Misogyny Theater is back with Episode 4!
If you paid any attention to A Voice for Men’s recent conference in – well, near – Detroit, you probably heard about the guy who was ejected from the conference after reportedly “petting” a reporter and a number of other men. (You can read about him here.)
In this episode of Misogyny Theater, we return to the Man Going His Own Way who calls himself Sandman to hear his highly speculative theories about this gentleman and his activities.
Sandman also warns Men’s Rightsers and MGTOWers that if they get together in large groups, they will inevitably attract opportunistic sex-seekers eager to take advantage of the man surplus for their own perverse ends. Apparently, angry dudes who hate women are like catnip to gay men and straight ladies alike.
The audio for this little cartoon of mine comes from Sandman’s video “Men’s Rights Molester.” I have indicated edits in the audio with little scratchy sounds. And I’ve bleeped out the name of the alleged molester. Otherwise it’s all straight Sandman.
My previous Misogyny Theater episode featuring Sandman can be found here.
Crowd chatter and buzzer sounds from FreeSFX.
Wowowow….watch out for predatory gay men looking for confused straight dudes to prey on?!
Not to mention that his conspiracy theory regarding the “petter” becomes a bit ludicrous. If this guy were a “feminist plant”, wouldn’t he prefer to get beat up by an MRA than a reporter? And why would it “look bad” for feminists to protest the conference?
“Taking the red pill often leads to anger and confusion for many men” – well, that’s true, but not in the way he means it.
This whole thing is just the usual “what if gay men treat us the way we treat women?” fearmongering, with a bonus “feminist plant” conspiracy theory (notice how the plant must have been gay – no way would a straight man even pretend to be gay, right? No homo!). And of course, only teh gays would be desperate enough to take advantage of confused redpillers – even those evil, predatory women they’re all so afraid of won’t shag an MRA.
I really wish that I, as a feminist, was half as powerful as the MRAs believe me to be.
And on the issue of gay men preying on newly converted MRAs…wut. How can the movement say they support the LGBT community and then harbor batshit crazy ideas like this? Really? Truly? Vilifying a community is totally the way to show support. That’s some mighty fine MRAlogic.
Why are homophobic straight guys always so convinced all the gay guys want them?
But wait, according to these guys women have an unfair advantage, in that everywhere they go men constantly want to shag them. Yet they believe a woman would pay actual money to get into this conference in the hopes of getting laid by one of these prizes?
I like how he proposes all sorts of theories as if the idea that a guy who has trouble finding appropriate relationships would be attracted to the MRA movement is soooo unbelievable.
“Vilifying a community is totally the way to show support.”
Well it’s on a par with saying they support male victims of rape and then, um, shaming and vilifying male victims of rape, implying underage males abused by female teachers were “the lucky ones”, and so on.
Logic, compassion, empathy fails all round.
Ah, yes. Feminists are totes the kind of people who would ask someone to go and touch other people without consent. That’s, like, their whole schtick: consent is bad.
>.<
Ugh, tell me about it. I’ve been feministing for the better part of my adult life, and I’m even bringing up two more in the ways of misandry. And never once have I been able to bend spoons with my mind, breathe fire, or attract brave champions with my crystal tears. To listen to how some of these guys go on, I should be omnipotent and omnipresent enough to do all that and more. I must have gone wrong somewhere. Did a lesson from the Feminist High Council-sponsored correspondence course get lost in the mail or something?
We really need to give straight chasers their very own orientation all to themselves. Although thankfully here it doesn’t play out to any real detriment, the amount of trouble caused when people expect Gs in general to act like SCs (or, to a perhaps lesser extent, when people expect SCs to act like Gs) is much greater than necessary. It could well make a world of difference if SCs had their own category, especially given how they are so frequently taken in error to be representative of people who are quite different from them.
“Why are homophobic straight guys always so convinced all the gay guys want them?”
My guess is that they want to have sex with women and don’t view women as people, so they mix a leap of logic with projection and conclude that gay men don’t view the men they want to have sex with as people. This fear says some deeper things about what they really feel about so-called “female privilege.”
Off topic, but I’m getting really tired of feminists who can’t or won’t do intersectionalism. Tennessee just passed a law that welfare recipients have to get drug tested despite the fact the same law has been tried in Utah and Florida and was a huge waste of money. All these commenters on Jezebel are for the law. Regulars. Not trolls. Feminists should not be for treating poor people and/or people experiencing temporary financial hardships as criminals. Nobody has ever tried to pass a law for drug testing wealthy executives whose corporations receive subsidies so I will never believe support for these laws is anything but classist.
I agree Skye. It’s always hilarious when men tell women to get over it when we complain about harassment but then they get harassed by another man they freak out. Shouldn’t they too be flattered that a man finds them attractive?
Of course it’s classiest, it ties back to “if they weren’t lazy/on drugs/bad people, they wouldn’t need any help.”
Ugh, more of the “let’s demonise the poor and make their lives even harder than they are already” strand of contemporary thinking.
No idea what that might have to do with feminism.
Not a lot, I suspect.
“Taking the red pill often leads to anger and confusion for many men” – well, that’s true, but not in the way he means it.
Feature, not a bug…
Amen, WWTH & Skye.
You’re both exactly right.
It’s disappointing, but not surprising. There are too many fauxgressive feminists. Intersectionality or bullshit are the only choices.
“Why are homophobic straight guys always so convinced all the gay guys want them?”
Ummm, I am chalking it up to wishful thinking.
I think it’s confirmation bias. They don’t notice the ninety nine gay men ignoring them, but the one time a gay man wanted to sex them – that sticks in their minds.
I did meet a man once who was strongly attracted by the idea (and reality) of blowing straight men. Never did see the appeal, myself.
Definitely stealing that. I learn the best words here. WHTM was the first place I saw the term “brogressive,” too.
On the drug testing trend: one thing that seems to get consistently ignored in person-to-person discussions is how much money can be at stake for the drug testing companies (a few Florida papers did a pretty good job uncovering the possible conflicts of interest that butted up against that law – such as the fact that a significant portion of the governor’s personal wealth is from a string of quick-service medical clinics). The state of Florida sank over $45,000 into those tests in less than a year. Granted, that kind of money isn’t going to give anybody instant retirement, but it is a tidy little sum guaranteed to keep rolling until the federal courts ruin the fun. It’s just the kind of efficiency that the small government, privatize everything crowd loves most. You get to make a sweet profit for your cronies while banging away about personal responsibility and throwing racist/classist dog whistles out to your voting base. Sounds like a recipe for right-wing success cake to me.
David, I think you’re not getting my emails because I got your email address wrong? I really don’t know.
RE: DJG
I have no idea what you just said and what it means.
RE: Robert Ramirez
“Why are homophobic straight guys always so convinced all the gay guys want them?” Ummm, I am chalking it up to wishful thinking.
Beat me to the punch.
fruitloopsie, I’ve gotten 2 emails from you; just replied to them. They were both recent. Not sure where the earlier ones might have gone. I did once have an email go missing for several years.
I really wish that I, as a feminist, was half as powerful as the MRAs believe me to be.
Reminds me of that sad joke about the two Jewish kulaks back in old Russia.
One of them’s busy reading some anti-semetic newspaper and telling his companion “You know, it says here that we Jews are taking over Germany. It says here that we Jews controlled the Romanovs.”
Finally, his companion can’t take it and says “Moishe, why do you read that crap? You know that it’s only there to rile people up against we Jews and come beat us up!”
And Moishe says “Yes, but I like learning how powerful we are.”
bluecat,
That they single out certain drugs and the poor while leaving tobacco and alcohol users alone is telling of classism and racism. You can drive around the country club golf course blotto all day long smoking a fat cigar and you’re still an upstanding citizen worthy of a massive bail out because those are drugs historically associated with white folks. Other addictions are considered dangerous to society and proof of bad character because they don’t have the same associations with privilege.
I stopped being involved with Vagina Monologues and fundraising and volunteering with local ‘Ginaloguers when upon some of us suggesting that we broaden our outreach to include a more diverse audience and potential volunteer pool we were told, “You’ll never reach women like THAT.” Two guesses whether or not “THOSE” kind of women were well off professional white ladies or not. Just kidding, you don’t need to guess. They clearly saw themselves as a better, more enlightened type of woman and they didn’t want any riff raff in their clubhouse. After having one of the women I had volunteered with for years tell me that I was one of “THOSE” women by specifically singling out “housewives” as hopeless, pathetic tools of the patriarchy (I think she specifically called me a “Republican dream”.), I was done like dinner with V-Day. Apparently disrespecting women who give you year after year of unpaid time, skill and labor is only OK if they are the ones doing it. I can help put on Take Back the Night rallies all I like and it’s meaningless. I can be the one who gives the teen running away from DV and rape a home, washes their clothes, makes them breakfast and makes sure he/she gets to therapy, class, court etc. and I still won’t be considered a serious feminist until I get a degree and career making plenty of money. That I don’t want to do those things just shows how little I “get it”. Women making choices for themselves is only feminist if they make the “right” choices.
At least I never looked down on the people in the DV shelters. At least I thought feminism was for them too and that they were just as capable of “getting it” as anyone else. The irony of how little empathy some of those women had for the very population they set out to serve was hard to take. Sure, there were DV and rape victims among them, but they were the “right” kind of victims. Certain women would never see themselves in their movement, so why bother trying? Self fulfilling prophesy much? Argh!
One of those “right kind” of feminists was a lawyer who was later active in promoting an offshoot of Exodus Ministries. You know, the homophobes for Jesus who pretend to provide services for “addictions”? She stopped volunteering with the V-Day group because of all of the LGBTQ women involved.
I don’t call that being “reached”. That was a big ‘ol failure to get the point of feminism. She was neither enlightened nor a good ally, but she was their ideal of a good feminist, until she chucked them to give her more time to teach people to pray the gay away (sometimes under threat or coercion). She ran for a judgeship around that time. Great right? Women on the bench is a good thing regardless of how homophobic, biphobic and transphobic she was, right? *eyeroll* I would not vote for a woman with those views or consider her being on the bench to be good for women. But hey, at least she’s not wasting her life raising kids, campaigning for actual feminists and volunteering, right? At least she had the good sense to be well off and white and that was the dynamic they wanted to attract. Gooooo feminism! /s
Yeah, I’ve had enough of that crap to last a lifetime.
I learned alot in that time and don’t regret being involved with the group. It opened my eyes about a myriad of things, but I stopped believing in what we were doing.
Considering some of the things Eve Ensler has said since then, I’m glad I quit when I did.
I’m still a feminist. I’m still a SAHM. I still take part in fundraisers and activism for causes I believe in. I’m glad that group is still doing something to help people in need, because it’s better than nothing. I still expect better. I still get disappointed by feminists sometimes and believe that as feminists we can do better.