Choking on the Red Pill


Hang on for a minute...we're trying to find some more stories you might like.


Email This Story






Last Tuesday, May 2, 2017 the Linfield community was subjected to a showing of the Red Pill—a tedious 2 hour propaganda ‘documentary’ advocating for the so-called ‘Men’s Rights Movement.’  The movie derives its premise from the famous scene in the movie Matrix in which Morpheus offers two pills to Neo:

“You take the blue pill, the story ends. You wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.”

In the minds of the Men’s Rights Activists (MRA’s), the red pill is a metaphor for opening one’s mind to the sad reality that we, poor, overworked, underappreciated, straight (white) men are a misunderstood minority whose rights have been trampled upon by society.  These ‘meninists’ claim that it is women, and radical feminists in particular, who are responsible for their sorry state.

Part of the worldview of the MRA’s is the belief that society considers men disposable.  According to their thinking, men take all the hard jobs, are more prone to addiction, die disproportionately in wars,  discriminated against in family courts, and believe it or not, are often tricked into fatherhood. The MRA’s claim that their personal grievances are indicative of the world in which the systematic discrimination against men in general is the norm.

This project is the Kickstarter-funded creation of Cassie Jaye, an actress and an amateur film-maker.  It is a sort of a video diary starring Jaye herself.  She starts her journey as a ‘feminist,’ yet gradually succumbs to the MRA’s charms.  As she begins to see virtues in the point of view of these middle-aged, tired, angry white men, she gradually modifies her views on gender equality—so much so, that by the end of the movie she tearfully declares that she can no longer call herself a ‘feminist.’

Not surprisingly, since its premiere in the fall of 2016, the Red Pill has received rather mixed reviews.  While the Guardian, The Village Voice and the LA Times unanimously panned the movie, the Pill received glowing reviews from Breitbart News and its recently disgraced provocateur and anti-feminist crusader Milo Yiannopoulos.  A deeper search of the internet’s less travelled corners quickly reveals an enthusiastic endorsement from the Daily Stormer—the leading neo-Nazi site.

Personally, I found this dreary jeremiade a bitter pill to swallow.  My first reaction was—gentlemen, you cannot be serious!  In our times, while women suffer disproportionately from sexual abuse, workplace discrimination, lack of access to affordable healthcare and a myriad of other issues, you dare to pine and whine about your own victimhood? As a father and a husband, somehow I don’t feel the need for your advocacy! Instead, I’d much rather fight for the rights of my daughter who is about to enter adulthood.

The creators of the Red Pill utilize to the fullest the power of emotional persuasion. Throughout the movie, the MRA’s insufferable grumbling is accompanied by equally mundane and generic soundtrack. In the propagandist cinematography, kitschy music is akin to emotional fascism—it has the power to make the audience feel a certain way while feeding it all kinds of lies and banalities. For me, it took a certain amount of mental discipline to separate the revolting mendacities spewing from the mouths of these curmudgeons from the emotional bombardment produced by constantly cooing strings.

In the final analysis, The Red Pill is a classic example of kitsch, and in the words of Milan Kundera: “Kitsch causes two tears to flow in quick succession. The first tear says: How nice to see children running on the grass! The second tear says: How nice to be moved, together with all mankind, by children running on the grass! It is the second tear that makes kitsch kitsch.” Kitsch and propaganda make a powerful combo and the creators of The Red Pill use it to great effect.

The unfortunate reality is that some of the MRA’s claims are undoubtedly true and deserve serious consideration, yet the overall picture presented to the audience is erroneous at best and outright disingenuous at worst. While men’s issues require genuine advocacy, the heroes of this pathetic diatribe tend to be rather unsavory characters.  An internet search easily reveals the following gems from Paul Elam, a dead-beat dad and the founder of the Voice for Men:

“And all the outraged PC demands to get huffy and point out how nothing justifies or excuses rape won’t change the fact that there are a lot of women who get pummeled and pumped because they are stupid (and often arrogant) enough to walk through life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH – PLEASE RAPE ME neon sign glowing above their empty little narcissistic heads.”

What surprised me is that this horrendous bucket of lies of a documentary was followed by a rather civil discussion in which ‘both sides of the issue’ were presented.  I am all for reasonable discourse, however, I do not believe that lies and misogyny can be argued with rationally. What we saw in this movie was not just another perspective on a complex issue but a poorly produced piece of sexist propaganda sponsored and endorsed by the most-repulsive characters in today’s political universe.  The answer to rape apologists cannot be just a rational discussion—it has to be outrage!

I am confused and bewildered why a small group of students is dead set on promoting misogyny and discrimination in the name of free speech. In light of their enthusiastic support for this second-rate, amateurish caricature of a documentary, their sanctimonious pining decrying “moral panic at Linfield” rings particularly hollow. What we witnessed on Tuesday was revolting. I can only imagine how the victims of sexual violence (if they were in the audience) felt while listening to these abuse advocates spewing their repulsive worldview.  In my humble opinion, free speech is no excuse for bigotry and harassment.

 

Anton Belov, DMA
Associate Professor of Music

Print Friendly

92 Comments

92 Responses to “Choking on the Red Pill”

  1. Parker Wells on May 9th, 2017 12:06 pm

    If anybody needed a more clear example of moral panic and exreme ideological bias at Linfield… Here’s Exhibit A. Thanks Anton!

    [Reply]

  2. Samantha Palmer on May 9th, 2017 12:30 pm

    This is an excellent piece! Thank you for sharing.

    -Sammi Palmer, Class of ’15

    [Reply]

    borabosna Reply:

    Did you even watch the film? There is nothing excellent about the mountain of lies in this “review.” Everything he said is a lie. It is clear he did not even watch the film, and just wrote what his feminist overlords told him.

    [Reply]

    Amy Adams Reply:

    “laughing” “His feminist overlords” says so much more about you than about Anton Belov.

    So much more.

    [Reply]

  3. Chris on May 9th, 2017 7:22 pm

    “In our times, while women suffer disproportionately from sexual abuse”

    Literally addressed in the film. 1 in 3 women will be a victim of domestic violence. 1 in 4 men will be also victim. There are over 2000 shelters for women in the US. There is one shelter for men. Do you honestly believe this is representative of a fair and functioning society?

    Sounds like you ignored any facts and figures in the film that show there ARE certain areas where men are disadvantaged in society and stuck onto your preconceived notion that “this film is sexist” the whole way through. Laughably, you call the film sexist and fail to throw in a single sexist quote from the documentary itself (because there are none) and instead cherry pick an out of context comment from an article from one of the activists interview to prove your point.

    This opinion piece is a joke. Rewatch the film without your bias goggles on and try again. How you became a professor of anything will forever be a mystery.

    [Reply]

    Jim Preston Reply:

    I agree with you that this opinion piece is a joke.

    This opinion piece assumes, as true, what anyone outside of academia knows to be false.

    For example, the brainwashed author of this article claims that women suffer more from sexual abuse than men.

    Independent research studies (outside of the advocacy “research” done by man-hating feminists) shows that men are the majority of sexual abuse victims in our culture and that the vast majority of perpetrators of sexual abuse against men are women.

    This “opinion” is simply based upon medieval superstitions about men that need to be trashed.

    It is the same medieval superstitions that underlie this “opinion” that the Red Pill so aptly exposes, addresses and neutralizes.

    [Reply]

    Tim Patten Reply:

    Sorry, boys and men are sexually abused as much as women.

    [Reply]

    Amy Adams Reply:

    Got sources for that statement? Wanting it to be true doesn’t count, remember.

    [Reply]

    borabosna Reply:

    It is clear that he did not watch the film! The review itself proves it, as you pointed out!

    [Reply]

  4. Nena Jaye on May 9th, 2017 11:09 pm

    Mr. Anton Belov, your “review” of the film, The Red Pill, is one of the clearest examples of pure fiction. Most of your plot points have no basis in the actual content of the film but rather exists within your own delusions. Instead of genuinely reviewing the film, you chose to engage in inflammatory lies.
    As a producer of this film, and mother of its director, I am disgusted by your hate filled, bombastic mischaracterization of our film and its female director. You claim to be a father of a “soon to be” adult daughter “fighting for her rights”. Well, I’ve been a mother raising 4 successful adult daughters fighting for their rights to be heard and respected. I know what it takes to instill power and passion in women. I can tell you that your slanderous portrayal of our film is shameful and disrespectful. This film represents 3 1/2 years of dedication, passion, and perseverance to create a truthful and accurate portrayal of a movement that has been demonized by many, including you. But I am not surprised by your vitriol. When hate exists within one’s heart, it easy to project it onto others.
    If you truly are an associate professor of music, and I would venture to assume, a creative soul, it disgusts me how you can sit there in front of your computer bashing the creative efforts of all the professionals who put there time and heart into this film.
    To suggest that our film is “propaganda” is absolutely without any merit. Saying it is does not make it so. However, your appalling mischaracterization and inaccurate telling of the film’s content perhaps makes you the propagandist.
    Suggesting the film represents only points of view of “middle-aged, tired, angry white men”, tells me more about you. If you indeed watched the film, you would have seen a diverse group of people represented: women and men; young and old; white and non-white; gay and straight. So if all you saw were “middle-aged angry white men”, perhaps your own biases and racism is rearing its ugly head.
    To say that the director “tearfully” states she can know longer call herself a feminist tells me one of two things: you either willfully decided to be untruthful in your depiction of that scene OR your viewing comprehension is lacking. Which is it? If it’s the latter, you have no business writing a “review” of a film you didn’t actually see or can’t comprehend.
    To only speak about Breibart, Milo, and Daily Stormer as our positive reviews is purposely misleading. You can actually view all press we have received to date at http://theredpillmovie.com/press/
    The Village Voice is an interesting example of a “non-review”, but more of a ideological rant much like yours. The fact that the Village Voice article sites a known propagandist as a source, and completely manufactured lies about the film and its director, cannot be taken as a credible review.
    Our film has been seen worldwide by diverse audiences who have been positively affected by it. I have personally spoken to many women, young and old, at screenings that I’ve attended. To say that the film had a profound impact on them is an understatement. I have spoken to men who have been victimized by family court, and victims of domestic violence. This film gave them hope that their voices would finally be heard. If you can’t even drum up any compassion for the personal stories represented in the film, that tells me a lot about you.
    Our film has won 4 film festival awards so far including: Best of The Festival, Best Feature Documentary-Audience Award, Best Female Director and Best Produced. To characterize the director as an amateur and dismiss our film’s production, after many industry professionals, including an Oscar winning producer, have praised Cassie Jaye, makes me wonder if your derogatory comments are based on your own internal sexism?
    The film has been at the top of the charts on most of our VOD platforms since it was launched in March 2017. The Red Pill qualified for the 2017 Academy Awards. It is a film that is now part of many prestigious university libraries around the world. We receive thousands of emails each week telling us how this film positively impacted lives, relationships and families. To state that this film promotes misogyny and discrimination is a disgusting lie. Shame on you!
    This film is a compassionate look at the men’s rights movement (and btw, “meninism” is not an actual thing, it’s a joke) and challenges the audience to engage in productive discourse. We at Jaye Bird Productions are dedicated filmmakers supporting all human rights, intellectual diversity and free speech, while creating films that encourages critical thinking and expands the mind. You could actually benefit from our films.

    [Reply]

    Joe Hill Reply:

    What a great response. Belov is quite obviously a close-minded, self hating, anti-male bigot. He’s also ageist, in that he makes a point of categorizing Men’s Rights Advocates as “tired” & “middle-aged,” but then defenders of feminist orthodoxy are more than willing to use whatever slimy slurs are available.

    [Reply]

    cole Reply:

    Holy crap! Not only did you deliver the godliest of beat downs, you conveyed the disappointed “mother” tone all the way through.

    I loved this movie and will be doing an actual review of it soon for my podcast.

    Thank you and Cassey for this. Keep up the amazing film and documentary work.

    -Cole

    [Reply]

    @apbfra1 Reply:

    Great response and a great documentary… thanks … Bill (egalitarian)

    [Reply]

    borabosna Reply:

    “Reviews” like this shows who is truly threatened by strong, independent women like your daughter, Nena. Thank you for raising her.

    [Reply]

  5. Gush on May 10th, 2017 1:13 am

    So you didn’t watched the movie?
    Even in the movie with feminist opposition they blame more traditional gender roles than feminists, and they never single out women, more society as a whole of course.

    [Reply]

    borabosna Reply:

    He clearly did not watch the film.

    [Reply]

  6. WhoTheHell_Cares on May 10th, 2017 1:31 am

    I certainly hope your knowledge of music is better than your social knowledge.

    [Reply]

  7. Steve on May 10th, 2017 1:36 am

    As a man who was a victim of rape in college, I am glad someone is bringing light to these issues instead of mocking them. Elam is, without a doubt, an unsavory character. There is no disputing this.

    I struggled for years with my rape, and the mocking that followed. Being called ‘gay’ because I didn’t just roll over and accept “how lucky” I was. I thought I was the only man ever to get raped by a woman, well and truly alone.

    Then I saw the CDC data – that over a million men are raped every year in the US, and most of them raped by women. I finally found out I wasn’t alone. I wasnt an anomaly.

    Elam’s an unsavory character, but the points brought up in the film about men suffering rape and domestic violence should not be ignored anymore. Hopefully someone better can take charge on these issues, but these issues need to be addressed. We can’t allow the silence to continue.

    [Reply]

  8. Jimmy Rickard on May 10th, 2017 2:06 am

    You fail to make any convincing case against the content of the movie. You present no counter argument or facts, only the foundation premise that women are opressed and double standards should apply, giving them every advantage over men. You do not deny one thing they say because you can not, yet claim the facts they present are only in their minds. The strongest argunent you could find is a quote, not even part of the film suggesting women should have some accountability. To a feminist, that makes it disgusting and terrible and angry white men. Lets begin with the double standard. Kill all men is quite acceptable to say for feminists and many similar sentinents, such as treating all nen as rapists. Rape culture, men should not be allowed to speak unless parroting feminism as you do, or its mansplaining. You would argue that is all ok because somehow men are still oppressing women, though the movie disproves it. Then there is your checkmate watertight argument, an appeal to identity politics. Dismiss all that is presented because it affects white angry men. I am not white, the distribution of mra follows the general demographic drawing on all races. This is because a minority man still loses his home and children to his minority wife. Also the producer of the film is a woman, as are most prominent mra. Lauren southern, karen straughan, christina hoff summers, betina arndt, Barbara4u2c, shoe on head girl etc. The general make up of mra is 20-30% women. Not surprising as it is their brothers and sons facing kangaroo courts, higher dropout rates in school, way lower graduation from college, lower earning in the 20s etc. As for ‘angry’ you sound like an angry middle age white man yourself, so that should be reason to dismiss your words, even if you provided any evidence, as the mra do. But what activist doesn’t have the right to be angry anyway? Feminists do not speak calmly like the angry white men you dismiss, they scream obscenities in the streets and call thenselves survivors of anything and everything. The white man here is the white knight.

    [Reply]

  9. borabosna on May 10th, 2017 2:24 am

    “while women suffer disproportionately from sexual abuse”

    That is false:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2663360/
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308844135_Sexual_Victimization_Perpetrated_by_Women_Federal_Data_Reveal_Surprising_Prevalence
    http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/1748355
    https://business.highbeam.com/435388/article-1G1-107203500/women-sexual-aggression-against-men-prevalence-and
    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1018807223378
    https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/11/the-understudied-female-sexual-predator/503492/
    http://equalitycanada.com/why-are-so-many-women-raping-boys-research-into-female-perpetrated-sexual-violence/

    [Reply]

    Bob Reply:

    You posted mostly fake news sites as sources against the original poster. Could you please actually post research and not .com sources that have fallacious numbers. I would like to believe you, but your credibility is lost when you use these horrible sites. Please post some academic sources. Thank you.

    [Reply]

    J. Carl Henderson Reply:

    Borabosna posted links to five peer-reviewed journal articles (academic sources), one article in The Atlantic, and a single link for an advocacy site. How those links can translate into “mostly fake news” sites eludes me.

    Are the academic journals, “Aggression and Violent Behavior”, “Journal of the American Medical Association: Pediatrics”, “Sex Roles: A Journal of Research”, and “Trauma, Violence, & Abuse” fake news? Or is it “The Atlantic” you object to?

    [Reply]

    William Reply:

    Bob’s reply is also patently false. Unfortunately making false claims seems to be the modus operandi of people who are hostile to men and men’s issues.

    “Trauma Violence Abuse”, “Aggression and Violent Behavior”, “JAMA Pediatrics” (published by the American Medical Association), and “Sex Roles” are all academic journals that publish research. It’s true that “The Atlantic” is not an academic journal: it is a magazine whose audience extends beyond academics to include serious readers. In no way, however, are these sources “fake news sites”, as Bob claims them to be.

    Who has and who doesn’t have credibility certainly is an interesting question.

    [Reply]

    Not-Bob Reply:

    Dear bob,

    I apperciate your appeal to fake news, it worked for donald trump so why not you right?

    However if you took just the barest amount of time to look at the articles you would see the first two links are a .gov and a .net and the other links have DIRECT LINK CITATION TO THE BOOKS AND STUDIES POSTED WITH EVIDENCE.

    I hope you will develop further reading comprehension before you try your orange tupay on, have a good day.

    [Reply]

  10. borabosna on May 10th, 2017 2:27 am

    “while women suffer disproportionately from… workplace discrimination”

    That is also false:
    http://www.pnas.org/content/112/17/5360.abstract
    https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-11/uom-vai111714.php

    [Reply]

    Bob Reply:

    Ugh, you did it again. You need to use actually research and not biases opinions.

    [Reply]

    BASTA! Reply:

    Ugh, you remind me of Twin Peaks.

    [Reply]

    J. Carl Henderson Reply:

    No you did it again.

    Borabosna posted links to two sources in the post you reply to. One is a peer-reviewed article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS), and the other is a news release from the University of Montréal describing a study conducted by Trauma Studies Centre of the Institut universitaire en santé mentale de Montréal.

    Do you even look at the links he posted?

    [Reply]

    William Reply:

    An article in PNAS, the official journal of the National Academy of Sciences, is not actual research? PNAS is one of the most prestigious journals in the world.

    [Reply]

  11. borabosna on May 10th, 2017 2:31 am

    “As a father and a husband, somehow I don’t feel the need for your advocacy!”

    Millions of men and boys do, who are genital mutilation victims, are discriminated against in education, are falsely accused of rape in college, who are divorced, cannot see their children, in jail for child support, fired from their jobs, and suicidal.

    Do you not even have a modicum of empathy for these men and boys? Do male victims piss you off so much, that you deny their existence and their pain and experience?

    [Reply]

    Joe Hill Reply:

    “Do you not even have a modicum of empathy for these men and boys? ”

    clearly he does not. Clearly Basov is s self-hating, anti-male bigot.

    [Reply]

  12. borabosna on May 10th, 2017 2:34 am

    “Instead, I’d much rather fight for the rights of my daughter who is about to enter adulthood.”

    Your daughter is twice as likely as your son, if you had one, to graduate from college and be accepted into a STEM job. Your son, if you had one, is twice as likely to be discriminated in school by female teachers who punish him far more than girls for the same mistakes and give him lower grades:

    http://www.pnas.org/content/112/17/5360.abstract
    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/eliminating-feminist-teacher-bias-erases-boys-falling-grades-study-finds
    https://www.nhh.no/en/research/research-news/article-archive/2016/september/greater-acceptance-for-men-dropping-out/

    [Reply]

    Bob Reply:

    Again, really? Seriously, there are examples for every case, but the numbers of predators far weighs down on the male side if you look at govt numbers and actually research numbers. Denial of reality for a small amount of cases is a fallacy. I agree we should be concerned for all, but the greater good or larger number is the bigger issue. This does not mean we should not focus on both sides though. Denail of one side for your own side is where you lose credibility. There are some male issues that need to be addressed at the same time we deal the larger issues for women.

    [Reply]

  13. Alex on May 10th, 2017 3:08 am

    Well, I will just reverse your sentences:

    In our times, while men suffer most of the discrimination well explained in the documentary (except for the sexual assaults which are not done by men, but rapists, difference!), feminists dare to pine and whine about their own victimhood?

    I do not believe that lies and misandry can be argued with rationally.

    There you go. Your whole text is biased and you should open your eyes to the “other” reality. I have a son, and I’m really concerned about his future in this world.

    Cheers,
    a.

    [Reply]

    Bob Reply:

    Again, really? Seriously, there are examples for every case, but the numbers of predators far weighs down on the male side if you look at govt numbers and actually research numbers. Denial of reality for a small amount of cases is a fallacy. I agree we should be concerned for all, but the greater good or larger number is the bigger issue. This does not mean we should not focus on both sides though. Denail of one side for your own side is where you lose credibility. There are some male issues that need to be addressed at the same time we deal the larger issues for women.

    [Reply]

  14. Clara Hamlin on May 10th, 2017 4:03 am

    I don’t have to imagine how a female survivor of sexual violence would feel watching this documentary.
    I thoroughly enjoyed it, thanks.

    Male victims of female abusers seem to find the experience a lot more emotive though.

    What has irked a few of us is the use of the phrase “subjected to…” to describe people who were free to leave, unlike many of us rape victims who were genuinely “subjected to” trauma.

    Long may you continue to go without need for advocacy. Meanwhile please respect the needs of people beyond your own progeny who have cause to seek help overcoming the problems our current society and legislature throw at them, even if those people are men.

    [Reply]

    borabosna Reply:

    Maybe when he has a son and his son gets falsely accused of rape in college, then he will understand. But by then it will be too late.

    [Reply]

  15. Declan on May 10th, 2017 5:46 am

    I have to say, I must assume you haven’t actually seen the documentary as you miss all of the important, overlooked and undeniable issues raised within. Also, I’m not convinced that you’re not a 4Chan troll doing this review “for the keks.”

    Anyhow, I suggest that anyone who hasn’t seen Jaye’s documentary to do so, if for no other reason than to just see how biased and WRONG Anton Belov is.

    Please also check out Jaye’s other works: Daddy I Do and The Right to Love, the latter being strongly pro-gay rights and -gay marriage.

    The woman is obviously a monster(!)

    [Reply]

    borabosna Reply:

    This review shows who is actually threatened by a strong, independent woman. It’s feminists and their male allies like this Anton.

    [Reply]

  16. Chris on May 10th, 2017 6:44 am

    Well Anton at least you took the time to see the film. At least I assume you did, though the description you provide appears to be wildly at odds with the version I saw. And yes there are a lot of serious issues affecting men and boys for which acknowledgment, advocacy and support are warranted – and well overdue. Further background regarding the Red Pill movie can be found at http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/more-feminist-censorship-cancellation-of-the-australian-premiere-of-the-red-pill-movie/

    [Reply]

    borabosna Reply:

    I’m pretty sure he did not watch the film.

    [Reply]

    Degenerate Reply:

    To assume he did not see the film is being kind. The best case scenario is that his unfounded prejudices against MRAs run so deep that he feels qualified to make assumptions about the content of the film and write this garbage.

    The alternative explanation is that he did see the film, recognised its power, and is intentionally lying his ass off in a desperate effort to discourage others from seeing it. Ie, he’s a shameless propagandist with no regard for the truth at all.

    [Reply]

  17. Tanya Tompkins on May 10th, 2017 8:25 am

    Dr. Belov hits the nail on the head here. As an academic institution we often need to be willing to enter into difficult and uncomfortable spaces during discourse and dialogue in order to grow, personally and intellectually. Doing so requires trust, sharing evidence to support one’s beliefs, and a willingness to consider another’s perspective long enough to pick it apart (finding places of agreement and disagreement in the process). In this polarized political climate, trust is at an all time low and emotions are running high. Choosing a film that heightens emotions, further polarizes around gender issues, and counts among its’ champions those who advocate violence against women shows poor judgement. If the organizers are truly concerned (as I am) about how gender roles seem to be leading to a host of health and mental health problems in men it seems there are a myriad of ways they could organize a campus conversation to encourage meaningful dialogue. Clearly this wasn’t it. I appreciate this thoughtful caution about where we draw the line between freedom of speech and anti-discrimination/harassment on our campus.

    [Reply]

    Nena Jaye Reply:

    Once again, this film does NOT advocate violence against women nor do any of the participants in the film. This is a repeated lie to discount and discredit the actual content of the film.

    [Reply]

    Declan Reply:

    Mrs Jaye, I was wondering if you had considered submitting a few words to the LR to counter this piece?

    [Reply]

    Joe Hill Reply:

    “Choosing a film that heightens emotions, further polarizes around gender issues, and counts among its’ champions those who advocate violence against women shows poor judgement”

    What a pile of lies. Anti-male Feminism is the source of the polarization on campus & there is nothing about the movie that advocates violence against women. Like a “good” feminist, you lie twist and distort in order to justify the silencing of any and all criticism of feminism, which is a hate filled authoritarian philosophy.

    And BTW, there’s no “e” in judgment.

    [Reply]

    Emelio Lizardo Reply:

    An academic? That wouldn’t be gender studies, would it?

    Judging by what you wrote you either didn’t see the film or are immune to anything outside your ideology/identity.

    Yes, gender roles are brutal towards men, and these roles are primarily for the benefit of women. There’s no likelyhood that this will change.

    As for organizing a campus conversation, this has been tried many times and is usually the target of Feminist opposition, as seen in the documentary, and you can confirm this yourself simply by searching YouTube.

    We either have freedom of speech or we don’t. If you can censor what you don’t like then it simply isn’t freedom.

    [Reply]

    Jimmy Rickard Reply:

    Academics should deal in facts. Gender roles have nothing to do with discrimination. “The patriarchy hurts men too is a lie”. We are in a feminist matriarchy where men being denied their natural gender role is what hurts them. Turning trans is now the only way to hide in the tread of the feminazi jack boot coming from colleges to policy makers and politicians to squish masculine men.

    [Reply]

    Jay Pugh Reply:

    “Choosing a film that heightens emotions, further polarizes around gender issues, and counts among its’ champions those who advocate violence against women shows poor judgement.”
    The film may heighten emotions in that it increases compassion for men and boys. As for for the rest of it, you are parroting lies about a movie that you clearly have not seen. The film does not polarize gender issues and no one in it advocates violence against women.
    If you ever see the movie you will realize how silly all of the controversy surrounding it really is. It won the audience award at the Louisiana International Film Festival, beating out several big budget Studio films. Audiences everywhere have reacted positively, men, women, gay, straight, black, white, young, old, etc.it is film with its foundation in compassion.

    [Reply]

    borabosna Reply:

    “Clearly this wasn’t it.”

    Clearly you did not watch the film. There is NOTHING in the film that advocates for violence against women. NOTHING. You are a liar pure and simple.

    [Reply]

    Degenerate Reply:

    I would guess that the thing in the movie that Feminists would seize upon as an excuse to label it as promoting violence would be the bit about Paul Elam’s “bash a violent bitch” article.

    The fact that this article was advocating men’s right to self-defence (hence his qualifying it with the adjective “violent”), and was written in response to an outrageously misandrist Jezebel article, will be conveniently ignored.

    Jezebel can brag about how funny it is that a majority of their female staff have committed unprovoked and non-reciprocated violence against their male partners, and no-one bats an eyelid. A Voice For Men says “hit the bitch back”, and they’re misogynist pigs. This is how the dialogue goes.

    [Reply]

    William Reply:

    Tanya Tompkins, have you actually seen the Red Pill film? I find it incredible that someone who claims to be concerned about “how gender roles seem to be leading to a host of health and mental health problems in men” could also write that Anton Bevon “hits the nail on the head here”. We know that men are roughly four times more likely to be victims of suicide than women. How do you think young men at Linfield College with suicidal thoughts will respond to Anton Belov’s aggressive, closed-minded, completely traditional, macho-man dismissal of the real issues they experience in their lives? In response to men talking about these issues, Anton Bevon says: “gentlemen, you cannot be serious! In our times…you dare to pine and whine about your own victimhood?”. He goes on to say that he’d rather fight for the rights of his daughter (despite the fact that his daughter is less likely to die from suicide, murder, and workplace accidents, is more likely to receive a college degree, is less likely to be forcibly isolated from her children, have her genitals mutilated, etc.), basically telling men that, to him, their lives don’t matter.

    The reason trust is so low is exactly because of these kinds of aggressive, closed-minded dismissals of lived experience of real problems.

    [Reply]

  18. Jonas Scheyrer on May 10th, 2017 9:44 am

    You do realize that if you were to use the exact same language to describe something a feminist produced there would likely be such a big backlash and such a big public outcry that you might lose your job? There are numerous examples of people to whom that happened for daring to counter feminist and similar social justice movements rhetoric.
    As a professor I would have expected a much higher standard. All you do is poisoning the well, making appeals to emotions, misrepresenting, taking out of context and making false equivalencies. I could probably find even more fallacies but I doubt this will be posted anyhow because usually legitimate criticism of such hit pieces is silenced, so really it is not worth that much of my time.
    It would have been nice to see legitimate criticism of the documentary but you actually do not counter a single point they made, you even admit some have merit. So then what is your huge problem? Can’t both women and men have problems in society that we need to address?

    [Reply]

  19. Jane Murphy on May 10th, 2017 9:54 am

    Why does the author have so little compassion for his fellow men? Why is he so hostile to the very idea of them speaking up for themselves? Completely lacking in self awareness, this opinion piece is a perfect demonstration of the serious cultural blind spot in recognising men’s humanity and pain. It shows exactly the importance of the documentary.

    Fortunately, every begrudging acknowledgement that men have ‘some’ issues is a victory for men’s rights.

    [Reply]

    borabosna Reply:

    A lot of people show outright hostility to male victims. It seems to be rooted in our evolutionary biology; the idea of helping “weak men” poses an existential threat, because men are expected to protect us from invading tribes, not the other way around. Consider the fact that many men who were shell shocked in WW1, their nervous systems completely broken, unable to even walk properly, were shot by their own military officers for “cowardice.”

    [Reply]

  20. JamesNunya on May 10th, 2017 11:00 am

    1. Race has no bearing on the issues discussed in The Red Pill.
    2. Sexuality only has a role in the aspect of fathers’ rights in that it is straight men who are more likely to have their own biological children to fight for in court.
    3. Meninist and MRA are not the same thing.
    4. Not tricked into fatherhood, forced.
    5. Personal grievances being indicative of discrimination is backed by statistical evidence.
    6. You’re right, it’s not surprising that the Guardian, The Village Voice and the LA Times unanimously panned the movie since they have ideological and political leanings very much in line with Feminism.
    7. You attempt to portray support from Breitbart and Daily Stormer as if it’s a bad thing. But if they were to support longer prison sentences for rapists, does that automatically make that a bad thing? No. Because WHO is supporting an issue isn’t as important as WHAT the issue is.
    8. Women suffer disproportionately from sexual abuse (debatable), workplace discrimination, (prove it) lack of access to affordable healthcare (something that’s actually suffered by both).
    9. “I don’t feel the need for your advocacy!” Hopefully you never have to fight for the right to be able to visit your children.
    10. What a person finds to be kitschy is a matter of personal opinion. Since this is an opinion piece, I’m not going to argue it beyond the statement made in the previous sentence.
    11. Oh yes, the almost obligatory, “Yeah, it’s true what they’re saying, but fuck them” statement.
    12. “A” Voice for Men. Not “The” Voice for Men. There’s a reason for that. Remember how you said you don’t want their advocacy? Yeah, they acknowledge that.
    13. A, that quote is dealing with a particular type of woman, the kind that goes to a bar, starts rubbing up on drunk men to entice them to pay for her drinks and then goes home with them in the wee hours of the morning. Given the harsh realities of this world, this type of women are being quite cavalier with their safety and that’s what this was meant to point out. B, it pointed it out in the way that it did in order to be controversial in order to garner attention (and it worked). C, it has since been removed from the site.
    14. Wait, horrendous bucket of lies? “The unfortunate reality is that some of the MRA’s claims are undoubtedly true and deserve serious consideration” Which is it?
    15. I’ve seen the film, what is misogynistic about pointing out the suicide rate of men? The earlier deaths of men? The lack of shelter for men? Oh wait, there isn’t anything misogynistic about all that and that’s all the documentary did.
    16. The only propaganda is the garbage you’re spewing.
    17. The students supported the showing of this for free speech purposes.
    18. Stick to music, Social Discourse doesn’t seem to be your strong suit.

    [Reply]

  21. William on May 10th, 2017 11:23 am

    Anton Belov, please explain to me your understanding of the word equality.

    [Reply]

  22. John on May 10th, 2017 12:37 pm

    Hey Anton, you teach me how to sing, I’ll teach you how to think. I absolutely can’t sing, so we’re both starting at the start.

    [Reply]

  23. De2nis on May 10th, 2017 1:06 pm

    You outright LIE when you say the MRM blames women for men’s problems. From the documentary:

    From the documentary:

    1:36:06 Dean Esmay says “feminists aren’t the only problem, the problems didn’t start with feminism.”

    1:47:59 Paul Elsam says “Part of what we do is a pretty serious critique of BOTH sexes. It’s brutal. But critiquing the sexes is a very valuable thing.”

    1:48:15 Paul Elam says “The Red Pill is about understanding that men and women, like everything else in life, it’s a mixed bag. You’ve got victims and perpetrators on both sides of the fence.”

    Women suffer from lack of access to affordable healthcare!? You say that while breast cancer funding is double the funding for prostate cancer in the US, and 4x as much is spent on women’s health in Austrialia!? You mean because women actually have birth control for them ON THE MARKET for them to whine about being unable to afford, unlike men!?

    I’m not even going to continue, lest I invoke the tl;dr effect. Eitherway, you should be ashamed of such a disingenuous review. I’m sure if you had reviewed anomalously, and didn’t have to worry about losing “real man” points by admitting women don’t need men to be their privileged knights in shining armor, you would have reviewed this differently.

    [Reply]

  24. Sebastian on May 10th, 2017 1:15 pm

    There’s another man attacking a self-determined, hard-working woman with a vicious hit piece in the name of feminism. You want to empower women, right, but only if they agree with you, and you don’t see how that would contradict the idea of empowerment. And why would you, you’re only a professor.

    Speaking of which, is it mandatory to be exploding with hate and resentment to be a professor these days or does it only help?

    [Reply]

  25. TicklishQuill on May 10th, 2017 3:08 pm

    Darling Anton.

    It must be so hard having to navigate the tenure track in this age of gynocentrism, but that is no excuse to have written such fiction and having actually not seen the film.

    Why did you ignore one of the most significant parts of the film which views have been shocked by and then remained deliberately silent about to catch out those who claim they have watched and haven’t – you know that section in the middle dealing with Boko Haram and who they have been kidnapping and killing – en masse ?

    You fell into the trap and now have zero retreat. Your credibility in all areas, including academia, just went sub zero. Congratulations – I hope its been worth it for you.

    [Reply]

  26. Wade Althen on May 10th, 2017 3:29 pm

    ” In my humble opinion, free speech is no excuse for bigotry and harassment.”

    Your opinion isn’t humble, it’s moralizing anti-male propaganda.

    Given your University’s recent disinvitation of Dr. Jordan Peterson and this ugly piece of agitprop, I must assume that you are an excellent example of everything wrong with the humanities, and university in general.

    You think your job is to indoctrinate people into your social justice cult. I’m savoring the fact that we’re all going to get to watch it crumble around you.

    [Reply]

  27. bloke on May 10th, 2017 3:31 pm

    Bravo! Bravo!….
    Anton speaks like he sings.
    “Bellicose windbag”……
    “More superfluous than mellifluous”……
    “Arrogance and condescension abound”……
    Still playing to the audience,eager to appear to be the “one good man”
    All whilst garnering narcissistic supply.
    Bravo! What a performance

    [Reply]

  28. Dave Hitt on May 10th, 2017 3:56 pm

    I wonder if you actually watched the movie, or just read other people’s reviews of it. I suspect the latter.

    Congratulations, though, on finding out how to use a thesaurus. It has allowed you to be a really horrible writer:

    “For me, it took a certain amount of mental discipline to separate the revolting mendacities spewing from the mouths of these curmudgeons from the emotional bombardment produced by constantly cooing strings.”

    I’m picturing you sitting back after typing that, proud of yourself, unaware that a good writer would have deleted it almost immedatly.

    [Reply]

  29. Jerica on May 10th, 2017 4:00 pm

    A very biased review that barely even went over the talking points that were covered in the movie filled with the author’s own assertions and attacks of straw-men arguments while not supporting his own assertions with any sources to back them up. Obviously there’s just something about this film that has the feminist and leftist media freaking out–but of course the leftists don’t understand the power of the Streisand effect. The more you throw a fit and whine to balanced viewpoints contrary to the borg mind it just makes more even minded people interested in what exactly the leftists are trying to block this week in regards to free-speech. Very akin to the ranting and raving of feminist counter protests and blatant overreaction depicted in the movie. I’d say, this is surely a satire on the feminist attitudes portrayed in the film, the Poe’s Law at work. Funny also how race was automatically thrown into your article when no such mention of race was ever actually asserted in the movie, either.

    [Reply]

  30. L.F Sanguz on May 10th, 2017 4:22 pm

    Chris,

    Your “1/3” is higher than “1/4″, so that is disproportionate, by a fair amount I may add.

    It must be pointed out that women can be and are offenders too, men are sex offenders at disproportionately higher rates. Astoundingly so (see slightly dated report, although newer non-scholar sources echo the same thing). Saying that men are victims of sexual assault does not remove complicity. Because of our cultural undertones on homosexuality, men that are victims often don’t seek the same amount of help, given that most men are likely to be assaulted by other men. This again perpetuates a cycle — the lack of avenues for help, the less likely men report and get help. These are not issues exacerbated by feminism but instead are perpetuated when people assume that feminism does not consider men whatsoever. To forget other cultural parameters leaves you with a situation that is best a spurrious argument — which is what it seems the Red Pill is.

    You say that there is only one shelter in the United States for male victims of sexual assault. In any case, the broad brush framing of feminism for the film (have not watched) does not take into account that this would be an issue that would be considered under feminism. An actual feminist would not argue against providing support for male shelters. It is an issue, but one where the cultural notions of masculinity must be taken into account and questioned as well. Feminist does not equal ” man hater”, sadly this image is one that is exacerbated.

    Also, your assertion of Anton saying that “the film is sexist” is actually a misreading on your part of what he had to say. If you take your own metaphor, read it again but this time nix the “bias goggles”. It doesn’t help that you added some shitty ad hominem at the end (as do lots of people on here). His status as a professor, a good singer, and a critical thinker have nothing to with this piece. Even if he were wrong, writing an opinion piece does not discredit any of these things. You can tell he has certain cultural capital, employing Kundera’s postmodern terms. If you have something to match, show it and argue rather than surface-level personal attacks.

    I’ll watch the film. I’ll trust you’ll do your homework work too – reading up on other statistics and reading The Unbearable Lightness of Being…or at least the statistics.

    Link: https://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/SOO.PDF&ved=0ahUKEwilv8SXsubTAhUO8WMKHaHWAfkQFggnMAE&usg=AFQjCNHzuPsu–eAEwLkBTVXenYqKyqROg&sig2=zZAo-Ih2asPe475bu15mXg

    Also, Google is your friend. Access to scholarly databases are also provided by many of your local educational instituations at no cost. Typos, I attribute mostly to fat thumbs, bad auto-correct, and a smartphone keyboard.

    [Reply]

  31. Jay Pugh on May 10th, 2017 8:02 pm

    Having seen the movie multiple times, knowing the filmmakers, and being around them during the making of the film, I have a much different opinion of the film than the reviewer.
    First, Anton Belov labels the film “propaganda” which would imply that the film presents biased and or misleading information to promote a cause or point of view. Later in the review, he calls the film a “horrendous bucket of lies of a documentary”, but presents not one single example of a “lie”. Not one. The film is not propaganda. And seriously when I hear someone suggest that anything in the film promotes misogyny and discrimination I really question whether or not he or she even watched the film because it is just not there.
    The film presents the filmmaker’s personal experience as she delves into the issues of concern to the Men’s Rights Activists, yes the same issues that the reviewer admits “are undoubtedly true and deserve serious consideration”.
    Belov writes “these ‘meninists’ claim that it is women, and radical feminists in particular, who are responsible for their sorry state.” This is a mis-characterization of material presented in the film. In the film the MRA’s bring attention to feminists for systematically seeking to block the re-writing of certain laws that benefit only women to make them gender neutral so that they benefit everyone. They blame feminists for the broad implementation of the Duluth Power Control Model in domestic violence cases because of its inherent bias against men. In both of these examples, MRA’s complaints are against Feminists (feminism as an ideology or political movement), but not women in general. This is a fact that critics of MRA’s consistently ignore when they label MRA’s as misogynists. A person can disagree with the political agenda of Feminism, but still be completely supportive of women and women’s rights. It would not be fair to label that person a misogynist in my opinion.
    That the issues are “undoubtedly true” and deserving of “serious consideration” is commonly parroted by the negative critics of The Red Pill. So why is that when Cassie Jaye, the filmmaker, makes these issues the heart of the film these same critics attack her with hate and spread misinformation about her and her film? Even before the filmmaker had begun the editing process the attacks and smears had begun. The filmmaker’s first feature length documentaries focused with love and compassion on women’s issues. The second championed the LGBTQ community’s right to marry. Jaye now focuses that same love and compassion on these human rights issues that are unique to men and boys and a certain faction absolutely demonizes her.
    The fact is that the filmmaker made the film she wanted to make without outside influence from anyone. Statements to the contrary are simply false, and when repeated by people who have heard the truth then become lies.
    Belov speaks about mixed reviews. He searched deep into the internet to find a positive review by a neo-Nazi site. He could have just gone to The Red Pill’s own website when he would have found links to all press that the filmmakers have found, good and bad where the count is currently 139 on the positive side. Belov’s review is now there as number 30 on the negative side. Gee Anton, who’s the propagandist now?

    [Reply]

  32. Erik P on May 10th, 2017 8:37 pm

    I guess the reviewer didn’t take the red pill. There are no facts in the review, just the same propaganda. As a father who suffered 6 years of violent abuse from my wife and then had to watch as the authorities allowed her to run away with the children and deny me access, all the time supporting her, it really did open my eyes. Men are viewed as criminals simply for being men, and the reviewer reinforces that.

    [Reply]

  33. Scott Carter on May 10th, 2017 9:36 pm

    Professor of music. Please stick to that and stfu about gender politics. If only you had actually choked on the red pill.

    [Reply]

  34. Reshmi Dutt-Ballerstadt on May 11th, 2017 1:04 am

    Dear Linfield Students,

    This is our college paper and it allows us a space for entering conversations, (not matter how difficult they may be). It is unfortunate that this space is taken over by some Internet trolls. I do think in the spirit of learning, it is important to understand some basic facts about the much talked about movement called the Men’s Rights Movement (MRA) that is the topic of the documentary “The Red Pill.”

    So I want to provide you with links to a few articles that you may want to read and enter the dialogue (if you choose to do so) with some informed knowledge. So let me start with some definitions here:

    1)James Fell in his article, “The Toxic Appeal of the Men’s Right s Movement” explores the purpose of the MRA movement.

    “MRAs believe the traditionally oppressed groups have somehow seized control and taken away their white male privilege. They tap into fear and insecurity and turn it into blame and rage. Often the leaders of these groups are men who feel as though they got screwed in a divorce. They quote all sorts of statistics about child custody and unfair alimony payments, because in their minds, the single mother who has to choose between feeding the kids or paying the rent is a myth. They believe passionately in their own victimhood and their creed goes something like this: Women are trying to keep us down, usurp all our power, taking away what it means to be a man.”

    http://time.com/134152/the-toxic-appeal-of-the-mens-rights-movement/

    2)If you want to get further insight into the MRA’s and their movement perhaps learning about the history of the man who started this movement ( Mr. Warren Farrell) the Mother Jones article “Mad Men: Inside the Men’s Rights Movement—and the Army of Misogynists and Trolls It Spawned” may be a useful place to start. Michael Kimmel, a sociologist who studies gender issues called Farrel’s book “the foundational text.”

    So according to the Mother Jones article, “Farrell is widely considered to be the father of the men’s rights movement. In a series of books published since the 1980s, he has made the case that the primary victims of gender-based discrimination are men—casualties of a society that relies on their sacrifices while ignoring their suffering. He blames this phenomenon for a litany of woes, from the plight of blue-collar workers to the state of veterans’ health care and rising suicide rates among young men. Many of today’s men’s rights activists view Farrell’s 1993 book, The Myth of Male Power: Why Men Are the Disposable Sex, as their touchstone, and the online forums where they congregate are steeped in Farrell’s ideas.”

    The myth of the male power has given rise to “aggressive tactics and rhetoric. The National Coalition for Men—whose board of advisers includes Farrell—has fought to cut off state funding for domestic-violence programs if men aren’t included. A Voice for Men’s founder, Paul Elam, who is a friend and protégé of Farrell’s, has justified violence against women and written that some of them “walk through life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH—PLEASE RAPE ME neon sign glowing above their empty little narcissistic heads.” Other activists have published names of women they consider enemies and have praised online stalkers, such as the “Gamergate” mobs who bombard feminist critics with rape and death threats.”
    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/01/warren-farrell-mens-rights-movement-feminism-misogyny-trolls

    3) Last but not least, many MRA’s are also supporters of the alt-right movement. It can also be said that the alt-right have found a platform for their movement by inviting the MRA’s to join their cause of White men feeling displaced as a result of loss of power — leading to what is called the “masculinity crisis.” Yet these men rather than understanding their “crisis” have created a misguided target, i.e., blame “feminism” (in the case of MRA’s and minorities in the case of the alt-right) for their perceived loss of power. Michael Kimmel has called the MRA’s as the “gendered version of the White Nationalist Movement.”

    http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/12/mens-rights-activists-are-flocking-to-the-alt-right.html

    So, Professor Anton Belov’s critique of the film “Red Pill” is very much in line with the arguments and concerns raised about the Men’s Right’s Movement by various critiques who have studies the MRA’s. Prof. Belov has reasons to be upset and even outraged (as a decent human being) given the label of the “Angry White Male” portrayed in the film that encourages men to malign and degrade women for their “crisis.” It is for the same reason millions of men were upset when Donald Trump claimed that “grab’em by the p—-“ mentality was locker room talk. Most decent men refused to be categorized by the kind of rhetoric by which “real men” were being categorized by Trump. The “real” men actually stood up and protested this culture of misogyny that was perpetuated by our President to be.

    What is however, unfortunate is that there is legitimate crisis that boys face both in the U.S. and globally in terms of their achievement gaps (compared to girls), behavior that (boys are far more likely to be retained, suspended, diagnosed with ADHD and get into fights), rise in the cases of sexual abuse etc. Also what research has clearly shown is that the “crisis” is not caused by feminizing boys, but by the pressures to maintain and operate within the ideology of traditional masculinity – i.e., this notion of what “real men do or don’t.” If anything, the MRA’s have created a narrative that is self destructive to young men in our society. The Mother Jones article reminds us of that happened to Elliot Rogers. “Elliot Rodger had gone on a suicidal rampage in Santa Barbara, California, killing 6 people and injuring 13. He had left behind a chilling 137-page manifesto suffused with a bitter misogyny and language commonly found in men’s rights forums. “The girls don’t flock to the gentlemen. They flock to the alpha male,” Rodger wrote. “Who’s the alpha male now, bitches?” His attack ignited a firestorm online, spurring women to share their experiences of misogyny via the hashtag #YesAllWomen, and bringing major media attention to the men’s rights movement.”

    “The Red Pill distorts the cultural perception of what “real men do,” and in fact encourages behaviors that men – real or not – should never do. Prof. Belov has done the most decent thing that any man should do, professor or not. He stood up and voiced his serious concerns about the film. He exercised his right to free speech. He has cautioned the hundreds of decent young men on our campus to not choke on the Red Pill. I am proud to call him my colleague.

    [Reply]

    Ryan Freire Reply:

    My favorite aspect of this whole comment thread are the professors cautioning their students that they shouldn’t watch this. As though, rather than adults with the right to vote and be drafted into war, they’re toddlers in need of someone to keep them from an R rated movie.

    You are not doing good service to your students by shielding them like a helicopter parent. Most of these people are more than capable of watching a documentary and deciding for themselves whether they agree or disagree with its conclusions. In fact the spirit of serious academic inquiry would encourage people to fact check the sources of the documentary, to see for themselves if it was true.

    Instead we get a review that looks like the reviewer half watched the film while doing something else, and an english professor throwing non sequiturs left and right.

    If this is the state of academia at Linfield, I’m going to have to cross it off my transfer list for the fall for sure.

    [Reply]

    Rupert M. Dallywick Reply:

    While I could spend pages rebutting Reshmi Dutt-Ballerstadt’s points, I don’t really need to.

    Here’s the only reason you need to watch The Red Pill: Professors like Reshmi Dutt-Ballerstadt are so afraid of the film, they’re desperately trying to convince you to not see it.

    [Reply]

    Degenerate Reply:

    Nail hit on head. What has come of academia when professors are so desperate to prevent their students from viewing something for themselves and applying the power of critical thought?

    Dear students:

    Do you consider yourself a thinker or a follower?
    Are you in university to be educated or programmed?
    What do you have to lose by giving 2 hours to listen to a different point of view?

    If this review is a truthful representation of the movie, then you will see so for yourself. Or maybe you will discover that your professors are lying to you. I think I’d want to know that, personally.

    [Reply]

    William Reply:

    Reshmi Dutt-Ballerstadt writes:

    “The Red Pill distorts the cultural perception of what ‘real men do,’ and in fact encourages behaviors that men – real or not – should never do.”

    An important element of the men’s rights movement is a critique of traditional gender roles, in particular the role that has traditionally been assigned to men: that of bodyguard and breadwinner. This is clear from the film, as well as from significant references from the men’s rights movement, like Warren Farrell’s “The Myth of Male Power”. Who knows what Reshmi Dutt-Ballerstadt actually means by the claim above, but it does suggest that she hasn’t actually seen the Red Pill film, despite being willing to make claims about it.

    If Linfield students want to learn some basic facts about the men’s rights movement, by all means they can read and think about the references mentioned by Reshmi Dutt-Ballerstadt. But they should also expose themselves to references that are not hostile to men and men’s issues. The Red Pill film itself is a good introduction. Instead of reading various people writing about Warren Farrell’s “The Myth of Male Power”, why don’t you look at the actual book yourself and come to your own conclusions? You wouldn’t try to learn about Dostoyevsky solely by reading what Tolstoy said about him, would you? You’d read Dostoyevsky’s damned books yourself! The same approach should be adopted in other areas.

    [Reply]

    Joe the Plumber Reply:

    I wasn’t actually aware of the danger to college campuses that professor such as Reshmi pose, now however it is brilliantly clear that people in positions of power such as her are in horribly in the dark when it comes to issues such as Men’s Rights, Gamergate (which was proven to be false,) and the Alt-Right (which has time and again disavowed those who are white supremacists.) There are no internet trolls here, simply people who wish to express their opinions. That does not make them dangerous or in need of being silenced. Professors such as Reshmi cry wolf at every turn in order to shut down common people who simply disagree, and as such they must be in turn silenced so that the free expression of ideas can again be heard without fear of reprisals or professors who abuse their power to advance their own political ideology.

    [Reply]

  35. Jean-Marc Bessette on May 11th, 2017 11:34 am

    Here is a reality the mengina author undermind.

    http://nypost.com/2017/02/08/teacher-vowed-to-keep-having-sex-with-student-until-she-was-in-a-jail-cell/
    http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/female-teachers-the-sex-offenders-no-one-suspects/
    http://www.zimbio.com/The+50+Most+Infamous+Female+Teacher+Sex+Scandals
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0H1EkSAmbHk
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldYmdYSP5qA
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Reb01Bg1WZY
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/relationships/10927507/Women-are-more-controlling-and-aggressive-than-men-in-relationships.html
    http://college.usatoday.com/2017/02/22/the-factual-feminist-debunks-stats-about-sexual-assault-and-the-wage-gap/
    http://www.faitsdivers.org/24665-Une-psychologue-a-des-relations-sexuelles-avec-son-patient-age-de-17-ans.html
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/18/double-standard-seen-when-boys-sexually-abused-by-women/3615947/
    https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/svjfry09.pdf
    http://whatmenthinkofwomen.blogspot.ca/2015/10/even-when-harvard-study-demonstrates.html
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gmc6aJC46Q8
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7xUk4_sDF0
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OA7aImTCPVY
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ol8j2NoQckg
    http://www.qconline.com/life/davenport-native-to-screen-new-sex-abuse-documentary/article_1fa0bc84-cc36-5edd-a639-8f4dba9e86d7.html
    http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/04/male_rape_in_america_a_new_study_reveals_that_men_are_sexually_assaulted.html
    https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/the-hidden-epidemic-of-men-who-are-raped-by-women?utm_source=vicefbanz&utm_campaign=global
    http://thoughtcatalog.com/anne-gus/2014/06/when-he-says-no-denying-a-woman-sex-is-rape/

    [Reply]

  36. Joe on May 11th, 2017 11:49 am

    Anton,

    I think some men with daughters have a harder time allowing men (as a category) to be awarded any victim status. For some, it’s because they feel a strong need to protect their wife and daughters and reserving victim status for women only is perceived as necessary. Consider that your daughters might benefit from understanding that we are all victimized by our culture if we want something the culture does not encourage. This could be a man wanting compassion or to help raise children, or a woman wanting to be a soldier. We have worked hard on identifying ways women can be victims, we should do the same for men. There are lots of these ways to explore. Your daughters might actually be better off, if they get a healthy and realistic understanding of the value of what men do, how we treat them as a culture and, of course, how they are victimized. Compassion can be a good thing.

    [Reply]

  37. Greggore on May 11th, 2017 12:05 pm

    Reading this review it is obvious that you didn’t really watch the movie at all.

    The movie is pointing out male issues and that these issues are overlooked or ignored. It is not taking away from feminism or blaming feminism it is saying that men have issues and here they are.

    What a shameful article.

    [Reply]

  38. John Markley on May 11th, 2017 12:50 pm

    >As a father and a husband, somehow I don’t feel the need for your advocacy!

    So you’re in a position of genuine privilege, using that position to attack and belittle people who are less fortunate and DO need this sort of advocacy. Shame on you.

    [Reply]

  39. Levi on May 12th, 2017 3:05 am

    Choking on Anton Belov’s Review of the Red Pill

    Cheeky title, I know. Let’s start here:

    “Personally, I found this dreary jeremiade a bitter pill to swallow. My first reaction was—gentlemen, you cannot be serious! In our times, while women suffer disproportionately from sexual abuse, workplace discrimination, lack of access to affordable healthcare and a myriad of other issues, you dare to pine and whine about your own victimhood? As a father and a husband, somehow I don’t feel the need for your advocacy! Instead, I’d much rather fight for the rights of my daughter who is about to enter adulthood.”

    Ironically this actually helps back up the claims laid out here:

    “Part of the worldview of the MRA’s is the belief that society considers men disposable. According to their thinking, men take all the hard jobs, are more prone to addiction, die disproportionately in wars, discriminated against in family courts, and believe it or not, are often tricked into fatherhood. The MRA’s claim that their personal grievances are indicative of the world in which the systematic discrimination against men in general is the norm.”

    So you have a paragraph that outlines the issues of MRA’s followed a few paragraphs later by “I don’t care about your issues because women are vastly oppressed by you.” Seriously I laughed, I cried, but mostly scratched my head at how people like this get into positions of authority (a la college professor). Okay to be fair, Anton is a professor of music. Still, I’m not going to let piss poor logical reasoning flow right on down the river without addressing them. Speaking bad logic, so Anton, you list the concerns of the MRA’s and yet you never address why they’re wrong, instead you claim that because women are vastly more oppressed you’re going to ignore the MRA’s issues in favor of feminist issues. Why can’t you address both groups issues? Going by the tone of the article I’d wage an educated guess that you’ve bought into radical feminist propaganda yourself.

    Let’s address this next:

    “Not surprisingly, since its premiere in the fall of 2016, the Red Pill has received rather mixed reviews. While the Guardian, The Village Voice and the LA Times unanimously panned the movie, the Pill received glowing reviews from Breitbart News and its recently disgraced provocateur and anti-feminist crusader Milo Yiannopoulos. A deeper search of the internet’s less travelled corners quickly reveals an enthusiastic endorsement from the Daily Stormer—the leading neo-Nazi site.”

    Please make it stop. Just please stop it. This guilt by association, it’s such weak sauce arguing. Leave it on the playground for the kiddies to use until they learn better. Seriously what if I told you Hitler pushed for the military to only allow its recruits to drink water, nothing else, does this instantly mean that anyone who still drinks water is literally Hitler? What if I told you that neo-Nazis are breathing in the same air as you, does that make you literally a Nazi? What if I told you Hitler endorsed having sex with your partner if you were married, does that mean today’s married couples are literally Hitler? You see how silly it sounds. Are you beginning to see why such logic is weak and worthless?

    Now let’s jump back to those to the second sentence in that last quoted paragraph. I wonder if you list them perhaps because they align with your views as well. A common theme between those three reviews and Anton’s review is they all bad mouth MRA’s, never give us any supportive evidence for why MRAs are icky, and they all latch on to Paul Elam past statements (some of which I understand aren’t meant to be taken seriously, that is Paul’s statements). All four reviews also never bother to question feminism (should I start to give examples of toxic feminism because there’s lots out there).

    You know what since we never question feminism, I think I will provide some examples. How about all those “man-” words. Manterruption, mansplaining, manspreading, yeah nothing sexist there. Here’s a really lovely feminist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zH_ZryBfCtU

    Big red. Such a “lovely” lady. Here she is with a group of feminists disrupting a MRA meeting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO_X4DkwA_Q

    Oh we could back in time to around the time the Civil Rights movement was taking off. At that time a woman named Erin Pizzey was running women’s shelters for those who were victims of domestic violence. She worked with the women and through her work, discovered something. That not all of these women were victims. In fact they were perpetrators of the domestic violence. With this knowledge she tried to get funding to also start men’s shelters. The response of the feminists at the time was to shut her down, take everything she’d work for away from her and run her out of her own country. She came to the US and brought with her, the knowledge she gained from her time running women’s shelters. She’s spoken about during the Regan era when he was looking into domestic violence, she went to one of these panels near her, gave them her evidence, and then when the officials released their report, they only quoted one line of Erin’s evidence even though the panel she spoke to thanked her for all the information. Erin states that the transcript of her speaking to these officials vanished, odd isn’t it. Here’s the interview this is from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dj8883DryKA Go to the 1:10:00 mark for the bit about the Regan domestic violence panel. But seriously, it’s a good listen to about one women’s experience with these radical feminists who essentially laid the groundwork into turning feminism into a political platform, which is what we see today.

    Isn’t it odd that feminist speak out against women like Erin. I find that odd. You should find that odd as well. We have a woman, who through her own experience and research, found another piece to a puzzle and when she tried to share this, she became the enemy. She was harassed and essentially ran out of her home country. To this day feminist still harass and bully her. I guess only certain women are worthy of feminist protection.

    One other thing I want to jump back to is this use of misogyny. Misogyny is the literal hatred of all women. Yet every single stinking time I see this come flying out of the mouths of feminists and their allies, like Anton here, I have yet to see any hatred of all women. So why then do they claim misogyny? Simple. They see the following women = feminism. In other words feminism is an identity for all women and thus if you go against feminism, you must be against all women. This is disingenuous and for an academic to engage in such behavior is academically dishonest.

    Seriously next time you see an initiative of some kind by feminists, look at it carefully. Here’s a good example: https://rejzor.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/noconsentsex.jpg

    Jake was drunk. Josie was drunk. Neither, whoops, I mean Josie couldn’t consent. Jake is a rapist, jail him. Josie isn’t responsible for her own behavior. That’s pretty condescending, no. For claiming to be fighting for equality, feminist sure do see to be against the idea that women also be treated fairly, no they see it as punish men and give women special privileges (such as no personal responsibility little campaign there).

    I could continue to go on and on, but for some reason, I doubt I’ll change the minds of those already in the cult of feminism (if you can’t question its authority, it’s a cult). However, those who aren’t too far down the rabbit hole of brainwashing, take this as a warning. These women are only going to use you to bolster themselves and their standing in life. They aren’t going to help you. To them, you’re just a tool to be used to achieve their goals. If you aren’t allowed to think for yourself, if your bullied for questioning the status quo, if these people try to get you to distance yourself from family and friends, then run. Run as far away from them as you can. Don’t think that they wouldn’t turn on you like they did to women like Erin Pizzey. That isn’t to say all feminists are bad, it’s a warning to watch for those who’d use you.

    [Reply]

  40. RWSN on May 12th, 2017 5:13 am

    There is so much wrong with this diatribe it is hard to know where to begin but I am glad to see it has already been skewered by many of the comments above. This film was so awful but yet you somehow fail to counter a single point it makes and have to resort to ad hominem attacks…? What this kind of rhetoric tells me is that you actually agree with the issues raised by the film (IF you actually saw it), you just wish you didn’t.

    Your attitude seems to be that ‘real men’ never have any problems in life, instead it’s the daughters of the world that need help, and they need to get it from men like you. You ignore the women in this film and insult the female director… so I have to wonder, does it ever cross your mind that you might just be exactly what you hate? An old fashioned, conservative, chauvinistic bigot? Because that is exactly how you come across.

    [Reply]

  41. StinkyDan on May 12th, 2017 6:18 am

    Wow, this is the most intellectually dishonest review I’ve ever read, and by a supposed professor. I guess this would explain why so many secondary education institutions are producing so many brainwashed zombies. It seems like you have seen the documentary, but never really watched it as your review is a complete misrepresentation. You don’t state anything factual that backs up your arguments against the film, but rather just throw a thesaurus word-salad on the page filled with common misconceptions that back up your obvious bias.

    Though, this was my favourite part:
    “I am all for reasonable discourse, however, I do not believe that lies and misogyny can be argued with rationally”
    So, if you don’t like the facts presented, they can’t even be discussed? Funny how it sounds similar to “I’m not a Nazi but….”

    [Reply]

  42. James Howard on May 12th, 2017 9:56 am

    Yet another blowhard “professor” who pays lip service to free inquiry and the exchange of ideas – and then turns around and either misrepresents or outright lies about this film.

    I’m from Calgary, Alberta, and a professor here at the U of C gave a televised review of this film, in which she said it was just to support rape culture and violence against women. And then she admitted that she’d not actually SEEN the documentary.

    The response in this thread to the ludicrous review by one of the film’s producers, who also happens to be the mother of the director, says it all. I’d welcome an honest critique of “The Red Pill”, but so far all I’ve come across is dishonest kant like this.

    [Reply]

  43. Ralf Bönt on May 12th, 2017 2:20 pm

    I wrote a very positive review in the german leading Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung that appears on sunday, a liberal weakly. What you say about the Red Pill misses the point that the plot of the film is the way of the director overcoming her on-eye feminism and understanding the points the MRAs make. You are giving us one more very lucid example of how tough it is to accept that you are not the sex with all the advantages, but rather one that’s on the bad end. You feel better in helping women than in taking care of your own, something that is a part of patriarchy. We now live in a neo-patriarchy, unfortunately, as most feminists love men like you. It leaves them unfree however, it leaves everything as it is. Except that you help in the kitchen and pampering the baby, but she will never take care of the winter tires or share custody after breakup. Stop thinking and talking in the name of women if you are not one yourself.

    [Reply]

  44. Nick Rose on May 12th, 2017 3:16 pm

    I love this article. Props to the professor who is truly a multi-dimensional person.

    [Reply]

  45. bozo on May 12th, 2017 5:04 pm

    Haters gotta hate, I guess. And clearly, the haters came out in full force to review Mr. Belov’s fine review.

    [Reply]

  46. permacultist on May 12th, 2017 5:52 pm

    There will always be groups of people who will claim to be oppressed, downtrodden, and suffering from misfortunes that either do not exist or that are a result of personal failures. Oftentimes, these individuals may not even be aware that their misplaced anger is a result of their lackluster intellectual abilities, their sub-par efforts at living, but most of all their embarrassing inability to empathize with those who are truly victims of discrimination. the entire concept of a _male-rights” movement is predicated on a faulty premise, namely that men are suffering from those same injustices that have been foisted upon women, minorities, and so forth. The myriad attempts at undermining Mr. Belov’s review highlight this type of thinking, whereby the self-proclaimed, so-called victims claim that men are suffering from undue burdens due to their sex. Frankly, the responses on this thread to Mr. Belov’s review are frightening, and it is clear that these folks are unaware that they are on the wrong side of history. What I mean by this is that time will prove them erroneous in their thinking. Anyone who truly believes that men are in some sort of serious danger of suffering from unfair treatment lives in a fantasy land of his own creation, or perhaps of her own creation, for that matter, if we look to the biased commentary of the filmmaker’s dear ma-ma. I’m sure that there are various abuses, sexual or otherwise, that boys and men suffer from, and these should certainly not be overlooked, and it’s clear that Mr. Belov had no intention of lessening the seriousness of those boys and men. No, it was Mr. Belov, whose intellectual abilities should not be called into question, whose moral compass pointed to True moral North here by seeing with clarity that “The Red Pill” is propaganda in the truest sense. Propagandist have long attempted to convey information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, in order to promote a political cause or point of view, and that’s just what they’ve done. The reason that the film is misleading is because the entire premise of the film is false, and I can’t think of anything more deliberately misleading than that. With any luck, the “Red Pill” will not be swallowed by many, at least not for long, let’s hope. Let’s also have three-cheers for free speech while we at it! It’s nice to know that amid all the division within this country that we can still have a good go at each other, even if it’s in cyberspace. Just remember, history will look favorably upon Mr. Belov, just as history has looked favorably upon those who stood up for the rights of those who really needed it-think civil rights movement, women’s rights movement, abolitionists, etc. No one will look favorably upon those who defend these liars who make false claims about the plight of men. Their claims reek like those made by the defenders of slavery, the subjugation of women, and other villainies throughout history.
    Bravo Mr. Belov. Bravo.

    [Reply]

    Ethan Reply:

    This level of delusional self-righteous hypocrisy actually caused my head to explode. I am now in critical condition in the ER, praying for a miracle. I fear I will not last the night.

    Please, if you do nothing else with your time on this earth, let go of this hatred which weighs heavy on your soul, and makes you blind to the ways you poison the world with ignorance and ideology.

    [Reply]

  47. Nena Jaye on May 13th, 2017 3:23 am

    I have to say that I am truly fascinated by this comment thread. We so far have 3 professors from the college and a few unknowns, who have so vehemently oppose employing any intellectual curiosity or intellectual courage on their part. Instead of having any interest in hearing what the men’s rights activists have to say, or a filmmaker’s 3 1/2 year long endeavor, but preferring to rely on hearsay and disinformation from sources that does have a very specific agenda- casting the MRM as a hate movement and MRAs as misogynists, and the film promoting violence against women- they are content substituting flawed and inaccurate information for genuine knowledge on the topic and the film. The definition of intellectual cowardice really describes this phenomenon quite perfectly, “an unwillingness to confront logical defects in one’s reasoning. Often it includes a desire to bully others with superficial arguments based on double standards. Characteristics of intellectual cowardice include: overreliance on hearsay as a substitute for logical thought”.

    As a producer of The Red Pill, I was able to take the same journey with the director, Cassie Jaye. We did this journey, along with our other film journeys, because we were driven by intellectual curiosity. We were also willing to challenge our own views and perspectives. I believe these particular traits allowed us to approach this topic with fairness and honesty, and ultimately deliver a film that was true and authentic to the journey.

    Being accused of “bias” or creating “propaganda” is fascinating to me. We had no script going into the project. We had no group, or organization, or authority to answer to. All we knew going in was anything anyone would know googling the MRM. It’s true, we were feminists at the start. We have even been called SJWs in the past. We are also liberals. We had created feminist content films. We have always been active in championing women’s rights. And this was a new topic for us to discover. Now all documentary filmmakers do have a point of view, as well as the audience who watches. But we were determined to approach this project with intellectual honesty and present the information and allow the audience to experience their own journey, wherever it took them. There was no call to action.

    Early into our project, we found out pretty quickly that our previous feminist supporters and backers expected us to show the MRAs as misogynists, who want to turn back the clock on women’s rights, and basically stay on script with what had been so carefully constructed within liberal media sources so far on the topic. That would have been no problem for us, if indeed that construct was true. But during the 3 1/2 years of research and over 100 hours of footage, we discovered that ALL the information that we read, and that we heard from feminist leaders about the topic of the MRM, was a well constructed, hard driven, implantation of intentionally misleading falsehoods, distortions, disinformation and utter fiction. During post production, I remember a piece on the MRM done by Chris Hayes on MSNBC (who I adored and followed faithfully) that used information I knew was false, for effect. That was quite shocking for me. And that wouldn’t be the only time it happened. Rachel Maddow did the same thing. NYT, The Guardian, NY Mag, Salon, every news source that I trusted down the line engaged in fabrications and falsehoods about the MRAs. So when someone accuses us of bias? Sure. Ok. Our bias was wanting to know the truth. Staying with the facts. Not wanting to manipulate or be manipulated. And willing to say, hey, we’re not going to partake in this charade of lies.

    Cassie created one of the most intellectually honest portrayal of the year-long journey of filming MRAs and feminists, and presented a film that raises the question, why can’t men talk about issues men and boys face within our society? This does not have to be a zero-sum game. We can be supportive of women’s voices and men’s voices equally. There is no anti-women stance here. There is only willingness to listen to all perspectives and show compassion for all human beings. We should all be allowed at the table for discussion. It’s that simple.
    But we see time and time again, feminists ideologues not wanting to have this conversation unless it’s framed within feminism. They don’t want to share the table. They want to control the narrative. And this is where I come back to intellectual cowardice and intellectual dishonesty running amok. Why is that? What are they afraid of? It’s much easier to point the finger at two feminist filmmakers who betrayed the sisterhood, claiming they have sinister intentions, then face the possibility that feminist ideologues have been disingenuous in championing gender equality and complicit in manufacturing and selling a false narrative of the men’s rights movement to only be doled out like candy by the media. We prefer to walk away from a false ideology that is unwilling for all voices to be heard. It’s not easy because people then try to discredit and dehumanize us. But following the truth is the only path for us.

    [Reply]

    Mark Ogden Reply:

    “Cassie created one of the most intellectually honest portrayal of the year-long journey of filming MRAs and feminists, and presented a film that raises the question, why can’t men talk about issues men and boys face within our society? ”
    What your daughter hoped to do and what the film became are two different things. The film is vile and the Belov’s article is right on! Thank you Prof. Belov for saving all those women who have been traumatized after watching this documentary. And the decent men thank you too.
    There is nothing noble about making a film about a deadbeat dad. And I understand your urge to protect your daughter from the criticism she is receiving and of course as a producer you want to profit. But these long emails that you are writing here and saying things like “But we see time and time again, feminists ideologues not wanting to have this conversation unless it’s framed within feminism. They don’t want to share the table. They want to control the narrative. And this is where I come back to intellectual cowardice and intellectual dishonesty running amok. Why is that? What are they afraid of? ” are hurting rather than helping your logic and there is no intellectualism here. You discounting feminism as a philosophy that is predicated upon equality of gender as “intellectual cowardice” or calling feminists “ideologues” discredits both your argument here and gives more power to those who are critiquing the film from a feminist standpoint.
    BTW, you must have a lot of time to be writing all of this here. Whatever these professors are writing here seems to be getting under the skin of these “free speech” people! I am actually quite amused. These Linfield professors have really given all of you something to think about it seems, or at least provoked you. Nice that they all belong to the liberal arts and the humanities. They are indeed doing their job both inside and outside of their classroom.

    [Reply]

  48. j24601 on May 13th, 2017 9:32 am

    This is a review of ‘The Red Pill’ by a woman in her early 20’s. I can’t do any better than she does! Please watch, it’s only just over 6 1/2 minutes long. She is also a fantastic blogger.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T3qoBjzRMs

    Please open your minds.

    [Reply]

  49. Daniel on May 13th, 2017 5:13 pm

    You, a professor that obviously didn’t bother to watch it and then write a disingenuous article about it. Wow pretty crazy right prof dr Anton Belov

    [Reply]

If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a gravatar.




Choking on the Red Pill