their gender pay gap and gender bonus gap;

• Offering 30 hours of free childcare for working families with 3 and 4 year-olds; and

• Encouraging girls to consider a wider range of careers, including in those higher paying sectors traditionally dominated by men.

The government has already:

• Extended the right to request flexible working to all employees;

• Introduced shared parental leave; and

• Commissioned a review to look at how we can remove the barriers preventing women getting to the top of their careers.

digitalscream

mellowsun said:

Here, women's services for domestic violence and refuges have been cut drastically, and women are far more likely to suffer at the hands of a male partner than the other way round.

Think, for a second, about how you know that, then consider that - if the reality is 60/40 female/male in terms of victims, what would have to happen for you to find that out.

As far as I recall, the only set of stats where the premise wasn't specifically skewed towards women being victims was from the NHS. From memory, the NHS' own statistics showed that - in terms of domestic violence victims requiring hospital visits - the male was the aggressor in 29% of cases, the female was the aggressor in 24% of cases (I think - if that's wrong, the numbers are very similar), and the violence was mutual in 47% of cases. I don't have time right now, but I'll find the sources for that later if I can get an hour to myself.

Granted, this is only the cases where a hospital visit was required; however, two things leap out. First, it's definitely not the case - within this subset of the whole - that "women are far more likely to suffer at the hands of a male partner than the other way round". Second, I've not heard any logical or reasonable argument which suggests that the other part of the whole - the victims who don't visit the hospital - would have a wildly different gender breakdown.

If anything, I'd be surprised if there wouldn't be a bump for male victims there - I've been a victim of domestic violence where the police were called, and they actively prevented me from getting treatment for a knife wound in my leg, while they concentrated on the bruises that I'd left on the woman's arm in trying to defend myself.

Sporky

CabbageCat said:

I don't get it either. Your point - that sensible feminists are having their credibility damaged by mad feminists - seemed quite logical to me.

If one believes that feminism is made up of mad feminism and sensible feminism then one can dismiss either via the no-true-Scotsman-fallacy gambit to suit one's needs, thus depicting feminism whichever way is advantageous to one's argument.

The debate-club-rules counter is to either use the no-true-Scotsman-fallacy gambit in the opposite direction, or to point out that engaging said gambit is essentially a straw-man fallacy.

Or we could have a discussion in which we all stand to improve our understanding of each others' positions (all of which are likely to have some merit), but no-one wins points.

mellowsun

digitalscream said:

mellowsun said:

Here, women's services for domestic violence and refuges have been cut drastically, and women are far more likely to suffer at the hands of a male partner than the other way round.

Think, for a second, about how you know that, then consider that - if the reality is 60/40 female/male in terms of victims, what would have to happen for you to find that out.

As far as I recall, the only set of stats where the premise wasn't specifically skewed towards women being victims was from the NHS. From memory, the NHS' own statistics showed that - in terms of domestic violence victims requiring hospital visits - the male was the aggressor in 29% of cases, the female was the aggressor in 24% of cases (I think - if that's wrong, the numbers are very similar), and the violence was mutual in 47% of cases. I don't have time right now, but I'll find the sources for that later if I can get an hour to myself.

Granted, this is only the cases where a hospital visit was required; however, two things leap out. First, it's definitely not the case - within this subset of the whole - that "women are far more likely to suffer at the hands of a male partner than the other way round". Second, I've not heard any logical or reasonable argument which suggests that the other part of the whole - the victims who don't visit the hospital - would have a wildly different gender breakdown.

If anything, I'd be surprised if there wouldn't be a bump for male victims there - I've been a victim of domestic violence where the police were called, and they actively prevented me from getting treatment for a knife wound in my leg, while they concentrated on the bruises that I'd left on the woman's arm in trying to defend myself.

tbh I thought about this some more and edited the post to change suffer to die as the mortality stats bear this out at least.

You were treated terribly by the police there, I'm sorry to hear about the situation and appreciate now why this is a serious topic for you, please accept my apologies on the earlier remark.

I guess we just need peace between the sexes and no hotheads on either side!