What Do You Think Of These Two Anti-TRP (Documentary) Videos?

a-man-from-earth · 2022-07-19T07:28:18+00:00

I think you should watch more of it before presenting a discussion about it. Come back when you have done so.

In the meantime this is removed as low-effort.

skllyskullstyle · 2022-07-19T02:07:03+00:00

Ive seen those videos yeah. A long time ago. He still hasent really convince me to stop defending the manosphere and men's rights. I remember him playing dumb and pleading ignorance. Most anti-manospherites do that.

Stephen_Morgan · 2022-07-19T07:49:43+00:00

I watched the first video. My only previous experience of Big Joel is his video about Shoe0nhead making a joke which he freaked out about, and this seems to be even worse.

To start with he presents the men's movement as, silly, a "fringe group", says it's very new, and calls it "meninism". So dismissive language and historical inaccuracy.

He then talks about how the problems Cassie Jaye talks about are caused by nationalism and capitalism, seemingly missing the point that they have a disparate impact on men.

At 6:20, about a third of the way into the video, he says he's going to focus on the issue of men dying in the workplace, and says he's "not sold" on men having worse working conditions makes their "quality of life defacto worse". It's weird for me that someone, a self proclaimed left winger, could say that much worse working conditions - and it goes far beyond death rates - don't have much of an impact on whether one is disadvantaged.

He then presents a series of rival metrics, things other than working conditions which he thinks mean that the workplace is worse for women, specifically rates of single motherhood and the "feminisation of poverty" narrative. This is whataboutism, right? Like, men are vastly worse off in the workplace, but look over there! Single mothers! It's also not true, because the idea of the feminisation of poverty is based on female headed households having lower average incomes, but they also have lower average sizes - less money coming in, but also less people, so no necessarily more actual poverty - and those statistics based on household income don't count those poor people without household incomes, such as those who are homeless, dead, or imprisoned. He even says the difference in extreme poverty means two million more women in extreme poverty, which is about the same as the number of men in American prisons. There's also the issue of child support, which counts as income for the man earning it, not the woman it's paid to. So lots of issues with the truthfulness of his whataboutism, beyond just being a whataboutism.

He then continues to present more rival metrics to distratc from men having a worse quality of life. To me, quality of life seems like a good metric, but he tries to focus on who controls wealth, who controls political power, and who is "putting laws on the books". Actually most wealth in America is controlled by women, partly because it's mostly controlled by old people and women live longer. It's ironic, because earlier in the video he was accusing Cassie Jaye of seeing men as worse off than women because she's comparing men overall to herself, as a relatively rich white woman, but now he's doing the most stereotypical radfem thing: male quality of life doesn't matter because politicians. There are some other things we could talk about - women being a large majority of voters, feminist lobbying, women having more choices in their everyday life - but I think we're all familiar enough with this fallacy.

He talks about soldiers next. He presents women not being as likely to die in historical wars as evidence of female oppression. Historical soldiering isn't a particularly big issue to me, but he wants to talk about it, and obviously he ignores feminist lobbying against conscription of women, the White Feather movement, and so on. The idea of women having agency is alien to him. He talks about sexual assault in the military, downplays the male victims, and obviously he didn't talk about men being more likely to be victims of violence in the workplace in general.

He moves on to talking about suicide and uses the false information that men just use more effective suicide methods, when men are actually more likely to die from each and every suicide method. He talks about the effect of gun control on suicide rates, but then presents the issue as The NRA vs feminism, because he doesn't talk about the actual causes of suicide, because leading causes include false allegations, loneliness, and custody and divorce issues. Things, in other words, caused by feminism.

He then talks about Paul Elam being a Trump supporter, so he can show a clip of Trump which is completely unrelated. I suppose the idea is to associate the MRM with Trump in the mind of the viewer.

He then switches from debunking to talking about how feminism and progressivism would help with these issues, which is a pretty bad recruiting pitch.

So ignorant, dishonest, and fuelled by a mindless obeisance to feminism. It has all the problems I expect from someone claiming to be left wing who also claims to be a feminist. The left wing part and the feminist part are fundamentally opposed.

Stephen_Morgan · 2022-07-19T09:03:13+00:00

Second video, this time he's talking about domestic and reproductive issues. This is a strange video, because he spends a lot of time talking about how strange he thinks this part of the documentary is. Having dismissed the role of work in the life of the average man, it's time to minimise fatherhood.

Joel takes the position that family court issues are really complicated and you just can't say that it's biassed against men. I think "it's complicated" is just something he says the fill runtime. He hasn't got an actual argument, he hasn't got evidence for what he wants to say, which is the orthodox feminist position than men can't be disadvantaged, so "it's complicated".

He also criticises the film for using anecdotes here, apprently not understanding the human interest angle used in documentaries to highlight issues which occur on a wider scale.

He nitpicks some of the issues. Like, it's good that two of the fathers whose children were adopted away without their consent managed to get those kids back, and I understand the laws that happened under were archaic, but that doesn't mean those laws don't still exist. It seems like he's just cherry picking cases, and then making bad arguments based on them. This case had a happy ending, so the issues don't exist.

He talks about reproductive coercion, there's a case of a man who was in what sounds like an abusive relationship (8:00), and was then baby-trapped, he doesn't mention the consent issues, doesn't see the abusive nature of the prior relationship, doesn't see any significance in the fact that the only case he can find where something like that was punished was a case with a male perpetrator.

He then says he doesn't believe Cassie Jaye was ever a feminist because she recognises the lack of choice men have in reproductive matters. Then he starts talking about abortion. The things he says are true, but also misleading. Yes, poor women find it harder to get abortions, some American states have limits on abortions, but that's still a legal right that men don't have. Even post Roe v Wade, that's only a limit on women exercising the right they have which men don't have. "not every woman can exercise this right" is not that same as "women don't have this right", a right men actually don't have.

Joel then contrasts this with the stuff from the first video, pointing out that men having a choice to work in more dangerous jobs is, in his view, analogous to women having a choice in reproduction. He thinks men have "more choice" to do work such as mining and construction, which is delusional nonsense. It's not that women can't do those jobs, they aren't excluded, they just don't want to do those jobs and are afforded that option by society in a way that men aren't. So it's true that men have the choice not to do those jobs, but do them because of the coercive relationship with capital, or whatever, but the difference is that abortion (or some equivalent) is a choice men just don't have. Even if men actually had more choice in employment - the greater female attainment in education mens it's actually the other way around - women would still have some choice, whereas this is something men just can't do at all. It's a false analogy. It's true that just having a choice on paper isn't enough, but it's better than not having a choice at all.

Then we're back to single motherhood again. He talks about women being "obligated" to do childcare, when the whole point here is that there is no obligation. Women have more option to do that than men, and also more choices to avoid it.

So then it's on to domestic violence. HE accepts that male victims exist, are under represented and are under resourced. Then he starts the debunking. He claims male victims are less likely to face serious and life threatening violence, and uses this to attack the idea that men receiving a tiny minority of funding for shelters, &c., is a bad thing. Firstly, the idea that men are less likely to face serious violence is nonsense and contrary to all available evidence. Secondly, men aren't less likely to receive support from shelters, men are just refused service at almost every shelter. Thirdly, men are at least 30% of domestic homicides in America, and have access to a tiny amount of the shelter space, a rounding error. Then he uses statistics which say women are over twenty times as likely to be sexually assaulted in a relationship, statistics which exclude men who are forced to penetrate, and men who are coerced into sex.

Then he talks about how feminists, like, totally don't cover up male abuse victimisation. People who've been here for a while will know we've had posts where feminists have talked about suppressing that evidence, the creator of the Duluth model talked about doing something similar, the video itself has someone from the Feminist Majority Foundation dismissing male victims, Joel himself is mostly arguing for why male victims shouldn't be taken seriously, Erin PIzzey talked about being driving out of the industry for trying to help male victims, Suzanne Steinmetz received feminist death threats after writing The Battered Husband, ad infinitum.

So Big Joel is ignorant, to be very generous, and extremely dishonest. A real piece of shit.

Unit_08 · 2022-07-19T02:45:32+00:00

I really enjoy Big Joel but I have purposefully avoided those videos. I'm worried that if I watch them it will taint my enjoyment of his other videos. Reading the comments section makes me think the videos will be filled with strawmen. I can handle straight up disagreement, but strawmen send me into a blind rage.

On a lighter note I did enjoy his video about twitter and empathy, how we shouldn't expect men to sacrifice their lives to stop a shooter.

LettuceBeGrateful · 2022-07-19T07:00:11+00:00

I broke down the first video a while ago. I can't remember what exactly I said, but I remember getting the impression that he was determined to dismiss Jaye's points at all cost.

MadBlackGreek · 2022-07-19T05:49:16+00:00

Before even seeing the vids, if they can’t argue their points without using insults with shaming and accusatory language, it’s not a debate. It’s shit-flinging

devasiaachayan · 2022-07-19T06:44:22+00:00

I have watched this some time ago and it actually did convince me to leave all the MRA stuff. I was naive back then and did notice that some MRAs are just using the movement to get support for right wing politics which is actually anti Men. But as I have matured, videos like these really cringe me, Big joel himself seems kinda meh to me now as he starts preaching some reactionary idpol stuff in his videos.

BloomingBrains · 2022-07-19T06:57:19+00:00

Haven’t watched the video yet but I’ve learned a lot about red pill. For the life of me I can’t understand why anyone would defend it. If you agree blackpill (aka the bad incels) is bad, then why would you support red pill?

Blackpill: Here’s how the system works but you can’t abuse the loopholes to get women because you’re not chad

Redpill: Here’s how to become chad and abuse the system

It’s like the difference between hanging someone a loaded gun and handing someone gun with no firing pin.

I get it: bitter blackpillers have the potential to become hateful to and harm women. However most of them are basically harmless because they’ve given up.

Redpillers though think “foids” are evil harpies that deserve everything that’s coming to them if you game the system to pump and dump them. They’re literally the guys feminists are talking about when they say men see women like a game to be won. The only difference between them and “nice guys” is that they don’t try to put in kindness coins to get sex, and so they’re way more effective at it.

Feminists should focus on hating red pill way more than they do incels. But it doesn’t surprise me they’re defending it in the comments section considering feminism has a fetish for shooting women in the foot.

Sounds like a whole lot of cancer best avoided.

Title	What Do You Think Of These Two Anti-TRP (Documentary) Videos?
Author	Peptocoptr
Upvotes	19
Comments	19
Date	July 19, 2022 12:23 AM UTC (4 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/w2eons/what_do_you_think_of_these_two_antitrp/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/what-do-you-think-of-these-two-anti-trp.1123924 https://theredarchive.com/post/1123924

Comments