So FeMRA videoblogger Karen “GirlWritesWhat” Straughan flapped her gums for nearly two hours the other night and sounds came out. This time she wasn’t sitting at her kitchen table blabbing to a webcam about female “hypoagency” and regurgitating misremembered factoids about bonobos but was speaking to an audience of mostly white dudes at Ryerson University in Toronto Canada.
I haven’t watched her performance — which is of course online as well — because life is short, and frankly I’d rather endure this for ten hours than subject myself to the tedious GWW for nearly two.
But I did take a look at a thread on the Men’s Rights subreddit started by a dude who hoped he and his fellow MRAs could have “a proper discussion about the talk, pros and cons, without descending into a circlejerk or a downvote party.” That’s right: he actually wanted GWW’s biggest fanboys to discuss her ideas (such as they are) on their merits.
This did not go over very well with the regulars, who jumped up to defend their favorite damsel in distress. ManUpManDown argued against the very notion of criticizing GWW, on the grounds of 1) her being supercool and 2) giving talks is hard:
Huh. But by NOT offering any criticism, aren’t you in fact treating her not as a writer or activist or, god forbid, a thinker, but precisely as a mascot?
Still, a few brave MRAs did bring up substantive critiques of her talk. For example, both 2095conash and memetherapy noted that she probably said “Right?” too often. Bluecharge, while proud of her performance, noted with brutal honesty that her “way of wrapping up points by saying ‘so there you go’ was a bit trite.”
So there you go.
Oh, I forgot to mention one dumb criticism some dumb guy made. GWW apparently suggested that if all the men in the world took three days off it would take three years to recover from the disaster that would ensue.
Essemd implied that this was a bit alarmist, arguing that if you gradually replaced men in the workforce with women — over the course of many years — it wouldn’t be the end of the world, because women could do these “men’s jobs” too. “[S]aying either gender is required because this and this job is mainly occupied by men or women is just false,” Essemd concluded.
Luckily there were a few real MRAs around to teach this fella a thing or two. Like Rikevo, who offered the powerful rebuttal that women can’t do shit:
Right?
And xNOM had a little list:
So there you go.
NOTE: I actually had that loop of “What is Love” on during most of the writing of this post. Hey, it’s a catchy song.
Falconer: Wow.
@Falconer: the car, or the flat?
Thing is, a lot of the big MRAs probably know where she lives. So if they turn on her I’m not sure it will stop at just threats.
And they will turn on her sooner or later, because it’s impossible to be self-effacing enough not to upset these guys if you have a vagina.
@Kiwi Girl: The flat. Ain’t changin’ no car with my junk, what am I, stupid? That would really hurt.
Does she not realise that the MRAs aren’t interested in *her*? That they’re only interested in the parroting of the MRA dot points she does? She is interchangeable with any other woman who would do the same parroting. She’s allowing herself to be operated as a carnival side show curiosity (“roll up, come see the anti-feminist woman”). I don’t think she realises that is the role she has been cast in, and it’s the only speaking/writing role the MRAs have for women.
@Falconer LOL.
Kiwi girl: she won’t realize that until she’s booted out of the treehouse. None of the FeMRAs seem to get it.
Good point
Falconer is the MAN.
There’s a reason we used to call Ryerson “Ry High”. As in “high school”. & that was at my community college.
Well, we’ve just been reliably informed that feminists can’t change flat tires. I’d say Beloved considers herself a feminist, so since that flat tire got changed, I must have done it, mustn’t I?
(Actually I did help — but once we figured out I was tightening the nuts and turned the wrench around, it went a lot smoother.)
@casandrakitty: It would probably stop at threats, because these guys reek of chickenshit, but when it happens (not if) I hope she does take it seriously, in case I’m wrong
The fact that she saw The Wooly Bumblebee get booted and still doesn’t realize that it could just as easily happen to her seems to indicate a certain inability to grasp what’s actually going on.
Denial, not just a river in Egypt
RE: Falconer
Beloved’s car had a flat a couple years ago. I changed it. With my penis.
My husband is duly impressed, bestows golf claps upon you, and requests to learn your ways.
Am I the only one a little bit concerned about the use of the term “White Knight” in the article title? I mean, I am fairly certain most people on here are aware of the massive problems with the term, so… Why are we legitimizing it by using it unironically? It is like using “man-whores” to refer to PUAs, it just doesn’t seem right. :
@Falconer:
Q: How many feminists does it take to change a tyre?
A: Irrelevant, since the men stopped working, all the motor vehicles are old and have fallen into complete disrepair, and women can’t make tyres.
@BreakfastMan: I thought it was being used ironically. Now I’m confused.
I’m getting irony from the title too.
@Kiwi girl. It might be sarcasm.
@Kiwi girl: If it was being used ironically, then I recend my comment, but I don’t see how it is being used ironically. David is using it correctly in the title (well, “correctly” inasmuch as the way it is used in the title is concurrent with the term’s meaning), and there isn’t really anything in the body to make it seem like its use is ironic.
Breakfastman: maybe because it’s the MRA go-to for any man who defends a woman? I dunno, ask David.
Having been confused over the meaning of irony for a while vs. sarcasm, I did a google and I think it is ironic because David’s not known for using “white knight” as a put-down. If David did use it as a put-down, then I would agree that it was sarcasm.
My interpretation was along the lines of: David gives lots of examples of men coming to the aid (verbally, physically) being called white knights as a derogatory term by MRAs. Some MRAs are now defending KS. David hasn’t said anything derogatory about this, just pointed out examples where it has happened. Look, MRAs can be white knights too.
And this is why literary interpretation can be BS, especially when one can hope that the author explains their intent. 🙂
Of course it is of utmost importance to determine if David is using a term ironically, because there is absolutely no other way to read it except as affirmation of the term.
@Kiwi: I was more thinking about someone who has just come to the site for the first time. All the regulars here know that David probably isn’t the guy to use “White Knight” seriously, but a newbie? Not so sure, especially as there isn’t much in the article itself to let them know it is being used disingenuously.
Though I, for one, don’t really put any stock in authorial intent when critically examining a work, so I might be an outlier here. XD