Follow TV Tropes

Following

History YMMV / TheRedPill

Go To

OR

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
As per edit requests thread.


* OvershadowedByControversy: While sincere and even-handed, this is a very polarizing movie, especially among radical feminists who don't like it for giving a voice to their "opponents" and seeing Cassie Jaye as a CategoryTraitor since Jaye is a woman and was an active supporter of feminism until she researched this film. The released film strove to present an even-handed exploration of the Men's Rights Movement, yet it simply being released had quickly turned into a polemic debate over gender politics, freedom of speech, gender-based double standards, and the merits and flaws of both movements. The actual content of the film is less discussed than its motive and director, where it seems more controversy lies. Though, perhaps, provoking open discussion is exactly what the film should be trying to do.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
per edit requests thread
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
per


* InternetBackdraft: Some groups of radical feminists decried the existence of the film, calling it propaganda; conversely, other feminists (and, for example, MRA's) are unhappy with the film for not outright making a proper distinction between the legitimate Men's Rights Movements and the supposed men's rights activists who abuse the title in cover of misogyny.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:


%%* PeripheryHatedom: Question on potentially writing up an entry for this for the PH page; discussion?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* OvershadowedByControversy: While sincere and even-handed, this is a very polarizing movie, especially among radical feminists who don't like it for giving a voice to their "opponents" and seeing Cassie Jaye as a CategoryTraitor since Jaye is a women and was an active supporter of feminism until she researched this film. The released film strove to present an even-handed exploration of the Men's Rights Movement, yet it simply being released had quickly turned into a polemic debate over gender politics, freedom of speech, gender-based double standards, and the merits and flaws of both movements. The actual content of the film is less discussed than its motive and director, where it seems more controversy lies. Though, perhaps, provoking open discussion is exactly what the film should be trying to do.

to:

* OvershadowedByControversy: While sincere and even-handed, this is a very polarizing movie, especially among radical feminists who don't like it for giving a voice to their "opponents" and seeing Cassie Jaye as a CategoryTraitor since Jaye is a women woman and was an active supporter of feminism until she researched this film. The released film strove to present an even-handed exploration of the Men's Rights Movement, yet it simply being released had quickly turned into a polemic debate over gender politics, freedom of speech, gender-based double standards, and the merits and flaws of both movements. The actual content of the film is less discussed than its motive and director, where it seems more controversy lies. Though, perhaps, provoking open discussion is exactly what the film should be trying to do.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
making explicit the implicit (which seemed obvious, but may not be)


* OvershadowedByControversy: While sincere and even-handed, this is a very polarizing movie, especially among radical feminists who don't like it for giving a voice to their "opponents" and seeing Cassie Jaye as a CategoryTraitor since Jaye is a women and was an active supporter of feminism until she researched this film. The released film strove to present an even-handed exploration of the Men's Rights Movement, yet had quickly turned into a polemic debate over gender politics, freedom of speech, gender-based double standards, and the merits and flaws of both movements. Though, perhaps, provoking open discussion is exactly what the film should be trying to do.

to:

* OvershadowedByControversy: While sincere and even-handed, this is a very polarizing movie, especially among radical feminists who don't like it for giving a voice to their "opponents" and seeing Cassie Jaye as a CategoryTraitor since Jaye is a women and was an active supporter of feminism until she researched this film. The released film strove to present an even-handed exploration of the Men's Rights Movement, yet it simply being released had quickly turned into a polemic debate over gender politics, freedom of speech, gender-based double standards, and the merits and flaws of both movements.movements. The actual content of the film is less discussed than its motive and director, where it seems more controversy lies. Though, perhaps, provoking open discussion is exactly what the film should be trying to do.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
changing the phrasing changed the meaning of this example greatly, to the point of being its exact opposite, and suspiciously in the guise of correcting someone's English. however, the new example text is also legitimate - the two are now both present.


* InternetBackdraft: Various feminists are, naturally, unhappy with the film for failing to separate the legitimate "men's rights" movements from the many, many hate-mobs that find it a convenient smokescreen for the worst sort of misogyny.

to:

* InternetBackdraft: Various Some groups of radical feminists are, naturally, decried the existence of the film, calling it propaganda; conversely, other feminists (and, for example, MRA's) are unhappy with the film for failing to separate not outright making a proper distinction between the legitimate "men's rights" movements from Men's Rights Movements and the many, many hate-mobs that find it a convenient smokescreen for supposed men's rights activists who abuse the worst sort title in cover of misogyny.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
removed because " the film's subject matter is not only inherently controversial, but the primary reason it's famous." - the text, if you read it, is obviously not about the film's content being controversial but that reactions to it and the director of it caused controversy that drew more attention than the actual content. same troper has made edits that equally seem to by aiming to hide reception of the film in favor of just explaining that its content is controversial.

Added DiffLines:

* OvershadowedByControversy: While sincere and even-handed, this is a very polarizing movie, especially among radical feminists who don't like it for giving a voice to their "opponents" and seeing Cassie Jaye as a CategoryTraitor since Jaye is a women and was an active supporter of feminism until she researched this film. The released film strove to present an even-handed exploration of the Men's Rights Movement, yet had quickly turned into a polemic debate over gender politics, freedom of speech, gender-based double standards, and the merits and flaws of both movements. Though, perhaps, provoking open discussion is exactly what the film should be trying to do.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
This is the wording that was more publicly approved. A troper removed it for not being YMMV... then 10 minutes later copied the entry from the film page onto YMMV, though that example text (removed in this edit) is much more polemic and potentially inflammatory. The version that doesn't toe the line of the ROCEJ (i.e. the one that doesn't have a pretty unnecessary mention of internet hate groups and sexual harassment) should probably stay; take it to the discussion page if you want to change the phrasing.


* DontShootTheMessage: While many Internet hate-groups have polluted the term Men's Rights Activists and find it a convenient cover and smokescreen for harassment campaigns and blatant misogyny, activists for men's rights do exist and are trying to solve real, legitimate problems. Whether or not the movie does a good job of communicating the difference is up for debate.

to:

* DontShootTheMessage: While many Internet hate-groups have polluted the term Men's Rights Activists Movement is more controversial than feminism, and find it a convenient cover the film's production values have been criticised, there ''are'' also grievances and smokescreen double-standards for harassment campaigns and blatant misogyny, activists for men's rights do exist and are trying to solve real, legitimate problems. Whether or not the movie does a good job of communicating the difference is up for debate.men.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Fair enough!


* DontShootTheMessage: While many Internet hate-groups have polluted the term and find it a convenient cover and smokescreen for harassment campaigns and blatant misogyny, activists for men's rights do exist and are trying to solve real, legitimate problems. Whether or not the movie does a good job of communicating the difference is up for debate.

to:

* DontShootTheMessage: While many Internet hate-groups have polluted the term Men's Rights Activists and find it a convenient cover and smokescreen for harassment campaigns and blatant misogyny, activists for men's rights do exist and are trying to solve real, legitimate problems. Whether or not the movie does a good job of communicating the difference is up for debate.

Top