So yesterday I had a strange conversation, of sorts, with blabby FeMRA videoblogger Karen Straughan, aka GirlWritesWhat, via private message on Reddit.
Given that, in the recent WoolyBumblebee controversy, she put herself in the position of defending Men Going Their Own Way against WBB’s mostly accurate attacks on them, I found myself wondering what she might think of my post yesterday on the MGTOWers who felt it was appropriate to let a four-year-old-girl drown because she might grow up to be the next Betty Friedan or even the next — gasp! — Amanda Marcotte.
I was especially interested in what she might have to say about MGTOW elder Zed, the friend and mentor of her A Voice for Men boss, Paul Elam; in the MGTOWforums discussion, you may recall, he was firmly in the “don’t rescue little girls” camp.
So I asked her about that, and asked why she was defending MGTOWers when so many of them don’t even think women should be part of the Men’s Rights movement at all.
Here’s some of what she wrote back:
You seem to be deliberately trying to evoke an outrage in me. First, Zed, “Paul E’s mentor and idol” would not save a child he doesn’t know. Then “MGTOWers…don’t actually think women should be part of the MR movement…”
Do you think I should be expected to die to save a boy I don’t know? Speaking as someone who almost died once to save my son and my nephew, why should I be expected to potentially leave my children orphans to save someone else’s kid? And the truth is, I wouldn’t be expected to do that. In reality, no one would have blamed me if I had chosen not to nearly drown to save my own kid and my sister’s kid. I like your quote mine: Men shouldn’t rescue 4 year old girls… Not what it actually is: Men shouldn’t sacrifice their lives or health to save 4 year old girls they don’t know or have reason to care about…
It’s an interesting way she’s chosen to, well, reframe the issue. Zed didn’t say he was only talking about situations where the rescuers life would be at risk. He said, simply and categorically:
When a female is in trouble, if I don’t know her, I don’t see her.
After demanding that I denounce a random radical feminist who said something terrible, she moved on to my second question, though not without accusing me of “needling” her by pointing out that MGTOWers hate women. Or, as she prefers to look at it, they don’t “trust” women.
Do I have to list every single psychological lever you’ve attempted to apply in this message? Do you really think I’m going to react like a typical woman? “OMG, those MGTOWs don’t trust women!!! And that means they don’t trust me! I am a herd animal! I am incapable of ignoring naysayers! I can’t stand the fact that perhaps somewhere, someone doesn’t appreciate me!!! How dare they express themselves if it will hurt a woman’s feelings???????”
Woah, there. I think that might have been a bit more revealing than you intended it to be.
So your definition of “typical woman” is “herd animal?” I’ll take “internalized misogyny” for $1000, Alex.
Instead of me asking, “Why would I need anyone’s permission to make videos and assist a movement I believe in? Why would I take it as a personal failing that a man would not risk his life to save my child when I would not potentially orphan my kids to save the kids of some random person? Why would David Futrelle think my outrage over what a handful of MGTOW say about women in the movement should outweigh my own principles?”
Uh, you don’t need anyone’s permission to make your videos. Jewish people don’t need anyone’s permission to start making videos glorifying Adolph Hitler. Black people don’t need anyone’s permission to make videos on behalf of the Klan.
The question is why do you want to? Not just: why are you willing to make videos on behalf of a Men’s Rights movement driven by misogyny. But why are you willing to defend and make excuses for MGTOWers who not only hate women in general but hate you personally?
Why are you willing to lie — apparently even to yourself — and pretend that they don’t really hate women — that, really, it’s just that they don’t “trust” women because some awful woman has hurt them, or because some mean feminist said something insulting about their favorite video game, or whatever the excuse is.
And if you have any doubt that most MGTOWers really and truly hate women — hate hate HATE them — I invite you to read through the archives here. I suggest you start with MGTOWer extraordinaire Christopher in Oregon, and then move on to the posts dealing with MGTOWers in general.
And if you doubt that MGTOWers hate you, you personally, just go down to MGTOWforums, the biggest MGTOW hangout around, and take a look at the threads devoted to AVFM. A lot of the guys there hate AVFM with a passion — and they hate it largely because Paul give a platform to you and other women.
For someone so obsessed with me, you sure don’t know a lot about me.
Huh, wouldn’t that sort of suggest that maybe I’m not actually that obsessed with you?
From what I do know about Straughan (not much) this seems to be a standard ploy she pulls whenever someone calls her on her shit — to try to throw them off-balance and put them on the defensive by declaring them “stalkers” or “obsessed,” as she did with spermjack_attack, a Redditor who’s done some amazing takedowns of GWW posts and videos in recent days, like this one.
I responded by pointing out that
I often write about MRAs. You’re a prominent MRA, so sometimes I write about you. I should probably write more, given that you’re kind of a big fish in your tiny pond, but your videos are so fucking tedious and slow I can’t bear to watch them.
Which is true. That’s why, despite all the attention she gets from her MRA fanboys, I’ve written only three posts about her — compared with seven about the comparatively less important but much more entertaining Christopher in Oregon, mentioned above. Well, this will make it four posts about her.
Anyway, I also called her out on her evasive answer about Zed, so she tried again, this time with a new evasion:
Zed said categorically, “When a female is in trouble, if I don’t know her, I don’t see her.” Let’s parse that. He would not intervene. Why should he be expected to? Do you have any idea how small the burden is on women to intervene? If a woman were being assaulted and a female witness didn’t intervene, would this be shameful? How about if a man were being assaulted?
That’s an odd way of “parsing” it, since in context it was abundantly clear that he wasn’t just talking about adult women being assaulted. He was specifically talking about little girls. The whole point of his argument, which he repeated several times, was that he didn’t want to help little girls because, as he put it, they might “grow … up to be another Amanda Marcunt, or Jessica Valenti, or Betty Friedan.”
Karen, you can pretend he was talking only about adult women, but he wasn’t.
You can pretend that MGTOWers don’t hate women, but they do.
You can pretend whatever you want about the movement you’ve attached yourself to, but guess what — everyone outside of that movement can see it for what it is.
Most of the rest of her comment was devoted to trying to prove how “obsessed” I am with her.
If you are curious about me and why I might involve myself in a movement you believe hates women, you might concede I’d be curious about you and why you involve yourself in a movement that I believe hates men (or masculinity, take your pick). And yet how many times have I initiated contact with you? How often do I devote entire blog posts or videos to you?
Perhaps I’m measuring you by my own yardstick. Because as curious as I am as to why you would ally yourself with a movement whose foundational ideology is hostile to men (no matter how mainstream or seemingly benign), as much as I might lie awake wondering what motivates you, I am simply not obsessed enough by the question to PM you and ask. Or to read your blog (even when you’re talking about me). Or to devote entire blog posts to you.
If I messaged you over anything regarding that, I would consider myself obsessed with the psychological dysfunction represented by you. So you messaging me indicates (to me) a level of obsession on par with that. If you are the type of person to initiate private contact with people you consider opponents on a regular basis, then I’ve misjudged you.
Yes, I confess, sometimes I ask questions of my ideological opponents, publicly or privately, in hopes of getting an interesting response. I certainly got some revealing answers, and even more revealing non-answers, from Straughan.
And it was definitely more interesting than watching one of her videos.
Oh, and for some reason, before she closed up the debate, she decided she wanted to talk about Mary Daly, of all people, whom she seems to think has never been criticized by any feminists ever except for one by the name of, uh … Dr. Mindbeam? No, that’s really what she thinks. Apparently, in GirlWritesWhat-land, it was one big feminist love-fest for Mary Daly up until Dr. Mindbeam came along in 2011 and wrote a blog post.
Mary Daly’s body was long cold before some random internet feminist named Dr Mindbeam finally excommunicated her on “no seriously, what about teh menz?” I haven’t seen any feminists who write under their real names do so.
Maybe you could educate me.
I mentioned Audre Lorde’s open letter to Daly calling her out for racism back in 1979. I suggested she Google “Mary Daly” and “transphobe” and read through some of the results. Might take a while, as there are 5000 of them.
But I’m not sure how one can “educate” someone like her, someone who has declared herself a “gender theorist” and who makes endless half-hour or even hour-long videos on feminism, without bothering to learn even the rudiments of feminist history first. (Lesson One: Feminists often disagree with each other.)
It would be like someone declaring themselves an astrophysics theorist, then declaring “the moon is a potato! I’ve seen no evidence indicating otherwise. If you think you know better, educate me!”
Her understanding of feminism seems stuck at the “moon is a potato” level, and I just don’t think there’s anything any of us can do about it.
@Hippie Redneck
I can find multiple stories in which the grandmother nearly punched him in the face (her own words, more or less). I can’t find a single one in which she actually hit him. Care to cite a source for your version?
THAT is not what the guys on the MGTOW forums said. And it’s not much better.
They also don’t bother to mention that the kids were scared of him and had locked the car. Oh no, it’s all about blaming women for these cretins.
Not trans*, but this was totally how I felt when I discovered that synesthesia was a thing.
Glad to be of service. Run along now, back to your cockroachy business
Gregor Samsa has turned the Projectothon up to 11, I see.
Just curious – I’ve read that GWW is a mother of three. Does anyone know if she has any daughters? I see a son mentioned here in her e-mail to David.
I really hope not. She reminds me of this woman I used to know with a daughter and it was horrifying.
Just found a comment on an Voice for Men piece in which she says she has two sons and a daughter . . .
OH, GOOD GRIEF. I just….no.
I remember her mocking WBB for being a mother. She’s not very bright, is she?
Mocking her for the state of being a mother? In what context? Not that I can’t already tell she’s not very bright . . .
It was in a thing she wrote about WBB after she got kicked out. I think David did a post on it. She was going over WBB “achievements” sarcastically, and one was “squeezing out babies”.
Grumpycatisagirl,
http://manboobz.com/2013/06/18/scorned-how-pissed-is-girlwriteswhat-at-a-voice-for-mens-paul-elam/
She is seriously one of the dumbest people I’ve ever heard of. Either that or she has her head really far in her ass. Probably a bit of both.
OK, thanks. I notice David calls those excerpts from GWW’s rant “relatively restrained” in which she insults WBB’s children. What a not-very-nice person, to go with the not-very-brightness.
She is angry and stupid. It’s funny how if you were to take everything she said and made it “feminist”, like just swap man with woman, MRM with feminism, you’d end up with a radical straw feminist. Not only that, but the MRM would treat her like a threat and probably dox her and send her nasty messages about her looking like a “dyke” or hoping shed get raped.
I’m actually really worried about this because he has let a lot of misogyny slip through in his day, to the point where the awesome Duncan Trussell (a dude whose podcast I listen to who is featured on Rogan’s podcast pretty often) has called him on over the line comments from time to time. Rogan’s fanbase is so full of wannabe alpha douches that will just eat every word she says up. He’s got some great ideas and an open mind when it comes to some things but when it comes to women he’s pretty problematic. So yeah…. not very psyched at that prospect.
@pineapplecookies There are a lot of problems with libertarians, one being that, as a movement of mostly white, straight, cis, able-bodied males, they want to jump the gun in assuming that we still don’t face severe aftereffects from the government sanctioned oppression of women, POC, etc, so they believe that you could do things like not regulate workplace discrimination and everything would be fine. They seem to put the interest of business over the interests of citizens, and don’t seem to feel like any businesses should be forced to maintain ethical/environmental standards which will harm people. They ignore that, even with regulations in place, modern businesses tend to do the absolute minimum, so with no regulation, they would run wild.
The ideas of personal freedom are very attractive, it’s just when they start to get into the ideas that businesses should be able to do whatever they want and we should remove all welfare systems that would counter those businesses driving everyone to the poor house that I can’t get behind. Plus a lot of the older libertarians I’ve talked speak passionately about legalizing drugs but seem almost disappointed that it means they have to accept homosexuality… ughh. And among the young ones I notice a lot of ~edgy~ guys who use slurs ironically.
Such a good description!
I was just having a debate with a libertarian friend of mine about the Paula Deen scandal and how he thinks private businesses should be able to run however they want, and that the only violation that should’ve been considered illegal with the physical violence, and he made the “just quit” argument. I was like, riiiiight, because for a member of the working poor, in an economy where there are at least 100 applicants per open position, it’s easy as “just quitting” the only source of income you have. He refused to admit that sometimes people don’t have the privilege of storming out of their job for moral reasons, or even when their well being is at stake, because they won’t be able to survive without that job.
In order for libertarianism to work we would have to start from scratch as a society, with nobody already in any position of power, otherwise it would just mean a lot of people dying and being abused mercilessly, without any recourse.
@grumpycatisagirl she has a daughter and, by her own admission, she uses female insults on all her children to stop them from “whining” or being lazy, as if those two things are inherently feminine traits.
Libertarianism requires something we have never seen in nature, “Rational Man”. Really, that’s the fantasy the entire thing is based on, if only people were unfettered by the constraints of law (which require them to act in “non-Rational” ways) then there would be heaven on earth.
Of course to be “Rational” requires the time to access all the information on things (They assume the other Rational Actors will all be completely forthcoming and honest) they wish to do. Then they will make the best choices and the Law of the Happy Medium means everyone will be happy.
No one would ever dream of putting a thumb on the scale, or take advantage of positional leverage to limit competition and raise prices, or just plain hide bad news.
Not even economy students behave the way that rational agents, who assume everyone else is rational, would… 🙂
There’s an experiment that’s been conducted a number of times at different universities, and which a colleague of mine (who’s obviously a philosopher since we’re colleagues, but who started out as a student at Handelshögskolan, Stockholm’s prestigious economy university) was once subjected to.
The experiment goes like this: The test leader tells a group of test subjects (in this case, a large auditorium full of economy students) that they’re each gonna write down a number between 1 and 100 on a piece of paper together with their name and give it to the test leader. The or those subjects who manage to come closest to the number which is half of the average number written will receive a cash price.
Now, obviously it’s impossible for the winning number to be higher than 50, since if everyone else in the room writes 100 on their paper, 50 is gonna be half of the average. But if everyone else is a rational agent, everyone realizes that there’s no point in writing a larger number than 50. Since everyone realizes this the average won’t be more than 50, so there’s no point in writing a number larger than 25. But if everyone is a rational agent, everyone comes to that conclusion, meaning there’s no point in writing a higher number than 12…. And you see where this is going. If everyone in the room were a rational agent assuming that everyone else is as rational as they are, then everyone would write 1.
But people don’t. People write all kinds of numbers. Which, given that everyone else is not a rational agent, is actually a pretty rational thing to do…
Exactly, people are not islands. Even if someone is literally the perfect person, they could still have shit lives in a “free” society. Discrimination would still be legal for private businesses to do. Sure they can “just quit” and boycott, but most businesses are hardly hurt by those actions. Plus it’s impossible to have a total boycott if only a small part of the population is doing it. If 90% of the population is racist, and the other 10% is black and doing everything they can legally to stop businesses from discriminating, you’d have to be a idiot to think that it’s suddenly going to stop just because of that.
Also I hear the “businesses aren’t going to leave out parts of the population like that” argument for this. It’s complete bullshit. Look at the 90% racist model. If businesses stopped being racist in order to get 10% of the population to buy their stuff, the racists have just as much power to boycott. Which decision do you think rational businesses would make? Include 10% of the population, lose the other 90%, or include 90% of the population, and lose only 10%? hmm, 90% or 10%?
“@grumpycatisagirl she has a daughter and, by her own admission, she uses female insults on all her children to stop them from “whining” or being lazy, as if those two things are inherently feminine traits.”
Really? Sometimes I hear things that really make me appreciate my own mom for not doing shit like that.
Oh but see.. in a “Rational World” no one would be racist, because… well reasons.
It’s exactly what the name says it is, Utopia.
What I see in libertarians is a tendency to cling to ideology over actual results. They think on some level that libertarianism will lead to the best results, but when confronted with cases where it clearly leads to bad results, they will still think it’s the best course of action and the results are just a sort of regrettable side effect, because it turns out that the ideology is the important thing.
Ayn Rand said in some interview that monopolies couldn’t happen ever, and that all those monopolies in history that ended when the government intervened were caused by too much government.
It was in a YouTube video… I forgot what it was called. It was a black and white interview on some tv show, and the host was a man.