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.
Ok thanks I’ll resend the others.
Flying Mouse,
These drug tests will cost an already impoverished state so much money. That money could be used to better serve people in need, but no, they’d rather use it to shame and punish the poor. Drug tests have an alarming false positive rate too. I don;t believe that people should be punished with starvation and homelessness for having addictions, that’s evil enough. It is even worse to think that people trying to obey these regulations could still risk permanently life altering ramifications.
It all about punishing poverty.
@Lea: oh, this so reminds me of an online argument I was having yesterday with a privileged white guy, who kept telling me that living in poverty was a choice. He finally shut up when I started on about effective marginal tax rates and government transfer abatement steps.
I wish people who had never (1) lived in poverty or (2) been around poverty a lot would just STFU about poverty.
Pallygirl,
Yep, it could never happen to them. They “know” that they deserve their station in life and that had they been born in different circumstances they would never let a little thing like institutionalized oppression and generational poverty effect them. They’re no different from people bragging about how they’d survive the zombie apocalypse because of their superior (nonexistent) survival skills. Honestly, the hardships and suffering of other people is just as imaginary to them. The world is just in their eyes. the American Dream is real and the system works, because they are doing just fine and that’s all that matters.
They are quite content to live in Omelas.
(1) – This. This forever.
I’ve met too many people in (2) who still don’t get it. Like landlords. Ugh.
On topic – I laughed out loud at the end of the video. “…thought it would be a cock fest.” Hur hur hur. Plus, now I can think of MRAs as roosters.
So, let me get this straight. Here we have a group of men one of whose main complaints is that they don’t seem to be attracting any women (which they think is due to feminism making it possible for women to earn a living), and one of these same people believes that this group of men is so irresistible to women that some women would be willing to shell out $400 or whatever they were charging for tickets just for the chance of meeting them?
They don’t logic so good, do they?
@Lea – I agree with you on all of those counts. It just sticks in my craw extra hard when people in government throw dirt at people on the bottom and make them jump through hoops as they pass tidbits along to the top dogs. I should be immune to the rank hypocrisy by now, especially since I’ve lived in Florida for most of my life, but it still turns my stomach. I didn’t mean to erase any of the other awful motives or side effects that happen when politicians start talking about making (only disadvantaged) people take “personal responsibility” for their lives. Since it seems like that was exactly what I did, I am truly sorry.
I wish that we would bury the U.S. myth that says financial success = personal and moral superiority. If you can hold onto that, you can justify doing anything you like to the people who’ve been dealt a crappy hand because they deserve it, and you can excuse any behavior of the elite because they *obviously* earned their status.
@Lea, I’ve had to deal with that type of feminist too (white, wealthy & deeply invested in the overculture) and I was nodding along with everything you wrote. Where I am it’s ‘those Native people’, and dealing with these feminists/equalists/whatever-the-trendy-word-is was like talking to a freaking wall. I had to walk away too.
Flying mouse,
I don’t think you said anything that needs to be apologized for. I was responding in agreement with you. You’ve hit the nail on the head.
@cassandrakitty: They don’t logic so good, do they?
Face it, when we heard about this conference, didn’t most of us here think it was going to be a cock-fest?
Or, you know, words similar to that…
@Lea – Oh, good, I was afraid I’d put my foot in it there for a moment. My contextual reading must be crap tonight; I’ll have to keep that in mind if I’m tempted to tear into anybody 🙂
@ Lea, yes indeed. Reminds me of a discussion long ago entitled “Does feminism mean the right to exploit people as much as your husband does?” (answer: no).
The context is a bit different here in the UK, but it’s “benefit scroungers” that are mainly being demonised – it’s odd just how many “decent, hard-working” folks became “feckless, lazy benefit cheats” the very instant they lost their jobs. Plus the ever popular single mothers and of course anyone who is or looks like they might be, Muslim. Don’t let’s mention that most benefits go to people in work because the minimum wage isn’t a living wage.
Most of that discourse is coming from the right, though, and thankfully they don’t usually claim to be feminist as well, because they aren’t and they know they aren’t.
There is a campaign to end male primogeniture for aristocrats that I certainly agree with in principle, but I’m not going to be carrying banners for any time soon.
Oooh and an Ursula K Le Guin reference too!
Yes, the bad feminists hired him to do that. Just like, I guess, the men’s rights movement hires thousands of men to grope women every day, in crowds and subways all around the world.
I watched the vagina monologues once. A lot of them were great, and I really hadn’t thought much about things that way, and it felt really enlightening.
And then one of the skits made me feel sick, and disturbed, and I just couldn’t stay there. It was the skit, where a young woman talks about how, after a previous abuse, she had a sexual encounter with an adult (I think it was a teacher) when she was underage (13?). I rember the line “If it was rape, it was good rape” very vividly.
The tone used was one where it seemed the monologue was claiming a great awakening, and that the relationship was fulfilling, and wonderful. Positive healing, so on, so forth.
The last line was something about the adult never talking to the child again.
I just couldn’t support that. It made me want to puke. I left. It was a while ago, but I remember that line, and that skit, and it seemed so wrong. This was supposed to be a feminist event, and there was this skit saying sexual abuse of a 13 year old was okay as long as it was a woman doing the abusing?
I haven’t done anything for V-day since.
Uri! I never knew you were a feminist!
WWTH, dafuq???
Hope the Federal government here doesn’t hear about that. I bet they’d love to bring in a witless, bigoted law like that.
Lea – urgh, so much fail among those people-like-us-but-nobody-else feminists you’ve had to deal with. 🙁
@LBT – Many straight men who are content to know as little as possible about homosexuality while thinking that what little they know encompasses almost the whole (perhaps an attitude suited to MRAs) base their views about Gay Men in General on the small number of straight-chasers who have pursued them or their friends. This has caused problems. Ever since somebody floated the idea about a year ago or so that perhaps poly should be considered an orientation rather than, say, an inclination, I have been beating the drum for straight-chasers to be considered as a completely separate group from gay men, which strikes me as a win all round. One less reason to have to go through the Most Gay Men Aren’t Like That routine, straight men will have more clarity about approaches, and straight-chasers won’t have overly high aspirations attributed to them.
The MRM in a nutshell.
That I don’t want to do those things just shows how little I “get it”.
@WWTH”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.”
To be fair every employee working under those wealthy subsidized executives prolly has to get drug tested to keep their job. 😉
I don’t think that welfare reciepiants should be kicked off of aid if they test positive for illegal drugs or alcohol, but they should be tested regularly and offered drug treatment if they test positive. It has nothing to do with intersectionality (aren’t most drug users white anyway) and everything to do with not contributing to someone’s downward spiral. It sounds mean, but if someone’s an addict, you’re not helping them by giving them food or money.
@Lea “
RE: pallygirl
a privileged white guy, who kept telling me that living in poverty was a choice.
AHAHAHAHA. Aha. Heh heh.
Sure, I made choices to lead to poverty. Sure, I could’ve STAYED with my abusive family and had my gilded middle-class cage. OR I could’ve run like hell and taken care of myself.
The mental illness, however, I can do nothing about. Oh well.
RE: contrapangloss
I went to the Vagina Monologues once, for posterity, and I remember very little. Then again, I generally make it a matter of principle not to go to art events where genitalia are given autonomous emotions.
RE: DJG
I’m not even familiar with the idea of a straight-chaser.
@Lea That I don’t want to do those things just shows how little I “get it”.
Yeah, sad thing is that most of these so-called “feminists” are the ones that talk about how nice it must be to be able to “afford” to be able to stay at home when in reality most SHAM are at home because the cost of daycare outstrips their pay. But caring about poor mothers? What, is feminism supposed to be about women or something?
LBT – yeah, genitals as autonomous doesn’t work for me, either. My innards aren’t given to monologuing (unless farts count?) and while I can see the logic of talking about vagina-havers’ experiences as distinct from the notions non-vagina-havers (mostly cis men) hold, it still seems to me that it’s making being a (cis) woman all about the vagina.
Tee hee! The roomie had a pot of black bean soup for breakfast today, and IMMEDIATELY his gut started performing a symphony. It was loud and long and highly comical. We started singing along with it.
Hold that hope warmly to your chest, kittehserf. That awful Kevin Andrews man was talking about “income management” for everyone on unemployment and disability benefits the other day … so that they had to spend it on food and “essentials”. The obvious implication being that they were feckless and irresponsible with a tasty dash of not deserving any little indulgence or extravagance they might choose for themselves.
The fact that the money available is barely enough to keep body and soul together is completely overwhelmed by the dogwhistle inference that the reason they can’t manage to live well is down to personal inadequacies rather than that the money just isn’t enough. I have no idea how people in Sydney can possibly live on benefit. I suppose you move into accommodation shared with a dozen or more other people just to have a roof over your head.
@WWTH and Lea, it may sound mean, but its not doing drug addicts favors to indiscriminately give them food and money. It’s not about intersectionality (most drug addicts are white, anyway), its about avoiding contributing to someone’s downward spiral.
And drug testing is pretty accurate. Most people have to be drug tested at their jobs, after all.