You’d think the biggest serial killer in American history would be a story that people would be interested in hearing about. Especially if those he killed were babies that had just been born.
…Unless, of course, that murderer just happens to be a doctor doing “abortions”, which might have some uncomfortable and politically-incorrect ramifications. Media coverage of the 2012 case was sparse. Journalist Megan McArdle admitted:
But I understand why my readers suspect me, and other pro-choice mainstream journalists, of being selective—of not wanting to cover the story because it showcased the ugliest possibilities of abortion rights. The truth is that most of us tend to be less interested in sick-making stories—if the sick-making was done by “our side.”
I, for one, am looking forward to watching the PG-rated movie… that is, if I can find anywhere that is playing it. Normally when a movie is hard to find, like The Red Pill I find it on Google. They seem to know of the movie, but don’t even provide the normal “Add to Wishlist” option.
Oh, and speaking of The Red Pill (which I wrote about here), I thought I’d update you and show you just how “informed” and “in touch with the people” the critics are. On RottenTomatoes the critic average is 4/10 but the audience puts it at 4.6/5 (*note the low numbers though).
Meanwhile on Google play it hits 4.6 too.
And as part of the 1 score rating, it included this expert:
I guess we can give points for honesty… and ridiculous bias.
I recommend watching Netflix’s The Bleeding Edge which is an exposé into the “medical instruments” industry. The documentary clearly shows that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is failing the American people by not adequately checking that products (often very expensive products too) are safe for their proscribed purposes. This includes hip replacements which break down and cause neurological symptoms and contraceptive devices which will stop you having children… by virtue of the fact you won’t be able to have sex because of pain and injuries. (The latter device, Essure, is still for sale in the US for the remainder of 2018 – despite being pulled from overseas sale when regulators asked for more data).
The scam and failure seems to be multi-faceted:
a clause which allows companies to claim a product is “similar” to an existing product, and so it doesn’t need to go through approval. (A product can be similar to a similar to a similar…)
much less stringent testing is required for devices than drugs. (One would think a device which stays in the body would need more testing than a drug which passes through the body).
the FDA’s inability to recall or reject approvals based on “similar” items, even if those items are recalled due to adverse outcomes.
the partisan-nature of FDA management, who seem to have very cosy relationships with the medical device industry – frequently working with them before and after a stint in the FDA. (Not to mention lobbying of politicians).
doctors are unaware (or some, complicit) and assume if the FDA approves an item it is safe.
even when compensation is received from a company, it often is a token-amount of their overall profit (and so hardly going to change their behaviour).
Well worth watching, and telling your friends to watch too. I’d love to see the
I recently watched The Red Pill. I enjoyed it as a thought-provoking piece. Contrary to all the negative criticism that I’d heard about it, I didn’t find it hateful toward women.
Despite my strong views in the next three paragraphs, I didn’t agree with everything the movie had to say (which I’ll discuss further on).
The first thing I heard about this movie was that screenings of it were being ‘shutdown’ amid protests from a vocal minority. If anything, the hysteria surrounding the movie only made me want to see it more. Anyone who tries to shutdown a debate is conceding they fear the opposing arguments. It seems, based on Google Play reviews, that a lot of other people also liked it.
Not incidentally, Channel 7 and Andrew O’Keefe owe the director Cassie Jaye an apology for their completely biased and ill-informed interview. O’Keefe starts the interview admitting that people not being able to see the film restricts the conversation “we’re able to have around this”. He then launches into a tirade of how the film represents certain things (which it doesn’t), then admits he hasn’t seen it, blaming Cassie for not sending him a copy (which she did). Then they tried to force her to remove the videos of the interview from her Facebook site. Stay classy, 7. (Here’s a thought, you could always just apologise. I’ll let you save face by assuming it was just a momentary lack of ethics and professionalism).
I commend Cassie Jaye for the courage in making the film and all those involved in the production, distribution and screening. For those who buckled under the screeching howls of protest… thanks for nothing and I’m glad you didn’t get my money.
There’s a few topics in life that I’m passionate about. Men, and marriage, are among them. Through a great marriage you bless everyone in the family. Get enough great families and have you have a great community and scaling up, society.
And great marriages require healthy men and women (holistically), regardless of their current marital status.
I believe men can only be great men when supported by other men and great women. Likewise, women need other women and great men around them. Only together are we strongest. Anything which pulls down either gender is therefore harmful to all.
The movie highlighted several valid points where society discriminates against men. These include the criminal justice system handing out harsher punishments, family courts preferencing custody to the female and the unequal spending on breast vs prostate cancer and how domestic violence against men is largely ignored by society.
Now in some cases, men are their own enemies. We aren’t good at going to the doctor regularly. We’re fueled by testosterone, which find us in dangerous situations (often when younger). Sure, I can make that jump. But it’s not all our own fault and we do need to find solutions. We can’t expect equal funding for prostate cancer unless we campaign and fundraise for it. (Politicians tend to do things that are popular instead of following evidence-based science).
The movie identifies that while women have been freed from the “house wife” stereotype, men remain locked in as the “provider”. Keeping a home functioning and providing an income are both important roles that need to be done. But both can be done by either gender. Society should frown upon either not being done, not by it being done by an alternate gender.
The male rights campaigners talk about society seeing men as disposal. They talk about the “women and children first” rule (in an emergency situation), or that society is more willing to lose soldiers if they are male. Men, they say, are therefore taught to consider themselves as of less value than females.
How do I see myself is a different question than how do I value someone else? I like the gallantry that a man will sacrifice himself to save a woman. I think that it is a positive trait that should be encouraged in both genders. The notion of sacrifice, and protection of others is a bulwark against the rampant ideology of self-first. We should each see, respect and value each other. And that begins with truly listening to one another.
I don’t see the Male Rights Movement as a backlash against female empowerment (as some claim). It is however resisting the push from radical feminism which thinks that men are obsolete, naturally evil and single-handedly responsible for the ills of the world. Clearly, that’s not true.
I encourage you to see the documentary and make up your own mind.
A few nights ago the beautiful Mrs Ezard and I watched an excellent documentary called “The Hunting Grounds” (2015). It is an exposé into how US colleges hide the rampant problem of sexual assaults on campus.
The statistics are staggering: 1 in 5 women are sexually assaulted while at a US college.
The universities show a disturbing propensity to close ranks; attempting to silence the victim through threat and intimidation in an effort to protect their school’s fictional reputations. Repeatedly the women say they are more victimised by the response of the college than the actual attack itself.
Call me old fashioned, but anyone who does nothing condones the behaviour. I honestly don’t know how the school boards, faculty etc who care more for the school’s reputation than the victims’ justify it to themselves. Money is not reason enough for a person’s “job” to override their humanity. Shame on them, and all who allow the problem to hide.
In the movie they also speak about the frat-culture and how it is linked to the suppression. Surely, even alumni frat members would rather expel deviants from among them than contribute to hiding them?
Good on the men and women who bravely stand to say that such treatment will not be tolerated; not by the abusers, and not by the colleges.
It’s definitely worth watching, but be warned it will make you angry.