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.
@mildlymagnificent – I’m about a decade out of being aware of that stuff at the time, but yeah, everything I’ve read about the “sexual revolution” ::rolls eyes:: says it was more about women no longer having the option to say no, rather than adding the option to say yes.
Shit, I missed that.
David, if you’re publishing private convos without permission, that really isn’t cool. Do a summary or something instead, or include where she said “fuck it, publish it”.
Back to trying to sort out comparative ethnicity data for the r/mr question when about 3 of the 40+ countries we have readers in use anything like those categories.
Which might be the slightest bit interesting if “the collective” actually existed beyond groups of individuals.
I think it’s worth mentioning that, in addition to a morally bankrupt and thoroughly repugnant personal philosophy and an entirely hypocritical and manipulative lifestyle, Rand was also a terrible writer, technically. Like, every once in a very great while there’d be a passage in Fountainhead that didn’t make me want to claw my eyes out, but for the most part it was just dull. It’s not even the good-lord-this-is-awful-but-at-least-it’s-so-fluffy-and-contentless-I-can-breeze-through-it of some other terrible novels – Rand’s books are so dense.
I’m not at all surprised that her philosophy has admirers, because some people are terrible and/or ignorant, but I am constantly shocked that her books do.
RE: gametime218
I’m not at all surprised that her philosophy has admirers, because some people are terrible and/or ignorant, but I am constantly shocked that her books do.
I used to adore Piers Anthony’s books above all things when I was ten, and I now find them unreadably tedious and skeezy. You never can tell.
Yeah, I’m fourthing the notion that David should mention whether he posted this convo with Straughan’s consent.
tee hee – you should watch her latest video called “when female privilege backfires” or some shit like that (I only made it halfway through). Basically she tried to paint the treatment of women in Afghanistan = to the treatment of men in Afghanistan. I had watched a video about Afghani women being thrown into prison for trying to leave their abusive husbands or because they were raped (rape = adultery) so I was a bit fucking irritated with THAT shit. She defends women being treated like prisoners in their own homes because if they left they MIGHT be shot in the head. She basically projects her view that SHE would rather be JAILED indoors than risk the possibility of being shot in the head (except – a lot of Afghan women DO leave the home to get groceries etc – so her argument doesn’t even hold water).
@Jason
Keep telling yourself that. Nothing she says is hard to argue against.
I did not get permission to publish the conversation. I’ve been a journalist for more than 20 years, and I conduct myself as a journalist while writing this blog.
When you talk to a journalist, or anyone acting as a journalist, what you say is considered “on the record” unless you specify otherwise beforehand. It’s the same with written correspondence. Once you send someone something, they are free to quote it unless you specify otherwise beforehand. GWW has dealt w/ journalists before, and was certainly aware that I could choose to quote anything she said just as she is free to quote anything I said in the conversation.
GWW didn’t reveal any personal secrets in her note to me. She made the same sorts of comments she’s made publicly many times.
David is not a flying potato, he is a collective of cats and ferrets in a suit. Get it right.
patronizingpatriarchy – yeah, and having one’s nose cut off is so privileged. Presumably GirlWritesWarblarglebargle managed to avoid seeing that cover of Time, or anything about it.
I had a conversation with a follower of GWW on Tumblr once.
That person declared that the person who writes under the GWW handle on reddit was not the same person who did the videos.
I was not impressed with their intelligence or their argument.
Cool story, brah.
Yeah, it’s MUCH better to leave a car full of children to die than to risk a potential ass-whupping by an old lady.
I notice he doesn’t quote the Lt-Governor’s own reaction:
Source
RE: Unimaginative and Kittehserf
I know, right? I mean, sometimes, you do the right thing, and bad shit happens anyway. The point of doing the right thing is DOING THE RIGHT THING. Sure, it’s crummy when you do something and people act like assholes, but that’s life.
Also, good on Murray! Very good response.
Aaaaand nothing about the van’s tire “exploding seconds later,” or that the children were “suffocating from the fumes.” If they were able to lock the door, they were probably breathing fine at the time.
I learned this the hard way back when I was doing more union work. It bothered me at the time, but the more experienced folks all told me that I should have expected it.
Particularly when she was engaging in a written conversation with their worst enemy on earth GWW really would have to have been amazingly stupid to think David wouldn’t publish what she said. He did the same thing with Dean Esmay a few days ago, and I don’t remember anyone objecting then?
Anyway, FWIW I don’t have a problem with it.
Nor me.
Of course, I am David, so take that into consideration.
I like some ideas of libertarianism, like ambition, personal freedom and self reliance, these are things all people should aspire too. But I am also realistic and realize that we live in a society where certain rules and regulations need to be enforced because…you know, I don’t think people should starve and die just because they are poor or sick either. That’s just fucked up. Also a part of me does think people are pretty self serving and if companies and institutions were free to do as they please that would result in even greater inequalities on all levels.
I find it interesting that GWW professes to be a libertarian yet, going by her most recent video, she thinks its completely an equal and fair trade off that women completely relinquish their rights and freedoms for men to “protect” them and rely on men’s obligations to feed and shelter his family. Evidentally treating adult women like children under the law is not bad, or if it is bad then its just as bad because the poor men have to go to work, get income then spend some of that income on their wives and children. Oh the horror!! One asshat in the comments of that video literally said men are enslaved to be caretakers of women? if its so terrible, then why did patria- oh sorry, those like, 5 dudes in power not try to change this? why is it still so hard for some people to accept the idea of wonmen working and supporting themselves? oh yeah, keeping women safe or something, gotcha. /sarcasm
I still can’t pinpoint exactly when and why I became attracted to the feminist movement, but a big part of it is because I can’t bare the thought of being forced to essentially hand my life over to a man. I’m repulsed by the idea of having no freedom, to have all my agency taken from me while a husband has complete say over everything and I just have to grin and bare it just cuz he might one day have to go to war or might get hurt on the job. Just…no. Adults, baring those who are physically or mentally ill, need to be as self reliant as they can. There are areas in my life where I’m not completely self reliant (but no, I’m not using any man for money, to any of you lurking MRAs) and I seriously think its one of the main contributers to my depression. That feeling of needing someone and not being a completely independent, self actualized human being really grinds down on your self esteem and feminism, at least how I have come to understand it tells me I can be that independant person. I like men, I like hanging out with men and I want to be in a relationship with a man, I just don’t want to have to have my entire existence rely on his money and guardianship…I’m an adult ffs. That’s why these arguments she uses about “trade offs” men and women do just don’t resonate with me at all. It all sounds like backwards ass-logic.
US laissez-faire capitalist “libertarians” who never stop to think about how private property came to be called that around the time social democrats began being called “liberals” over there because of a fear of admitting to anything that could be construed as socialist.
US libertarian = liberal everywhere else
US liberal = social democrat everywhere else
US anarchist = libertarian in a bunch of places, or libertarian socialist.
I just read my comment over and I really hope it doesn’t come off as judgmental. I also don’t think anyone who needs help from anyone whether it be income or housing or any other kind of support defaults them to not being self reliant or self actualized. I don’t look down on people for these things I just know for myself personally it makes me feel shitty not being completely self reliant.
Also happy super early Canada Day for any Canadians on here!
“US liberal = social democrat everywhere else”
Having had to research the things on the survey, I had that lightbulb and put that. So yeah, one US liberal in agreement.
Also, David’s explaination is good by me. Of course, I’m cats in a David suit…
RE: Quackers
I like some ideas of libertarianism, like ambition, personal freedom and self reliance, these are things all people should aspire too.
Since losing my mind, I’ve actually found that libertarians and anarchists are ASS at knowing how to deal with disability. There is seriously NOTHING I’ve found on the subject. They seem to just sweep it under the rug, or just assume that if the disabled just try hard enough, they’ll be fine, or that we just won’t exist anymore.
It’s been disheartening. I mean, I’m not thrilled about the idea of being dependant on the government for sustenance… but I’m not thrilled about being mostly homeless for the foreseeable future either.
@pineapplecookies re: libertarian ugh, yes. I feel like the MRAs and hardcore Randians have ruined this word for me. To me it’s really just more about not coercing other people to do things against their will. That’s all. I recognize the need for social justice, and that libertarianism can’t really “work” if people continue to be assholes. Of course, really, I think almost any system can’t “work” ideally as long as people are assholes. 🙁
To me libertarian doesn’t preclude empathy or social justice or wanting to help other people. I just don’t appreciate other people trying to control me or others, whether they are on the right or the left politically. I guess to me it’s more of a “live and let live” philosophy. At the same time, like I said, I also recognize that apparently most of humanity is a bunch of shitheads who won’t just “voluntarily help each other”. So this always leaves me feeling conflicted because which is the lesser evil? Coercing people to be fair to each other or leaving them alone? If we coerce them… that’s sorta kinda evil IMO. If we leave them alone and large numbers of people just abandon those in need, that’s crappy, too. Basically I think humans just suck in general. I wish I didn’t feel that way, but I do.
Live and let live philosophies only really work when everybody can adhere to them, and they still require human compassion and empathy in those people so that those who need help still get it. I guess that’s why I see libertarian ideas as more of a personal philosophy rather than an effective political system. I’m really not sure what’s most effective as a political system because sociopathic narcissists can screw up any given system for the rest of us.
And I also agree with the person who said that libertarian used to be about keeping the government and other busybodies’ noses out of private personal choices and behaviors. And definitely when I more frequently used the term, that was largely how I was using it (but without the ‘ick’ of ‘women can’t say no to sex’ stuff from the sexual revolution.)
re: Atlas Shrugged, I had a friend once who had read Atlas Shrugged like 25 times or something crazy like that. She has a John Galt tattoo. She tried to get me to read it a billion times but it was just too damn long and tedious for me to care about. Over time I came to feel she exhibited a lot of traits of a sociopath.
@LBT and that’s where libertarian philosophy breaks down. “Some” aspects of it I think are good. But applied unilaterally it only hurts people who do need society to help them. Human beings are social animals not islands. We need to be able to live and work together and help each other out without resenting it.