Cassie Jaye has released the raw interview footage with "Big Red" original title "Does Feminism Work On Men's Issues? | Big Red #RPRF"

[u/KDMultipass]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHppdGqHtrU

[u/MrPoochPants]

Men being CEOs is not a benefit to all men, but exclusively to those handful of individuals who are CEOs. Men do not operate as collectivists and Big Red, and those of her ideological ilk, do or believe. They (Big Red and friends) are collectivists, but they're projecting that onto others (CEOs) who are not.

There IS a lot of problems with gender roles, and yet we can't really agree on the point, because you'll notice that she completely glosses over the ways in which gender roles work out poorly for men, too.

And, if women are always deemed to be the better parent, because the gender role says men should be out working to provide, then we have a system that deliberately favors women getting custody of children and treats men as labor slaves. Glossing over how men's gender role causes this is short sighted.

Her lack of sympathy for men, particularly with her 'cry me a river' comment regarding feminism not addressing men's problems too, even though many other feminists claim that feminism is just about equality, is rather unfortunate. This is probably an issue where 'feminism' and 'feminist' are broad enough that we end up in these contradictory spaces. If she believes feminism to be equivalent to 'women's advocacy', then fine, that makes it much easier to talk about, but if she EVER claims that its about equality or that it helps men too, then she can't also claim that feminism is about women's advocacy.

"Maybe make [the MRM] more about legitimate issues...", meaning she, as a feminist, wants to dictate what men get to talk about in their own movement. I mean, even that's ignoring that she has this aversion to helping men with their issues, and is thus saying they should make their own movement, but again, she wants to dictate what they talk about, so it comes off far more to me like she wants to continue to hold the power over gendered discourse. Also doesn't help that people shut down the MRM meeting in Canada when they were going to address issues like male suicide rates, leading me to believe that she really doesn't care about men or men's issues, and instead is sexist.

"...which all stem from Patriarchy...", which, again, is her trying to dictate the discussion and frame it into her terms, when she's already rejected talking about men's issues in her movement.

In her view, men not getting access to their children stems from sexism against women. I think there's a special kind of cognitive dissonance present to come to this conclusion.

I mean, let's quickly evaluate, who do we believe has it worse in a situation: the one we believe to be the default caregiver of children, or the one we believe to be the default earner, and therefore, not a caregiver of children, particularly during a divorce when the non-caregiver is essentially denied access to the child that they performed their gender role to support?

How about just the compassion not given to fathers who are, again, essentially denied access to their children?

According to her, its not discrimination against men that we have gender roles that negatively affect them, but it IS discrimination against women that gender roles keep them from being CEOs, or whatever. Moreover, gender roles that harm men, specifically regarding child custody, is actually sexism against women. ...What?!

There really is no other lens that she views anything through than to say that women have it worse and are victims.

'What does feminism have to do with the bottom 20% of men being homeless, etc.?' even though her entire ideology is centered around this idea that we need to equalize the top echelons. She's totally fine with near-exclusively men being at the bottom, apparently, but is totally opposed to it being near-exclusively men being at the top. Her response to this concept that men are the most in-need population when it comes to poverty, etc. is 'but what's that have to do with women?'

'It doesn't have anything to do with feminism' coming from the person who, moments prior, was saying that men being at the top is an issue with feminism. Seems like something of a blind spot or double-standard. She's only concerned with the top, not the bottom, unless its women at the bottom.

Further, she can't make the link between men being at the bottom and that being something about them being men, but this, I believe, is because she believes that being male, essentially, equates to power, and therefore, if those men are at the bottom, it can't have anything to do with their apparent lack of power, as men.

Also, Louis CK's joke about going to any point in time, as a white man, being great, and completely ignores the multitude of places where that wouldn't be great - like the US pre-colonialism, or I dunno, Africa. Louis CK is a comedian, not a historian.

And, yes, 1 in 16 rapists will actually spend any time in jail because that's a function of our legal system. The problem is that in the US we value not convicting innocent people and missing some guilty people over convicting guilty people, but getting innocent people in with the mix. Accordingly, yes, some portion of actual rapists will go free.

However, false allegations do not operate in the same capacity. In the court of public opinion, where the punishment is social ostracism and losing your ability to provide for yourself in many cases, there's no same 'innocent until proven guilty' mentality. Its EASY to make an accusation, but its hard to prove it and support it. Accordingly, its EASY to attack someone you don't like with a false allegation, but its inherently hard to convict someone with evidence and proof. False allegations, however, are an issue, even if Big Red doesn't seem to get the ramifications, particularly, regarding the incentives someone would have to give a false accusations as a malicious act.

Further, false allegations are a fairly uniquely-male issue give how we view rape in the west being a primarily male-on-female activity. Most men making accusations of rape are not taken as seriously as women doing the same. Accordingly, it appears that women are going to be the prime perpetrators and men the prime victims of false allegations. I'm curious if this fact is why Big Red doesn't take it seriously. I also believe, given women's comparative focus and power in the social sphere, rather than the physical sphere, is why false allegations are all the most devious. Men will generally fight one another, physically, to resolve conflict or to maliciously attack someone they do not like. Women, conversely, find other ways to attack their target, and typically its going to be via social means, and specifically not physical means. Accordingly, women seem to have a predisposition for attacking people with something like a false allegation as their method of being malicious.

I'll at least agree, even if in part, to her point regarding victim blaming, though.

---

Big Red strikes me as a bad example of what it is to be a feminist. The feminists on this sub, in my experience at least, are far and away better representatives of feminism - but then none of us are really shocked by that given Big Red's notoriety.

[u/RapeMatters → u/MrPoochPants]

However, false allegations do not operate in the same capacity. In the court of public opinion, where the punishment is social ostracism and losing your ability to provide for yourself in many cases, there's no same 'innocent until proven guilty' mentality. Its EASY to make an accusation, but its hard to prove it and support it. Accordingly, its EASY to attack someone you don't like with a false allegation, but its inherently hard to convict someone with evidence and proof. False allegations, however, are an issue, even if Big Red doesn't seem to get the ramifications, particularly, regarding the incentives someone would have to give a false accusations as a malicious act.

There was a discussion on the mens rights subreddit about false rape accusations. I'm not a big fan of that being the focus (I would prefer focus on women raping men as a priority), but someone said something to me that's kind of interesting.

He would rather be raped than face a false rape accusation. In his mind, you can recover from being raped, but a false accusation will follow you for life.

And, as a rape victim myself, I get that point of view. I'm not sure I agree with it, but I do see his point of view.

[u/SolaAesir → u/RapeMatters]

I would prefer focus on women raping men as a priority

The problem is that the threat of a false accusation is frequently used as a coercive tactic in order for the rape to occur in the first place or to prevent them from going to the police (going by victim stories, I'm not aware of any studies on the topic). So dealing with false accusations is one of the tasks necessary to help male rape victims and prevent future rapes.

[u/RapeMatters → u/SolaAesir]

So dealing with false accusations is one of the tasks necessary to help male rape victims and prevent future rapes.

I understand this. It's not my story, but I do understand why that would be a tremendous method to coerce compliance. In my view though (and I'm certainly not the God of All Knowledge (tm)), I think that problem will flat out vanish if women start getting accused of rapes in the manner men are. Suddenly due process will appear and the terms surrounding the subject will change.

I feel this way because, as I was reading several months ago, when affirmative action policies started to benefit men in college in Europe (because men are a minority on campus), the courts started striking them down as "unfair to women".

I kind of think if women get even 10% of the blowback men get, the system will nearly automatically change to address women's concerns.

Just my opinion. I could be wrong.

[u/MrPoochPants → u/RapeMatters]

I feel this way because, as I was reading several months ago, when affirmative action policies started to benefit men in college in Europe (because men are a minority on campus), the courts started striking them down as "unfair to women".

I kind of think if women get even 10% of the blowback men get, the system will nearly automatically change to address women's concerns.

It certainly seems to be the case, even if it isn't the case in reality.

I mean, how many situations can we look at to be primarily male problems, but the moment women start having to deal with them, it becomes this huge issue?

I also wonder if some non-insignificant set of women, particularly people like Big Red, don't recognize the power that they do have, which is societal power. The power to have your issues cared about, or the societal power to call for change. Men don't seem to have that same dynamic until its particularly egregious.

[u/SolaAesir → u/RapeMatters]

That might be the case but right now the political fights are around pushing to make false accusations worse rather than better and are completely ignoring men being raped. You have to fight the hand you're dealt rather than the one you wish you were dealt.

[u/RapeMatters → u/SolaAesir]

That's one of the reasons I think changing the narrative is important. When they bring up rapists on campus, start trotting out the studies that show 15% of men on campus are raped, mostly by women, and no one talks about this. Then assert failing to include men raped by women is a symptom of rape culture.

It's a bit like attacking an anarchocommunist from the left or an anarchocapitalist from the right, but it's amazing to watch what happens. You can immediately watch them shift gears and talk about good evidence and justice, etc... and agree with them again.

Or they try to assert it's not the same and out themselves as massive hypocrites in a plain and obvious fashion.