Belinda Brown: The Red Pill is a film that could finish off feminism

A feminist press release for this film could trumpet Cassie Jaye as a Hollywood actress who refused to subscribe to patriarchal gender roles. A mother and daughter team who took on the male Hollywood establishment and won. A woman who refused to be objectified – and stepped onto the other side of the lens.

Instead feminists tried to stop the film being funded because they believed the film could pose a threat to feminism itself.

The film has been portrayed as a Damascene conversion. It is not. It is about the pain of the loss of faith of a card-carrying feminist, and her journey into the unchartered territories on the other side.

Cassie begins by explaining how she became a feminist. As a teenage Hollywood actress she was always put into roles where she had to play the vulnerable, objectified, air-headed female. She found the roles she was given bore an uncanny resemblance to those she was expected to play in real life.

So, she decided to buy herself a camera and get on the other side of the lens where she builds up a formidable reputation for making films on contemporary, usually gender-based, but politically divisive issues. Confronted by the horror of the Steubenville and Delhi rapes she becomes interested in rape culture, this leads her to the so called ‘rape apologists’ – A Voice for Men. It is here her story takes off.

An open-minded feminist, Cassie is intrigued by how such an allegedly nasty group of men can have such a large following. She decides to explore further, but was not prepared for what happened next. The ogres of the men’s rights world turned out to be compassionate, intelligent people, often in loving relationships. Their facts and figures stacked up with the data available, and confusingly, their arguments made a great deal of sense.

She heard the litany of male disadvantage. These help Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs) get their foot in the door. Men are more likely to die at work, less likely to go to college, more likely to be homeless, lose custody of their children, work longer hours, less likely to go to the doctor, die earlier, receive significantly longer sentences or commit suicide.

More importantly, she is introduced to a completely novel perspective – the male point of view. Men work ten hour days in hard, unpleasant and often risky employment, they carry the lion’s share for what it takes to run our society, they give up their time and give away their money not because they want power and control. But, just as women feel burdened with responsibility for children, men feel the weight of traditional obligation, they feel compelled to provide. And whether we acknowledge it or not, women expect them to. The idea that men invented the rules to benefit themselves simply doesn’t hold up.

When it is suggested to Cassie that patriarchy did not create women’s reproductive roles, but women’s reproductive roles shaped patriarchy, it makes a lot of sense.

However, the real horror we discover, is how disempowering for men women’s reproductive roles really are.

Katherine Spillar, one of the more articulate feminist voices in the film explains that once a woman is pregnant all the decisions must be hers as she is the one most impacted by pregnancy. However, when we see the 20-year-old crying because his daughter, who he has looked after from birth, is removed from him (because he is male), the man who spends many years’ worth of wages and sacrifices his health to fight for custody of his child, the man who blows his brains out because he loses the custody battle, we wonder if Spillar’s statement about who is most affected really stands up.

Women have control over pregnancy, and  can choose whether to opt for abortion, adoption, or full custody. They can commit paternity fraud and deny men DNA testing, but demand child payments all the same. They can use children in custody battles. Men can  get women pregnant. Sometimes this is consensual, accidental or they can be tricked into it. But then their rights end.

While Cassie struggles with what she is learning the viewer wonders in whose interest the system is really set up.

As her feminist faith weakens Cassie tries to restore it, seeking solace in those rituals of feminist belief. She attends groups, marches and rallies.  She listens to mantras about female subordination and the FTSE 100, the lack of women in politics and the gender pay gap. She even makes videos to remind herself of the burdens of housework, and how she has to dress.

No matter how much Cassie tries to submit herself to feminist indoctrination, it is unable to hold her and this causes her much distress. She turns to feminist gurus including Spillar, Kimmel and Messner.  However, they have never encountered challenges to their ideology and appear surprisingly ignorant. More importantly, they are ignorant of their ignorance, which leaves them singularly unable to convince.

In terms of the cultural slogan borrowed from the Matrix, Cassie has taken the red pill.

When Cassie moves from the perceived injustices of feminism to the world of men’s issues she is guided by pain. The pain of being unable to see your children, of being assumed to be the perpetrator,  or of being persistently disbelieved.

The power of feminist platitudes dissolves when touched by real suffering.

Although Cassie’s journey structures the story, the film does so much more. It is the first time that I have seen an alternative explanation for men’s dominance in the public realm articulated on screen. And although on the face of it Men’s Rights and Feminism have interests in common – a belief in gender equality, shared childcare, flexible employment – the cure cannot come from a movement which is based on the assumption that women are victims and men are bad. This could never allow for men’s suffering to be of equal value because then it would no  longer be a question of gender, as Michael Kimmel reveals in an accidental moment of truth.

The film is pregnant with the untold stories of suffering and every day, gross, inhuman injustice. But I believe the film will also be a crucial episode in an as yet untold story – the rise and fall of feminism itself.

The Red Pill can be seen at UCL on the 8th of December 

(Image: Charlotte Cooper)

Belinda Brown

  • choccyhobnobs

    “gross, inhuman injustice”. As a website that sort of straddles the Atlantic perhaps readers need look no further than the trials and Tribulations of a Major Kit Martin (http://ncfm.org/2016/10/news/criminal-sentencing/ncfm-member-kit-martin-the-u-s-versus-you-what-to-understand-do-and-avoid-if-you-are-falsely-accused-in-the-military/) and the equally infamous case of Vladek Filler battling an alleged skewed justice system led by Prosecutor Mary Kellet.

  • Colkitto03

    Why would feminists try so hard to suppress any alternative point of view? Because they fear it. The Red Pill is powerful because the exposure to the truth converted one of their own.
    In Australia feminists campaigned to get this film pulled from cinemas. That is a modern day version of book burning.

    • Groan

      I have not seen the Documentary as yet. However I can recommend the youtube recordings made in which she talks about her “journey” . Actually quite moving is her discussion of how her attitude to her partner changed as she listened to him more about how he saw issues. In effect became less “adversarial” and listened more. As she says ironic coming from an ideology that demands everyone has a “voice”. She hasn’t been “converted” but appears to have become much more open minded and up for genuine discussion and debate. The silencing tactics she experienced are all the more revealing because within feminist theory account can be given to the “benign sexism” for women and negative outcomes for males at the bottom of the ” hegemonic patriarchy”. I won’t bore people more with this stuff but to say that if feminists truly believed their own ideology they could advance “reasons” for the poor outcomes for many males of “patriarchy”.
      Thus it is doubly damning that they attempt to silence “one of their own”. “Book burning” is pretty accurate. Ms. Jaye set out to make a feminist documentary confident in her feminism. Her story, discovering how threadbare “the empress” really is I’m sure is all the more powerful because her “sistas” were and are so determined to “burn” her and her documentary.
      Its not that the feminists fear that people may think men’s rights activists are right, for we know that men’s views are routinely left out in discussions of “gender” anyway (can anyone remember any media debate on “gender” issues that has included a man at all in the “panel”?) . Its that the idea of feminism is seen to be false in its own terms. And its adherents hypocrites.

    • They have to try, or they will surely lose. One of the women I admire most is a former Oklahoma legislator (D) and a fearless anti-abortion activist, and a Democrat who used to be director of Oklahoma Planned Parenthood. Like me, she saw what abortion did to the women involved, and that is how we both got to where we are today. There are gray areas, but to many doctors have forgotten “first do no harm”.

  • James Chilton

    Justice for men! It’s not going to catch on. There are a few women’s voices in the media, like the author of this article, prepared to speak the truth – but they’re crying in the wilderness.

    • Colkitto03

      I think that just as the march of 3rd and 4th wave feminism was gradual it will take many years to move the dial back. Slower than we all would like. But it is starting to get real traction. The underperformence of young boys in school, the lack of men going to University, male suicide are all becoming part of public consciousness.
      Even the family court system is changing direction (very quietly) towards 50/50 parenting.
      Young women are rejecting modern feminist doctrines. The MSM would love us to think otherwise.

      • James Chilton

        You are much more optimistic than I am. The amount of “awareness raising” on behalf of men (which has to be done in the media, mostly) is formidable. Not only have mindsets to be overturned, but vested interests also have to be done away with.

        I don’t know many young women, personally. I hope what you say about them rejecting militant feminism is true.

      • Genie Balham

        Yes – it will all take some time. And fair enough, its taken a while to get to this point.

        An article in the Guardian today is about UK schools and the plight of boys. It is well worth a look (ATL & BTL) and is a start perhaps and surely a ‘good sign’.

        https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/18/life-tough-poor-white-boys-role-models-education

        • Colkitto03

          Just read it, thanks for highlighting it. Its a good example of how the dial is being turned back bit by bit. I doubt the Guardian would have made space for this 5 years ago.

  • Partridge

    This is the beginning of the end of the false ideology of feminism, heralding a wider recognition of our common humanity. The lies of feminists, their arrogant and distorted world-view, their evil intent, their hatred of half the population, is becoming ever more obvious. The general public is beginning to realise this, which is why support for feminism, even among women, has fallen to an all-time low. A small minority of extreme ideologues and their gullible fanatical followers have been wielding power and influence out of all proportion, causing intolerable damage to society. Feminists will fight, they will lie, they will attempt to ban and censor and silence, but ultimately feminism will fail. It is doomed because it was never about equality, and like all such ideologies not being founded in truth nor based on fact, it contains the seeds of its own destruction.

    • Groan

      I hope you are right . However I think its a long long job. It is very well embedded in our higher education and pretty solidly so in the disciplines training professions. Law. social work. some health professions and politics (often graduates go into the civil service) among the areas it is strongest and whose graduates are crucial to how people are treated in our society. I’m afraid its not about numbers its about power, who “pulls the strings”. Of course its not only the academic’s but the way they can manipulate “visiting professor” “honorary” “special lecturer” posts to provide employment to their confederates. And lets be honest if you are a career minded woman, you may think it bunk, but what’s not to like about some extra ammunition in the competition for jobs and promotion? And its pretty useful as an additional excuse as to why something failed. Many women may find feminists irritating but their fruits quite useful.

      • Partridge

        Agreed. Feminism (perhaps better referred to as Marxist-feminism) over the past forty years has insidiously embedded itself into practically all areas of society. It is indeed going to be a long struggle. Unless that struggle develops into the revolution of an egalitarian and humanitarian spring.

      • James Chilton

        Good points. You are right to emphasise the institutionalised aspects of feminism. There are advantages for many women who would say they don’t identify as feminists but don’t want to rock the boat.

    • James Chilton

      I hope all that you predict will come to pass. I regret to add that I believe you have given way to wishful thinking, though.

      • Partridge

        You’re a pessimist? Rather like all those people living for years under the yoke of Communism who never thought they’d live to see the fall of that oppressive totalitarian ideology.

  • Phil R

    The real issue that Feminists fear is abortion. Abortion is the Guarantor of the Sexual
    Revolution. It is the final solution by which women may be freed from the
    “tyranny of biology.” Contraception dramatically mitigates the risk
    for women, but contraception routinely fails. The burden of that failure falls
    heavy on women. So abortion is presented as its unfailing backstop. It guarantees
    the severance of sex from children, and so makes possible the central ideal of
    the revolution – that sex is principally about personal gratification.

    Now if the Sexual Revolution is considered a moral good, then the Guarantor of
    the Sexual Revolution must also be considered a moral good. Otherwise, men
    would be tempted to idealize the pre-revolutionary days when sex and
    procreation were explicitly connected. Did they achieve the goals of the
    revolution to immediately condemn them? No, they remember the cause for which
    they overthrew the old order. If women could have an obligation of parenthood
    imposed upon them, then women would impose concomitant obligations on men
    regarding the permanence of relationship as a pre-condition for sex. Abortion
    assures that there can be no obligation of parenthood.

    Yet abortion is not just the Guardian of the Revolution. There is a more
    insidious aspect to it – an aspect that explains why abortion has been elevated
    to the status of secular sacrament. It is the Teacher of the Revolution as
    well. It reorients a woman’s attitude towards pregnancy and motherhood. One
    thing I realized long ago is that feminists do not consider the likes of me to
    be their most bitter enemy. It is rather my wife for whom they hold the most
    enmity. For my wife sacrificed career and status and position to go home and
    raise her children. She abandoned the field. That is an unforgivable sin.

    • Mez

      “Yet abortion is not just the Guardian of the Revolution. There is a more
      insidious aspect to it – an aspect that explains why abortion has been elevated to the status of secular sacrament. It is the Teacher of the Revolution as well. It reorients a woman’s attitude towards pregnancy and motherhood”

      Rubbish. While there could be an argument for late stage abortion , that would depend on third parties having access to someone’s very private medical records, and totally unacceptable.

      he American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued a statement saying: “Abortions are necessary in a number of circumstances to save the life of a woman or to preserve her health. Unfortunately, pregnancy is not a risk-free life event.”
      Conditions that might lead to ending a pregnancy to save a woman’s life include severe infections, heart failure and severe cases of preeclampsia, a condition in which a woman develops very high blood pressure and is at risk for stroke, says Erika Levi, a obstetrician and gynecologist at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill” .http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/10/19/abortion-mother-life-walsh/1644839/

      The reason why abortion was legalised was because of amount of women dying from illegal back street abortion. The medical profession will recommend the abortion of an embryo which is not expected to survive.

      All of these situations are about a woman having ownership of her own body, and in my opinion that right is totally unequivocable, and immoral for a third party to attempt to subjugate by law.

      • Mez

        There’s also an ectopic pregnancy which has to be removed as soon as discovered, and pregnancy from rape.

        • Mez

          However, it is important to remember that hemorrhage from ectopic pregnancy is still the leading cause of pregnancy related maternal death in the first trimester and accounts for 4 to 10 percent of all pregnancy related deaths, despite improved diagnostic methods leading to earlier detection and treatment [2,3].Apr 13, 2016

      • Colkitto03

        I agree, I find this a difficult subject, I can never make my mind up about it. There are no easy answers. But medical scenarios you highlight mean we must always put the mothers health first.
        You are right also, in the end we have to be pragmatic. Before legalisation there were illegal abortions being performed in every town and village in the country typically in very poor conditions. If it is made illegal then it will start all over again.

        • Mez

          You’ll find there are people who will argue that those back street abortion deaths reduced because they were performed illegally by the medical profession, (but choose not to question why its better legalised), and try to compare a small number of adult deaths with a larger number of “baby” deaths, when without a brain capable of consciousness in my opinion there is no life at all, and the developing embryo is no different to any other clump of cells that regenerates itself over the course of time.
          It’s only a difficult issue for people who feel they have a right to impose their beliefs on others by law rather than argument.

          • Phil R

            “It’s only a difficult issue for people who feel they have a right to impose their beliefs on others by law rather than argument.”

            Eh?

          • Genie Balham

            The idea is: ‘Only you can decide if you wish to have an (early term) abortion or not. Nobody else can decide. It is your body.’ Being a ‘Phil R’ I guess you are probably a man and unlikely to have to consider the issue in such a manner. Advice & info to the person from doctors, friends, loved ones, etc are of course a-ok.

            NB I put in ‘early term’ as viability of the embryo is part of this subject. Some people are pro-choice up to the point birth. Though this seems to me be mainly a rare USA and/or ultra-Feminist position. It certainly muddies the waters in any debate.

          • Phil R

            I see you what you are saying is for me as a man it is so easy to condemn women who choose to abort a foetus.

            You are correct. It is also easy to condemn a woman for drowning her kids in the bathtub. And for the same reason. The choice is reprehensible..

          • Mez

            Sorry but your analogy is a load of rubbish. An embryo before 20 weeks is alreadyt he equivalent of clinically brain dead, and can’t develop without mother agreeing.

          • Phil R

            Only a baby too small to live. Brain dead you claim, so not worth protecting, no right to life.

            A person but not a person, no right to life, sub human perhaps? So can be legally killed without worry or anguish…..

            Reminds me of the phrase “only a Jew” .

          • And for people that think unborn babies are not incipient humans having a right to life.

          • Mez

            There’s a huge difference between a zygote an embryo and an unborn baby, they all have the potential for life, but so individually does egg and sperm, neither of those have any rights either, because they are tissue, which in the case of sperm is incapable of independent life beyond about five days. A zygote or embryo wouldn’t last that long.
            An unborn baby of 52 weeks has a 3-15% chance of assisted survival which itself comes with risk of severe disability. As I wrote before there is an argument against late stage abortion, but the percentage of those is very small and far more likely to be connected either with the development of the baby, or life threatening situation for the mother as a woman is hardly like to choose to carry a baby past six months and then “choose” abortion.

          • No, only a fertilized egg has potential for life, and at conception that egg becomes an unborn baby. I don’t have a problem with conception, although it too has health hazards for the mother, that’s her problem. But there is one sure fire method of conception which harms no one – abstinence. If you want to play the game, well you may have to pay the price. Your choice, my choice, everybody gets to choose.

        • Phil R

          Same argument is put forward to legalise drugs. If we legalise them they will be safe etc. However, it was reported in the US this week that drug abuse (even thogh most of the drugs are illegal) is the number one public health issue. Bigger than smoking, alcohol and yes even obesity.

          Same argument to legalise prostitution…etc

          • Colkitto03

            I would not advocate the legalisation of drugs or prostitution. In truth in the UK the Police interventions on both these areas are reactive and not proactive. Most Forces take a pragmatic approach (especially to prostitution) and actually turn a blind eye to low lever drug use and prostitution. Resources mean, that action is only really aimed at Drug dealers and prostitution trafficers.
            Most forces will accept prostitution and low level drug use activity as long as it does not become a public nuance.
            The illegality is essential so that society can keep both activities to a minimum, but Police response is tempered by the realisation that stopping both is unrealistic.
            Before the legalisation of abortion prosecutions were actually very rare because even the authorities at that time understood that enforcing true prohibition was nigh on impossible.

          • Policing is always reactive, or should be. The police are chartered to catch suspected criminals, nothing else. Anytime the police become proactive, to the extent that they are, we are living in a police state. Nor are they there to protect anyone, that is our job to do ourselves. Police are, after all, only delegatees of the power of the citizen, not some higher authority. I’m not entirely sure this was one of Sir Robert’s better ideas.

          • Colkitto03

            I agree,
            The best example is the American prohibition on alcohol. This was never going to be enforceable and all it achieved was to turn many against the state and its meddling.
            Actually there are some that say it also gave birth to American organised crime but I don’t know how true that is.

          • Had a lot to do with it, as a matter of fact. Also gave us the Kennedys, although that may be redundant.

          • klm

            I can affirm that we are now in the midst of a heroin epidemic. It’s not legal, but it is a big problem. Legalization will not solve that – these poor people have much bigger problems than worrying about whether they’ll get caught and go to jail.

      • Phil R

        Mez. We are not talking about the 0.01% of abortions that are performed to save a mother’s life, rather the 99.98% that are done because the life of the baby will be inconvenient to the mother.

        • Mez

          When we are talking abortions and any attempt at changing the law which controls people’s general health and well being, we are talking ALL abortions. The vast majority are chemical happen in the first few months and do nothing other than dispose of unwanted tissue that nature frequently unloads of its own accord.
          Your percentage of course is way off, and whether it’s happened because of rape or personal choice, that choice should be made by the owner of that body and not some other tin pot dictat with a “God” complex.

          • Mez

            Medicine already has a very clear definition between dead and alive based on the brain stem
            http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Brain-death/Pages/Introduction.aspx
            . When there is no functioning brain stem capable of consciousness in the current and real world ;that individual would be certified dead, but in the parallel world of life “according to 2-3000 year old goat herders”, a collection of tissues with a functioning heart (courtesy of mum) but no functioning brain at all, is still a life!, and not only that, but it takes precedence over living adults
            .https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/

          • Phil R

            The legitimisation of abortion has primarily benefited two groups of people, men and career-minded women who do not want children. It’s purpose is to secure the sexual revolution by enabling women to participate in it. Pregnancy after all makes women dependent. If a woman can be remaindered with a child, she is likely to impose the old rules of sexual propriety in order to protect herself. Abortion frees her from this “tyranny of biology” so that she can separate her sexuality from maternity. Or so she thinks. I fact it’s a fool’s errand as many women discover to their regret once their sexual capital starts hemorrhaging in their late 30s.

            Be that as it may. As you point out, it is women who have exclusive control over abortion. Women (and not men) go to the hospital and give birth. When they do so, they incur binding legal obligations. For this reason, women are given the ability to abort so that they may revoke the obligations of parenthood before they attach. That means we must unambiguously focus on the woman and her motivations and her autonomy, because ultimately that is all the law has in
            view

          • Mez

            The legalization of abortion has benefited Doctors who were illegally performing abortions before, women who`s health doesn’t extend to continuously being pregnant, and suffered a contraceptive failure, those who choose to reduce the numbers in their families to the benefit of the whole family, and to reduce what would be the immense suffering of grossly disabled infants, were they able to survive at all once born. Other than that group, there are the young couples who made a mistake, and would rather not either spend a generation paying for it, or unload that outcome on the rest of society. (You can’t have “no abortion” and think taxes for single parent welfare dependency will go down any time soon- anytime at all for that matter).

            The sexual revolution happened a century ago, drugs have been and are being developed which increasingly allow women control over their own fertility, without surgical abortion. Over 51% of abortions are chemical which by nature are used during the first few months, and that percentage is rising, taking surgery out of the equation as much as possible is a good thing.

            You wrote “That means we must unambiguously focus on the woman and her motivations and her autonomy, because ultimately that is all the law has in view”

            The law is only there to avoid people causing real harm to each other, (and I mean people not potential people), an attempt to reverse the abortion law would cause harm to many families in different ways as I described above.
            In a free society, the law has no business poking it’s nose into any couples bedroom, and what any woman decides to do with her life is her business. The average of two children to every couple should tell you what most couples actually want, and that’s been the case for decades, long before modern feminism

          • Phil R

            This is a tacit admission of what everyone knows
            to be true – an unborn child is in fact a child. The legitimisation of abortion has never turned on the ontological status of the unborn child. It has always depended upon a positive assertion of the autonomy of the adult. Its purpose is to allow adults to choose the obligations of parenthood, or not as they seefit. It is the ultimate guarantor of the separation of children from sex, and thus the ultimate guarantor of the sexual revolution. So don’t be deceived. People know they are killing a child in abortion – just as surely as the Canaanites who practiced infant sacrifice knew they were killing children. They just think their own needs are paramount.

          • Mez

            An unborn child isn’t what’s being aborted , what is being aborted is either a zygote or an embryo. All organs in the body replace themselves over a period of time, stem cells can differentiate into all manner of different cell types. When a sperm cell pierces the egg there’s no invisible ray shooting from heaven. It’s just a change of protein on the surfaces of the cells and with a combination of genetics, cell division and differentiation takes place the same as the repair of any other tissue. There’s no “new life” because it’s incapable of life, and will stay incapable of life until at least the 52nd week, or becomes capable of consciousness. If there is a threshold it’s there in my opinion, but no earlier.

          • Phil R

            This does nicely illustrate the problem that
            materialists encounter when dealing with parenthood and the responsibilities that attend. They have no conception of children as a blessing to be gratefully received. They see children rather as ‘things’ that have been created by human will. That which man creates he is free to destroy. This is why he so easily despises his children for the sake of money and leisure and other self-centered, self-interested, selfish pursuits.

            In the West we had better figure out some way to get our people to value their children. There are real tangible consequences to modern enlightened attitudes about adult autonomy. It’s basic maths. Every woman has on average 2.05 children or our civilisation dies. What is the birthrate in Europe again? How long has it been below replacement? We could do with some recognition of children as blessings received from the hand of God.

          • Mez

            The UK birth rate is normal, and the only reason for the so called ageing population was the larger than average baby boomer generation, post war across Europe. If the state had planned for pensions and retirement adequately 30 years ago, instead of war, the boomers wouldn’t be a problem, neither would 2:2. Birth rates drop during recession and there’s been one bust at least every decade since the 1960s.

          • Phil R

            So all those EU figures predicting 120 million less inhabitants in Europe by 2080 despite people living longer were wrong…….

          • Mez

            There’s no avoiding that children are created by men and women, confusing children with materialism is a stretch. Children should be wanted, not everybody wants a huge family, most don’t, don’t have a large enough income period and would rather look after a few very well instead. As I wrote earlier , continuous pregnancy can cause enormous damage to a woman’s body, whether or not to go ahead with that should be an individuals choice and not one fostered on people by a third party.

          • Phil R

            52nd week.

            I did not realise that you were such a radical feminist to advocate murder of children up to 13 weeks after birth.

          • Mez

            Catholic grass roots organisation here wants to prevent abortion “under any circumstances”
            The only way to describe it, they must just really “hate people” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Life_League

          • No they love all God’s creatures, even unborn babies.

          • Mez

            Apparently they don’t like mothers, even to the extent of saving the life of a conscious living woman

          • Very few, if any, have a problem with aborting a baby to save the mother’s life. But it’s so rare that three humped camels are more prevalent.

          • Mez

            I provided a link above to a pro life US campaign group who refuse abortion on Catholic grounds under any circumstances. That was the first hit on Google so bound to be many more

          • There’s a considerable difference between a planned abortion and a non planned one to save another life, nobody is ever pleased to have to make that choice, but very occasionally it has to be made, my Catholic friends tell me that that is no sin, while letting the mother die is one. They also tell me that they know of no documented case since 1973.

          • Mez

            I don’t think there is any difference because it’s still a component of one group of people trying to dictate to another what they can or can’t do with their own bodies, and through the law, and from the glib position of not having a clue what’s involved in individual cases. Even if it isn’t a life and death issue, continually having children can wreak havoc on a woman’s body. Age can have its own impact, the risk of cancer and question about treatment if cancer develops rises. Whether or not to continue with another pregnancy should be her choice with her families support, and no third party.

          • No, it is not, what part of murder = infanticide = abortion do you not understand? It has been illegal since at least 500 AD or so. One can only make it work by intentionally not understanding when life begins.

          • Mez

            Abortion by using herbs has been practiced for thousands of years, the Victorians laced themselves into ultratight corsets, and took hot baths, so I don’t know where you got the idea it was illegal, and there’s a huge difference between disposing of unwanted tissue and killing a conscious born child, so huge it hardly needs explaining.

          • And the Spartans and Romans left baby girls under the bridge to die of exposure. What’s your point? Just because somebody does something doesn’t make it legal.

          • Mez

            http://civilliberty.about.com/od/abortion/f/When-Did-Abortion-Begin.htm
            Excerpt history of US abortion here, it’s an excerpt from a book, it wasn’t illegal before the Victorian era http://www.feminist.com/resources/ourbodies/abortion.html

          • Before Victoria was queen, many states had established churches, and all were rigorously Christian, it didn’t have to be, sinful was bad enough.

          • Mez

            It isn’t possible to kill something which isn’t alive in the first place, the only life is that of the mother’s who provides the blood which permits cell division. Without a brain no animal can be considered clinically alive, it’s no different to the adult attached to a machine with family insisting he’s alive because he looks good and his heart beats, but Doctors switch it off because of brain stem death. No brain, no life, only potential offered by the mother, whose right it is to withdraw, while hers is the only life involved.

          • Cenobite

            Is a virus alive? Is an amoeba alive? How about a sea slug? At 12 weeks the fetus has a brain comparable to a sea slug. Now I don’t really care if you want an abortion as a woman for any reason so long as you do it early go ahead. I believe that any woman has the right to choose, but they cannot dally on it. At some point the fetus will feel pain, not just register damage as a cell does but will process pain at an animal level. The question is when, and once that determination is made then the only time it should be ignored is when the mothers life is at risk.

            To be fair about it men should have the ability to financially abort children they didn’t consent to. That is to say the man should have the right to say, “Not my child,” and then never have to pay for anything related to the child or mother. I think that if he does the financial abortion then he must never seek to learn about the child, or contact the child with any design at becoming a parent, or even friend. If he does then the child can sue for back support.

            Then again the entire point will become moot once a safe male birth control becomes available, or men turn sex negative like the Herbivore Men of Japan. Then it’s welcome to extinction time.

    • Belinda Brown

      And once sex became entirely separated from reproduction and became about personal gratification – women became much more vulnerable to objectification and pornography broke loose.

      • Mez

        Sex was only ever about reproduction?, relationships based soley on reproduction are doomed to fail. “Making love” should be the label, and nothing less. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/lessons-loving/201503/why-the-most-successful-couples-stay-together

        • Belinda Brown

          never said that.

          • Mez

            It’s about pair bonding, which helps us maintain relationships over a comparatively long length of time as we raise children, compared to animals http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2008/02/is-sex-for-procreation/

          • Phil R

            Men are attracted to women for sex so women assume that men stay with women for sex and that sex is the glue. Men do not need marriage or a stable relationship to get sex. Men want respect. For every man who complains about poor sex with his wife 20 will complain about a lack of respect. Lack of respect will be the reason he starts to look elsewhere.

          • Mez

            Pair bonding isn’t the same thing as having sex, that’s why its called bonding

          • Phil R

            I think you need to look again at your comment above.

          • Mez

            I think you don’t know what In writing about.

          • Mez

            I tried to post a link to an article but it doesn’t work and a post would be huge. Basically making love is part of maintaining an extremely long term pair bonding for raising children. The idea it’s only for procreation doesn’t stand up to the evidence. Really I’m not surprised so many of the public have ended up voting ” left”.

      • Phil R

        The problem as I see it is that they think that the choice to live a sexual life can be severed from the obligation to receive and raise children. Once children are out of the equation then women are not valued for their role as a mother and their role (potential or otherwise) as a sexual partner becomes predominant. Men do not need to concern themselves as to any obligations to children born of such unions and increasingly object to paying for children or supporting women who chose to continue with pregnancy as a result of unions. Many men find it far cheaper to create complex and expensive aliases. Far cheaper than supporting a child that they do not want or are excluded from seeing. For men a sensible option.

        So Feminists can rejoice that the previous imposed obligations are being removed. And they are being removed by the effective expedient of killing the child.

        Millions of them.

      • Phil R

        “women became much more vulnerable to objectification and pornography broke loose”

        It must be said that women also have a long history of using pornography. No no the photos and videos perhaps that men like but the romantic novel. How many women/wives fantasise about having sex with someone other than their husbands whilst reading or now viewing a romantic play. Pornography for women is real but of a different nature from to what men find appealing and so a double standard can apply.

        However, you are right that the root of both types of pornography is the same and that is that sex is now almost exclusively about personal gratification.

      • Seele

        Belinda, I must admit I am not entirely with you on this.

        Look at stone age artifacts such as the Venus of Willendorf; through modern eyes this statuette of a sexually mature woman could be seen as a fertility talisman or object of veneration – which by the way is also an indication of deep-seated gynocentrism – but we cannot completely rule it -along with countless similar objects from all over the world – out as an object for titillation.

        So it is my belief that pornography has been with us as long as there’s been human culture, and it’s also my belief that it is the advent of increasingly more accessible mass media that brought about pornography “breaking loose”, rather than the women’s vulnerability to objectification.

        • Belinda Brown

          Seele I can completely see merit in your arguments and don’t deny it but I can’t help feeling, perhaps naively, that when men knew that women were risking their lives every time they had a child, when they knew that they put others first, (just as men so often still do), when women were actually vulnerable (and they were) I can’t help feeling this would have acted as some kind of brake on the total objectification of women. Although pornography has always existed, and although current forms of media will have helped to unleash things, feminism has denounced all forms of female self sacrifice and vulnerability which will have eroded previous respect for women. Feminism has also made self gratification the dominant ethos and as women are very influential this will have had an effect.

          • Seele

            Belinda, that’s an interesting way to look at it.

            Being programmed to be the protector and provider, men would not, by nature, lessen the wish to do so: when women are vulnerable, be it pregnant, unwell, etc, the protective instinct goes supercharged: women (and children) first when escaping from a burning building or sinking ship are examples we are familiar with.

            I think the key word causing confusion is “objectification”, a word I feel is a bit too amorphous for its own good. Let’s interpret the “objectification of women” in this particular way: it would be disregarding their personalities, but purely seeing women’s physicality. But this also carries an undercurrent of venerating their roles as gatekeepers of the continuation of the human race; one might say it’s seeing them as “sexual objects” as in for one thing only, and that could well be a myopic view; I certainly do not think a man who buys “girly mags” would push women aside to get into the lifeboat, for instance.

            I cannot totally agree with your view that “feminism has denounced all forms of female sacrifice and vulnerability”. Even pregnancy – a natural function – is glorified and yet appalled; it is this schizophrenic nature that makes feminism impossible to reason with.

            Are women strong, or weak? I do not think any feminist can answer that with any degree of integrity.

          • Belinda Brown

            feminists exploit female vulnerability and self-sacrifice in order to get what they want – it gave us credit in the moral economy – so yes you’re right feminists don’t let go of that role. Good point about objectification – an easy word to use without thinking it through. I need to think this through a lot more – it is more an idea that I have rather than anything which I have researched or developed.

          • Seele

            Belinda,

            Gynocentrism gives women strength for their vulnerability: female fertility is celebrated and deified, women not being able to pass the basic requirement tests can get the jobs regardless. Women are strong they say, but men have to sign up to help them like “He for She”, protect women in the street whenever they claim to be harmed in any way because #YouOKSis. And of course, damselling at the UN claiming that they’re harmed when they get called out on Twitter or something. In the current climate, you get strength and bargaining power by being weak – or claiming to be so, and the 4th wave feminist certainly want to fan this flame further.

    • log

      I gave up the career to raise my children too, best thing I ever did. I would not like the stress that accompanies my husbands senior executive position even though educationally I am qualified for it. Nor would I want to be parted from my children. I have a low status socially as a result, I let the feminist side down but, I’m happy with our choices!

      • Craig Martin

        “I’m happy with our choices!” That’s what matters.
        “I let the feminist side down” Again, good stuff.
        “I have a low status socially as a result” That’s what Feminists want you to believe in order to get you out of motherhood, away from the man and into work.

        You’ve made the right choices for you.
        And good stuff it is too.

        • log

          Actually men have been a bit funny about me being a homemaker too, especially those who knew me from my previous working life. One was amazed that I was ‘just with the kids and remarked that it was ” such a waste of a first class brain.”we housewives can’t win! Men assume I must be dumb or uninteresting to have chosen this, as though it were somehow beneath me? Motherhood is undervalued by feminists and men. Being a good mother takes plenty of skill, raising a human covers all the disciplines- you have to be a psychologist , nutritionist, economist, diplomat, sociologist….. And have fun doing it and make it look easy. You have to lead by example, nurture children’s talents and abilities and try to assist where ability is lacking . Yet motherhood is seen as something you could just fit in for an hour after work at the end of thecday?? We forget we are raising the next generation shaping and guiding them…..oops I forgot that’s the governments job!

          • Craig Martin

            Well those men must be under the influence of Feminism as well.
            Mothers are awesome.
            Fathers are awesome.
            Leave them both to do the job, and do the job they will.

            Kudos Log.

      • Phil R

        My wife tells me that the Feminists constantly try to
        undermine her and take away her self respect. She is happy with her choice to be a full time mum to our seven children, but she feels under siege by society.One practical way of removing some of the pressure is not to have a TV and we
        always make a point of spending £150 on something nice like a meal for the two of us or a show, or double it and have a night away.

        • Mez

          Maybe one of the reasons for the “feminazi” developing in the first place , was the sisterhood trying to make career progression unacceptable for those women who want a career because they can’t have or didn’t want children. These things swing both ways.

          • Phil R

            You know, talking to you Mez makes me really pleased that I am not a woman.

            As a woman you must be constantly walking around wondering when another woman will stab you in the back, or wonder if she already has.

          • Mez

            I’m not somebody who needs someone else’s good opinion to flourish

          • Phil R

            You are not and you neatly make all of my points in your last response, regarding the current elevation of self and desire in the West, stomping every other consideration into the dirt.

    • Jolly Roger

      Peter Hitchens has used the term ‘hecatombs of abortions’. Considering the original purpose of a hecatomb you can see what he is getting at.

      In one of his books published some time ago Desmond Morris describes how after the birth of a child the sex instinct naturally diminishes as the parents have to concentrate all efforts to care for their offspring.

      The observations that Hitchens and Morris make are connected.

      • Phil R

        The left like murder. (I include most of the CP in the term left) Adults, children, don’t matter.

        Always have done always will.

      • Belinda Brown

        Just checked the meaning of ‘hecatomb’ . For others who also didn’t know it means “extensive loss of life for a particular cause”. It does seem appropriate.

  • EUman remains

    Sometimes I’m asked if I’m feminist, and I always say ‘no’. I believe in true equality, and look up to women such as Belinda. This website brings shared humanity to the fore, instead of petty and divisive gender conflict pushed by Woman’s Hour and the Guardian.

    • Groan

      Well said. I think is conceivable that many people may choose different roles and such things as birth controls and our long lives may influence changes in typical gender roles , as may the cost of housing or economic convulsions in all or some industries. There has always been change. The point is to trust people and not seek to force the pace or enforce mass change in pursuit of a theory. Usually such enforcement soon develops into coercion then oppression to the point where you have to build walls to keep people in.
      I was always confused by the Marxists, for if the communist society was indeed an “historical inevitability” why not just wait for the eventual triumph of “the proletariat”?
      Being pragmatic or changing your mind appears to be a bad thing these days yet surely history shows many an idea taken over by events or policy with unforeseen consequences or perverse incentives. The latter two frequently result from Gov. interventions into the complexities of life so it seems wiser to make these as rare as possible!
      Surely if the feminists idea of society is so good then people will just live it. You never know, if feminists actually talked to men rather than; as a male partner of a prominent feminist put it “its like being constantly being shouted at for things you haven’t done” then maybe it would all be tickety boo.
      Conserving that which is good while evolving in a changing world would appear both eminently sensible but infuriating to those determined to force uniformity.

      • Mez

        I’d give you a dozen thumbs up I’d I could

  • Bik Byro

    “The idea that men invented the rules to benefit themselves simply doesn’t hold up” – a fact that can be ascertained by asking any man who has had to fight through the court system to see his children versus his bitter ex-wife.

    • Brian Murphy

      Or any child who was only ‘allowed’ to see their father every other weekend (as was the case in my family).

  • This is more than a review, it adds to the conversation in its own right! Brilliant

  • Timmy

    Nothing will change and men will still suffer.

  • DollarPound

    Armies can be resisted
    But not an idea whose time has come

  • Standing up and clapping in my living room. Best review I have read on this movie. You’ve just created another important part of the record in the narrative change. Well done, madam.

    • Belinda Brown

      Hey thanks Paul!

  • log

    Thank you! I hope this film is widely seen and gets an Oscar ! Let’s restore a natural loving balance between the sexes.

    • Belinda Brown

      Loads of up votes for that comment. That is what I dream of.

    • Shrek6

      Yes I agree, but let’s do it after we have removed all forms of gynocentrism. It is time to remove women as the centre focus of all industry and desire of men.

      We have no need to protect the breeders anymore, because there are a lot of us on this planet. So it is now time for women to stand alongside men working hard in all areas, even dirty dangerous jobs, plus protecting others, so that a true equality can be established. Women must be forced to take responsibility for their behaviour and punish them as much as we punish men.

      Women no longer need nor deserve to be on a pedestal. Now is the time to kick that pedestal out from underneath them and make them stand on their own two feet!

      There will never be any loving balance between men and women, until there is balance in all other areas between the sexes. And to bring that about, we must first stop the White Knights from continually coddling women, and then force women to come into the real world. Women will suffer terrible privations during this transition period, but will be better for it when they come out the other side!

    • Seele

      log, I also hope it gets an Oscar as well, but I remain doubtful as it rocks the boat a bit too much, including the committee members’s.

  • Mike Buchanan

    Beinda, thanks for an outstanding review, which makes me look forward even more to seeing it for the first time, tomorrow, at the Soho Hotel. I would quibble, however, with:

    ” And although on the face of it Men’s Rights and Feminism have interests in common – a belief in gender equality…”.

    From the outset, the only feminists of any consequence have been gender / radical / militant feminists, while equity / opportunity feminists have been an irrelevance, at best (whilst unfortunately appearing to lend legitimacy to gender feminists). Ernest Belfort Bax, a Marxist philosopher, was writing about feminists being women (and sometimes men) seeking ever more privileging of women as far back as the 1880s, and in 1913 (103 years ago) his book ‘The Fraud of Feminism’ was published. It’s downloadable for free here:

    https://j4mb.wordpress.com/the-fraud-of-feminism-1913-2/

    • Craig Martin

      His writings are well worth reading. That man resides within my Kindle.

    • Partridge

      I can’t see any way to download it via this link.

      • For your own use, you could copy and paste into any word processing software, even something as basic a notepad.

      • Mike Buchanan

        Thanks Partridge – it’s the second hyperlink in my piece.

  • Tom B

    Kudos to Belinda , outstanding , I have to say though I’ve started to see things from a slightly different perspective and although things appear to be moving in the right direction with huge efforts form J4BM and AVFM and all the other MRA groups I can’t believe the total apathy I witness week in week out from other men who are un willing to get involved and do a dam thing about changing the system . I’ve lost a lot of sympathy for them lately so now I just say ‘ well you’ve know for over 40 yrs how the system screws men other and you did nothing .

    • Mike Buchanan

      ‘The average man’s a coward.’

      Mark Twain, Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1884)

      • Grave,Regis

        The average man worships women. Worship of women is the root of all evil.

        • log

          Only when the women are subverted by communist/feminist ideology and do not play their role which is to support love and care for the man who adores them….to provide him with children and a well cared for and loving home.

          • Grave,Regis

            No, always. Women become something else when they are made the objects of worship and given formal influencs. It isn’t a particular kind of woman who will work against the interests of her society when this dynamic comes into play; it is the vast majority of them.

        • Seele

          Grave,Regis, be it feminism or traditionalism, or anything in between and beyond, it’s gynocentrism that expects, or even demand women to be worshipped, valued, and most often, over-valued.

  • doomdidoom

    Can’t wait to have a movie night with friends and see what all the fuss is about. Sounds like it could be interesting. And if people are trying to censor it, I want to see it even more.

  • Grave,Regis

    Feminists’ ignorance of the Streisand effect could expedite the film’s devastation of their movement.

  • log

    I really believe feminism has reached its peak and is now a house of cards that will fall more quickly than you imagine….simply because the benefits it purports to bring to women and society are frankly not in evidence. Women are more unhappy than ever with their ‘equality’ so clearly it has not been the route to happiness we were sold. Western civilisation is having an existential crisis with collapsing demographics not to mention the numerous crises facing Europe. The feminist solution is to carry on down the same path which we can see is going to solve nothing other than accelerate our decline. Hence Trump got the female vote over Hillary. Deep down most women know / sense that in a crisis you need those same strong men derided by feminists. When we fear we may be fighting for survival who do we want – a gender warrior or a strong man? Your time is coming back guys.

    • Colkitto03

      Spot on,
      People across the west have grown tired of the relentlessly negative messages. Not just with feminists but with politicians and the MSM who support them. Trump gave an optimistic message of hope and action, Hillary promised nothing new. Here in the UK the Remain campaign put forward no positive reasons for the EU, only messages of fear.

  • log

    For the first time in many years I feel a spark of optimism for my young children’s future. Mothers of sons and daughters should view a future rebalancing of the sexes away from today’s nasty feminism as a positive thing. I want my children to have a future where they have successful secure relationships and form loving families themselves. As a late convert to the joys of motherhood having swallowed the feminist pill as a younger woman, I know just how much I would have missed out on had I not been ‘turned’ by a very determined and loving man. Had I started younger I would have had even more children sat round the table…..I feel so sorry for childless women! They have no idea just what they have denied themselves….

    • Mez

      Childless women may be childless because they simply can’t have children, and they are entitled to the life they want just as much as anyone else, if anything this shows the damage caused by refusing to use one’s own mind while being led by somebody else.

      • Dan Slezak

        Tell that to all the men who are victims of paternity fraud (its 30%). And all the men sitting in jail for back child support a whole lot longer than 9 months for a child they didn’t want.

  • One-Eye

    The Left’s war against men is leaving wreckage that will reveberate for many, many years. Little boys are already being told by a system that is stacked against them that everything they feel is bad and everything they do is wrong.

    This will create a generation of very confused, angry young men who will find every natural biological impulse they deal with as they grow be demonised and thrown at them as misogyny they they won’t feel, but will be told is simply inherent in their nature. And if they’re white you can throw the yolk of white guilt around their necks as well.

    Radical feminists want to destroy the natural relationships between men and women. With this early indoctrination of young boys, hysterical myths about college ‘rape culture’, microaggressions and an endless list of cultural boogeymen to rail against it seems they have gone a long way towards succeeding.

    • Wien1938

      If you haven’t read it, read The Sexodus by Milo Yiannopoulos at Breitbart.

      • One-Eye

        Huge fan of Milo. Like a lot of people it was because of him that I first heard about Cassie’s problems and her Kickstarter.

        Yes, I contributed.

    • Theseus

      Everything you say is spot on except…it is way to oversimplified to say that all this is coming from the left. Feminism is a symptom of gyno centrism, and would never have been able to take hold and flourish if society wasn’t already a hot bed of misandry and male disposability.

  • Karen Mac Fly

    I came out of the film’s German premiere thinking it’s completely exceeded my expectations. The quality of the film making was just astounding. Same goes for this article. 🙂

    • Wien1938

      Back when Milo & Co were fund-raising to help Cassie make TRP, she was interviewed by people like Sargon on Youtube and always came across as a lovely, reasonable woman. 🙂

      • Rob

        you should watch the two part Cassie Jaye interview on the rubin report on youtube.
        …… thought provoking.

  • Having seen the film I can, without hesitation, say that this is an excellent review. Well done! I particularly liked the “ignorance of their ignorance” phrase which captured the essence of what is happening. These folks really don’t know and the film exposed this. And this “The power of feminist platitudes dissolves when touched by real suffering.” Yes, exactly, and the film exposes the male suffering without apology. This is a remarkable feat considering the stranglehold that gynocentrism has on male pain. Bravo for both the movie and for this reviewer!

    • Robert Franklin

      Tom – Yes, “these folks really don’t know,” but what’s also true is that the really don’t want to know. They’ve inhabited their screwed up ideology for too long to have an open mind about it. And they don’t. My experience in trying to talk to feminists (which I rarely do anymore) is that they invariably take refuge in the shoddiest intellectual dodges to avoid questioning their beliefs and entertaining contrary ones. A bit like sticking their fingers in their ears and going “la, la, la, la.”

      • Agree 100% Robert. Have seen this for years and it is both jaw dropping and frustrating. The refuge taken is usually YOU ARE A MISOGYNIST! YOU ARE PRIViLEGED! lol God bless the Red Pill.

    • Belinda Brown

      Thanks Tom. And I love your book How Men Heal. It was a while ago that I read it but as I remember by finding out about men and how they heal it opened up new ways for women to heal as well (sorry to bring things back to women but that is politically useful too).

      • Thanks Belinda, glad you found the book useful. The research I did clearly showed that indigenous people follow the pattern of men moving towards action and women towards interaction. However, it was also not unusual for indigenous women to use the active modes like the men but the men tended to use the active modes exclusively. So I think you are right, by learning more about the active modes you will also see ways of healing in women that many will overlook, just as the men’s ways are overlooked.

  • Theseus

    Wonderful article!!

    Thank you!

  • Dan Slezak

    Thank you so much for this wonderful article, Belinda Brown. Feminism is a hate movement and though i have spent many years in the manosphere i can honestly say that the MHRM does not hate women. Unlike feminists who hate white straight/cis males. As an MRA, i love women and always will.

    Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

    • One-Eye

      This ‘Third Wave Feminism’ is driven primarily by two things; hatred of white males for perceived injustices, and valuing victimhood over accomplishment.

  • Tom B

    Well I just saw the film in Soho , nice to see everyone , had a great chat with Erin & Mark afterwards , was I the only one having to force myself from shouting out at the screen during parts of the film ? you could tell quite early on in the film from Cassies expressions that she wasn’t being convinced by what the feminists were tell her . I thought the film was well balanced and gave both sides a shout , what else can you ask for ? Kudos to Cassie Jaye x

  • bloke

    Thanks for having the courage to review the virtues of this film in an insightful,balanced way .
    Trying to ban it has revealed feminism’s attempts at totalitarian control,power,and hatred of men and boys. It’s great for folks to see collective feminism’s psychopathic mask slip to reveal their true raison d’être.

  • Rob

    Belinda
    I am getting anti virus alert from your website

    JS/TrojanDownloader.FakejQuery.B trojan

    tried to warn you a week ago but its still there.
    I’m using eset – which is not known for false alerts
    regards

    • Tom B

      same here everytime

    • As am I

    • Shrek6

      Make that 4 of us. I had to turn off my web guard so I could read the article.

    • Me too. And my partner.

    • Belinda Brown

      Yes two other people I know and myself are having this problem.

  • Shrek6

    Before I comment, I must get one thing straight here for the public record.

    “The ogres of the men’s rights world…….” I’ll have you know woman, none of these people are related to me and my family. MOST especially are any of them as good looking as me. So please refrain from besmirching my family’s good name in future. Thank you!

    On a more serious note, I would just like to say that where you said women feel the burden of responsibility of raising children, it is men who feel the terribly difficult burden of responsibility of caring for both women and children, plus propping up the whole of society on their backs.

    This is the main reason why we die younger than you women do. We work a whole lot harder, suffer a whole lot more stress, pain and injury, and we get close to zero back for all that suffering, from both society and from women. Women today, and I mean the majority, are so ungrateful and selfish. Virtually none bar just a few, will ever acknowledge that without men working, they would have nothing and probably die.

    We give women everything from tampons, to houses, cars, food, water, planes, shopping malls, the medical science and infrastructure to care for their health and well being, plus aid them in child birth. And it has been men who graciously gave women, AND unfortunately feminists too, the opportunities to better themselves in all areas of society. And believe it or not, men have never had these opportunities throughout all history. Only the super rich men and WOMEN, ever had opportunities and they ruled the rest of us like slaves.

    Problem is, women have been freed from their bonds, but men are still bound like slaves. When will we see our bonds removed?

    And because we invest so much into our women and children, when our women turn into our enemies then kidnap our children and steal our homes and money, we are left in an insanely confused position of not knowing what to do.

    We automatically gear ourselves up to sacrifice ourselves to save the lives of our children and wives if an enemy should ever attack. Yet our minds and hearts are annihilated when ‘that enemy’ who is so viciously attacking the family and children, turns out to be the wife and the mother of our children. The use of the word ‘quandary’ is by far inadequate in this instance.
    This is what leads tens of thousands of men around the Western World to suicide.

    Now to my comment on the article.

    I have not seen the movie yet. Probably won’t for some time, but I have read a good many reviews. And yours seems to be up there with the best of them, in that you have shown you have the courage to put in a publication words that until this movie came along, were never allowed to be uttered even with hushed tones. The feminist establishment would annihilate the reputation and career of any person, male or female, who dared to utter a single word that was not approved or obviously outside of the feminist narrative.

    So that alone has shown your title to be not only a prophetic one, some of it has already come to pass.

    Well done Belinda. Would like to see you putting articles up on AVfM if you haven’t already!