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.
Yeah, I mean, misogynists have an image to maintain as well. Given that the accusation negatively describes their views, it’s not really a compliment in any known context.
Aw, you guys are so cute. I’m sure, when confronted with a sound argument that contradicts your comfy self-congratulatory worldview, just spewing gunk at it, works to make you feel better about yourselves, but I’m afraid it’s short lived as the argument can’t be refuted that way. You’d have to keep doing that in order to continue to avoid the horrendous torment of expanding your horizon a little. That’s why you keep coming back here. To fix an itch you want scratched. Of course, you’ll now proceed to tell yourselves “but we HAVE refuted it we have we have” while stamping your feet furiously but deep down, you know you haven’t. I know it. Everybody does.
I wouldn’t actually mind you jerking off like that if it weren’t for your necessity to twist the truth so you can get off on your fantasy. It hurts other people, and not those who you wouldn’t mind it hurting (I think they actually benefit from it).
Something to think about. Ah crap. Never mind. Keep wanking instead.
Have fun!
…what?
Literally the only part of that that made any sense was that people prefer their itches scratched than unscratched…but I need to brush my rats’ nest of hair, so I may be taking that overly literally (it’s not normally this bad, but I got woken up to the sound of the entire fish system resetting and that’s a lot of electronics)
What, another necrotrolll?
::yawns::
I’m off to catch the train. Morning commute = more fun than idiot troll.
I guess this is what happens when someone takes GWW as their intellectual inspiration.
Whereas some of us actually gave you full responses in several paragraphs altogether, you’re literally saying that we’re arguing against you only because we don’t want to admit the “truth” of your argument. You’re the one who doesn’t want their horizon to expand.
http://memegenerator.net/instance/45049010
This is a hilarious thing to say in a GWW thread.
Dumbest. Argument. Ever.
It’s rampant because it’s portrayed as something other than bigotry. It’s not misogyny. It’s science! It’s sociology! It’s math! It’s les facts! If people didn’t deny what GWW and her ilk engage in is bigotry we could make some progress. They and those who blow smoke up their asses are convinced their attitudes and behaviour are reasonable and not at all the product of ignorance and bigotry though. Embracing the label “misogynist” would mean embracing their ignorance and bigotry. They’re still trying to convince us there’s nothing unreasonable about their position so of course they reject the apt label. Doesn’t mean it isn’t what they are or that it isn’t prevalent.
You’ve yet to present a sound argument. Your “argument” is basically “Nuh-uh!”
And what is this skeevy obsession with masturbation?
“Obsession” is the wrong word. “Pre-occupation” is better.
Sorry, everyone.
Well, not kit33. You’re still skeevy and pointless.
Kindergarten level trolling. We describe MRAs as verbally wanking a lot, therefore accusing us of wanking is hilarious.
(If you are a failure of a troll.)
kit33 shows up, makes a simplistic “argument” barely worthy of being called an “argument,” receives a number of lengthy and thoughtful answers, far more thoughtful than he deserves. He returns, apparently doesn’t read them, resorts to namecalling, and flounces. Brilliant.
Let’s take two examples.
1. Feminist. Decides that she does not want romantic relationships with men. Openly dissuades other women from doing just that. Provides list of reasons. Verdict: Liberated.
2. MGTOW: Decides that he does not want romantic relationships with women. Openly dissuades other men from doing just that. Provides list of reasons. Verdict: Misogynist
It’s a double standard plain and simple. Now, I don’t argue that men coming online and calling women nasty names or saying hateful or violent things against women are not misogynists. But I do think that any man (these days) who protests feminism or females IN ANY WAY is conveniently cast off as a misogynist. This kind of political bullying goes on all over the place and is especially common with agencies that are in power.
Statement: I have done a sort of cost benefit analysis of modern cohabiting relationships between men and women and have decided that these arrangements are just NOT FOR ME. I feel the “sexual market value” of men like me means that I need to make considerably more money than the women who would have a relationship with me. In my last relationship (marriage) I made 2x what she did, but she was spending most of the money after mortgage and bills were paid. Her “lifestyle expectation” was too high for middle class people like us, and I felt there was too much pressure to get more and spend more, rather than my idea to renounce the “Kardashian” lifestyle and live within our means. Most of the problems I have had in past relationships (besides the waning romance effect so many couples experience) is my desire to go against societal norms and not cave in to media and social pressure to “get more crap”, and use credit to the max to support a needlessly high standard of living. That’s right. I don’t think “maximizing” living standard in North America is wise or necessary, if it means amassing material things you don’t need and using consumer debt to do it. As such, I don’t think I will be an attractive prospect for very many North American women. So, I’ve decided not to stress myself out and just say no to cohabitation and melding of finances. Since I am newly divorced I (thank god) have no desire for a relationship of any kind right now. One day I might want to though. If I can find a *truly* independent woman who thinks like I do and does not want to cohabit and meld finances, then I might have a relationship. Otherwise, relationships for me will be limited to a) friendships b) colleagues and c) casual relationships. I don’t hate women. I hate a select few, but I also hate a select few men. I hate some people.
That’s it. No anti-feminism. No hatred. No nothing. Just me rejecting cohabitation and financial melding FOR ME. Not for anyone else. It’s not a movement. My “MGTOW” is simply me exercising my own autonomy. If someone calls that misogyny then I know what I am dealing with and can act accordingly. (I won’t act or react.)
Men who have been @$$ raped in court and have had their children taken away from them (USA) for the sole reason of her wanting to maximize child support payments have my sympathy (I have 50% custody and pro-rated Child support here in Canada). Some of these men are going to be bitter, yes. and some might even be misogynists. But their decision not to get married or live with a woman again is not, in and of itself, misogynistic. It’s a choice.
Re-read that example above. Avoiding specific kinds of relationships with the opposite sex for valid personal reasons does NOT mean you HATE them. And one perfectly valid reason might be you just don’t think it’s worth it and don’t want to go there.
Many women are “done with men” and they are not called misandrist.
Flame suit on.
Dude, go your own way already. Stop telling everyone you’re going your own way on old blog posts. Why exactly do you think we should care? We don’t care.
“Blah blah blah..wimminz are mean…blah blah blah..I’ll go, just you wait!”
No one cares.
Go
your
own
way
Bye.
Bon voyage
Aloha
Adios
Emphasis is everyone’s.
What is with all the teal deer trolls today?
Oh, and comparing a financial obligation (harsh or otherwise) to rape? Classy. /sarcasm
(Feminist adds today’s lulzy MGTOW rant to list of things to tell her husband about later.)
TL; DR. Just go already.
Cassandra, laughing at a man is misandry!
Fuck you. Comparing having to give up your half of jack shit to rape is really fucking reprehensible.
Troll writes:
…Which is exactly what all David’s posts about MGTOWs are about. Well, this particular one is about GWW defending a particularly nasty one. But, indirectly, the OP is about this particularly nasty one -Zed- saying he would let a little girl drown, because she might grow up to be a feminist.
Zed would let a little girl drown because she might grow up to be a feminist.
If that’s not violent and hateful, I don’t know what is.
So what I’m wondering, why pick this thread to wank off about how evil feminists are, and how evil women are?
And seriously, equating rape with financial obligations? Go away and step on all the Legos.
Now, now, Hellkell. I’m sure male rape survivors just love being used as a rhetorical device.
Why are all these dudes always so insistent we don’t agree with that, even after how many times we’ve totally pointed out we agree with that?