My treasured readers may have noticed I have not written blog posts this past month. I have never published according to a set schedule (it’s part of the “idle dilettante” thing) but in the past month I didn’t post any, and my blogging output is likely to remain much reduced until at least mid-May.

As some of you already know, I’m currently a Master’s student in Biology at CUNY, having been accepted to the program Fall of 2015. As of 1/25/16 I accepted a job working in the Structural Biology Lab – chiefly in protein chemistry, but my work there also involves some crystallography and other tests. The research specifically focuses on proteins involved in processes of nucleotide excision repair – in plain language, the processes by which DNA heals itself from everyday wear-and-tear caused by exposure to water, oxygen, or UV rays. It’s a critical function to life – without it, DNA would not have sufficient fidelity to transmit genetic information.

That said, the new job can be quite taxing. Obtaining a sufficiently pure protein solution from cell lysates requires about 14 hours of active work – and that’s just to get the protein, without doing any experiments to it. The work is time-bound as well – just like a steak in your fridge, protein in our cold rooms becomes unusable if purification isn’t completed within a few days. I estimate that I spend about 30 hours per week in the lab, which doesn’t include time spent preparing for classes required to complete my degree, or time spent applying for grants & fellowships (so I can receive additional compensation.)

Work in the lab is mind-intensive in addition to being time-intensive. I personally still have a lot to learn about the science and techniques of protein purification, as well as the microbiology techniques my supervisor uses to create the bacteria I destroy in order to get protein. I come home from work tired, and yet I lie awake at night thinking about the laboratory, about what I left to run overnight & what needs to happen tomorrow.

Which brings me  to this blog. This update isn’t a resignation letter – if PZ Myers can find the time to blog, surely I can too – but a heads-up that my dilettantish blogging schedule is likely to become more dilettantish for the remainder of this semester. I have responsibilities to uphold with CUNY which simply take precedence over entertaining Sargon of Akkad’s & his fans’ complaints that Nightly Show writers may read and link to my previous posts. (Or that this high-profile RT might get the attention of staff at Patreon.) These things haven’t escaped my attention, but I’m too busy with these proteins to do much more than Tweet about it.

So, if you’re wondering where I’ve been, and why no blog posts throughout the month of February, that’s the reason. I am, of course, still reachable – per email in every case (mpless@gm.slc.edu) and via Twitter if you’re cool.

Sincerely

Margaret Pless

One year and eight months after writing a tell-all blog post designed to ruin his ex-girlfriend’s career (if not her life), Eron Gjoni has made it clear that he is not moving on. In a recent update on his extremely boring intrigues with the Massachusetts appellate court, Eron Gjoni seems prepared to litigate against his ex for the remainder of his natural life, provided he’s given sufficient cash to do it by his #Gamergate backers.

Even though he restraining order against him has been lifted and the criminal charges pending against him have been dropped, Eron persists in suing his ex Zoe Quinn. He seems to have two fairly nebulous goals, 1) to “clear my name a little” and 2) “try to make case law protecting other people (in Massachusetts anyway) from being unconstitutionally subject to similar orders.”

Going through qrios/Eron’s recent postings in KotakuinAction, these court dates seem more like an exercise for Eron’s ego. He takes court date selfies for his #Gamergate fans, and at least once brought a date to court. His lengthy updates/retellings about what exactly Gamergate was and why he needs to keep litigating Zoe Quinn are so distorted and unreliable that reading Eron Gjoni at this point is like reading Humbert Humbert.

Dude, Eron, it’s painfully obvious you’re not over her. Nothing screams “I’m not over this relationship” like continuing to litigate your ex-partner *after* the restraining order was vacated. Nothing says “I am not over this” like complaining to the Daily Dot that you think orders of protection “are kind of a golden ticket you can get in about 5 minutes with pretty much no evidence whatsoever”, and that “the order ZQ opted for is notorious for its potential to be misused as a means of subverting the First Amendment.” But my question is this: Were your 1st amendment rights ever even curtailed?

I mean, think about it. Eron Gjoni has gone on – at length – about Zoe Quinn for a year and eight months now, restraining order or not. In fact, he violated it several times, and never spent a night in jail (or faced any other real penalty) for doing so. What the hell more could Eron want out of his free speech rights? It seems to me they have gotten a lot of mileage.

I am not sure how Eron expects to “clear [his] name a little” by litigation and posting on Reddit when to date doing these things just made his life worse. The court can’t change public opinion, or rule that that Zoe Quinn totally deserved to have The Zoe Post written about her. Nor can they award Eron with the book deal or the movie deal or restore the robotics job he used to have, but lost after publishing The Zoe Post.

It seems like Eron’s life is all about Gamergate now, that he’s prepared to keep holding on to whatever he can to stay relevant and e-famous in those circles, even if it means treating Massachusetts courts like his personal reality TV show. I only hope that his backers figure out eventually that the only people profiting off this circus is Eron and his legal team.

Longtime readers might remember my ongoing beef with Patreon. And perhaps I have good reason for beef – since their October 2015 security fuckup, I’m certainly reluctant to trust them with my credit card info. And I’ve written at length about how certain creators on Patreon use the platform to crowdfund abuse. It’s true that I think Patreon’s fee structure gives them a vested interest in not investigating reports of abuse, especially when a popular/profitable account is accused of wrongdoing. And it does seem inevitable to me that this environment allows for a cottage industry of professional victimizers, people who make a living by putting other people – often other Patreon Creators – on a virtual pillory.

But I don’t want to lay all the blame at Patreon’s feet, because the vast majority of creators on Patreon are not scam artists or abusers. I want to think that my experiences with Patreon represent the exception, not the rule. I’d be the first in line to congratulate Patreon if they managed to fix the issues I’ve been harping on for the past year. But they haven’t, and so I’m here, writing another post about Patreon’s problems.

It seems obvious at this point that Patreon’s abuse follow-up procedure is not that good. I don’t mean the rumor that their abuse-reporting form is really a circular file – I mean that Patreon’s own staff seem overwhelmed by abusive clients on the platform. For example, on March 17, one of Patreon’s own staff members was harassed by a Creator and his Patrons for following up on an abuse complaint, basically right in front of me.

The details: It seems that Franchesca Ramsey, a writer for Comedy Central’s “The Nightly Show”, was getting a lot of shade thrown her way by a well-characterized professional victimizer on Patreon – namely, Sargon of Akkad and the droogs who fund him. Ramsey was upset that Sargon (real name: Carl Benjamin) is making his rent money by ripping her YouTube videos to insult her, and Tweeted as much. One of my readers gave Ramsey a link to stuff I’ve previously written about Sargon, and then put me in touch with her. In the course of our public discussion on Twitter, a ‘community happiness’ employee of Patreon reached out to Ramsey to say:

“I am sorry to hear this. I appreciate the work you do. This has been reported to our trust and safety team to investigate.”

It seems Sargon got wind of this, and became worried this might actually rouse Patreon into taking action against his account. Tweeting at top gear, Benjamin mobilized his funding base to harass the shit out of Ramsey, the Patreon employee, and even me. Since that time, the Patreon employee is now a “Former print managing editor turned community happiness [at] Patreon.”  I don’t know whether that means she was terminated, or if she still works at Patreon- as you can see the account has gone private. 

Benjamin’s account, meanwhile, is still earning more than $1000 per video of him calling Laci Green “a little fucking airhead” (17:44) and posting creepily sexualized fan-art of her on his channel. Or publicly wishing that Matt Binder “got married, had his wife cheat on him and is now a broken man”. Or doing paid livestreams to repeatedly slag off Anita Sarkeesian, because he “like[s] milking lolcows”. (Note: Those are just a few examples of res ispa loquitur-grade verbal abuse to be found across Benjamin’s odious oevure.) 

Sargon’s backers often say statements like these are “criticism” or “fair comment”, but it just seems like abusive open letters funded by an angry mob. What’s more, these videos generate more abuse in turn, a positive feedback loop of troll one-upmanship (or as Sargon himself put it,”milking lolcows”.) Carl Benjamin might sell it as performance art or a satirical roast, but it’s really an online pillory, with himself as the Patreon-funded master of ceremonies.

Sargon isn’t an anomaly, though – Carl’s is but one of a bunch of similar accounts. For example, “The Sarkeesian Effect”, an film by Jordan Owen and Davis Aurini, collected about $45,000 in 2014-15 for a documentary largely agreed to be an inept pile of crap. Noted male atheist Phil Mason has also cashed in on the Sarkeesian brand, making dozens of videos about her and earning thousands of dollars per recording (he even did an interview with “The Sarkeesian Effect” guys.) And for every account that earns the big bucks, there are dozens more competitors in the same stock & trade – that is to say, other trolls willing to hurl insults from a virtual pillory for money and call it “philosophy, history and satire.”

Patreon explictly states in its Community Standards that “Upload[ing] content that is offensive and/or harmful, including, but not limited to, content that advocates, endorses, condones or promotes racism, bigotry, hatred or physical harm of any kind against any individual or group of individuals” is sufficient grounds to ban creators from the platform. Yet Sargon remains, airing his bigoted, pirate-ish videos for ~$1000 per recording. Even when their own staff is getting hounded by Sargon and his fanbase, Patreon’s only response seems to be to bury the complaints about this account. 

Again, Sargon isn’t an anomaly – there dozens of other creators on Patreon using similar business models (if we can call this a business), crowdfunding abuse to build their own little virtual pillories. And often as not, it’s other Patreon creators who are getting their content swiped to build some other guy’s channel.

At this point, it seems like Patreon might be a little bit resigned to what’s going on. And maybe I’m expecting too much, for a company that couldn’t get data security right to ban lucrative accounts on the grounds of abusive behavior. But if you see something, say something, right? Because it’s pretty brazen that Sargon’s harassing Patreon employees in front of me, yet that’s where we are right now.

A couple of days ago Carl of Swindon, aka “Sargon of Akkad”, the full-time #Gamergate ideologue and professional victimizer, tweeted this comment out to his thousands of followers:

I wouldn’t even rape you, @jessphillips. #AntiRapeThreats #FeminismIsCancer

Wow. The result of Carl’s tweet was a firestorm of similar abuse from his fans, with scores of people weighing in on whether or not they would rape this particular female politician. Yet there’s a lot to unpack in his comment – about Carl’s beliefs about rape and how Carl himself perpetuates rape culture.

Now, I don’t believe Carl is himself a rapist. But he seems to want to have his cake and eat it too when it comes to rape – to belittle and minimize female fear of rape whilst also reminding women that rape’s still an option in the male toolkit. And in this moment at least, he was certainly willing to invoke rape rhetorically as a way of asserting his dominance over this MP, who’s on the record discussing her own experiences of being sexually assaulted as a teen.

It sends a message. Carl’s got the ear of hundreds of like-minded fellows, who pay him handsomely to act as the full-time MC of a virtual pillory. In this role he enjoys some power and influence – perhaps not of the same caliber as a member of Parliament, but much more than he would if he were still just some schlub in a pub. Saying he “wouldn’t even rape” a female MP is red meat for this crowd, and I suspect Carl knows this. In fact, I suspect he said it to get attention and further build his brand on the notoriety.

The central thesis of “Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape” states: “Rape is a conscious process by which all men keep all women in a state of fear.” This seems like the kind of statement Carl would scoff at, but it might be closer to the truth than he would like to admit. After all, Carl knows he need not be a rapist to cash in on the terror rape inspires – he merely needs to invoke it to make his point. What Carl doesn’t seem to realize is that in some substantial fraction of men are indeed rapists, and to them this public discussion of whether or not certain rape victims are worthy of a second assault normalizes and supports their pro-rape outlook. Carl does seem to get that he could “trigger” some rape victims with this kind of talk. Again, that kind of thing is red meat to his channel.

This isn’t the first time Carl’s staked out positions that seem indefensible to me. He also defended Elliot Rodger’s killing spree, and in that instance he seemed to accept that mass shootings were an inevitable (if regrettable) resolution to incel ennui. To me, that bodes poorly for Carl’s internal compass. After all, if some men will inevitably start mass killings because they feel lonely, doesn’t it follow that some men will inevitably rape?

Carl’s been defending this comment because it’s phrased in the negative, but this seems insufficient. In fact, the whole thing seems like sour grapes. After all, Jess Phillips isn’t banging Carl’s door in looking for ravishment. He’s offering this comment apropos of nothing – so it’s similar to catcalling, except with an implicit threat of violence. If you’re not planning on raping anybody, why the fuck are you bringing it up at all? To call attention the fact that you could rape, if you chose to? To remind a sexual assault victim of a previous trauma? To build your channel and make a bit more money? Do tell me, Carl – I am sincerely interested to know.

Carl Benjamin: selling a hateful ideology

Well, Sargon of Akkad is at it again. In an 11-minute video suggesting that all feminists have autism, and that feminism and autism should become synonymous, Carl Benjamin generated another big splash of attention, just like he did when he told Jess Phillips “I wouldn’t even rape you.” 

However for this particular drunken rant, Carl seems to be recycling his own material. In a two-year old video titled “Feminism is a mental illness”, Carl said “Feminism is a mental disease, and anyone who is a feminist, has this disease! O you liars, you outright flat fucking liars! That’s it, it’s a lie, feminism is a bunch of liars, and if they believe this that means they are mentally unhinged! I think we should start a petition, saying feminism should be classiffied as a mental illness, because it exhibits all the symptoms.”

Carl basically re-did a 3-minute video from two years ago into an 11-minute video, just to reframe his ideology with a Kiwi Farms/Encyclopedia Dramatica meme that anything bad & contemptible is “autistic”. Carl’s promoting that whole groups of people should be labeled mentally ill & marginalized on the basis of their political beliefs – which contradicts the libertarian ideology Sargon says he wants to promote.

Thankfully, the idea itself doesn’t work  – for example, Sargon’s petition to suspend social justice courses doesn’t even specify which courses should be dropped. The ideas themselves are more like fantasies than plans to change anything. Carl’s selling his viewers a fantasy of a world where feminism is a mental disease, but it also threatens western society. Carl’s fantasy feminists are easy to fear and hate, and he invites his viewers to see them as “Orwell’s nightmare come to life.”

The fantasy Sargon sells must be a compelling one – according to his Patreon, 630 people donate $1500 per video to hear more. I wonder if they know the activism is bunkum, or if they think that Sargon’s petitions and public tantrums accomplish something. The only notable thing Sargon has done so far is select individuals for abuse. So it may not matter that his goals will never be accomplished; that two years later he’ll release a longer video, saying the same things, not from a place of conviction but to increase his yields. If his audience only wants to scream along at Sargon’s fantasy of what feminists are like, I suppose it doesn’t matter that Sargon’s ideas are so impracticable.

At this point I think it’s safe to say Carl gets drunk and says knowingly vicious things because he wants the publicity. Ultimately it doesn’t matter to him that his ideas aren’t going to work (feminism isn’t going to go into the DSM-6, women’s studies is still being taught at uni). Because saying outrageous things like that gets him publicity, and because the attention of publicity means more subscribers to his Patreon, Carl will keep doing it. But it isn’t just Sargon of Akkad who’s doing this – look at Milo Yiannopoulos’s behavior, or look at Donald Trump’s rallies. They’re doing the exact same thing as Carl does, to even more spectacular results.

Update 05/22/17: Heather Anable’s family has set up a GoFundMe to cover her final expenses. Donations will cover Anable’s funeral costs and any debts the family uncovers as they settle her estate. Since opening the fundraiser, the family has raised $2,100 of their $10,000 goal. Excess funds will be given to charity. In the spirit of giving credit where it’s due, I also note that TJ Kirk shared the family’s fundraiser on social media and donated $100 to the campaign. 

Two days ago, Aleksandr Kolpakov, who calls himself “Russian Deadpool” on YouTube, was arrested for allegedly shooting and killing Heather “Ivy” Anable,  his girlfriend and co-host. The two were collaborators on “The Skeptic Feminist” YouTube channel, along with a third woman who calls herself “Harley Quinn”, who was not present at the shooting.

Alt-right skeptics, atheists, and their fellow travelers had a mixed reaction to the news. Armored Skeptic and Mundane Matt decried the violence and sent heartfelt condolences, but some of their peers were unable to conceal their mirth about the news. Vee organized a live stream on his channel featuring Sargon and KT responding to the death and demise of The Skeptic Feminist channel with two and a half hours of crass jokes and wild speculation. Vee called this monetized hangout a “Tabloid discussion speculating about the skeptic feminist”. Now it would seem the Amazing Atheist wants to be on the front page of that discussion.

The Amazing Atheist, aka TJ Kirk, responded to the news of Heather Anabel’s death and Kolpakov’s arrest by releasing this video, titled “Fëminist YouTuber Murdërs Co-Host/Lover (Exclusive Details) – Heather Anable Memorial Fundraiser“. This video and the counterpart memorial fundraiser have a very melodramatic tone:

“Heather Anable was a feminist YouTuber who was murdered by her lover and fellow YouTuber Aleksandr Kolpakov (AKA SkepticFeminist). Aleksandr, who according to my sources may have been a veteran who suffered from PTSD, was doing shrooms with Heather on Saturday night, when he became obsessed with the notion that Heather was trying to kill him and that she had poisoned him. Feminist Laura Athena, another member of Aleksander’s polyamorous harem, was apparently skyping with Heather and Aleksandr during their mushroom trip, when Aleksander started freaking out and making bizarre accusations against Heather. Both girls attempted to calm Aleksandr down, but he was inconsolable with fear and rage. At around 9:30 PM, the skype call dropped. Shortly thereafter, Aleksandr shot Heather Anable multiple times in the neck and chest. With fresh bullet wounds, she fled from her apartment, still scrambling to escape—but she didn’t make it far. She collapsed in the parking lot and died scared and alone there, bleeding on the cement.”

TJ goes even further in the video, and presenting this whole story about a ring and Aleksandrs’ desire to make “their relationship more serious and possibly more exclusive, moving away from their polyamorous lifestyle” in the style of a sanctimonious radio preacher, suggesting ‘polyamorous jealousy’ led to Anable’s death. This seems salacious and gratuitous, as if TJ’s real purpose here is to humiliate the deceased by embellishing the most lurid details of her killing. TJ’s eulogy for Anable is comparatively short and glib compared to his accounts of her drug use and the intrigues of her relationship with Kolpakov.

None of these details – the drugs, the ring, or the jealous-lover angle were covered in the Denver Post. TJ says he knows this wealth of “exclusive details” about the killing because one of Anable’s friends told him. Indeed, if you believe TJ he knows more about the killing than the people most affected by it, to the point of knowing Kolpakov’s state of mind during the murder. I’m not sure how TJ could know that any more than he could know the innermost workings of Kolpakov’s relationship with Anable, regardless of who his source is. However, TJ Kirk seems enormously concerned with making his account of the murder the most credible one, to the extent that he’s accused “Harley Quinn”, the channel’s 3rd collaborator, of lying to protect Kolpakov.

Given the pitch video’s intense focus on Anable, her relationship with Kolpakov, her behavior on the night of her death, and her sex life, it seems cheap to me that TJ didn’t designate this side show’s proceeds to go to her burial. For now, whatever money is raised is being given to the National Coalition on Domestic Violence. I would call this a sour grapes fundraiser: TJ’s motive to hold it is to spread rumors about Anable and Kolpakov’s relationship in the wake of her death, and collecting funds for domestic violence prevention is a means to that end. Sargon of Akkad donated 100$ to it, perhaps to clear his conscience / buy an indulgence for laughing it up about the killing on Vee’s live stream the day before.

Meanwhile, those who actually knew Heather Anable in life, disturbed by the sensationalistic and gruesome tone of this fundraiser, have repeatedly asked TJ Kirk to remove her name and image from it. TJ responded by saying Anable’s a public figure, and he has a right to use her name and likeness to raise money for charity. TJ has spent a lot of time positioning himself as morally superior to anyone who disagrees with this fundraiser, on the grounds they don’t care about domestic violence prevention. (TJ Kirk, OTOH, apparently cares so much about domestic violence, he will meet you in Seattle and fight you.) So what we have here is a “memorial fundraiser” which humiliates the deceased, disturbs the bereaved, and which benefits a cause TJ the Rager can’t quite seem to abide by. This is why I question the sincerity of his motives.

Currently the proceeds of TJ’s memorial fundraiser total about a thousand dollars. That’s a trifle compared to his previous, more successful sour grapes fundraisers. Extraordinary People: Daring to Actually Help Women, raised $100K for women’s health care in developing countries. According to reports from when he ran it, TJ seems to have set up “Extraordinary People” in response to Feminist Frequency’s then-new “Ordinary Women” series. Apparently, TJ heard Anita was going to release some new videos, so he felt the need to belittle her project and responded by doing this.

But you know what? It would trouble me less if TJ Kirk spent the rest of his days raising enormous sums for worthy causes by indulging his obsession with Anita Sarkeesian with the brainless insects on his channel. It’s exploiting people he’s never met on the occasion of their deaths for comparatively piddling sums of money that I find truly objectionable.

Edit: Added additional background to the “Extraordinary People” event, 1 sentence to p 5

Two weeks ago, YouTube sex educator and MTV sex-education show host Laci Green announced that after a long absence from YouTube, she would soon upload new videos featuring more anti-feminist/anti-SJW content. Green spoke of “taking the red pill”, in the sincere sense of choosing to radically change her views rather than carry on believing what she has up to this point despite her doubts.

Effectively, Green announced she had been watching videos from the alt-right YouTube talk circuit, liked at least some of what she found, and offered to appear on their debates and livestreams. The news appears to have been a boon to the alt-right, and a bust for Green’s established left-leaning and feminist audience. Now, the question on everyone’s mind would seem to be: Why is Laci Green now engaging with a community which has for years harassed her and treated her as their folk demon?

According to Laci, she just “[ran] out of fucks”, and in a spirit of depression, indifference, and self-loathing decided “I don’t have a choice, it’s this or try to appease everyone and I gotta do me.” Having encountered harassment and censorship both within feminism and anti-feminism, it would appear Green is now extending her dialog with right-leaning YouTube stars on the right as a sort of centrist pursuit. However, I think there’s also more proximal incentives for Laci’s pivot to the center: money and viewers.

Here’s the facts: Green’s show on MTV has ended, and her personal channel hasn’t uploaded new videos for months. Building pro-feminist, left-leaning channels of any size is slow work, especially if you’re returning to it after a years-long absence. Alt-right channels, however, get great ratings and plenty of patronage; and many of them do so by regularly discussing Laci Green herself. Laci’s person and the footage of her shows has been the fodder for probably hundreds of these low-effort talk-show broadcasts. Sargon of Akkad, in particular, has been obsessed with Green for years. He even once pretended to be Laci Green by speeding his voice up and arguing with himself for his YouTube talk show. His viewers like it: currently, Sargon gets $5,550 a month to “create arguments”. Even Laci’s announcements about thinking about talking with the alt-right have gotten increased views compared to the last few sex-ed videos she posted. Financially, Laci Green has every incentive to take her channel in the direction it appears to be headed.

Laci Green would not be the first feminist to sell out and ally herself with the right. Catharine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin did it in order to draft an antipornography civil rights ordinance for the right-leaning Minneapolis city government. Director Cassie Jaye did it for her 2016 movie, “The Red Pill”, which was bankrolled by Mike Cernovich and A Voice for Men.  Feminist lifestyle marketing is now a common ad strategy for all kinds of products. However, I think if Laci is going to take her channel in a more “naive and stays that way” type direction, it bodes poorly for the discourse. It suggests one of the most experienced feminist channels on YouTube has decided it’s better to go along with with the alt-right than to resist it.

CORRECTION 05/27/17: “The Red Pill” is the fourth feature film made by Cassie Jaye, not her second. I regret the error.

“I don’t know where I’m headed with what I believe, and what is right and what is wrong, and who is wrong and who is right and… […] that’s why I’m feeling frustrated, I don’t know where the truth is.”

Cassie Jaye’s propaganda film for a Voice for Men is a poorly managed and directed movie about Jaye abandoning her feminist beliefs and becoming a men’s rights activist. Jaye is notably deceptive in her depictions of both the MRAs she interviews (most notably Paul Elam), and in her interviews with academic feminists and feminist activists. Unfortunately, Jaye is so inept at her job that her efforts to spiff up A Voice for Men into respectability instead make her look like a dope for their agenda.

Jaye seems dreadfully incurious about the subject of her own film. Hateful, violent utterances and writings by Paul Elam are shown in the introduction, but Jaye never asks Elam about them during their lengthy interviews. The interviews lack direction – Jaye rarely asks questions or challenges her interviewees, even when it’s warranted. For example, Elam spends the latter part of his appearances in The Red Pill grandstanding about the father’s rights and the injustice of family court. Jaye either doesn’t know or doesn’t wish to address that Elam is, according to court records, a deadbeat dad who renounced his own parental rights to his daughter when she was a baby. Addressing these inconsistencies between the MRM’s ideals and its actions would have made a stronger film, but perhaps not one with the conclusion Jaye needed to arrive upon.

This is not to say the MRM’s grievances are wholly without merit. Their issues are real, but they mistakenly blame women and feminism for causing them, failing to recognize how a patriarchal system of control can harm men and women in the service of a privileged few. Rather than examine the political system which sent millions of young men to fight WWI, MRAs focus on The Order of the White Feather, a group of British suffragettes who shamed non-enlisted men by giving them white feathers. Rather than contemplate how sexual objectification of women makes them miserable, MRAs blame women for not being better sex objects. But Jaye’s documentary doesn’t engage with any specific MRA idea long enough for its flaws and inconsistencies to become apparent. Warren Farrell’s book “The Myth of Male Power” states that sexually desirable women have a kind of “miniskirt power” over men, which he illustrated on the cover of the 21st anniversary edition with a shapely stock-photo derrierre smashing the word “power”. Unsurprisingly, Jaye’s interview with Warren films older copies of the book, without the butt cover art.

This documentary also suffers because of its subjects. Jaye interviewed Karen Straughan, who, like she did in her interview for The Sarkeesian Effect, drank alcohol during filming. This has the effect of making Straughan’s face very red and of absolutely destroying any professional credibility she might have brought to bear. Even if you didn’t know Straughan makes most of her money through donations from other MRAs for her Honey Badger Radio broadcasts, you’d still have the impression that she’s just bitching about feminism in a noisy bar.

“The Red Pill” also has its moments. At one point Jaye screens this rotating snowflake graph, which visually depicts the MRM’s contradictory demands on women and upon which some of the text is always upside-down. Judging by the labels, what MRAs really seem to want is control – the right to make a woman abort a pregnancy or carry it to term, to initiate divorce but not have a divorce initiated against them, to choose whether or not they’ll pay child support. Another frame shows a blizzard of MRA insecurities and grievances, each snowflake labeled “failure to launch”, “restraining orders”, “paternity fraud”, and so on.

Choices in Jaye’s cinematography reinforce my impression that this is a propaganda film.  The score is a bit obvious in places, and towards the end there’s a bit that sounds like ASMR of Dean Esmay’s voice. Jaye’s interviews with Paul Elam frame her as submissive and barefoot, kneeling on one side of the sectional like Alice in Wonderland before the Caterpillar. Framing like this, combined with the “Video Diary” confessionals places Jaye at the center of her own film, increasing its appeal to the MRM but making it a weaker documentary overall. By the time Jaye has gotten into interviews with academic feminists, her mind appears to be made up. Sometimes, she rolls her eyes at the camera while the academic goes on with their general spiel, as if to object to what they just said. But Jaye never asks anyone a tough question in this movie.

It’s worth noting The Red Pill was saved from post-production hell. After two years of delays, Jaye raised nearly $200,000 on a Kickstarter with help from Milo Yiannopoulos, Mike Cernovich, A Voice for Men, and all their fans on Reddit. That money seemed like it was going to fund a propaganda film, and that appears to be the product Jaye delivered. Sadly, the guys in AVfM didn’t stick together long enough for the film to do them much good. Dean Esmay, Paul Elam, and a bunch of other subjects quit Men’s Rights Activism before this movie’s premiere. This too goes unaddressed in “The Red Pill”.

“Mike-Danger-Lawyer.png” Undated photo, credit: Mike Cernovich/D&P

Is Mike Cernovich a rapist? Posts written during his “Game” period on Danger and Play (circa 2009-2012) shed light on Mike’s attitudes about rape, dominance, and “rough sex”.

Mike Cernovich has lately been re-inventing himself as a “national security reporter”, political activist and family man. But not too long ago, Mike’s online persona was that of a game/PUA blogger, and he wrote a lot of posts in the style of a ‘Return of Kings’ columnist and uploaded them to his men’s variety blog, ‘Danger and Play’.

Reading what Mike wrote about rough sex, what women want, his seduction techniques, and his self-reported sexual encounters suggest a man whose interpersonal style with women is at best physically domineering, and which at its worst got him charged with rape. Further posts seem to depict a man pre-occupied with what he calls “false rape accusations”, and who has dedicated a good deal of time thinking about how to avoid being charged for rape for what, to his mind, is consensual sex. These writings demonstrate a pattern in Cernovich’s behavior and ideas which I consider quite troubling and within the public interest to discuss.

Mike Cernovich is certainly on the record as being a great fan of rough sex, as he is in this article “How to Choke a Woman During Sex: ”

Women enjoy being choked during sex. It turns them on and gives them more powerful orgasms. […] Choking works because it’s a show of dominance. More than anything a woman wants an alpha male. […]

The number one sexual fantasy have is a rape fantasy. Nearly 40% of women have a rape fantasy. […] The key is that she is taken against her will by a high value, dominant man who could satisfy her genetic desire for healthy and fit offspring. […]

“You look like the kind of girl who enjoys being choked,” I told a girl who I was gaming at a bar. She smiled, “How could you tell?”

I immediately pinned her back against the wall. I pressed my body against hers, put my hand around her neck, and began squeezing – gently at first to make sure she was comfortable with what was happening. Then I gave her a nice hard squeeze as a show of strength.

One hour later, I was hooking up with her in the back seat of her car. Two hours later, she was enjoying rough sex in my bedroom. […]

Once you’ve cut off oxygen to her brain, she has about 3-5 seconds before passing out. During these three to five seconds, her sexual pleasure will increase immeasurably. […]

Once you start choking women, you’ll be addicted. Women love it, too. Choking is also a useful indicator of your strength as a man. If you are an alpha male, a woman will crave your domination and show of strength. If women do not regularly let you choke them, your game is weak. You are giving off a weak, beta male vibe and are lucky to be getting any sex at all. 

I don’t bring up this strangulation thing to kink-shame Cernovich or scaremonger about BDSM, but to highlight how Mike says every woman wants to be choked during sex because it’s a show of dominance. Choking a woman nearly to unconsciousness during sex is something Mike Cernovich likes doing a lot, because it reinforces his own feelings of being a dominant alpha male when he does it. He then declares that choking is a normal kind of sex play, and men who don’t do it are weak and beta.

Cernovich’s veneration of male dominance comes up again and again in ‘Danger and Play’. He lays out the importance of dominance mindset in “How To Become More Dominant in the Bedroom”:

Why do women want dominant men in the bedroom?

A real man is a violent one, and masculinity is nothing if not restrained aggression. Philosophers praise manly reason because it evidences self-control – that is, control of our own violent natures. To be a man is to be five seconds away from killing someone. […]

Upon the first sign of aggression, a dominant male moves with swiftness and aggression. A man must be able to go from zero to psycho in a split second.

There are tens of millions of good – which is to say, neutered – guys in America, and yet the best women consistently end up with dominant, strong, violent men. Women who cannot find alpha males seek other symbols of masculinity.

How many women have begun keeping pit bulls and other large dogs as pets. Women are so desperate for a little danger and play in their lives that they bring an inherently dangerous animal – an animal they can never tame – into their homes.

The question isn’t whether women want to be dominated. The question is whether you are man enough to dominate them. […]

What do women want? That’s easy – rough sex.

[…]

Women want to feel real desire. They want a man who grabs them and makes them feel small, vulnerable, and feminine.

Women want to feel that their man is playful but also that he is a little bit dangerous.

This means that domination starts with you. It’s your mindset that must prevail. You must have the mindset that she exits to serve you, that she exists for your pleasure.

[…]

Stop asking her what she wants, and start telling her what to do. Issuing commands. You are in charge. Here’s a quick way to learn how to take control and be more dominant in the bedroom.

You should be changing positions regularly during sex, as that will delay your orgasm. Before changing her position, tell her what to do next. Order her around the bedroom like you own her.

[…]

Right away you are telling her what to do, ordering her around, and telling her what all women want to hear – “You are a good girl.” You are setting the tone. She exists for your sexual pleasure. She exists to please you.

Most women are extremely turned up when a man tells them what to do. […]

“A real man is a violent one”, and “masculinity is nothing if not restrained aggression”? “To be a man is to be five seconds away from killing someone”? Dare I apply this logic to Cernovich himself – will he go “from zero to psycho” in a moment?

Mike writes: “The question isn’t whether women want to be dominated. The question is whether you are man enough to dominate them”. Only a “neutered” man has trouble with women, whom are always “extremely turned up” by the advances of a sufficiently alpha player-type guy, which Mike repeatedly asserts he is.

Mike writes: “[women] want a man who grabs them and makes them feel small, vulnerable, and feminine.”, and that men should “stop asking stop asking her what she wants, and start telling her what to do”. Consent and reciprocity are absent: “She exists for your sexual pleasure. She exists to please you.”

Then again, some people do enjoy this sort of thing. Cernovich’s second wife, Shauna, told The New Yorker that she met Mike when he grabbed her at a bar as an opening gambit. As reported in “Trolls for Trump”:

Mike and Shauna met in 2011, at a bar in Santa Monica. “He was pretty aggressive,” Shauna told me. “He grabbed my arm, pulled me into him, and said, ‘You fit nicely.’ ”

“It sounds creepy, but it looked less creepy in context,” Mike said.

“It worked,” Shauna said. “We were making out, like, five minutes later.”

Mike said that, when they started dating, “I didn’t take it seriously. But she just refused to go away, and now—”

“I’m married and pregnant!” Shauna said, smiling.

“And my life is over,” Mike said, half-smiling.

PUAs/Game players like Roosh and Mike carefully rehearse the first few things they will say and do to start up a conversation with a woman in a bar or a nightclub. What does it say about Mike’s pick-up strategy that even in the best possible scenario (making out 5 minutes later, married with kids now) he still concedes that this relationship-starter “sounds creepy, but it looked less creepy in context”?

However, I’m gonna cut Mike some slack for admitting to grabbing a woman he didn’t know in a bar by the arm; Shauna obviously forgave him and I’m not some bawling idiot who thinks being gently nudged by a stranger constitutes assault. But did every woman Mike tried this on react like Shauna did?

PUAs themselves concede that playing “the Game” frequently means getting rejected, and that the artistry lies in pushing people’s boundaries to flip more “no”s into “yes”es.  In this PUA field-report style blog, Mike describes an instance in which he exposed himself and tried to force his “date” to give him a hand job. When she refused, Mike claims that he jacked off in her car. It is titled When In Doubt, Whip It Out: 

We were in the back seat of her car hooking up. She let me pull her shirt up but wouldn’t let me take it off. She also wouldn’t let me take off her pants.

Anyone who has dated Indian girls know how annoying they are, and how hard they are to close. I knew this girl wasn’t going to let me fuck her in the back seat of her car, and that she was going to require some secret moves.

“My dick hurts,” I told her, as I unbuttoned my own jeans, exposing it to her. She looked at it but didn’t move.

“You aren’t just going to leave me like this, are you?” I pulled her hand towards me, but she pulled it back.

Indian girls are selfish teases, and she would have no problem leaving me hanging.

“Fine then. I’ll take care of it myself.”

I started playing with her tits, spit in my hand, and started masturbating.

She still wouldn’t join in the fun, but she wasn’t freaked out. “Don’t get any of this on my seat,” she told me as I was about to cum. […]

She drove me home, and parked her car, “I don’t want to risk a DUI,” she said, and walked upstairs with me.

The next morning I had one of those, “Does the notch count if…” discussions with my boy.

“Hey, man,” I asked, “Does it count if you get it halfway in, but can’t get it all the way in, because she’s too tight?”

“Ah, man, that’s a tough one. You had the intent. She had the intent, but you weren’t fully in.”

“Yeah, but I was halfway in. Do I gotta be balls deep? She told me she had only been with two other guys, and I believed her. My dick would only go halfway in before she started screaming in pain. I did like 3 or 4 half pumps. Does it count?”

“I don’t know. We should ask some other guys.”

How did I take a girl who had only had sex with two other guys – with a tight pussy to prove it – and get an arguable one night stand out of her? […]

Next time, don’t settle for the make out. If possible, at least pull out your dick. If you can get her to touch it, even better. If not, just let her know that your cock is too swollen to go back into your jeans, and that, “Either you’re taking care of this, or I am.”

Masturbating will set your anchor nearer the desired destination – pussy port.

When Mike writes: “She let me pull her shirt up but wouldn’t let me take it off. She also wouldn’t let me take off her pants. […] I knew this girl wasn’t going to let me fuck her in the back seat of her car,” “I pulled her hand towards [my exposed penis], but she pulled it back.” “Indian girls are selfish teases, and she would have no problem leaving me hanging.” It sounds like he knew she didn’t want to have sex, but decided to press his luck. His alpha male secret seduction move: “If possible, at least pull out your dick. If you can get her to touch it, even better.”

But when Mike starts jerking off in her car, he writes that his date didn’t respond: “She still wouldn’t join in the fun, but she wasn’t freaked out. ‘Don’t get any of this on my seat,’ she told me as I was about to cum.” This woman still doesn’t sound very into what he’s doing; just unwilling to try and stop him. So when Mike claims she asked to stay over because she “[didn’t] want to risk a DUI,” is it implied she changed her mind about having sex?

More remarkable is Mike’s morning after vignette, where he asks his PUA friend if he got his “notch” and brags about his date “screaming in pain” when he tried to penetrate her “tight pussy.” He got “like 3 or 4 half pumps.” Is that why she was so hesitant to screw Mike in her car? Is this what hot sex looks like to Mike?

Mike Cernovich has spent a good deal of time muddying the waters on what “rape” is – specifically, disputing whether date rape exists at all. “From Mike’s recent article “Why “Date Rape is Harmful Concept for Men and Women” [sic]:

Rape requires the use of force, and “date rape” does not exist as all rape is rape.

The entire concept of “date rape” is damaging to women and men.

Rape is rape, and some rapes aren’t lesser than others.

However the concept of “date rape” leads to a lot of false rape accusations, as sometimes sleazy behavior leads to sex.

• Lying about being in love to sleep with someone isn’t rape.
• Getting played isn’t rape.
• Regret isn’t rape.
• Thinking, “I might have been date raped,” means you weren’t raped.

Some have said you can have rape without force. This is wrong. Penetration requires force, and under the law a woman’s will has been overcome, and force has been used.

[…]

“Date rape” as a concept leads to false rape accusations. If you don’t view rape as a serious crime, then it’s easy to say that the guy who may have done something sleazy is a “date rapist.”

Rape is the easiest accusation to make and one of the hardest to disprove. How does a man prove he is not a rapist?

So, according to Mike, an act of rape requires the use of force. However, Mike’s also said: “The hotter the sex, the more closely it resembles rape.” On Roosh’s forum, Mike writes: “there’s no limit to the amount of violence women want.” So where does Mike draw the line between the kind of sex he likes to have and forcible sexual assault? What constitutes merely “sleazy behavior” for Mike, and what’s rape? Does the guy who boasts of having been involved in “at least 100 street fights” really know when to call stops? 

Mike Cernovich was himself accused of rape, an incident which he “”anonymously”” covered on his law blog in an article titled “Real Life Date Rape Case” . (Mike later admitted he was writing about his own case.)

In State v. Anonymous, the defendant went out drinking with the complaining witness (CW) and her best friend.  They drank most of the night.  Between the three of them, they drank less than 1/2 a bottle of Captain Morgan.  Around midnight, the defendant and CW had sex.

The defendant stayed overnight.  He left the next morning after the CW angrily told him to leave.  A review of police reports, private investigator reports, and medical reports revealed the following:

• The complaining witness’ (CW’s) best friend was in the room – and conscious – during the sexual intercourse.
• The friend told police that she, “heard kissing noises”; did not hear any “screams”; or other “unusual sounds”; and said: “I would have done something if I had though there was anything wrong.”
• The CW, depending upon whom she was talking to, testified: “I was passed out the entire time”;  “I woke up but couldn’t move”; “I screamed”; “I tried fighting him off”; “I was in and out of consciousness”; “I was kind of aware but not really.”

[…]

Incidentally, there was substantial evidence indicating that the CW should not have been taken at her word […]

The medical reports revealed no physical trauma.  No signs of any vaginal tears or damage.  The examining physician said that the CW cracked jokes during the exam.

No ripped clothing.  No roofies or date-rape drugs.  No bruises.  No screams.  No one was saying no. In fact, according to the defendant, the CW initiated sexual contact.

The CW had shown her breasts earlier, asking the defendant if he liked them.  The CW also vaguely told police that she “sat on [the defendant’s] back.” (The defendant told police she was straddling the small of his back, grinding her vagina on it, after he had laid on his stomach to fall asleep.)  The CW’s best friend corroborated the defendant’s story.

Incidentally, the defendant said that he and the CW had been making out.  Police did not take a DNA swab of the CW.  Wouldn’t that have been relevant, exculpatory evidence?

The CW wanted to make it seem as if she feel asleep, only to awaken to a beast mounting her.  Why not run a DNA swab through her cheek, to see if she had the defendant’s post-French-kissing saliva?  The police, naturally, did no such investigation.  Proof that a police investigation is about confirming guilt rather than finding the truth.

After the complaint was made, the Special Victims Unit – tasked with people who are specially trained to believe rape victims – refused to file charges.  SVU prosecutors didn’t believe the CW.  They wouldn’t file.  That should have ended the case.

[…]

I’ve copied Mike’s side of the story for posterity and completeness’ sake, but I don’t trust what Mike wrote here to be a reliable account for two reasons. One, Mike Cernovich is a serial fibber prone to embellishment and misrepresentation, and he has every reason to lie about this incident in particular.  Two, one of Mike’s own law blog posts suggests he may have hired a private investigator to persuade the witness to the alleged sexual assault to testify in a manner suggesting Mike’s innocence. Also, he didn’t completely get away with it – despite putting a lot of money and brainpower towards his own legal defense, Mike did plead guilty to misdemeanor battery and was sentenced to community service.

I wasn’t on Cernovich’s drunken night out with two women which ended with him being accused of rape; however, it was obviously traumatic for Mike. It seems to have wrecked his bar exam plans and put his future as an attorney on indefinite hold. It seems evident that the topic of “false rape accusations” occupied a lot of bandwidth on Mike’s mind after that.

It even seems Mike Cernovich spent a while thinking about what he should have done differently that night to avoid getting charged with rape in the first place. He shared the fruits of these meditations in the form of a (now-deleted, but still archived) blog post titled “How to Avoid a False Rape Case”:

False rape accusations are common.

[…]

To avoid a false rape accusation, you must protect yourself at all times.

1. Avoid SJWs.

[…]

2. Film it.

[…]

3. Save your text messages.

[…]

 

4. Go out to breakfast.

Most girls do not want to falsely accuse you of rape. Usually they talk to a friend about sex. Then an SJW puts bad thoughts into her head. According to SJWs, consensual sex is rape if the girl has second thoughts on the next day.

Hanging out with the girl the next day will prevent SJWs from poisoning her mind against you. Also, it would lead a reasonable person to ask, “Why did the girl go out to breakfast with a man who raped her?”

[…]

5. Have her put on the condom.

This will ensure that her fingerprints are on the condom, which is evidence of consent. Unless you can’t save your condoms in a glass slide, ala Dexter, this is only short-term protection. Even if you’ve thrown the condom away, you can scare the shit out of her by claiming you still have it.

6. If she mentions “buyer’s remorse,” take her out for dinner, and do not see her again.

Imagine a girl calls you, telling you she feels “weird” about what happened. Beware. This girl could have Borderline Personality Disorder, and she may be prepared to falsely accuse you of rape.

Take her out in public. Show her a nice time. Have her smiling. Then go home – alone.

She will likely want to have sex with you again, but you must avoid women who are unstable. Only deal with stable, emotionally-sound women.

7. Never “be nice” if she expresses buyer’s remorse.

If a girl calls you the next day, keep in mind she may be recording the conversation, or the police may be monitoring it.

Most Special Victim’s Unit prosecutors and investigators will use this ploy on you:

“Girl calls the next day, telling you that what happened last night was “wrong.” She’ll demand an apology. You apologize. This apology is used as proof you raped her, even if she never directly claims you raped her.

She may instead say she felt “rushed” or “pressured.” These are red flags. Do not apologize. Instead, say,

“Well, we’re both adults. It’s sad we live in such a Puritanical society that hates sex. Last night was a great time, though, and I can’t wait to see you again.

8. If the police call, don’t answer.

Did you know that the police can lie to you? Did you know that the police will lie about what you tell them? Police will claim that you confessed to rape, even when you denied it to them.

NEVER TALK TO THE POLICE.

It’s a dangerous world out there, guys. Be vigilant. Protect yourselves at all time.

Number Four, “take her out to breakfast”, gets me every time I read it. Oh, so Mike would take a hook-up out to breakfast the following day, but only to establish an alibi to cover up the sex thing he did the night before which he fears she might press charges over!! And don’t forget – “NEVER TALK TO THE POLICE.” Is this how an innocent man thinks!?

Mike Cernovich deleted that last post from Danger and Play, perhaps because he agrees with me it makes him look like a date rapist whose only regret is having been caught. When Mike selected vintage Danger and Play posts for his e-book “Danger and Play: Essays on Masculinity”, these essays were notably absent from the oeuvre. What did make it in was this brief listicle titled “How To Get Out of The Friend Zone”,  which relates that “men and women aren’t designed to be friends … be a lion, not a vulture.” What does that make women? Antelope?

Mike Cernovich is still ostensibly an attorney, and I am still ostensibly working under the threat he might sue me for writing about him. Because of that I would conclude by saying: I have no evidence Mike Cernovich raped anyone in the incident he described on his law blog or on any other date. But what I do have is a reasonable doubt.

When does tolerating pro-Nazi hate speech become complicity?

YouTube’s SuperChat function has unquestionably been a boon to livestreamers. “SuperChats” are essentially premium text messages, which pin the buyer’s post to the top of the chat for a period of time so the streamer and other viewers are highly likely to see it. The creator gets a cut of the money from each SuperChat they receive, and the user gets the thrill of interacting directly with their favorite YouTuber. Some creators use SuperChat for karaoke sessions, or as a way of taking Q&A from their audience. However, some alt-right/alt-lite YouTubers like Blaire White, Roaming Millenial, and Laci Green have lately been receiving SuperChats from anime internet Nazis, who are willing to pay 5-15$ to pin the fourteen words, swastikas, holocaust jokes, etc. at the top of the chat.

Let me be clear that the shitlords who tend to receive these pro-Nazi SuperChats are not themselves self-affirmed white nationalists. The ones willing to talk to me about it tend to write these messages off as “edgelords”, and rigorously note that they can’t control who chooses to send them SuperChats or what those messages are gonna say. Roaming Millenial in particular scoffed at my suggestion of turning SuperChat off to avoid accepting money from Nazis whom she assumes are just kidding around, anyway. Why should they have to give up hundreds of dollars of income per stream session to block a few pro-Nazi chats?

While I’m sympathetic to their plight, I don’t think receiving pro-Nazi superchats is quite exactly like “other people spamming mean things in chat”, which is how apologists tend to defend this. Unlike an unmonetized Tweet, comment or chat, these YouTube streamers directly profit from pro-Nazi SuperChats. I also can’t help but notice that these allegedly ironic Nazis only seem to “raid” streams whose creators are already more than a little sympathetic to their views. Only creators willing to play along with this 4chan Nazi bullshit seem to have this problem.

The problems with 4chan’s “ironic” Nazi culture should be self-evident, but just in case they aren’t, allow me to spell a few of them out. Suggesting Hitler’s rise to power was good for anybody involved exposes one’s ignorance of history and facts. “Jokes” about the Holocaust at the expense of murdered Jews, gays, mentally ill are only funny if you agree that these people really are subhuman. Memes that really suggest you think Nazis are super-geil and worthy of emulating is the free speech of a depraved sociopath. A culture of “jokes” that normalize and elevate Nazi aesthetics and rhetoric is fertile ground for actual white nationalist recruiters, who use it as a smokescreen to critical scrutiny.

Once YouTube creators accept these people’s money to pin pro-Nazi hate speech on the top of their chat, they are a little complicit in that speech. There’s no way to “ironically” get paid by Nazis to borrow one’s platform for a few minutes, and SuperChat is always an optional toggle. Or, these creators could stop making content designed to appeal to white nationalists eager to pay them to say things they wanna hear. But given how alt-right and alt-light streamers seem to need SuperChat to make their streams economically viable, that seems very unlikely.