“I can’t even imagine.” (So sad to see that my 5-year-old has a better imagination than you. It must be tough being so narrow-minded. It must also be tough having such a terrible short-term memory that you can’t imagine how the other side might think when I just told you what they think.)
“This isn’t even a question.” (Actually, this is, which – crazy, I know – would explain why I just asked you the question.)
“How could anyone even debate this?” (Because some people have different genes than you and some people have different backgrounds and some people have different experiences and some people read different books and some people have different friends and some people make less money and some people make more money and I’ll stop now but not before I mention that someone might “debate this” because maybe, just maybe, you don’t have a monopoly on all that is good and true in the world and that even if you did it wouldn’t really help you to respond in this way.)
These types of non-answers start pouring out of emotional, shallow thinkers the moment someone counters their closely held beliefs. The hope is these non-answers will come across as bold and strong. In reality, they are white flags of surrender.
The Red Pill was filled with “feminists” who couldn’t possibly see how anyone could see the world any differently than the exact way they saw the world. Even when someone presented compelling facts. Even when someone presented compelling logic. So, they repeatedly dug deep into this well of non-answers.
These feminists/leftists want us to believe that men’s rights advocates (MRAs) are akin to something like Holocaust deniers. If that analogy were actually true, the non-answers are a little more appropriate. There is a scarcity of time, so why bother engaging with subjects that are settled? Plus, like an evolutionary biologist who doesn’t want to debate a creationist, simply debating can give undeserved legitimacy by association.
But The Red Pill made clear that MRAs have very solid points and that leftism isn’t the reasonable and open-minded movement it often claims to be. (GMOs are an easy example. We love science shriek leftists. Oh wait, science says GMOs are fine. Uh. Uh. Uh.)
Some of those very solid points were ideas hidden in plain sight I had never before considered. This is an exceptionally rare feat for any film to pull off. I legitimately cannot remember the last time a movie made me think wholly original thoughts.
Still, The Red Pill was flawed in many ways. Here’s three:
- The narrator is criminally slow at talking
- The narrator is terrible at pushing back in interviews to the point where you will scream something like, “How are you not asking that very obvious follow-up question we all know you should ask?”
- The movie is way too long and repetitive
But most of that is forgiven because of the new ideas it presented. Four of those new, hidden in plain sight concepts:
- Men are seen as far more disposable than women (easy examples are war and the dearth of women working dangerous manual labor jobs)
- Men are subject to nearly equivalent domestic violence as women
- Men are constantly on the losing end of custody battles and child support
- Men’s reproductive “rights” are minuscule
It’s easy to say that someone is snubbed. It’s much harder to complete the thought and explain who the snubbed should replace. (Note: Every single year a sport’s all-star roster is released you will find a lot of people in the first camp. I can’t believe Damian Lilliard was left off the team. And even though these sports networks run twenty-four hours per day and must be starving for good discussions, you will so rarely hear what needs to be the next part of that statement: And we should kick James Harden off the team to make room.)
This concept kept running through my head as point after point after point was cogently made about men being worse off than women. No, this doesn’t mean that men are necessarily worse off overall. No, points about men’s struggles don’t even necessarily mean that men face disadvantages that are 1/10th as significant as women’s.
But a reasonable argument only has to make enough sense to be worthy of exploration. As depicted in The Red Pill, the MRAs more than meet that standard, and that’s the key point that all those givers of non-answers miss. (Note: You are totally fine to say that there are so many problems and there is so little time that men’s problems, because they are less pressing than women’s, don’t deserve our attention. Sure. That’s an entirely different argument and response than what was employed by the leftists in this film.)
Women may be in a bad position, but it’s not all bad. So in a true quest for equality, it won’t only be about getting things, there will also need to be some giving. Or is this quest really about wanting equality in areas where women are lesser without any equality where men are lesser?