So a helpful Twitterer told me that I was a frequent topic of conversation on A Voice for Men’s Honey Badger “radio” show last night — that’s the one hosted by Karen Straughan (Girl Writes What) and Alison Tieman (Typhon Blue) and a newer addition to AVFM’s FeMRA stable named Della Burton. Bored, I went over to take a listen to the archived show. Well, bits and pieces of it, anyway. Life is short, and every minute of this show felt about an hour long.
Anyway, I missed most of whatever it was they said about me, but I did manage to force myself to sit through a good chunk of the segment featuring none other than Nick Reading, the guy who’s running a joke campaign for city council of Edmonton Alberta as the “Patriarchy Party” candidate. You know, the dude we talked about just yesterday.
The gals did their best to play along with his over-the-top patriarchal schtick, proclaiming themselves submissive inferior females unworthy of his manly phallus, and so on. It was as gratingly unfunny as you might imagine, and it went on and on. Even the Honey Badgers, perhaps wondering if this whole segment wasn’t a rather apt metaphor for their own role within A Voice for Men and the Men’s Rights movement at large, couldn’t quite bring themselves to laugh at any of Nick’s, er, humor.
At least not until, about 49 minutes into the show, he brought out the rape jokes.
Take a listen:
Paul “The Thought of Fucking Your Shit Up Gives Me an Erection” Elam, meet Nick “If They Didn’t Scream No, How Else Would I Get an Erection” Reading.
In case you weren’t able to make all that out, due to the clear-as-mud sound engineering job of AVFM’s James Huff — you may remember him as the guy responsible for this amazing rant — I have transcribed the exchange below as best I could, cutting out a few repeated phrases and ignoring some remarks that got buried under other remarks.
Nick Reading: No never means no. It only means yes. That’s an understanding that we have within the patriarchy.
Karen Straughan: It is.
Alison Tieman: That’s true. Actually “no” should be stricken from the English language because it simply makes no sense. How could any woman ever say no to the holy phallus unless she was criminally insane?
Nick: Criminally insane, yes.
Della Burton [?]: Criminally, yes.
Karen: But, but we shouldn’t strike “no” from all the dictionaries and the lexicons of language simply because there are numerous times in the course of a day when a man loves to say “no” to a woman.
Nick: I would almost insist on striking it from the non-male vernacular but if they didn’t scream it, how else would I get an erection?
[Awkward pause]
[Laughter]
Della [?]: Oh my goodness.
Karen: Right, you’re right.
Della: I hadn’t even thought of that.
Karen: So no is still in.
A Voice for Men: Promoting Human Rights, One Rape Joke at a Time
EDITED TO ADD: Below, a video on YouTube about this episode of Honey Badger radio, which not only looks at the show itself but at what was going on in the official chatroom for the show at the time, which turns out to be even creepier than the stuff said by Nick Reading on the show itself.
Along with the standard MRA misogyny from some of AVFM’s regulars, there were bizarre sexualized comments directed at the so-called Honey Badgers themselves: one commenter went on at length about how he wanted to use Karen Straughan’s breast milk in his coffee (and spike her coffee with his semen). Palani provides screenshots and everything. Some of her commentary is a bit problematic — she refers to them as “retards” at one point — but if you’ve got 15 minutes it’s worth a watch.
[VIDEO REMOVED BY REQUEST OF VIDEOMAKER]
AllyS:
Oh fuck…THAT blog. It’s regularly full of stupid. In one post, he thinks a 34 second clip of Anita Sarkeesian promoting some seminar (which according to the post is a pyramid scheme) is some kind of “gotcha” about her Tropes videos. OOOH she liked a marketing seminar, the horror! isn’t this some kind of fallacy? saying that because your opponent did something questionable in the past it therefore makes their argument invalid?
In another post mocking a poster that says to not shame girls for wearing shorts and to teach guys not to sexualize normal female body parts, he says
Boys are going to let you know when they’re horny girls, whether you like it or not! And because a penis and legs are totally the same thing! because the poster said let girls walk around without pants rather than asking to not shame them for wearing short pants.
And why the fuck should girls not wear shorts in warm weather when guys can?
In aaaaanother post, he thinks women on tumblr finding actors like Tom Hiddleston attractive means that male characters are just as hypersexualized as female ones. Um…WHAT? no, I’m sorry but finding a character hot does not mean the character themselves are purposely created as sexualized. Their are people who think the ponies from MLP:FIM are hot, that doesn’t make them sexualized characters.
Yep. Regularly full of stupid.
Actually, in the post you linked, he is basically engaging in their own made up “apex fallacy”
So because Mary played a pivitol role (you know, alongside tons of male saints and a MALE GOD) somehow that invalidates all the other horrible things in the bible regarding women http://www.religioustolerance.org/ofe_bibl.htm
Along with one quote comparing women to an object (sorry dudes, IDGAF if it’s a ruby, its still and object) We’re like gems ladies, guess that means all the ways women were treated unequally in the past never happened or even if it did who cares right? rubies!!! /s
This is one of the things that angers me most about MRAs. They want to claim men have it tough in some ways too? ok, that’s reasonable and makes sense. But always ‘splaining away actual historical fact about women’s inequality, twisting and manipulating oppression and trying to pass it off as “protection”, erasing all the women who did hard labour….that really grinds my gears. Because it’s fundamentaly dishonest and just completely unjust. I saw an MRA youtube video saying how men value freedom and women value safety, thus feminism is wrong because it limits men’s freedom. You’d think that these men who can see the value in freedom, would not be so quick to handwave all the ways women were denied freedom in exchange for so called safety at the hands of men. You’d think they’d understand why feminists would be upset at having their freedom restricted. How come only men are allowed to be angry at that? Would MRAs gladly answer to women and have their wives have all the control, both legally and socially in exchange for women making up the majority of soldiers and deaths in war and being the disposable ones? In exchange for that would they they concede that women are superior and should control everything and men should just stfu and accept it as a fair exchange because should they (men) ever be in danger, women will protect them? somehow I don’t think they’d be too happy with that.
In short, fuck your safety and protection MRAs, if I die, I die. At least I die answering only to myself and the law, like everyone else.
That fucking guy. V_V
Indeed. I wish we can get some actual historians and anthropologists in on this, because it’s just internet debate with very few sources. I’ve done reading here and there, and all I can tell is that the status of women compared to men has varied depending on time period and country. I never interpreted patriarchy as women being on the bottom and men at the top at all times, but in general it’s women who had less power than men and even the average man who had little power or status in society, he was still “the man of the house.” He would garner more respect than his wife, no?
I dunno, everything I have read regarding women in religion (specifically Christianity) and throughout time periods in history completely contradicts MRAs. Everything revolved around men, the good and the bad. And no amount of this so called safety women had can ever make me think shoving women in the kitchen will ever be a fair and justified trade off. FFS, how many women have been beaten or raped or emotionally abused at the hands of their fathers/husband/brothers? they work under the assumptions that all men are good and honorable, well they are not. And yes, before any MRA comes in here, this goes the same for mothers/wives/sisters. People can be assholes, including the ones closest to you.
actually what that should say is “people can be assholes, including the ones who are supposed to protect you”
In J S Mill’s “the subjugation of women” he points out that at the time he wrote it women in the UK had pretty much the same legal status as slaves in the US. Which, as he also carefully points out, does not mean that most white British women were as badly treated as black American slaves – most women were loved by their husbands and therefore treated accordingly. But not ALL. Those who HAD an abusive, raping husband, had ZERO legal protection from him, because legally, they were just like slaves.
Yeah that’s the thing- I have no doubt in my mind that back then, most married couples loved each other and husbands treated their wives well. The issue is women had little to no rights and everything is left on chance. If her husband is a good man, well great! but if he’s not? well sucks for her.
As far as I know, it’s giving one set of people a huge amount of power over another set. Well some of those people will misuse and/or abuse that power. So everyone having equal rights addresses that. Women being educated and working a job that actually pays gives them a chance of survival instead of relying on a husband who may or may not be a good person. It also gives women a purpose. Self actualization. I just don’t see how anyone can find fault with this or think before women got the same rights, it was an equal trade off so feminists should have just not existed. Apply the same thing to another race or class and we would all be rightfully appalled. Well, I would hope so.
Yeah, also a point that Mill makes is that you can’t defend a set of laws by saying that they work as long as everyone is a good person. Laws should be made knowing that some people aren’t. That’s sort of the point. If everyone were good we wouldn’t need laws at all.
I love how all of their stupid hypotheticals start with an apocalypse. Okay, dude who sits around on a computer all day, I’m sure YOU’D survive. Because….penis.
And all this “women wouldn’t survive without men” crap of course ignores the fact that they wouldn’t survive without us, either.
The other day I was watching that Discovery channel show where they stick a man and a woman in some deserted wilderness for a couple weeks. In this particular episode the man was absolutely clueless about wilderness survival to the point where you had to wonder if he’d ever so much as watched TV before. He went and drank water from a stream without boiling it, despite his partner telling him what a bad idea that was. He didn’t know to bury his waste a good way away from the camp–he just covered it up with leaves and stuff. The woman knew how to catch fish and open coconuts and build a shelter that stood up to a really bad storm.
Amazingly, simply being physically strong doesn’t mean that you’re going to survive in tough situations. It’s also about ingenuity and learned skills.
Chie I misread what you said as “Women wouldn’t survive because men”. When the apocalypse fantasy comes out it is always that (other) men will be killing and raping women. Women don’t need protection from beasts etc. just from their supposed protectors. I believe that is called a protection racket.
How do you people sit through these things? I mean, the damn thing was apparently more than 50 minutes long and it’s not even visually engaging.
Re: the new edit
SaelPalani, aka Diana Boston, aka DianaTheDefender, and a few other names, is a TERF or at least was in the past. I don’t know if she’s walked back from that position, but as far as I know, she hasn’t. She also was embroiled in a feud with pro-sex worker rights commentators on Youtube, one of whom she repeatedly slung racist insults at, including “chola” and various Hispanic slurs.
She seems to be mellowing a little, but approach her videos like you would an ornery copperhead with a webcam!
It follows with the general “logic” that men are slavering beasts. Any time society collapses it’s all men being horrible terrible people and women being victims. It’s as though they don’t believe their gender is decent or something… Seriously, wtf is up with that? “Society collapsing” isn’t even really a thing, what does that even mean? Computers no longer working? Infrastructure no longer being in place? How would that even happen? Even if it did, I think well enough of the human race that while we may lose a lot of information/technology, social interactions wouldn’t collapse entirely into this weird chaos that doesn’t exist even in social animals who don’t use tools. It’s like “Whoops! Society collapsed! Now morals aren’t a thing!” -.- I’m pretty sure people would prioritise some things, but on the whole they’d be working collaboratively to improve the world, not just take it as an excuse to do all the terrible things they’ve never been “allowed” to do because those damn lawmakers made it consequential.
Because they think that’s men’s “natural” state for some reason? And they also think that since it’s men’s natural state no one is going to object and work together to prevent the (likely few) people who would do horrible things from doing horrible things…
It’s strange that every misogynist’s idea of an apocalypse is a place where survival is going to be based on how many logs you can bench press or something.
And the guys wouldn’t be in danger from larger and stronger men. Nope, it’d be just all the men beating up on all the women, and then those bitches who wouldn’t go to to Homecoming with me will be sorry.
I vote we mail hundreds of copies of Valley of the Horses to Forney just to irritate him. 😀
Right? I loved the Yo, Is This Racist? blog and Daniel Ti is fucking hilarious in print, but the YITR podcast is a powerful soporific.
Welcome To Night Vale, on the other hand, is amazing. If the idea of Lovecraftian comedy doesn’t draw you in, maybe the canon M/M or the constant jokes at the expense of the white guy who dresses up like “an Indian” will.
Louis C. K.’s other rape joke, also pretty good:
@Cassandra, oh god, don’t talk to me about Grave of the Fireflies. It’s amazing, but definitely not a feel-good movie.
I love C.K. Lewis for that joke. That was a good one. 😀
…
Huh.
Well, that’s interesting.
Sorry, that was from the linked Matt Forney piece myeyestheyburn provided up there
Apt name, by the by, for summarizing exactly what my eyes are also going through after skimming that.
Thank you, Matt Forney, for demonstrating exactly how the patriarchy is a protection racket.
Yeah, sorry Matt Forney, but I’mma go out on a limb and say that my fairly self-sufficient, sword-wielding self would kick your sorry ass in apocalypse-land any day.
The comparison of women to rubies that I am familiar with is Proverbs 31. If they actually read it, the MRA chuckleheads would be dismayed; the ‘virtuous woman ‘ is described as a forthright runner of the household, going so far as to purchase property on her own recognizance and oversee the distribution of resources. Not a meek underling by any means.
Also, as a recovering Catholic, my take on Mariolatry is this – it was the only allowed expression of the desire for a Goddess the Church had. Some worshippers did, and do, take this farther than orthodoxy allowed. During JPII’s regime, there was a campaign to have the BVM declared “Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix of all graces”, which, theologically speaking, would have added a fourth Person to the Trinity. JP, despite his fervent devotion, realized that this was going a bridge too far, and, among other things, would have indefinitely postponed any rapprochement with the Eastern Orthodox churches.
Footage from the CAFE/AVfM rally in Toronto today. I only watched far enough to hear a guy talking about the need to pick up guns (he is hustled away from the microphone, to be fair), and then Dean Esmay pointing out that the police officers and construction workers in view were mostly men.