Categories
a voice for men antifeminism douchebaggery female beep boop FemRAs GirlWritesWhat imaginary backwards land irony alert MGTOW misogyny MRA narcissism no girls allowed oppressed men radfems oh my reddit straw feminists transphobia zed

GirlWritesWhat’s delusional defenses of MGTOW misogyny. Also: Mary Daly, and why the moon is not a potato.

That's no moon!
That’s no moon!

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.

663 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Argenti Aertheri
11 years ago

“I recall a painful conversation about letting LGB people serve in the Army (trans wasn’t really on the radar yet)”

Pfft, still aren’t. There’s a reason I tend to use LGB and not LGBT. Soooo many gay marriage adovacates are either implicitly, or even explicitly, saying that trans* people can butt out, trans* marriage would make it look less acceptable. (Wonder if that’ll change now…)

I should be working. But first, what pecunium said about drugs. News to no one, I’ve done plenty. And by and large this is a non-deal, most people don’t care. I don’t just mean my love of MDMA and pot, I mean telling people I did coke a few times gets more of a “so you can just try it?” than shaming. And I know folks who’ve done most drugs (lol, including one night where I got IM’ed with “I’m on five things, guess which?”…he wasn’t fond of PCP). The ones that get shit? Largely assorted at lower classes and particularly African Americans (that whole crack thing in the 80s)

Point here is that which drugs are acceptable depends on who uses them. Coke is certainly more dangerous than LSD and pot, but alcohol is worse than most (potentially all, give me a minute to check that) and it’s legal and socially acceptable. As are cigarettes, which are apparently most addictive than heroin (no, really, I knew a former heroin addict who said as much, acendotes aren’t evidence, etc, but I have heard it elsewhere)

Argenti Aertheri
11 years ago

Ah, ok, that’s what I thought. Alcohol is worse, for the user and society, than everything else (it’s the social toll that pushes it above heroin); heroin is the worst in terms of physical harm and dependence, alcohol’s second.

Did my neuroscience requirement in drugs and behavior, brain and behavior looked boring.

Kittehserf
11 years ago

I finally know what the heck a Mary Sue character is. 😀

I took your test, katz, ‘coz I thought the main character of a book I wrote a few years ago (who was definitely a wishful-thinking substitute for me) would qualify. I’m glad to say he doesn’t. I wasn’t keeping score all that closely but the result was somewhere around zero.

Kittehserf
11 years ago

Yeah, Argenti, I’ve heard that about nicotine being far more addictive than heroin, too. That’s without going into the harm from passive smoking. (Surprise to nobody, I loathe cigarette smoke.)

pecunium
11 years ago

As I recall the numbers are 1:4 users of freebase/crack cocaine will become addicted.

1:2 users of nicotine will become so.

Sorry I mis-remembered the nature of my fundamentally outlier status. 🙂

bad puppy
bad puppy
11 years ago

@pecunium yeah I do not get why “property” is more important than rights. Though I guess I do feel the government owning your house is fundamentally F’d up.

But you’re right that there are certain things a free market probably wouldn’t even bother with that is necessary.

I definitely identify more with the “social libertarianism”. As much as I don’t “like” taxes and as much as my taxes often go to things I don’t agree with, in a society of human beings, I just don’t see privatized charity actually working to cover the needs of people who really do need help. If people were naturally more altruistic and compassionate, maybe. But left to their own devices it would be a very small percentage of people trying to help those who needed it.

I do wish there was a way in which people could allocate their tax funds specifically. Say we had these various social programs (government always funds these things in the budget in different ways which rarely go according to what the people actually want.) It would be nice if there was a way that people could determine WHICH programs their money went to. Social security would be a given for everyone, but beyond that, let every citizen vote with their wallet. I’m not saying this could ever work or realistically be implemented, and the results might be total chaos and way skewed toward some things over others, but it would remove coercion and support of things people don’t believe in with their own money.

I mean… pacifists don’t want their tax dollars going to support wars for example. It seems fundamentally immoral to me to force citizens to participate in funding things they find immoral. This is the struggle we’re having right now over abortion. Those who are morally against it are so upset about the prospect of their tax dollars supporting Planned Parenthood that they are willing to try to strip women of their rights. (Obviously that’s not the only reason they’re doing it, but it’s a big talking point for them.) At the same time, I wonder if they would be so strident about the whole thing if they didnt’ feel their “tax dollars” were supporting “baby killing”. Maybe they still would be.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
11 years ago

Point here is that which drugs are acceptable depends on who uses them.

Yep. And even in the case of drugs that are stigmatized who’s doing them still has an impact on how people perceive things. And upper middle class white college kid can do pretty much any of them without raising many (non-conservative) eyebrows, it mostly gets written off as “everyone experiments in college”.

Argenti Aertheri
11 years ago

Number of regular smokers I’ve known over the years: we’ll call it 10 since my memory sucks and the rest idk the next bit on

Number who’ve quit: 2, and one’s my mother who says, and I quote “easy to quit smoking when you’re in a coma for three days” (aneurysm when I was 8~9, other than having metal in her head and being banned from MRI machines, she’s fine now); the other is my uncle who gained like 50lbs eating ALL THE THINGS to keep his hands busy, loosing weight is apparently no easier (pecunium, yes that uncle >.<)

Argenti Aertheri
11 years ago

Hey how’d you guess that Mr. Not liking PCP was an upper middle class college boy? XD

Argenti Aertheri
11 years ago

Wait…pecunium? Why the hell are you still awake? Have you looked at a clock lately? Or out a window? Unless you’re picking up my nocturnal habits, I suggest you go to bed already!

And I’m down to 8 countries to figure out the ethnic breakdown on (sentence structure, what’s that?). Then politics and religion, which seem easy at this point. Then cats, and cats in David suits.

Kittehserf
11 years ago

Though I guess I do feel the government owning your house is fundamentally F’d up.

Depends. The Housing Commission places here are often the only ones people on pensions or disability allowances can afford. There’s a decades-long waiting list to get into them.

Kittehserf
11 years ago

(That’s renting, of course.)

lowquacks
lowquacks
11 years ago

I’m sure you’ve all heard this from somebody with unkempt hair in shorts and some piece of oversized knitwear, or know it in some other way but weed as “marijuana” and “jazz cigarettes” were ways of associating it as a drug of non-white folks in the US.

lowquacks
lowquacks
11 years ago

I’m with Kittehs here. There’s something weird about government-earned housing, but for the meantime, with my non-revolutionary hat on, it can help. I don’t believe many people at all have been helped by Thatcher’s “right to buy” encouragement for councils to sell off public housing, for example.

I remember reading a humourous obit of her with a line to the effect of “Thatcher inspiringly encouraged every person to own their own part of Britain, unless, of course, they were Argentinian.”

Argenti Aertheri
11 years ago

Tangentially, any clue where I can find a functionally useful breakdown of non-white Brits? Cuz the UK can’t be 92%~ white can it?!

Kittehserf
11 years ago

“… somebody with unkempt hair in shorts and some piece of oversized knitwear, ”

I pictured the late lamented Mick Aston the moment I read that …

lowquacks
lowquacks
11 years ago

My first thought was the census, but the UK one seems to be fairly useless compared to the Aussie one.

The ONS website is horribly designed, actually, but perhaps this’ll help?

lowquacks
lowquacks
11 years ago

@Kittehs

No, no, someone younger, probably with white-boy dreadlocks and an undersized backpack. That does like a little like someone who might tell you that little fact, though.

Kittehserf
11 years ago

Oh, I know Mick wasn’t at all the sort you meant, but after his passing this week I’ve been thinking about him a bit. 🙂

mildlymagnificent
11 years ago

Getting people to agree that safe tap water is good should be a two min “yep, yep, anyone disent? No, ok then, who’s got skills in this regard?”

Aaaaaand, once you say that you have to have rules and regulations.

When Adelaide was originally established, everyone could have their piece of land and do whatever they wanted/ needed to do with it. It was a disease infested hellhole. What do you expect when people dig the wells in their own backyards and dig their own long drop toilet pits and they or their neighbours also run an abattoir or a tannery or other noxious trade mere metres away from the water table, veg garden, orchard fruits.

Once they forced the separation of tanneries, abattoirs and noxious industries from residential housing and water supplies, health statistics started to improve. (Though some people were still using the river as a dump even into the 20th century.)

bad puppy

I do wish there was a way in which people could allocate their tax funds specifically.

If you’re really keen on this, spend a bit of time looking into specific programs of tax deductible charities. The best result is to find a program that attracts matching funds from government (or anywhere really) for individual donations. So you get a tax deduction which partially redirects tax you might have paid to a favoured program. If the donation attracted a matching funds boost, you’ve effectively got your otherwise-would’ve-been-paid-in-tax dollars directed where you want them.

Kittehserf
11 years ago

I do wish there was a way in which people could allocate their tax funds specifically.

Much as I’d love to be able to say “Okay, you lot are not using my money to fund your pay rises, or stupid ego-boosting projects, or military adventuring,” the trouble is that if enough people have ugly prejudices, the most vulnerable, the minorities, are going to get hurt even more. A bigoted majority would have even more power.

Dvärghundspossen
11 years ago

Regarding the government owning the place where you live – very few people are rich enough to pay for a house or apartment without borrowing money. So for 99,9 % of all people it’s either gonna be the case that a private landlord owns the place where they live, or the bank does (because they bought it with money borrowed from the bank), or the government (or in the Swedish system, rather the city council or town council, but they’re under the government, so sort of same thing) owns it. I can’t see why the last option would be more fucked-up than the previous ones.

Dvärghundspossen
11 years ago

Okay, maybe 99,9 % was exaggerated since apartment and house prices are really low far out in the countryside (although people there are generally poorer too). Anyway, for most people it’s the case that someone else owns the place where they live.

Kittehserf
11 years ago

I always call trying to buy a house renting from the bank. They don’t do stupid six-monthly house inspections, but they’re quick enough to boot you out if you can’t pay.

1 6 7 8 9 10 27