Thursday, June 15, 2017

Truth & Good Manners 1 : Feminists & Manginas 0.

Cassie Jaye has nothing to complain about, unlike the rest of us. She came, she was seen, and saw off all her nasty, foul-thinking critics who tried their damnest to rubbish her and her work, but ended up showing just what rubbish they themselves were. Good onya Oz ! Good onya Cassie.

The entire week has been spent clearing up after all the customers who poured in from the last time I posted here. A huge crowd. A week's worth. I am happy to see some 300 faces a day here and stock accordingly, but this week after being inundated by nearly ten times that number I had to send for hurried additional supplies and the Angels were kept busy.  But enough of my housekeeping trivia, what of Cassie?

Cassie managed to get into Oz in the first instance. Unlike the pro-life chap last year, Troy Newman, who was arrested the moment he stepped from the plane and sent packing back to America. So at least she was able to be here to deliver her message. One up for men at least, while unborn babies still die.

She made it onto the stage at the Men's Conference on the Gold Coast, where the reception and attention was first class, and onto the TV 'zhozial juztitz' morning and evening shows where the full fury of the manginas and feminists  was unleashed. She responded with bemused good manners.

Personally, and I speak just for m'self here, I was most encouraged that a nearing 30 American woman who spent much of her teen and early adult years as a dyed-in-the-wool Feminist, could not only change her mind when exposed to reason, evidence, horses-mouth hatreds of feminists and sheer calm persistence of good men, but show that there is Hope. Not only did she work hard on making a truthful film but she also showed that not all modern young adults are lying, whining snowflakes. Indeed, she acquitted herself with calm dignity and good manners. Far better manners than the Oz media displayed.

But let us see and hear from some who have dropped in for a refreshing pint or pina colada.
On Sunday morning, Cassie Jaye was interviewed by Andrew O'Keefe on Sunrise about her new documentary movie The Red Pill. 
During the Sunrise interview, O'Keefe admits he hasn’t even seen the Red Pill movie. Apparently they weren’t able to watch it or didn’t have enough time. How can you even comment or criticise on a movie when you haven’t even watched it?
Shortly after the interview, thousands showed their disgust for O’Keefe on the Sunrise Facebook page. Sunrise have since removed their post because they couldn’t handle the flood of criticism against O’Keefe and feminism. Like the project, they have proven that they are “journalists” lacking integrity with a strong left/feminist bias. 

 The 'Mocker' said: Quoting O'Keefe
“Personally, it horrifies me to think that my girl would be ever be attacked or belittled by a man she loved, or by anyone,” wrote former White Ribbon Foundation chairman and current co-host of Weekend Sunrise Andrew O’Keefe in 2014.
“Do I show my kids that a man doesn’t have to be the tough-guy in control of every situation?” he asked rhetorically.
Well, evidently yes, if O’Keefe’s interview last weekend with Cassie Jaye, director of the documentary The Red Pill, is any indication. The film, which has resulted in protests and cancelled screenings across Australia, focuses on cases where males are disproportionately and adversely affected. Jaye interviewed a range of people for the film, including men’s rights activists, for which she is still being castigated.
“It just seems to me you don’t really question their views in the film,” O’Keefe said to Jaye, whose prompt rebuttal — “Did you see the film?”, she questioned — saw the agitated and defensive host reluctantly admit he had not seen the film in its entirety.
Of course he had not. What need for evidence or even listening does a  drunk, woman-groper, motor-mouth former 'Chairman' of an anti-male Domestic Violence mob have. No need to answer that.

But witter we need not either so, over to Janet Albrechtsen:
It was an embarrassing moment for the former lawyer, who had committed the equivalent of appearing in court without being across his brief. 
Worse still, O’Keefe and his co-host Monique Wright attempted to blame Jaye and her producer for this abrogation, claiming the film had only been provided to them the evening before. In reality, they had been given the film a month prior to the interview, and on two other occasions.
At this point a prudent interviewer might have considered a more conciliatory approach towards his subject. But not O’Keefe, who instead patronised her. “My concern, Cassie,” he said with over-the-top enunciation, “is that… we promote an opposition between men and feminism that’s counter-productive to the genders working together to solve everyone’s problems.” 
In other words, don’t question the narrative that feminism is everyone’s friend. 
After all, it wouldn’t be like third-wave feminists to promote opposition between the sexes, would it?
But more on that later. What stood out in particular was O’Keefe’s manner towards Jaye. 
She presented as intelligent, articulate and persuasive, 
....yet he talked to her as if he were admonishing a child. The excessive hand gesturing, and the resorting to the royal ‘we’ pronoun only compounded this pomposity, as did O’Keefe’s repeatedly addressing Jaye by her first name (presumably just in case she needed reminding). 
His smirking, smugness and his over-talking were an unedifying display of rudeness in contrast to Jaye’s dignified demeanour. 
If only there were a term for a man lecturing a woman in such a condescending fashion.
O’Keefe, as have other critics of The Red Pill, has accused Jaye of tacitly condoning misogyny. Certainly, the men’s rights movement has its share of such offenders. However, feminism too has its fundamentalist elements, irrespective of the fallacious argument that misandry does not exist. One only has to look as far as Fairfax’s Daily Life for examples of this fashionable chauvinism. Fatuous and self-indulgent soliloquies such as ‘Why I won’t let any male babysit my children’ and ‘Misandry Island: This is what a feminist utopia would look like’ sadly are the norm and not the exception.
“I felt sick at the thought of something male growing inside me,” wrote teacher and feminist Polly Dunning in December 2016 as she reflected on her pregnancy. “How will I raise a son who respects me the way a daughter would?” she wailed without an iota of self-awareness. 
It demonstrates that both the men’s and women’s rights movements have an entitlement mentality. However, the media’s tendency to laud and promote feminism on the one hand, while referring disparagingly to men’s rights activists on the other, is revealing.
Ironically, O’Keefe’s pooh-poohing of The Red Pill is contributing to its success and raising awareness about biases against men, which do exist, although their acknowledgment is wanting. More than 90 per cent of Australian prisoners are male, but you will never hear a gender studies lecturer point to this as evidence of ‘structural sexism’.
In 2013 a retiring Family Court judge warned that mothers were increasingly inventing allegations of child sexual abuse against their husbands to prevent them from seeing their children. But unlike women, men enjoy no gender-specific government-funded legal centre to assist them in such cases. 
Paternity fraud? No such thing. It’s not illegal, and in any event the High Court ruled in 2006 that a mother’s lying to a putative father about the paternity of the child was not a valid action for the tort of deceit. 
Feminist and bioethicist Leslie Cannold has gone one step further by arguing that the euphemistic term “paternal discrepancies” should replace “paternity fraud”.
These are just a few examples. Raising their awareness about these and other aspects of men’s rights, as the The Red Pill seeks to do, does not diminish the campaigns against the sexism that women suffer, particularly the appalling statistic of females murdered by their spouses.
Although we rarely hear of the similar number of male spouses killed by their female partners. And does anyone ever question just how many females killed  have been so at the hand of lesbian partners?  One has to be as  deliberately deaf and blind as O'Keefe not to have known that lesbian violence far outstrips any other 'gendered' violence.
It also challenges one of the most obtuse tenets of militant feminism — the insistence that men’s rights must be analysed according to the principles of a zero sum game.
Amid all the histrionics, Jaye’s suggestion to O’Keefe that people watch her film and “make up their own mind” is the most sensible comment about this affair. Decide for yourself, and don’t defer to the tough guy who wants to be in control of the situation, one might quip.
“Changing my attitude,” wrote O’Keefe in 2008 in his capacity as chairman of the White Ribbon Foundation, “means I need to think about what I say and do and question whether I contribute subtly to the power problem; whether I’m engaging in good-hearted banter, or whether my words are denigrating or subjugating women.” 
Physician, heal thyself.
Physician he ain't so there is little chance of him opening his eyes and ears while his lips are flapping. What he needs is a sound whacking. Cassie was firm but gentle with him.

The only sound voice from the media came from Andrew Bolt. 
Sky News host Andrew Bolt felt he had to apologise to US film-maker Cassie Jaye for the behaviour of the media following two 'aggressive and hostile interviews'.

The former feminist made many media appearances in Australia to promote her new documentary 'The Red Pill', which explores the controversial men's rights movement. Speaking on the Bolt Report, Ms Jaye said other media had never treated her the way Network Seven's Sunrise and Network Ten's The Project did.

The panelists on The Project extensively criticised the film during their interview of Ms Jaye.

'I have never been treated like I have on Sunrise and The Project,' Ms Jaye said.

'A lot of people don't realise my interview with The Project was heavily edited down. The full interview was very hostile....I definitely felt ambushed.'

In the interview with Sunrise, host Andrew O'Keefe admitted to not watching the movie, claiming her publicist didn't send the link through.

Ms Jaye said a link was sent a few times as early as a month before the interview.

She said she was deeply disappointed in how she had been treated.

Andrew Bolt hit out at the network's, apologising to Ms Jaye for coming into an 'intolerant country like Australia'.

'Something serious has gone wrong in our culture and I apologise,' Mr Bolt said.

'It didn't used to be that way. I'm very sorry you've run smack into it.'

The documentary was banned by several Australian cinemas with opponents of the film threatening protests.

She said the journey was a complicated and complex one in order to try a find a 'middle ground'.

'There's obvious silence tactics happening in Australia. I urge people to watch it for themselves.'

Red Pill is the second top rating movie on YouTube in Australia.
 A lot of effort has been expended, money too, trying to prevent anyone seeing Cassie's work.  Yes, there is a focus on Oz at the moment where the vitriol has flowed like beer at a B&S bash, but elsewhere too, especially on the media outlets. Tracy Watson told those standing near in the bar:
Netflix bans “The Red Pill” movie because it contains too much TRUTH
Let me start out by saying that I have no political agenda. Like most of you, I’m just a regular, straight-down-the-middle person living my life. That said, I am open-minded and believe that getting different perspectives and listening to many viewpoints is important in shaping my own views. 
The world would be a bleak place, indeed, if we were all forced to accept only one side of any given equation. And yet, that is what we are increasingly being bullied into doing, as evidenced recently by the totally over-the-top reaction by many to filmmaker Cassie Jaye’s documentary The Red Pill.
In the movie, Jaye, an investigative journalist and self-proclaimed feminist, decided to go down the rabbit hole of the Men’s Rights Activism (MRA) movement, described by Urban Dictionary as “an organization of men and their women allies who draw attention to the ways in which misandry (anti-male attitudes and actions) and gynocentrism (women-privileging) harm men.”
The film sets out to examine what MRAs really stand for, what they believe they’re fighting for, and what their attitudes really are towards women.
In spite of the movie’s huge commercial success, 
Netflix has refused to air it. 
In theaters in Canada, Australia and the U.S., feminists have come out en masse to protest viewings, and independent theaters have been under huge pressure not to show it. 
CBC News recently reported that theater patrons and sponsors in Canada have threatened to stop doing business with theaters that dare to go ahead with scheduled screenings.
Gavin McInnes of Rebel Media calls this type of pressure “economic terrorism,” and makes the interesting point that many of the people who protested so vehemently against the film have never even seen it.
McInnes argues that many recent documentaries have been very biased toward one particular viewpoint, and some like An Inconvenient Truth, have been scientifically flawed and totally one-sided, yet have been accepted as fact and allowed to mold the thinking of many.
On the other hand, with The Red Pill, Cassie Jaye does “what true journalists should do,” she insists. 
“You set out with no agenda and you don’t end up where you thought you would.”
And judging by the content of the trailer, that is just what Jaye does. While providing the perspective of the MRAs, and highlighting some of their most pressing issues, she also speaks to prominent feminist activists and journalists to get their take on those issues.
The interviews Jaye conducts for the documentary highlight issues like men having virtually no rights when it comes to custody disputes, and the fact that if a woman should decide to abort her baby, her spouse or partner would have no say in the matter. 
The documentary also highlights the fact that 93 percent of workplace fatalities affect men, and that 4 out of 5 suicides are men. 
As one of the interviewees notes, men are suffering, but, “Society doesn’t want to hear their pain. We value female life more than we value male life.”
Dr. Warren Farrell refers to a “big hole in the area of compassion for boys and men,” and Paul Elam, president and founder of A Voice for Men, notes that the anti-men message is a subtle subtext in statements like “stop violence against women,” rather than simply, “stop all violence.”
In her video diary, Jaye looks really confused and says she’s unsure if the MRAs are simply “duping” her to convince her of their out-there theory that “men are discriminated against, and women have the advantage.”
The trailer also shows her listening to many feminist voices, including that of Katherine Spillar, executive director of the Feminist Majority Foundation, who insists that it is indisputable that women are still oppressed physically, financially and economically, and that in the political and business halls of power, men are advantaged over women.
All in all, the trailer certainly depicts a balanced, thought-provoking documentary that shows both sides of the issue. It’s hard to understand what all the furor is about. But then, perhaps Harry Crouch, president of the National Coalition for Men summed it up best when he said, “We just don’t seem to respect each other for who we are.”
Watch the documentary, and decide for yourself.
I have plentiful supplies of good ale for all customers, so drink deep.



  1. The good interviewer was Andrew Bolt

    1. Bolt is respectful in his presentations and questioning, even when talking with lowlifes. That is why he is dismissed by the TV companies so much. He gave Cassie a fair hearing and allowed proper answers.

  2. "has accused Jaye of tacitly condoning misogyny. Certainly, the men’s rights movement has its share of such offenders"

    Fine line. Anyone left will see any criticism as misogyny, then there are the standard observations women make about men's behaviour and vice-versa, which is more under the heading of banter.

    But to be genuine misogyny, then the man must genuinely hate women as a species- that's difficult to say when as much of it can be resentment over things which have happened. And I know women who detest women as a species.

    1. Yes, many people leap to the 'hatred' label with hasty ease. They just do not get the distinction 'twix person and action. Nor do they allow for change of view. Life and experience, when attended to with integrity, can bring about changes in a person and in their behaviours. Drink deep of Grace and become graceful.

    2. Anyone left will see any criticism as misogyny

      Women see any criticism, no matter how mild, as a personal attack undoubtedly motivated by hate. It's the way they're wired. That's why there's no possible way to reason with a feminist. Reason is not in their repertoire. It's something men never really understand or accept about women, and it's why men have allowed themselves to be crushed under the feminist jackboot. Men still go on deluding themselves that they can defend themselves by appealing to reason.

    3. Hmmmmm. The old phrase comes to mind. "Not all woman are like that". Cassie Jaye herself is an example of a feminist who 'changed her mind'. In my experience most women are complex, just like men are, but very slightly differently. The sexes do differ. The grasp that some men (many??) have on reason is tenuous at best. Try talking reason with a lefty man or a muslim man. Even philosophers of note struggle to reason their way through some very basic matters. Keep Hope and a discerning eye open Dfor. You may see some fine women about whose differences - even in grasping and using reason - can be a delight. Feminists? Yes, keep a sword at hand, but first offer kindness. You are the one in charge of your responses.

    4. Keep Hope and a discerning eye open Dfor. You may see some fine women about whose differences - even in grasping and using reason - can be a delight.

      I have nothing whatever against women. They just aren't rational creatures. Female intelligence is so radically different from male intelligence.

      Women personalise everything. Everything. If you try to discuss anything with a woman in general terms she'll bring the discussion back to herself. Every single time. That's why we must never give women the vote or allow women to hold political office. They can only judge things according to how those things affect them personally and how those things make them feel personally.

      Women judge everything on an emotional basis. Everything. Men of course can be just as deluded but men tend to get deluded on intellectual grounds while women get deluded on emotional grounds. Men fall for marxism because of its intellectual appeal. Women fall for cultural marxism because of its emotional appeal.

      It doesn't mean women are inferior to men intellectually. They're just very very very different. In a society in which men and women occupy traditional sex roles that very different female intelligence becomes an asset. Women are superb at understanding complex emotional relationships. Female intelligence only becomes a liability when women try to become men. Men and women are supposed to be fundamentally different.

      The smart women are the ones who realise they're not men and can never be men. There are highly intelligent women but they're highly intelligent in a distinctively female way.

      Not all women are like that. But 99% of women are. As long as we don't give them the vote it won't be a problem.

    5. Hmmmm. Let us look at what you say. Men, in the main, are not rational creatures. Rationality is a higher order function rarely apparant until past teen years even in males. Even then many men simply do not attain it.

      "Women judge everything on an emotional basis." All human beings do. Emotion is at the base of even rationality. We value rationality. Value is determined by want, desire. That is emotion.

      Both men and women 'fall for marxism' on emotional grounds. They desire things that others have. Very few men have even a skerrick of 'intellectual appeal'. Even the so-called intellectual's own environment - the Universities and science labs - are full of men who show barely an intellectual neuron at work. Just look at the climate industry, the medical, the administration of universities. They are dominated by half-wits. Men in the main.

      "Women are highly intelligent in a distinctively female way". Really? Marie Curie for example? Or perhaps you will offer examples of your experience. Intellect and intelligence and rationality are quite different faculties.

      Logical reasoning is rare. Very few men in my experience could write a logic truth table. Very few women either.

      Now, I would not disagree with you 'in the main' were you to define terms and provide examples and proved you were right. But blanket dismissals are poor rationality.

      Vote? Women should not? I would not give 90% of men the vote either. I am a King. Democracy is a default system, there being few shown to be better, but it empowers half-wits of both genders. One half-wit King can be assassinated and replaced. That is hard to do with 20 million or more half-wits all seeking a say. Not that they do, of course. They simply elect a half wit as a representative who will go right ahead and ignore what the electing half-wit wants anyway.

      Let us, as individual men, look to our own rationality and logic and emotion, and our personal agency. Controlling ourselves is difficult enough without wasting time and effort giving or taking control from 7 billion others.

      The human condition is tough. We are surrounded by people as dim as we are. Be kind. At least.

    6. Be kind. At least.

      There's nothing unkind about recognising that the sexes are different. In fact what's unkind is what our society is doing in encouraging women to want to be men. They end up being inferior men. Just as men who try to be women end up being inferior women. We cannot be happy unless we accept the way we were born. I'd like women to be happy, just as I'd like men to be happy. It saddens me that women today are so often unhappy, angry and bitter.

      Marie Curie for example?

      The reason that everybody mentions Marie Curie when this subject comes up is that it is so very very rare for a woman to be a high achiever in physics. What is significant is not that Marie Curie achieved eminence in this field, but rather that she is almost alone in doing so. Which sort of proves my point.

    7. Vote? Women should not? I would not give 90% of men the vote either.

      Actually I wouldn't give anybody the vote since I think democracy is a dangerously bad idea. If 90% of men are unfit to vote then democracy is emphatically not a good idea.

      It doesn't really matter though since democracy is an idea that seems to be on the way out.

    8. I did recognise above the difference between the sexes. And I didn't accuse you of being unkind, so please don't take it personally. You are quite right in most of what you say and I mearely clarify around the edges. The men trying to be women and vice versa is as daft and destructive as you suppose. They both end up inferior to what their nature aspired And yes women are far behind in achieving scientific accalim. But do you not see the point I was making? It only takes one example to the contrary to counter a blanket claim. That is what I was doing.

  3. Do you mind if I quote a few of your articles as long as I provide credit and sources
    back to your webpage? My blog site is in the exact same niche as
    yours and my visitors would truly benefit from some of the information you provide here.
    Please let me know if this alright with you. Thank you!

    1. Confidential conversations in the bar are conducted furtively in low voices in dark corners. The ones here are in the open bar for all to hear. If quoting, make sure you quote the person. Some of the posts are me talking, and some, other people.

  4. I am having a bit of a giggle with regards to this comments thread :-)

    Women are a species? I think not... It takes a male and female to be a species!

    And where do I start on dfordooms comment... He has fallen for a male/female stereotype, which does not exist. I could introduce him to several men who always bring the discussion back to themselves and how they feel personally.

    Perhaps we should not allow self centred people (male of female) to vote?

    This type of thinking leads to authoritarianism... A place where we don't want to be!


Ne meias in stragulo aut pueros circummittam.

Our Bouncer is a gentleman of muscle and guile. His patience has limits. He will check you at the door.

The Tavern gets rowdy visitors from time to time. Some are brain dead and some soul dead. They attack customers and the bar staff and piss on the carpets. Those people will not be allowed in anymore. So... Be Nice..