The website Vitamin W did a little interview/profile of me; check it out here. When I was talking to the writer I got a bit more ranty than usual, so some of the quotes are a bit blunt.
One point of clarification on the references to my feminism at the start of the piece: what I was trying to convey was that while I was very much a feminist when I started Man Boobz, this was just a sort of taken-for-granted aspect of my life, not something I spent a great deal of time thinking about on a daily basis. Doing Man Boobz has made me much more of a feminist, both ideologically and in terms of how much of my time I spend thinking about and reading about and discussing feminist issues.
Also, the thing about me being driven by how much these guys annoy me was a reference to my motivation when I started the site, not to why I do the site now.
There are a few points where the author, well, oversimplifies things. To say that PUA sites “generally promote rape,” for example, isn’t quite right, though there are certainly PUA sites that encourage various forms of sexual harassment and have seriously problematic notions about consent. Our old nemesis Roosh, of course, has flat-out stated that by the standards of American law he raped a woman who was too intoxicated to consent. (You can find his confession quoted here.)
Anyway, let me know what you think. I’m sure the MRAs will.
You did well. Unfortunately it’s very important that men stand up against this crap and you are the best at it. All heil the kittehs.
That should have come out as me. Maybe my phone is an Eastern European throwback. 😉
Animal, vegetable, or ferrets in a David suit?
Well, IMO the article does make you sound pretty vehement so the MRAs will be positively frothing about it.
I thought it was clear that “the thing about me being driven by how much these guys annoy me was a reference to my motivation when I started the site, not to why I do the site now”.
I did itch to do some correcting of grammar & sentence structure – did noone proof-read it before they published?
Aside from the misstatements, that really isn’t a very well-written piece. I had to re-read several sentences to parse them properly and sometimes the topic jumped about. I sort of expected it to end ‘In conclusion, the manosphere is a land of contrast.’
Shame, because their hearts are obviously in the right place.
titianblue, you mean like this: “The criticism that Princess Peach is repeating old video game tropes warrants rape, have resulted in unfair attacks on women such as Anita Sarkeesian.”
Huh? Also, are all Vitamin W expected to be familiar with Princess Peach criticism?
Vitamin W *readers*, that should be. Nobody proofreads me before I publish.
The MRM is definitely NOT hitting “critical mass” – unless I am misunderstanding the term…
Critical mess, maybe.
@grumpycatisagirl
That sentence drove me bonkers.
David, I first read that as ‘a bit more randy’. Well, ranty is an acceptable substitute, I suppose. Thanks for sharing this.
“The criticism that Princess Peach is repeating old video game tropes warrants rape, have resulted in unfair attacks on women such as Anita Sarkeesian.
Yeah, this one bothered me, too. Where are they getting “warrants rape” from Princess Peach? She’s sexist because she’s a weak and helpless Damsel In Distress and, even when she’s not, she’s made to be stereotypically moody and “girly.”
I never got the impression that Princess Peach warranted rape in anyway. O.o
In what circumstances can anyone ever “warrant” rape? The problem here isn’t the details, it’s the framing.
I think she was trying to say that they were sending Sarkeesian rape threats for suggesting that the character Princess Peach represented an old sexist trope of the damsel in distress. That’s what I was talking about with her, in any case.
RE: CassandraSays
Critical mess, maybe.
SCHWING!
Ah, that makes sense, David (the explanation, I mean, not the rape threats against Sarkeesian.) Some of the wording is a bit confusing.
That was pretty sloppily put together. The impression it conveyed of both you and the manosphere was very hazy. Like it Eric, it jumped about from topic to topic. No cohesion. Not enough detail.
*Like Eric said
Uggg, sorry. I accuse an article of being sloppily put together only to then post a comment that’s exactly the same.
I’m not seeing any comments on that interview, which surprises me. Between the MRAs who hateread this blog, and their tendency to dogpile when someone criticises them, I expected there’d be a shitload of whining by now.
Reblogged this on dariancase and commented:
Great interview with David Futrelle, a hero of mine.
Reblogged this on woosterlang87.
Feminist: How many MRAs does it take to change a light bulb?
MRA: Who’s there?
Feminist: This isn’t a knock knock joke
MRA: But did you know that knock knock jokes also exist?
Feminist: …anyway. How many MRAs does it-
MRA: WHY ARE YOU OPPRESSING KNOCK KNOCK JOKES? LIGHT BULB NAZI
(not by me but I like)
Who names their kid Herb anymore?
In the interview I would’ve asked how David came about the manosphere. I’m happy this blog was started. I had been reading books, blogs and articles in non-related manosphere publications about the MRAs and am happy someone started highlighting their bullshit. Most feminists weren’t talking about it.
@Moma Sita
Gardeners?
“Meet my children! Herb; Basil; Rosemary; Jasmine; and Allspice.”
If his story of coming across the manosphere is anything like mine, it’d be incredibly boring reading:
Facebook friend sends outraged PM, shares Thunderf00t video. I respond, equally outraged. (More frustrated than outraged to be honest – the guy starts his video “divide and conquer [blahblahblah division is bad]” and then goes on to argue that we should do nothing to address the divisions that already exist between us. That to address those problems is a distraction. Idjit.) Apparently I picked the wrong (right) thing to be outraged by. Aaaaand suddenly I knew what an MRA was.