Red Pill Documentary

Reason With Logic Filling said:
Right, and they're operating off of the notion that it is their duty (I don't think I have to make the argument that a lot of traditionalists wind up in the army do I? Even if they're not traditionalists this kind of thinking is omnipresent, but I digress) to sacrifice themselves to protect women.

There has been, in fact, a push to include women in the military for quite a number of years. I haven't served in the military, but most of my friends joined right out of high school and based on their estimation of life in the military things like race, gender and sexual orientation disappear in combat and usually before then even. The U.S. military has allowed women in for many years now and several of them have become officers, some of them high-ranking. Promotions are meritocratic however, and also with not as many women joining as men there will be few female officers and few female soldiers.

To choose between dying and having their manhood invalidated by sacrificing a woman to die in their place thus making them cowards in the eyes of society? Yes, they technically had that choice.

Probably should volunteer in greater numbers to fix that.

Other than the fact that seeking high-ranking corporate positions or positions on the national stage of politics is something that men try more statistically? Jeanette Rankin was the first Female Congressional member back in like the 1910s I want to say- and since then women have had plenty of opportunity to run for office and yet they don't. The sexual harassment is a problem, though no doubt about that but it's already a lot of work to go through for a job where- man or woman pretty much everyone has a reason to be upset with you and there is little time for being a mother or a father or even just for yourself.

You haven't seen the multitude of feminists who came out against the red pill without having seen the film and began claiming it supported rape and that the movement (as one feminist gender studies professor put it) was all about men having the right to sleep with women whenever they want to without they're being able to object. Now as someone who has seen the film, you know that's a lie- they're lying to the public and marginalizing men's issues- that's not helping both sexes that's only helping themselves. Additionally, think of how many laws feminists have managed to pass and yet in Canada, if you poke holes in the condom to trick a woman into having a kid you go to jail (thanks to feminists changing the laws) but if you trick a man into having a baby as a woman not only do you not go to jail the poor bastard still has to pay child support. Isn't it odd how they were able to change one law but not another?

Ancient Rome had courts, right? You couldn't murder your wife without standing trial because you were violating the law but if you died whilst fighting for the empire that was nothing to worry about. As a woman you might be marginalized because of your gender but being marginalized is marginally better than being dead.
Click to expand...

1) With regard to the military I am referring to women being able to have combat roles.

2) With regard to the dying/invalidation choice, it's a shitty choice, but it's still a choice whereas women have to advocate for policy change for combat roles.

3) Volunteer in greater numbers to change the male dominated administration or to see the front? Either way, they should not have been excluded from the front and I don't think females should have to swell their ranks for the policy to be equal.

4) I'll acknowledge the claim of stats at face value. Not going to get all EH about it. Regardless of the fact that being a politician is hard, that shouldn't gloss over the fact that rampant sexual harassment may pose a significant barrier to career advancement that men mostly (they can be victimized too) don't need to worry about aside from getting caught doing it.

5) Shitty feminists don't shake my belief that feminism is not the enemy of men's rights.

6) Ok but that's ancient Rome. If any of those laws were to be changed, who could have done it? Males. I'm not aware of any female senators. Additionally, in that clip she was talking about backwards societies that currently exist. Again, it is likely males in most of the societies in question that have the power to affect change, which I think is the bigger point.


Good arguments. Been a while since I've been in a debate that isn't a total flame war.
 
Elis said:
@Sloe Djinn

I think there are differences in how men and women function. I have no problem with us examining what in this is biology and what is social construct. Regardless I think these are indicative of why we have these discriminations, but also why men and women go for different jobs, careers and life choices. I think in this regard everyone should be allowed to pursuit whatever goals they want. This should also be on equal terms.
Click to expand...

Yes that pretty much answered it, thanks. I guess I just don't agree that legislative/legal equality has been reached.
 
Sloe Djinn said:
) With regard to the military I am referring to women being able to have combat roles.

2) With regard to the dying/invalidation choice, it's a shitty choice, but it's still a choice whereas women have to advocate for policy change for combat roles.

3) Volunteer in greater numbers to change the male dominated administration or to see the front? Either way, they should not have been excluded from the front and I don't think females should have to swell their ranks for the policy to be equal.
Click to expand...
Women can serve in combat roles, I don't know what you're talking about.
Sloe Djinn said:
5) Shitty feminists don't shake my belief that feminism is not the enemy of men's rights.
Click to expand...
Well they don't have to be, but they currently are. A good way to change that would be to start disowning the shitty feminists and pursuing legal change (see Canadian 'tricked into pregnancy' laws in my previous post) with equal vigor regardless of which gender is affected. I've seen a lot of feminists get confronted with facts like this one, they seem to have a lot to say about helping men in issues like this but the actual help never seems to materialize from what I've seen. Didn't have any difficulty changing the law to help women but when it came time to do the same to protect men they just couldn't... somehow...
Sloe Djinn said:
6) Ok but that's ancient Rome. If any of those laws were to be changed, who could have done it? Males. I'm not aware of any female senators. Additionally, in that clip she was talking about backwards societies that currently exist. Again, it is likely males in most of the societies in question that have the power to affect change, which I think is the bigger point.
Click to expand...
Okay, but if they're conforming to gender stereotypes then they wouldn't change anything because it wouldn't even occur to them that there was a problem. If you asked the women of back then if they'd like to abandon their children to go fight a war they would probably be baffled at the very notion. This is like asking why did feudalism develop why didn't they go to capitalism straight away? Because they hadn't thought of it yet.

and no, the larger point is that historically men have been disposable and still technically are- the point is about society's perception of men from both a male and female perspective is biased in that-

Well let's put it like this- there is a debate raging in this country as to whether or not women should have to sign up for the draft. No debate about whether or not men should have to. That's it in a nutshell. Women might have an 'out' but men definitely do not because one life is more valuable than another and we don't even think about it because it is ingrained in how society thinks of men and it is why men can be sent to die in place of a woman and it is why feminists can otherwise be empathetic people but still totally ignore the plight of men on a lot of these issues.
 
Last edited:
Elis said:
I think there is a difference between legislative discrimination and enforced equality. With the former I am right there with you.
Click to expand...
Right, we may agree on the latter too. I don't think that artificially creating female representation (by excluding males) promotes equality either, assuming that's what you meant by "enforced equality". That's just trying to compensate for discrimination with reverse discrimination, which doesn't solve anything.
 
Reason With Logic Filling said:
Well they don't have to be, but they currently are. A good way to change that would be to start disowning the shitty feminists and pursuing legal change (see Canadian 'tricked into pregnancy' laws in my previous post) with equal vigor regardless of which gender is affected. I've seen a lot of feminists get confronted with facts like this one, they seem to have a lot to say about helping men in issues like this but the actual help never seems to materialize from what I've seen. Didn't have any difficulty changing the law to help women but when it came time to do the same to protect men they just couldn't... somehow...
Click to expand...

I don't think that was necessarily what he was saying. He said shitty feminists don't shake his belief that feminism is not the enemy of equal rights. That was specified outright. He didn't say that shitty feminists weren't problematic. Shitty anyone is problematic.
 
hush said:
I don't think that was necessarily what he was saying. He said shitty feminists don't shake his belief that feminism is not the enemy of equal rights.
Click to expand...
I understood that.
hush said:
That was specified outright. He didn't say that shitty feminists weren't problematic. Shitty anyone is problematic
Click to expand...
And yet they REMAIN! That professor, who said the red pill was a pro-rape film about how women shouldn't have the right to refuse sex, did not lose her job, was not disowned by the feminist movement, did not have to apologize, and did not have to issue a retraction even though everything she said about the film was inflammatory slander that was totally incorrect. After watching the film, a staff member at her college who watched the flim wrote her an email where he controversially penned the phrase "feminism is cancer" and was promptly removed for his beliefs.

That's where the priorities lie.

Source:
EDIT: This woman also knows nothing about The Matrix it seems.
 
Last edited:
Sloe Djinn said:
@Reason With Logic Filling

Still working on a reply to your points. BTW someone did some digging as to whether or not this college staff member who was allegedly fired actually exists. It's interesting.

Student reporter investigates whether Wildrose on Campus spokesperson is real

‘We still can’t say with certainty that Robert McDavid is or isn’t a real person,’ says reporter
Click to expand...
Your link is broken, is this what you were linking to?

EDIT: Regardless of whether or not he exists my point that feminists silence alternative viewpoints and lie about their rivals still stands.
 
@Reason With Logic Filling

Nah it was this, but I'll copy it in.

Earlier this week, Wildrose on Campus Calgary said it fired its communications director and cancelled a film screening following uproar over an email to promote the event that said "feminism is cancer." Since then, the University of Calgary's campus newspaper The Gauntlet has questioned the existence of that communications director — a person named Robert McDavid.

Jason Herring, a third-year computer science student at the University of Calgary and webmaster for the campus newspaper, is the reporter behind the investigation into Robert McDavid. Herring spoke to The Calgary Eyeopener Friday about his work. The following is a condensed version of the interview.

Q: What motivated you to look into who this person was in the first place?

A: Looking into who this person was was really just doing our due diligence as journalists. We were writing our main story about the email, and we were actually a little bit frustrated because a lot of other news sources got to it faster than us.

We asked the member of the Wildrose on Campus that we were communicating with who the communication director was, and they gave us the name Robert McDavid. And we wanted to talk to Robert McDavid, because we thought that that was an important thing to do — to give this person their side of the story, to make sure that we're not just throwing someone under the bus for something they didn't actually do.

Q: You started poking around social media. What did his Facebook profile tell you?

A: His Facebook profile, everything on it, everything that was public, seemed to be created on that same day, Tuesday, March 7, early in the morning.

Q: Were there other red flags you discovered?

A: There were a lot of other red flags. After we couldn't get ahold of him, we started talking to other former members of the Wildrose on Campus, including their former president whose name is Jenn Galandy.

Jenn told us that she had been asking around and she had not heard of anyone with that name. So at this point, it's Tuesday evening. We actually do production on Tuesday evening and we go to print. So we had to write up a little story that was more of a summary of the whole situation, the email and just a little bit about Robert McDavid.

Q: You kept digging and found yourself a solid clue. What was that?

A: We had been digging around a lot, and it took us a little bit, but we went to perhaps one of the more obvious places and we called the University of Calgary's registrar office.

I just asked the office, "Hey can you search up in your database this student, Robert McDavid? We're trying to find out if he goes to the school for a story." And within a minute we knew that there wasn't a student named Robert McDavid at the university, and then things just compounded from there. We were able to talk to the Wildrose Party, to confirm that he's not actually a member of the provincial Wildrose, as all members of the club are required to be.

Q: What is the club on campus saying about this revelation?

A: The club on campus, near the beginning, they were denying. We're still not entirely sure. We still can't say with certainty that Robert McDavid is or isn't a real person. That's something that we found evidence for, and we're letting our readers decide for themselves what they think of that. But the members of the Wildrose on Campus have been elusive, is what I'll say about that.

Q: You went to police on this too. Why is that?

A: We went to police because one of the things that the Wildrose on Campus said was ... they weren't revealing any personal information about Robert McDavid because there's death threats leveled against him for the "feminism is cancer" email, so they said they didn't want to put him at any more risk. So we talked to the CPS [Calgary Police Service] and we asked about any filed reports, and they told us as far as they knew there is nothing they can see.

Q: What do you think is going on here?

A: I think that someone's trying to pull the wool over someone's eyes — whether that's Robert McDavid or whether that's a member of the Wildrose on Campus, I can't say.

One thing that I heard mentioned from a comment from one of our readers was that it was an example of what's called the Streisand effect, where by virtue of trying to cover something up, you actually just make it more explosive and apparent, and you get more coverage for the thing you're trying to conceal. I think that's what happened.

Q: Did you ever expect you'd be doing some sort of investigative work that would land you on the The Calgary Eyeopener?

A: It's not my first time doing the CBC. I had an opinion piece on here about a year and half ago. I wasn't planning on doing this even this week. Our news guy who would normally do a story like this came down real sick on Tuesday night and I just took over the story. But when I originally started at The Gauntlet, I just came to write album reviews.
 
Reason With Logic Filling said:
Women can serve in combat roles, I don't know what you're talking about.

Well they don't have to be, but they currently are. A good way to change that would be to start disowning the shitty feminists and pursuing legal change (see Canadian 'tricked into pregnancy' laws in my previous post) with equal vigor regardless of which gender is affected. I've seen a lot of feminists get confronted with facts like this one, they seem to have a lot to say about helping men in issues like this but the actual help never seems to materialize from what I've seen. Didn't have any difficulty changing the law to help women but when it came time to do the same to protect men they just couldn't... somehow...

Okay, but if they're conforming to gender stereotypes then they wouldn't change anything because it wouldn't even occur to them that there was a problem. If you asked the women of back then if they'd like to abandon their children to go fight a war they would probably be baffled at the very notion. This is like asking why did feudalism develop why didn't they go to capitalism straight away? Because they hadn't thought of it yet.

and no, the larger point is that historically men have been disposable and still technically are- the point is about society's perception of men from both a male and female perspective is biased in that-

Well let's put it like this- there is a debate raging in this country as to whether or not women should have to sign up for the draft. No debate about whether or not men should have to. That's it in a nutshell. Women might have an 'out' but men definitely do not because one life is more valuable than another and we don't even think about it because it is ingrained in how society thinks of men and it is why men can be sent to die in place of a woman and it is why feminists can otherwise be empathetic people but still totally ignore the plight of men on a lot of these issues.
Click to expand...

1) Oh, well ok then. Thought that was still in the works.

2) I don't really see the practical value or benefit of obligating feminists to disown other feminists. I can see why it might make some men feel better, but I don't see what functional purpose it serves beyond that. I can definitely see how it can muddy the reputation of feminists in general, but I for one still see a distinction between shitty feminists, feminists in general, and feminism. I don't agree that feminists should be obligated to protect men's rights, or that failure to do so somehow reduces the legitimacy of advocating for equal rights for women. Nor would I obligate men's rights advocates to work to protect women's rights in order for their cause to be legitimate. It would be better for everyone, but I don't see it as an obligation essential to legitimacy of seeking equality for a specific group where inequality exists.

3) Ok I still don't think the ancient Rome example is pertinent, I'm not asking why they didn't change things up, I'm highlighting the disparity between sexes in that men had the power to make that change if they wanted to, whereas women didn't, and that carries on into the present in the "backwards" cultures that the speaker was referencing.

We'll have to agree to disagree in what we each think is the bigger point.

I'm interested in learning more about the draft debate.
 
acd said:
I have a female friend who used to work for BP and not in an administrative or office role. It was a male-dominated position and at the time, she was the only female in it. She said she loved the job and the pay, but quit because she couldn't go one day without being sexually harassed.
Click to expand...
That's immoral.
 
Reason With Logic Filling said:
And yet they REMAIN! That professor, who said the red pill was a pro-rape film about how women shouldn't have the right to refuse sex, did not lose her job, was not disowned by the feminist movement, did not have to apologize, and did not have to issue a retraction even though everything she said about the film was inflammatory slander that was totally incorrect. After watching the film, a staff member at her college who watched the flim wrote her an email where he controversially penned the phrase "feminism is cancer" and was promptly removed for his beliefs.

That's where the priorities lie.
Click to expand...

And yet, this guy remains, who ushered in our newest president with Nazi salutes.


Does this show where priorities lie? The world is full of shitty people, and they shittily remain. I don't think anyone who is truly reasonable supports extremists like this who persist with hateful agendas. I know I don't, whether it's a shitty feminist, or a shitty white supremacist (although, I consider "shitty" synonymous with white supremacism...). It's almost an insult to the non-shitty feminists (yes, they do exist), to imply that they do.
 
hush said:
And yet, this guy remains, who ushered in our newest president with Nazi salutes.


Does this show where priorities lie? The world is full of shitty people, and they shittily remain. I don't think anyone who is truly reasonable supports extremists like this who persist with hateful agendas. I know I don't, whether it's a shitty feminist, or a shitty white supremacist (although, I consider "shitty" synonymous with white supremacism...). It's almost an insult to the non-shitty feminists (yes, they do exist), to imply that they do.
Click to expand...
Richard Spencer is a joke with no other skills than rabble-rousing. Don't let inferior people like him get to you.
 
Pin said:
Richard Spencer is a joke with no other skills than rabble-rousing. Don't let inferior people like him get to you.
Click to expand...

Agreed, and I don't really let him get to me - he's just an example that crappy individuals all across the political spectrum remain, from one extreme, to another, and everything in-between (unfortunately).
 
Just based on some comments, women aren't gutsy enough to run for office or go for positions of power like men, but still women manage to manipulate the system to oppress men... (And yet here in the US we are still, decades later, constantly having to battle to maintain a legal right to abortion.) And it was women who made men disposable, in the first place, right? Did women come up with the draft? Oh I'mma watch it.
 
acd said:
Just based on some comments, women aren't gutsy enough to run for office or go for positions of power like men,
Click to expand...
I think men are pressured into these positions, more-so than women. There are sociological and evolutionary reasons for this.
but still women manage to manipulate the system to oppress men...
Click to expand...
Blaming women for the consequences of universal suffrage and human evolution isn't logical.
(And yet here in the US we are still, decades later, constantly having to battle to maintain a legal right to abortion.)
Click to expand...
That's a pretty safe right that won't go away unless women (half of the electorate) want it gone.
And it was women who made men disposable, in the first place, right?
Click to expand...
I blame evolution; it's not something that can be fixed.
Did women come up with the draft?
Click to expand...
Of course not, male politicians did out of necessity.
Oh I'mma watch it.
Click to expand...
I'm informing you in advance; this documentary covers sensitive subject matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top