Most Hated Feminist in the World?

[sausageeggbacon111]

So this piece in the Australian Spectator has started doing the rounds on facebook in my free speech and anti censorship groups. Wondered what people thought especially about how the silencing of one woman by others HERE

[ChocChocPorridge]

Hard to know without seeing the film, or seeing much of what's going on - I confess I haven't heard of her or her film (although I've visited the red pill groups on reddit, and they are deeply unpleasant places from my experience)

[YonicProbe]

That's a very odd article as it says nothing about the content of the film.

It's interesting the maker no longer considers herself a feminist. I wonder why not.

[msrisotto]

Never heard of her, obvs not seen the film.

[venusinscorpio]

I don't think this thread will go anywhere unless you elaborate on why feminists have a problem with the film or its maker, OP. The article doesn't say. Yes the Red Pill on Reddit is misogynistic. But you could make a film taking the piss out of them quite easily so I don't know enough to judge.

[Xenophile]

Meh

What's your agenda here sausage? Until I know what you want to hear, I'm not comfortable in commenting.

[YonicProbe]

MostHatedFeministInTheWorld could be a good posting name though. Buffy's evil and unreasonable twin?

[FreshwaterSelkie]

Mmmm, would this be the film that she crowdfunded from MRA groups like A Voice for Men? And Milo Yiannopolis? I haven't seen it, but I suspect it may not quite be dispassionate and balanced...And as for her deciding that she's not a feminist now, I wonder if she ever really was. It's not really something that you generally renounce because you've seen the light. And most feminists aren't ever really interested in giving platforms to MRAs, because, well, why would you?

So my question would be, why would this be something that feminists would support, or even want to see? Odd post. What do you think, OP?

[birdybirdywoofwoof]

Is it bono?

[YonicProbe]

birdy

[FreshwaterSelkie]

Oh, and calling someone a handmaiden in thrall to the MRA movement isn't silencing. Paul Elam is a vile misogynist - you have to ask yourself why any woman would be interested in painting him in a more benign light. Unless she was paid to do it. And even then...

I've watched five minutes of that vile trailer, and there's already some neckbearded twat implying that women lie about rape. Seems balanced.

[ThatStewie]

Never heard of her until the film was released. Let's be real here: anyone can call themselves a feminist but that doesn't mean they actually support women. David Cameron wore a feminist t-shirt despite enacting policies that destroyed women's services & forced thousands of women and children into poverty. Milo / A Voice for Men have no credibility in feminism. They actively shit all over women so anything they'd sponsor, I wouldn't bother watching.

Does that make this woman the most hated feminist? No. because feminists don't send death threats to other women. Milo's mates do. Anyone whose had to chat to police about her personal safety (or that of her children) is actually the most hated feminist. Because men tend to be the ones who threaten violence. Not feminists.

[YonicProbe]

Well said, Stewie.

[sausageeggbacon111]

As far as I know it people are objecting because they don't like the results of the film not showing the MRA in a bad light. It is the silencing I find interesting as people are objecting to the film without even seeing it because they don't seem to like the fact that the MRM is not shown to be full of hateful arseholes. It is the censorship of a woman who has done much for the feminist movement because one film doesn't agree with some pre-conceived ideas. What sort of light does that put the feminist movement under when we disagree with a film. I haven't seen it yet but it has been viewed by various people and I have found reactions on youtube interesting. Wont li9nk people can search red pill on youtube if they really are interested.

[YonicProbe]

"What sort of light does that put the feminist movement under when we disagree with a film. "

Eh?

What sort of light does it put on the feminist movement, or indeed any movement, if there are no things it disagrees with, whether those are films, books or whatever?

As no one on this thread has watched this film, including you, I don't know what my position on it would be, but I don't have a problem with it being disagreed just because it was made By a woman, or whatever your arguments is why this film shouldn't be criticised.

[YonicProbe]

Had you heard of her before this, sausage? I hadn't.

[vesuvia]

The woman described in the OP's linked article claims to be a feminist and has made a film which, I suspect, supports misogyny.

Is she the most hated* feminist in the world? No. She has been subjected to a petition to stop her promoting misogyny in a country of which she is not a citizen, and some allegedly "vitriolic" text (perhaps Twitter messages?). I don't think either of these make this woman the world's most hated feminist. Meanwhile, feminists campaigning for women's reproductive rights are, for example, murdered.

• The linked article actually describes the film maker as "the world’s most controversial feminist, but the most dangerous as well."
  
  As far "most controversial feminist" is concerned, I think many feminists are way ahead of her, e.g. Germaine Greer has a better chance of scooping that title. As far as "the most dangerous" is concerned, it depends what the writer of the article means by "dangerous". If dangerous is patriarchy-speak for "effective at dismantling patriarchy", then this film maker wouldn't get my vote.

[FreshwaterSelkie]

Hang on, sausage, let me get this straight. You're objecting to people saying "this film doesn't sound very good" when they haven't seen it, and you think people should reserve judgement until they've seen it. However, your position is "this film sounds great", but you yourself also haven't seen it?

Saying "this film sounds terrible" doesn't cast feminism in any kind of light. And I strongly suspect that the outrage about the filmmaker is being manufactured, because that is what the men's rights movement DO. Their raison d'etre is to be a persecuted minority, reviled for no good reason. They can wank themselves into a froth that feminists and women are being mean to them all they please, but that is really business as usual. They wanted this movie made. So I guess they have to accept that not everyone is going to be falling over themselves about it.

As for whether the MRAs are portrayed as hateful arseholes or not, they kick off the piece with Paul Elam, and if ever there was a hateful arsehole, he's the poster boy. I'm not familiar with most of the rest of the interviewees but my experience of the men's right's movement is that it is a hotbed of misogyny, racism and homophobia, so unless their message in this film is radically different from pretty much everything I've ever seen leeching out of the turgid slime of the manosphere, there is nothing in there of value to feminism. Except maybe know-your-enemy.

[FreshwaterSelkie]

Also, it's just so transparently an attempt to set women against each other. Look! Feminists don't like what another woman is saying! Women, eh? They can't just get along.

Classic MRA tactic. They do like their female shills. Personally I can't fathom why the women ever play along. The internal misogyny must run deep.

[ChocChocPorridge]

I must admit, I opened up the thread assuming I'd see Germain Greer - she does have a habit of saying exactly what she's thinking, without any excuses.

It is the censorship of a woman who has done much for the feminist movement because one film doesn't agree with some pre-conceived ideas. What sort of light does that put the feminist movement under when we disagree with a film

Well, I don't know what she's done for the movement, but to me, it seems that what would put the feminist movement in a bad light is if we weren't able to reconsider our opinion on people based on their actions. Everyone here so far has been saying that we can't say much without seeing the film, and we've never heard of her. Perhaps people in Australia know a bit more about her?

On the other hand, I can disagree with films without ever seeing them - Tangerine sounds abusive, there are plenty of horror movies that I don't think bring anything to the world etc. sometimes you can judge a book by its cover just fine.

[NotDavidTennant]

"It is the censorship of a woman who has done much for the feminist movement because one film doesn't agree with some pre-conceived ideas."

What is the "much" that you think Cassie Jaye has done for the feminist movement? She's not some doyen of feminism, she's just an independent filmmaker trying to drum up publicity for herself. (And an independent filmmaker without much integrity at that, given that she's taken money from the very groups that her film is meant to be reporting on.)

[Xenophile]

I'm not sure this woman is a feminist. She doesn't value the term, so it's hardly silencing her. You're not a feminist either, but, given that this is yet another goady post, you patently don't value the term/movement, it's not skin off your nose either.

I've looked up who she is now and just LOL at the 'Oh, poor her' attitude. Perhaps, if you don't want to be called out as a shill, it might be best to source funding from places other than the hate movement you're looking into.

Critical thinking 101 is 'who paid for this'. If we attach less empirical value to research, paid for by oil companies, that "demonstrates" that climate change isn't a thing, then why would any thinking person take at face value a film about Red Pillers that casts them in a light that doesn't fit at all with their actions, when they have funded it?

No one is silencing her, she's made the film and is talking about it. I reserve the right to form an opinion of her motives from the evidence, just as I reserve the right to know that MRAs are violent thugs who are purely in it because they hate women because I have interacted with large numbers of them.

However, thank you for clarifying your agenda here OP.

[YonicProbe]

Great post, Selkie

"The woman described in the OP's linked article claims to be a feminist"

Actually she's stopped describing herself as such now!

[scallopsrgreat]

I thought this was going to be about Jean Hatchet (a very western Anglo centric view I know).

What light does this put feminism under? Same light as before I read it five minutes ago. A movement for gaining women's rights and freeing women from mens oppression.

I'm always a bit about the whole 'freedom of speech' thing. It just seems to advantage the voices that are most heard to continue being heard. This film sounds like it's no different. The voices of men being heard - and getting a woman to do their dirty work. Sounds to me like the film silences women.

So turning it around to say it is women silencing a woman is a bit disingenuous. But I haven't seen the film. And all I know about it or Cassie Jaye is what is on this thread and in the article.