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.
In NZ, we have an accommodation supplement that is given to low income people (workers or non-workers), which of course is a direct government transfer to landlords. I wish we would do away with that supplement and have good (warm, dry, nice) houses for low income people again, like the post-WWII housing boom that happened. There is just so much ignorance about how much income goes on rents.
LBT, regarding ‘straight chasers’, if you’ve never encountered that phenomenon, you have been spared at least one psychic wound. They make g0ys look almost rational. Granted, they’re even rarer, despite what some straight men would have you think.
I believe that it’s rooted in the belief that straight men are somehow more masculine than gay men, that masculinity is the quintessential desirable quality, and that therefore blowing a straight man is the ultimate goal of sex.
I understand DJG to be arguing that, just as pedophiles are not considered gay regardless of the gender of the children they are attracted to, straight chasers should not be considered gay either. I consider the argument to be weak. I think they’re more like g0ys, actually – especially since both squick me the heck out. The putative advantage with straight chasers would be the counterargument, “no, that guy wasn’t gay, he just wanted to give you head because you don’t want to have sex with men,” which makes you sound disingenuous and the chaser like a seriously conflicted predator.
RE: Robert
They make g0ys look almost rational.
Consider my flabber thoroughly gasted. I didn’t know that was POSSIBLE.
I believe that it’s rooted in the belief that straight men are somehow more masculine than gay men, that masculinity is the quintessential desirable quality, and that therefore blowing a straight man is the ultimate goal of sex.
Ohhhhh. I’ve encountered THAT idea a little, though more on the g0y/anonymous craigslist hookup side of things than in real life. (I don’t have that many gay friends; they’re all bi, ace, or complicated.) That said, as awful and unpleasant and gross as they sound, I wouldn’t consider them their own sexuality either. They’re just like the g0ys who fetishize conventional masculinity.
So, er, what does “g0y” mean in this context? My first thought was a gay guy with a touch of matzo fever, but that’s obviously not the case…
As a straight cis male who has been chased… I probably don’t have any say in the SC discussion. Still it seems odd to me to separate them out. Plus for all the worry, it was flattering and where I learned the term “bear”. (Also I am soooooooo oblivious and it took me forever to realize that I was being flirted with.)
@Nequam
From what I’ve gathered, g0ys are gay guys who feel the need to be hyper-masculine dudebros. And they hate buttsex.
LBT is really the expert here, so I’ll leave the rest to his blog: http://lb-lee.livejournal.com/519201.html
It’s hilarious. Go read it.
Oh for a recording! XD
Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck that Andrews is scum. Might have known he’d add that to his charming racism record.
I always think somenthing along those lines when I see the word too, Nequam. 😀
begee, what you’re advocating for is more than simply ‘mean’. Its fucking atrocious. Why not offer people help while also allowing them to eat? Might that be a nice idea?
I actually come come here to get away from toxic views like yours. VOM
Gay/Straight/Man/Woman/Cis/Trans, you. just. don’t. put your hands on other peoples bodies without their explicit consent or that the signals that they’re open to you doing so! It’s creepy and violating. I don’t see why it makes a difference who is the perp and who they’re attracted to is. Geez Louise.
Wow, I missed the begee post:
Citation fucking required.
BS. Poppyseed cake/muffins will give a positive result on an opiates test. Codeine (in some cough syrups – it’s a great cough suppressant – and in combination with ibuprofen in some tablets) can be legally purchased over the counter and will also give a positive result on an opiates test. Low level THC hemp will give a postive result for a THC test.
“Most people have to be drug tested at their jobs, after all.”
Quite a few jobs do, true. But it has very little to do with the cost-benefit. Much like the welfare program drug testing, it costs a lot to implement and the results are, at best, dubious and don’t tend to catch many, if any, drug users. There is simply no good reason, as a profit-making enterprise, why you would add the cost of a mandatory drug-testing program from the perspective of making more money or improving your worker productivity.
Drug-testing at work, since the cost-benefit doesn’t add up, seems to be for the same reason Republicans want to introduce it for welfare benefits; it is an added hoop to jump through, a humiliation, so you know Who’s The Boss. This makes more sense when you realise it also tends to be low-level, low-wage employees, especially in workplaces with high turnover, that tend to be the subjects of mandatory drug testing.
It’s part of the petty authoritarianism of the modern workplace, and it’s part of the reason I am in favour of democratic socialism and workplace democracy.
This is a good, if long post on workplace authoritarianism.
What, so they should be allowed to starve? How fucking dare you equate unemployment or poverty with drug addiction, for starters? And like daintydougal said, why is it so difficult to provide help for people instead of making every problem they have worse, by taking a totally punitive stance?
Seconded. What goddamn place do you live, beegee? I’ve worked in umpteen jobs for thirty years and never been drug-tested, nor has any workplace I’ve been in had such a policy.
“@WWTH and Lea, it may sound mean, but its not doing drug addicts favors to indiscriminately give them food and money.”
“What, so they should be allowed to starve? How fucking dare you equate unemployment or poverty with drug addiction, for starters? And like daintydougal said, why is it so difficult to provide help for people instead of making every problem they have worse, by taking a totally punitive stance?”
Not only should they be allowed to starve in this situation, but their children should too? I know in the US at least there are tons of children in poverty.
Actually, this is a beef I have with the ‘pro-life’ folks too. Somehow abortion is terrible because babies, but cutting snap benefits and school lunch programs is totally ok. Doesn’t compute
In the UK all parents are entitled to child benefit. Should all parents be subjected to drug tests?
In the UK 90% of new housing benefit claimants are in work. should these workers be subjected to drug tests?
Or is it in fact just another way to shit on and punish those at the bottom? While making it appear (to greedy heartless asshats) that those at the top are ‘getting stuff done’?
UK Judge Says Convicted Rapist Has “Good Character,” Isn’t A “Classic Rapist”
…and I’m done. Cider and tennis for me!
“UK Judge Says Convicted Rapist Has “Good Character,” Isn’t A “Classic Rapist”
…and I’m done. Cider and tennis for me!:”
How depressing
@ Robert – Not quite. Orientation just seems to be one of the few things that can resonate at all with people of a certain mind set. (I’m not enough of an optimist to back a postgay society; that way lies erasure.). If you can get them lumped in the g0ys, more power to you; I’m basically throwing anything I can at the wall and hoping something sticks. (An employer who thought all gays were straight chasers fired me specifically on those grounds decades ago, and the attitude lives on.)
He could not resist? Um…excuse me? Of course, he could’ve. He chose to rape her.
Kittenserf:
The Asshole Monologues, not to be confused with collective MRA youtubers. (Hey, I have something like IBS too.)
Robert:
Whoa. I was going to ask how does one present straightness while hooking up with same-sex partners but apparently it’s a bit too nuanced for logic.
LOL! Butt Monologues are much more entertaining and less obnoxious.
What the? That link?
“Sir, I can tell you are a fine man, and I’m sorry I have to convict you for this thing. I mean, it’s not like you’ve ever been charged with battery, or anything. Oh, you have? You’re still a fine man, who isn’t a classic rapist despite this incident of nearly textbook rape.”
How the heck do people become judges?
“I was going to ask how does one present straightness while hooking up with same-sex partners but apparently it’s a bit too nuanced for logic”
It’s about not acting “gay” in terms of having femme interests/appearances, and “straight” in terms of looking/acting like a stereotypically college fratboy. It’s all about being afraid of/grossed out by twinks and crossdressers and desperate to cling to these ideals of “manliness” at any cost.
Wow, this is almost physically painful to read. Freshlysqueezedcynic already pointed out how authoritarian and purposefully humiliating this is, and pallygirl listed how many ways a false positive can show on a test. I’ll add that there are also a ton of ways that a motivated individual can beat a urinalysis. If you’re ever somewhere where there’s a former Army recruiter and a case of beer, ask a few questions about how to prep for a recruit’s UA. You will be blown away by the options. So I can confirm with that your confidence in the accuracy of drug testing is misplaced.
My home state was on the vanguard of the drug-test-for-the-needy movement. The same year that the program went into effect, 500 employees were laid off at the Florida Department for Children and Families. Why? To save money. The state of Florida had thousands to dollars to spend on making sure that nobody ever smoked a joint before they bought milk with their SNAP benefits, but vulnerable kids were just too grand an investment. Does this seem like a good use of resources to you? Because I think it sucks big, rotten lemons.
It’s also disturbing that you seem to think addiction is something that someone will be motivated to overcome if their life gets horrible enough. Have you ever heard anyone’s first-person stories about their times on drugs? Most of them don’t end with “well, I couldn’t afford food any more, so I stopped.” And though you tried to commiserate with Lea about the plight of poor women, you don’t seem to have a problem with withholding support for someone’s own good if their personal lives don’t conform to what you think is acceptable (yes, I know you said you didn’t want anybody kicked off welfare, but you also said that you didn’t want to subsidize their bad choices. So how will this work?).
I’m no expert on addiction, and I don’t know how to cure it any more than I know how to definitively stop world hunger. However, I think a good starting point would be to treat addiction as a medical condition that warrants support and all kinds of help, rather than a personal failing that deserves shame and censure. Paternalistic efforts that shame the poor and waste ever-more-scarce government resources aren’t going to make that happen.
TL;DR – begee, I think your heart is probably in the right place, but the facts don’t line up. Drug tests can be grossly inaccurate and subject to manipulation, the money needed to enforce these laws is pulled from other areas, and you’re stigmatizing both poverty and addiction. This is not the way to help anyone.