Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin - Mad Max： Fury Road, Feminism and Disinformation

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 25, 2015 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin

19:44

Mad Max： Fury Road, Feminism and Disinformation

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	G'day viewers and welcome to WangaFat Wednesday.
	Well hello again Mr. Aussie.
	Would you like to tell everyone exactly what WangaFat means?
	WangaFat's an acronym that means I'm going to tell you who am I not giving a fuck about today.
	And today I'm not giving a fuck about men's rights activists who think you should boycott the new Mad Max movie Fury Road.
	And you're giving so little of a fuck about this that you went to the time and effort of making a video about it.
	But okay, I hear a lot about this from, well, feminists, actually.
	I don't really hear anything about the new Mad Max film from MRAs.
	Now, when this story broke, I thought it was a joke, basically.
	Which came, yeah, men's rights activist, worst whining man babies on the planet.
	Just so you know, Aussie, I've seen your videos.
	I don't really think you're in any position to start pointing fingers at people that you think might be whining man babies.
	The idea that there might be a strong female character in this movie, too much for their tiny little brains.
	That's great.
	I'm sure that this isn't any kind of misrepresentation of anyone's position.
	And I took the story that they were writing this up as being some affront to masculinity as apocryphal.
	But there is at least one fairly well-known MRA site called, I think, Return of Kings or something stupid.
	Oh, young Turks levels of research there.
	You couldn't even have fucking googled it so you knew the name of it.
	Or did you think that you would sound less cool because you knew the name of the site that everyone has been talking about regarding MRAs and Mad Max?
	And the blurb about why you shouldn't see Mad Max Fury Road is so stupid.
	Basically impossible to parody.
	Ozzy, do you want to know who else is basically impossible to parody?
	It's, it's, what is it with MRAs?
	It's like, oh, I'm a straight white male, the most privileged group on the planet by several orders of magnitude.
	But if I don't get what I want, 100% of the time, then someone else is to blame.
	You know, Aussie, maybe, maybe that is what the MRAs are like.
	But that is also definitely what the feminists are like.
	Because what you have just described there is a feminist talking about the patriarchy.
	Yeah, it's never them.
	It's never like, oh, the reason that you're a failure might just be you're a f- Gender studies major?
	Fucking loser!
	Same difference.
	No, no, no.
	It's someone else.
	It's the women's.
	Now, we've already established that it's the patriarchy.
	They're being, oh, being oppressed, like, being oppressed, how do you think you are not talking about feminists?
	Because that is all they fucking talk about.
	Oh!
	What was that?
	Dear people who are Australians or have learning disabilities, you do not need to apologise for this man in the comments.
	I know he doesn't represent you.
	If it's not 100% me, 100% of the time, some great, awful thing, some terrible conspiracy is happening.
	How is it that you think you're not describing the patriarchy?
	And they see a conspiracy in the character of Furiosa, played by Charlie Theron, who is absolutely badass.
	And I will put in a tiny little spoiler, but you should know this anyway, if you've seen trailers and stuff.
	For a lot of the first half of the movie, Max is virtually a spectator.
	That's not really helping your argument out all that much, is it, Aussie?
	Because the film is called Mad Max.
	You'd think he'd be less of a spectator and more of the main character in a film called Mad Max.
	But seriously, go see the movie.
	I mean, on one level, I go, go sit, because the MRA say not to.
	I say, ghost it, because it's the fucking reason cinema was invented.
	Since I haven't actually seen this new Mad Max film, I will take your word for it.
	You do seem so very well versed in almost everything else.
	The film is fucking amazing.
	Just in your face, it delivers exactly as advertised.
	It's fire, noise, explosions, shooting, death, mayhem, violence, and a fucking big truck with the Marshall stack from the end of time with a guy with a fucking guitar that shoots flames.
	Wow.
	That sounds like exactly the kind of film that 10-year-old me would love to have seen.
	And it all works.
	It's all real.
	There's hardly any CG.
	It's real vehicles and real crashes.
	How good is it, Aussie?
	It was fucking amazing!
	Ha ha ha ha ha. Ha ha ha ha. Holy shit.
	Okay, um.
	Sorry, I'm so sorry.
	I just can't stop myself from laughing at him.
	Oh!
	Fucking amazing!
	Oh, it just is absolutely mind-blowing.
	And as someone who is interested in the making of film, there are even some behind-the-elements like George Miller, the director, is over 70.
	And what you can't believe a young whippersnapper like him is still directing films.
	How does he make something so stupendously?
	Must have been so draining.
	Was in development hell for 10 or 15 years and his wife edited it.
	never edited an action movie never edited a feature I don't think all these things you're gonna it should be impossible but fucking magic happens All right, we get it.
	It's a good film.
	We're just, we're completely with you.
	And honestly, I think the MRAs shouldn't go, because I don't fucking deserve it.
	They don't deserve it.
	Oh, jeez.
	They don't deserve to be in the same movie theater as you, Aussie.
	They don't get nice things.
	Oh, my God.
	No, they don't.
	They don't.
	They don't get to see the most mind-blowing film of the fucking year.
	They don't get to, because they fucking suck.
	I'm sorry that so much of this video is just me laughing at Angry Aussie.
	But holy mother of God, this is just fucking hilarious.
	Oh!
	Fucking amazing!
	They don't get nice things!
	And if you think there's anything to defend these sad, pathetic, fucking whiners, I don't give a fuck about you.
	Well, I mean, I don't want to defend MRAs because then you might not give a fuck about me, Mr. Aussie.
	But the thing is, there's this thing called the evidence, and I like to look at it.
	And then I like to show the people it's because it rarely matches up with feminist narratives.
	So you may well have seen an article that looks something like this.
	Mad Max Fury Road enrages men's rights activists who claim they're being duped by action sequences into watching feminist propaganda.
	Apparently, MRAs are describing this as feminist propaganda because they think it is an attempt to undermine traditional masculinity.
	The Independent then goes on to tell us what the actual story is, now that they have set the agenda.
	Aaron Clary, a blogger on Return of Kings website, which focuses on men's issues.
	I mean, what a nebulous term that is, men's issues.
	I mean, if he's a men's rights activist, you could just say that is a men's rights activist website, couldn't you?
	So this is the original post that sparked this whole furor.
	And you can see that Aaron Clary isn't talking about men's rights, he's talking about how Mad Max has been infused with feminism.
	And Aaron appears to have thought that this was infused with feminism because Eve Ensler, the author of the Vagina Monologues, was brought in as a consultant on the film.
	Again, I haven't seen the film, I can't say whether it's feminist or not.
	But either way, feminist rags like the Mary Sue discovered Aaron's post on Return of Kings and decided that they must be men's rights activists and they must be calling for a boycott of Mad Max because I suppose most people filter things through the lens of their own experience.
	And I suppose it is fair to say that Aaron Clary was calling for a boycott.
	He does say refuse to see the movie spread the word.
	But the question really is, who does Aaron Clary represent?
	Well, at best, Aaron Clary represents the website Return of Kings.
	And so the question becomes, is Return of Kings a men's rights activists website?
	And the answer is no.
	They really do not appear to be a men's rights activist website.
	They actually seem to be opposed to the men's rights movement altogether.
	And prominent websites for men's rights issues, such as Voice for Men, don't appear to be big fans of Return of Kings either.
	Given that Return of Kings are owned by Rouche V, I would be more inclined to label them as pickup artists.
	Incidentally, while we're on the subject, I've been asked several times if I am the Sargon of Akad on the Rouche V forums.
	I can confirm that I am not.
	Thankfully, this person has included in their signature a disclaimer to let you know that that isn't me.
	Just for the record, if anyone's wondering, no, I am not a fan of pickup artistry.
	I don't know anything about it, but what I do know strikes me as kind of sad.
	I have got better things to do than worry about picking up women, and so should you.
	Anyway, Dean Esme of A Voice for Men categorically states that there is, as far as he is aware, no MRA boycott of Mad Max.
	The original impetus for this seems to have come from David Futrell.
	Now, if you're not familiar with David Futrell, you're in for a treat.
	David Futrell is one of nature's pussy magnets, and he runs a blog called We Hunted the Mammoth, where he basically goes on and on and on about MGTOWs, PUAs, and MRAs.
	He hates MRAs so much that he has unironically said in an interview with Vice that he thinks men's rights activists think like abusers, which impresses me because I personally don't know how abusers think.
	And I think it speaks volumes to David's empathy, that he's able to get inside the heads of abusers and really understand their thought processes.
	And David's blog is in no way a hate-filled propaganda site against everything that he isn't.
	David also featured in the 1999 Cult classic Office Space by Mike Judge.
	In essence, what I'm saying is that David Futrell is not a reliable source.
	In fact, honestly, I'm kind of disappointed in him.
	Given that he is pretty much an expert on the manosphere from an outside point of view, I would have expected him to be able to tell the difference between an MRA and a PUA.
	Not, of course, that I would expect anyone at the Mary Sue to be able to tell the difference.
	For example, this author unironically thinks that the Return of Kings comment section has intentional threats being made.
	I'm not really sure who these threats are being made at, but I'm sure it got pretty bad there.
	I mean, you know, I personally just spent a lot of time in the Mary Sue comment section.
	It's Jay Kobe's comment, if everyone else is cool with that man, if you're going to be fucking beta for life, at least have some fucking spine!
	Who cares what other people think?
	Be the beta you've always wanted to be.
	You don't need anyone else's approval.
	But the thing is, it does kind of look like Mad Max might be a feminist film.
	I mean, the vagina monologues writer Eve Ensler thinks that it is, and she was consulting on the film.
	So the director George Miller heard her giving a talk on human rights in Sydney and asked if she would be willing to come to Nambia for a week where they were shooting and work with cast members, particularly the wives.
	He wanted her to give a perspective on violence against women around the world, particularly in war zones.
	Now, again, she's claiming this is a feminist film, but that doesn't seem like a feminist reason.
	Eve Ensler is experienced with dealing with women who have been living in war zones.
	Why wouldn't she be able to give a good opinion of the female characters and their realistic reactions within the film in the context of a post-apocalyptic warzone?
	Calling it a feminist film actually sounds like her bringing her agenda to the table rather than any actual true reflection of whether the film is feminist or not.
	And I do mean agenda because she absolutely does have one.
	I mean, surprise, surprise, the writer of the vagina monologues has a feminist agenda.
	The Time magazine interviewer says, it's a sort of sneaky feminism.
	When you say the premise, a woman warrior escapes with female sex slaves, that doesn't necessarily sound like a blockbuster.
	But because it's an action film, guys will see it.
	And is subversive feminism the best way to address women's issues in film?
	To which Eve replies, one day we won't have to sneak it, one day we will be overt.
	Now, I mean, I don't want to get my tinfoil hat on and go, oh, conspiracy, because I don't think it is necessarily a conspiracy, but that does kind of seem that they have an agenda that they are trying to push into films.
	Does it or does it not?
	In another interview with the BBC, Eve says that she considers this to be a feminist film because she finds this film very exciting because it has a range of women characters at a range of ages.
	They weren't just relegated to one role and to her, that is feminism.
	So that is her rationale for considering this to be a feminist film.
	Personally, I think it sounds like she's reaching.
	But the thing is, I don't even think we need to take Eve Ensler's word on whether it's feminist or not because Eve Ensler's a bit old and out of touch.
	I mean, the vagina monologues isn't feminist, or at least not feminist enough by modern standards.
	It was written in, I think, 1996, and times have changed.
	This all-woman's college is refusing to show the vagina monologues because, at its core, the show offers an extremely narrow perspective on what it means to be a woman.
	Gender is a wide and varied experience, one that cannot simply be reduced to biological or anatomical distinctions, and many of us who have participated in the show have grown increasingly uncomfortable, presenting material that is inherently reductionist and exclusive.
	And students have described the show as blatantly transphobic and treats race and homosexuality questionably.
	This is presumably because the vagina monologues was written before the invention of intersectional feminism, or at least before its widespread popularity.
	Naturally, this has forced Eve to do a bit of backtracking and come out with ridiculous statements like, It's never said that a woman is someone with a vagina.
	The problem is that the vagina monologues has become a bit of a cult classic with feminists and intersectional feminism has found it to be rather transgressive.
	For example, Ensla says, I travel the planet.
	I've just come from many countries and the United States where 51% of the population has vaginas and aren't able to have agency over those vaginas.
	Not that feminists would ever reduce women to merely their sex organs.
	So Ensla has had to start going, oh well, I mean, I didn't say it was a play about what it means to be a woman.
	I said it was a play about what it means to have a vagina.
	I never said, for example, the definition of a woman is someone who has a vagina.
	Yeah, good God.
	God forbid we start defining things in crazy ways like that.
	This is a really tough one for feminists because on one hand Ensla is a feminist celebrity.
	On the other hand, what she's written really doesn't jive with the current thinking.
	For example, Mara Kissinglis, the founding executive director for the National Center for Transgender Equality, said it was difficult to come down on either side of the debate about the play's relevance because it's going to be one of those things in which there aren't really any winners.
	So I took to Twitter.
	Dear MRAs, I have a question.
	Are any of you actually bothered about Mad Max Fury Road at all?
	The response I got was a resounding, no, not really.
	Many of them had actually already seen it and quite enjoyed it.
	I found people who weren't MRAs boycotting it because it was being pushed as a feminist film and they weren't interested in seeing a feminist film, but that's about it.
	And then you had a bunch of people who were reasonably libertarian and egalitarian who were just like, doesn't bother me in the slightest.
	Even if it is a feminist movie, it doesn't matter.
	What matters is if it's a good movie.
	But the most important thing is the integrity of the marketplace of ideas.
	Because ultimately, there was no MRA boycott.
	There wasn't anything of the sort.
	No MRAs even considered it as far as I can see.
	They are actually really annoyed about being lied about, and I don't blame them.
	As a supporter of Gamergate, I can completely understand what it's like to be lied about by the media.
	It's very infuriating.
	Because, like all things, the feminist media is projecting.
	They are the ones who do boycotts.
	Boycotts of 50 Shades of Grey, boycotts of Game of Thrones, boycotts of Frozen, boycotts of Twitter, for fuck's sake.
	Although it has to be noted that this last one only lasted for 24 hours because, let's face it, if they didn't have Twitter to whine on, where would they do their whining?
	What we have seen here is the feminist thinking that other people are as reprehensible as they are.
	Other people don't necessarily try to censor things that they do not approve of.
	In fact, most people are just fine with things that they don't personally approve of existing.
	But feminists aren't, and they go out of their way to try and remove things they don't like from the public sphere.
	I find that unacceptable.
	This should be a lesson.
	Not only in how the feminists operate, but how they are incapable of understanding how other people operate.
	It's not that necessarily they were lying.
	I'm not even convinced they think they were lying.
	I think they simply don't understand that they are different to other people.
	What I think they've really done here is revealed their childish, spiteful nature, where they've seen something that they would have personally done and assumed that someone else would do it.

▲