I'd be more interested if you were able to provide an actual opinion that you've articulated yourself as opposed to linking another person's video and then bombarding us with all these disclaimers. That said, I always saw the MRA movement as an inevitable reaction to radical feminism (i.e. frequent talk about patriarchy and privilege), not unlike how the black power movement is often interpreted as a reaction to the radical movements of its time.
My criticisms, both good and bad (I'm editing and adding more as I think of them):
-She does a good job presenting them in an unbiased manner, as she interviews both proponents and critics of the movement. She edits in a way that sometimes cuts back and forth between MRAs and critics of MRAs like Sociology professor and male feminist Michael Kimmel and Ms Magazine editor Katherine Spillar, so it does feel like one is watching an actual dialogue at several points.
-She lists a shitload of facts and statistics to help back their arguments. Most of it is from more "official" or reputable sources like the CDC. Some criticized the film upon its release for containing misleading figures, but most of the data she presents seems to be pretty clear cut, straightforward.
-She could've done a better job of holding Paul Elam's feet to the fire, and asked him to explain some of the more divisive things he's written in the past on his site AVFM. To be fair, she does address his infamous "bash a violent bitch month" article toward the end of the film, noting it was written as a satirical response to a Jezebel post (which was itself partly satirical) celebrating women who hit their husbands and boyfriends. Much of the media backlash to his article failed to note it was written as satire and failed to note the original Jezebel article he was quoting. I think Elam is the MRM's biggest liability. He means well and has publicly endorsed an Equal Rights Amendment on AVFM, but he has a tendency to act like an obstinate bull with his messaging, likely turning away a lot of people who might otherwise be more receptive to what he has to say.
-She could've focused more on the complaints MRAs make about boys in education, and devoted a little less running time to the family court issues. Some MRAs like Farrell have recently shifted to speaking almost exclusively of the crisis of boys falling behind in school or failing to launch, and ultimately, people will be more sensitive to hearing about problems with boys than they will about problems with men. Approaching the MRM from that angle may have led to more people seeing the movie.
-She could've spent more time discussing the issue of circumcision, perhaps citing recent studies suggesting males lose more their sensitivity in their genital region than
previously thought. She could've noted that
a lot of money is made by hospitals selling removed baby foreskins to the cosmetic industry. Although getting that in-depth might really warrant a separate full length documentary, perhaps.
-She could've spent more time interviewing female MRAs. There's a lot of them, but she spends most of her time talking to male MRAs like Warren Farrell. The most time spent with female MRAs in the film is with Erin Pizzey and Karen Straughan. Focusing mostly on the male members might lead to the false impression of it being an exclusively male movement with only a handful of female members. Alison Tieman is barely seen, which was a shame.
-She could've spent less time on the criticisms of feminism made by some of her interview subjects, since it's supposed to be a documentary about the MRM, not feminism, although to be fair, most of those interviewed do explain exactly why they feel at odds with it, and cite instances where organizations like NOW campaigned against some MRA efforts toward equality. It's also hard not to address them (feminists), since they made a point of shutting down some MRA events via blocking entrances, pulling fire alarms, etc. They also mention the Duluth Model (created by feminists) and why they feel it had unintended bad consequences for men. I was also surprised to hear some of the MRAs like Fred Hayward and Warren Farrell say complimentary things about feminism, since going into the film, I held the notion they were all raging anti-feminists. Especially interesting was the section on Warren Farrell, who evolved from a card carrying member of NOW in the early 70s to being considered the father of the modern men's movement. He says they are not mutually exclusive worldviews, although he does criticize patriarchy theory when asked why there's a rift between the movements.
-"Women are seen as sex objects; men are seen as success objects." -quoted from one of Farrell's books by one of the MRAs interviewed in the film.
-"People get hostile..." - Elam when discussing how people react to MRAs when these issues are brought up.
-She could've given the film a better title, because since it's been released, the term has become more synonymous with PUA culture than with MRAs in the public consciousness. MRAs have actively tried to distance themselves from PUA culture. I wouldn't be shocked if a lot of uninformed people avoided the movie because they thought it she was being an apologist for PUA culture, when the film has little to do with PUAs.
-She does a good job in using real data to counter the widely made argument that while men may have some issues, they don't face systemic discrimination.
-She rightfully acknowledges that women still have issues unique to them too, being careful not to frame the MRM's issues in such a way that would appear to dismiss women's issues. If anything, she exposes a massive empathy gap in our culture.
-Many critics dismissed the film as propaganda. By definition though, most documentary films can be considered propaganda. At least she tried to include as much statistical data as possible.
-The segment on Boko Haram and the media's indifference to boys they burned alive versus massive coverage of the girls they later kidnapped was probably the most impactful part of the film, at least to me. It's hard to dismiss MRA claims of an empathy gap when those types of double standards are made glaringly obvious.
