Karen Straughan, the soporific, pseudoscientific YouTube antifeminist, doesn’t seem on the surface much like a “Red Pill Woman.” She’s a single mother with short hair, well past “the wall,” who makes a point of not wearing makeup in her videos.
But she’s got one quality that apparently makes up for all of her other defects as a Red Pill gal: she tells the Red Pill guys exactly what they want to hear, defending their noxious views, feeding their sense of victimhood, and hand-waving away their blatant misogyny.
So it’s hardly a surprise that she got a warm welcome when she showed up yesterday in the Red Pill subreddit to do an “ask me anything.” Today, I girded my loins and popped a caffeine pill and read through her answers. Well, skimmed them, anyway; I’m no masochist.
I learned a lot. Unfortunately, most of what I learned was not true.
So let me present the Top Ten Completely Untrue Things I Learned from GirlWritesWhat’s Red Pill AMA, and One Thing That Might Possibly Be True.
All quotes are straight from Straughan’s AMA. I’ve bolded some of the most-untrue bits.
1) Roosh V isn’t a bad person for wanting to legalize rape
“One commenter expressed a wish that I’d learn to speak more wisely and circumspectly on topics like RooshV’s suggestion to make rape legal on private property (all I said was that however stupid or unfeasible or offensive his idea was, his stated intention was to prevent rape, so I wasn’t going to call him a bad person for it).”
2) Red Pill dudes only say terrible things about women because they love them so much
“It’s not misogynistic. Some of the rhetoric here is very angry, and very generalized. A lot of that is from a sense of betrayal–I was taught women are wonderful and believed it, and then the shit hit the fan. There’s a point, though, if the journey isn’t suppressed through punishment and shaming, where these men tend to realize it’s the false paradigm they’re angry with, not women. … If these men didn’t love women in the first place, they wouldn’t be able to be hurt by their failure to live up to the unrealistic expectations society has encouraged them to have.”
3) When men rape women, it’s probably some woman’s fault, if you think about it
“A rapist is a very damaged man (usually damaged by women) or a man who really really really wants sex but can’t convince a woman to willingly lie down with him.”
4) Women might look cute, but GWW can see the total-not-cuteness of their souls
“Neoteny. It’s important. The cuter someone is, the nicer we assume they are. For women, that cuteness is also associated with attractiveness to the opposite sex. So everyone thinks cute women are automatically nice, and men also find them sexually appealing.”
5) I’m a fatty who might possibly be wearing a fedora. No, really, for some reason my weight and possible hat choices came up
“Have you guys seen David Futrelle? Or “Angry Aussie”? Or any number of other hipster douchebag male feminists who are fat, have neckbeards, wear fedoras, have difficulty getting laid, etc?
A lot of the men I’ve met in my travels through the MRM are awkward or otherwise don’t remind women of Matthew McConaughey. But a lot of them are quite presentable. Confident, attractive, fit, and definitely not virgins.”
NOTE: I have doublechecked and I am definitely not wearing a fedora.
6) “Most feminists” probably have Borderline Personality Disorder or something similar
7) Red Pillers are the Malcolm X to the Men’s Rights Movement’s Martin Luther King
“If you rebelled without disseminating a message, you’d be a hindrance. But doing what you’re doing, you’re helping, even if you’re just presenting a Malcolm X for MRAs to juxtapose against MLK.“
8) Black activists only protested the shootings of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown in order to get white people mad and make money for themselves, probably
“When you try to cast blame over all whites for perpetuating a racist culture in a Martin or Brown case, whites don’t like that. They get pissed. It gets the animosity stirred up on both sides of the racial divide much more effectively than if the shooting was 100% unjustifiable. And it stirs up white resentment of blacks.
It’s like these particular people (activist leaders) are invested in racism, and they (maybe subconsciously) go out of their way to perpetuate the conditions that keep them in paychecks and justify their existence.
If racism ended, they’d be out of a job. The last three generations are the least racist, sexist, homophobic in history. Where’s the money and status in that, for your average Sharpton?”
9) There’s no epidemic of rape in India because half of all rape cases there are total bullshit
“[T]here’s significant evidence that about half of rape reports in India derive from consensual sex between unmarried persons, but which fall under statutory definitions of rape that are being questioned within the system as to their moral basis in a changing social landscape.”
10) Women are less stable than men because science?
“A woman has to be more emotionally stable than 85% of women to be as emotionally stable as the average man. A man has to be more sensitive than 85% of men to be as sensitive as the average woman.”
11) Chimp dudes don’t have wingmen. (Wing-chimps?)
“Human males are more cooperative with each other than males of almost any other species, really. The phenomenon of guys trying to get other guys laid just isn’t a thing in chimpanzee society.“
That last one might be true, I guess. What the hell do I know about chimps?
EDIT: I have been informed that chimp dudes sort of do have wingmen, but in a horrible way.
“If racism ended, they’d be out of a job. The last three generations are the least racist, sexist, homophobic in history. Where’s the money and status in that, for your average Sharpton?”
“Average Sharpton?” What do you mean, “average?” I can only think of a couple of black activists who’ve turned their gig into a full-time occupation (no pun) and one of them is Al Sharpton. The other is Jesse Jackson.
So whether or not you approve of it, 24/7 black activism is not a regular deal. For anybody.
That have been said, know what? At least Sharpton and Jackson have turned their politics into a craft or a trade and have made a living at it. They’ve made money. They have decent lives. Unlike (ahem) men like Elam and Roosh, who wamble around borrowing from girlfriends and female relatives and cadging of their followers and who still can’t make ends meet. If you want to characterize activism as a racket, it must be said that black activism is a much more successful racket, in monetary terms, than the sham activism of the manosphere. (Though, admittedly, that’s not saying much.)
(Even guys who already have made money start to get poorer once they get involved with the manosphere — a phenomenon of which Anders Breivik is a horrible example. Still it would be hard to say why that is or nail down what’s causing what.)
Donating it all to Elam etc. Like fundamentalist Christians who donate all their money to televangelists or Libertarians who put all their money into gold scams.
Right-wingers are worryingly easy to scam by whoever’s telling them whatever they want to hear (obviously, otherwise Elam etc, televangelists and gold scams wouldn’t even exist). Which makes me think GWW’s just projecting again.
The Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin comment..Wtf, Karen..
… Why ARE right-wingers so easy to scam?
@SFHC
I don’t know if it’s just right-wingers that are easy to scam, but it’s pretty much part of right-wingers philosophy to advantage of the gullible. The whole Ayn Rand objectivism shit, only working towards their own self-interest, thinking in the now instead of thinking long term. The best way to get something for yourself quick is to screw over other people. They tell the people what they want to hear and the people gobble it up because it’s in their self-interest to believe it. Vicious, awful cycle.
Can we officially call “neckbeard” a more poorly defined and overused stereotype than “hipster” yet?
Since she made those racist comments about Mike Brown and Traayvon Martin, she has no business comparing her movement to MLK or Malcolm X. It’s clear that she’s racist, aside from hating women. She belongs to the group that the guy who killed MLK came from so any comparisons she makes to him are just disgusting and wrong.
Paradoxical Intention: Thank you!
That was my sentiment exactly.
Fuck her and all her bullshit.
As a WoC I was NEVER taught that women are wonderful. I was taught that women of color were utterly worthless,so don’t even bother trying to compete with White women in the “prettiness sweepstakes”, who are all a bunch of hysterical racists who want to have Black men lynched.
These are two things I had the joy of unlearning.
I know that when people like there are talking to each other it doesn’t even occur to them that 1) PoC exist and 2) That we have ears and 3) Understand The English language. So yeah, she’s going to completely not acknowledge the life experiences of women who are not her.
And fuck her for her bullshit pedestrian excuse of blaming Black people for their own oppression because they’re greedy and don’t want to work to earn money. That’s right, it makes perfect since to her scabby ass, that we are, ALL OF US, committing suicide by cop, to get White people’s time, money and attention, cuz that’s how that works. So basically the same reason behind why women get raped.
@Pandapool
I don’t know about right-wingers in general, though it could be argued that the whole listening to authority thing might make it more likely — authority doesn’t just mean the person with the gun, but also the person who seems authoritative about something. Randroids, however, are probably extremely easy to scam because the one of their main characteristics is their almost sublime self-confidence. The fact that they would never even consider the possibility that they might be vulnerable to scamming, because they’re way too bright to let that happen, probably makes them pretty great marks.
Note that IANACM (I am not a con man), and could therefore be wrong about that. Also note that that sort of self-belief is not a rightwing belief in itself, and that there are plenty of examples of leftwingers whose self-regard about their own intelligence leads them into ludicrous beliefs (see: every lefty ever convinced that Trotsky was a pretty great guy, all things considered).
我觉得他是故意的。丫可嫩觉得有钱在这个事亲？获准他恨自己。不知道。
@SFHC and Pandapool:
So, there are two aspects to this. One, there was a study done (and unfortunately I can’t find it directly) that found that right-wing folks tend to prefer simpler, more absolute explanations and beliefs. Left-wing folks had more tolerance for ambiguity and complexity. Scams or leaders that offer easy explanations (“the devil is taking over America,” “the economy is going to tank and gold will always be valuable”) are going to be pretty attractive to a right-wing mindset.
The second is definitely the whole authoritarian thing. It’s funny… apparently ever since Fox News established itself in the US, entire sections of the right began to treat that one station as the sole provider of information. Whatever Fox says goes, and anything not from Fox is liberally biased and therefore ignored. So when you’ve got an audience already hanging on to you for every word as you paint a picture of a dying America on the brink of devestation, why not milk them for cash as well? It works particularly well for survivalist crap and gold, as you get the prediction of America’s (and her economy’s) destruction followed by a promised means of protection.
And then Bill O’Reilly laments that half the US population doesn’t put any thought into their politics when faced with a poll that says the nation is now evenly split between liberals and conservatives.
@Snowberry “This is probably what @Spindrift was talking about.”
Yep, thanks for filling in the blanks, my memory was a bit hazy on it.
Hey, there’s nothing wrong with neckbeards!
@decourse
Ew, no. They are awful, especially when you bend one’s neck, then just keep poking yourself over and over again, it get so itchy :/
You want wingmen, you got wingmen.
Young male Great Bowerbirds willl join together to create their own group bowers, basically to practice their skills together before splitting off to make their own bowers. David Attenborough’s awesome documentary “Attenborough In Paradise: Bowerbirds, the art of seduction” has a hilarious segment on them and the various wild, unspoiled places they’ve chosen to make their nests…such as a local cemetary, a military base, and a primary school playground, lol.
There’s one scene where an individual male bowerbird is displaying to a female and showing off his collection of canteen bottle tops and foot powder containers, apparently oblivious to an entire military band practicing a few feet away. And a collective of young “lads” descends on the playground as soon as the kids are away, scooping up such avant-garde treasures as colored chalk and a plastic elephant…apparently aiming for the discerning modern art afficionado demographic of bowerbird females. 🙂
I was completely oblivious to fedora/trilby distinction, but The Good Men Project has a brilliant typology of hats here: http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/brand-thats-not-a-fedora-and-stop-wearing-it/ I’ve learned much.
I think there is something a bit observable about Karen Straughan’s appearance. She’s not unattractive at all (to my eyes), but she’s made a choice to cut her hair and not wear make-up, etc. in the context of a movement where no-make-up wearing, easily maintained hairstyles are criticised in both potential conquests and feminist critics. I’m not quite sure what it means, but I think it stands out against the ‘high-maintenance’ appearance chosen by other women who seek to endear themselves to the MRM or the icky-right by bashing feminism and/or coddling the aggrieved whingers. Her choice may have no more meaning than she doesn’t want to do it/ can’t be bothered/ has the “weird” notion that her views (however abhorrent) have more bearing than her looks. The lumpen manosphere’s choice not to pick on her (much) for it is interesting when they seem to have commentary on every other woman’s appearance.
Anyway, thank you David for summing up this woman’s viewpoints, as I prefer to consume written media rather than watch videos and most of her output is video. My jerk spouse says she’s the sensible one and watches her GWW videos. Lovely to know what garbage he’s stuffing into his head.
The thing I don’t understand about the India comment:
Okay, let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that this is true. (It’s obviously and hideously untrue, especially since it seems to entirely disqualify marital rape, but anyway.) So let’s pretend that a full 50% of rape claims there are really false. Like, FALSE false, as in knowingly made up, on purpose, because misandry.
That still means rape is taking place at epidemic levels.
Like, how high does the “real” rape statistic have to be before GWW is willing to care about it?
@ytsuken
I have to echo others in pointing it that this post is a fucking nightmare. “Poor looks” according to Redpillers or people in general? Hell, a mildly pedantic short-haired Canadian woman with little make-up is right up some people alleys, mine included. It’s the shit that comes out of her mouth that’s the problem. She’s a sententious crank who adeptly plays to her narrow audience’s particular misogynistic fixations, she very often has no idea what she’s talking about and now has inexplicably expanded her routine to include things about black people that are both offensive and almost impossibly wrong. I thought Elam’s horrifically wrong-headed analogies between the American Black Civil Rights Movement and MRA were bad enough, but comparing the sludge found in TeRPer Reddit hell to Malcolm X is arguably worse.
You don’t need to be a huge asshole in order to pick apart GWW’s blather, so you should really rethink your approach.
*some people’s alley
My losing battle with proof reading before posting continues.
Oh the one that men are more ‘stable’?!
What criteria has been used to establish this (plucked out of her arse) 85% figure? That schizophrenic men are more susceptible to early onset and generally suffer worse symptoms? That women are more likely to be depressed? That men are more likely to suicide? That women are more likely to attempt it? That men are more likely to murder their entire family?
Subjective bollocks like ‘women are more emotional’ or ‘men hide their feelings more’ just doesn’t cut it.
This woman should pal up with Camille Paglia who also has a vastly inflated sense of her own intellectual abilities.
@kootiepatra – I don’t really understand the whole rape denial thing. But it seems a direct parallel to Holocaust denial. You know – “Hitler didn’t kill all those Jews, but even if he did, they deserved it”. Even the weird quibbling about numbers. “Six million Jews weren’t killed…”, let’s distract ourselves with the statistical anomalies instead of focusing on the human suffering or understanding how a society could become so depraved so this kind of thing doesn’t happen again.
If you say “Ok, yeah I accept the number wasn’t 6 million, but that it was a best guess statistical estimate at one point in time, but now people who’ve done hard work on this think it’s somewhere between 5 and 6 millions” – that doesn’t make the Holocaust deniers go away. Nor does it take away from the fact almost 6 million people were brutally murdered. Numbers that I find incredibly hard to comprehend on a human scale, although basically it’s like killing EVERY SINGLE person who lived in 1940s Texas in area about that same size. But while I struggle to humanise such a large number to truly reflect the horror of each of those individual lives destroyed, they just want to deny the humanity of the victims altogether.
MRA folk would rather focus on weird studies of false rape claims or picking holes at upper-estimates of sexual assaults. You may even grant them the point that false rape claims do happen or that upper-estimates can be misleading if you’re trying to be reasonable, but still point out that means there are lots and lots of rapes. They still can’t get the main point. And that is women are being terrorised through rape and there’s a lot that we can do stop it if we as a society really wanted to.
Reblogged this on wallacerunnymede and commented:
I don’t like the whole MRA cult, but I’m not sure how constructive it is for men to criticise women (rather than other men) re: misogyny?
I realise that in saying that, I’m risking falling into a kind of condescension and ‘chivalry,’ but it’s the matter of positionality that worries me.
I know it’s not black and white, but I wouldn’t feel comfortable either criticising a woman or her views on the grounds of misogyny, as though it was for any one (male!) individual to police how women speak about gender.
I’m not advocating hardcore relativism/nihilism/indifference, but aren’t there plenty of other men that individual men can critique? It’s a tricky one.
All men, without exception, are complicit with unequal communication between women and men, so is it perhaps a little bit cheap for a man to ridicule a woman about misogyny? Is it better for a man to risk complicity with male linguistic domination over a woman deemed “sexist,” than any other woman?
I just worry that critiquing “self-loathing” individuals within a subaltern group (whether the term in quote marks here is explicitly stated or merely implied), could end up being a new and subtle patriarchal/sexist/misogynistic tactic.
As regards this contentious notion of “self-loathing,” (a term not used in the post I am reblogging, but possibly implicit in it). it might be helpful to think of very roughly and crudely analogous examples to other identities, other than gendered ones; with all due caveats for contextual differences, of course.
I realise that the blog I am reposting from is one where there is some good work. But I don’t feel easy about this. If this catches on (if it hasn’t already), men with a certain incurable affliction called “ally syndrome” might end up only too happy to do this stuff as a form of catharsis.
That said, context is important. For example, if female politicians in (say) the USA, UK, France, Germany, are, were, or eventually end up wielding superficial appeals to women’s rights as a weapon for viciously laying waste to other countries deemed uncivilised, then that might be a different matter; to some degree, at least. Hence:
http://glossynews.com/top-stories/politicos-and-polticians/201504201033/the-convenience-of-misogyny-kerry-clinton-the-white-knight-industrial-complex-12
http://glossynews.com/top-stories/politicos-and-polticians/201504210400/the-convenience-of-misogyny-kerry-clinton-the-white-knight-industrial-complex-22/
I’m actually not convinced that the blog post I’ve reblogged is “Hunting the Mammoth” at all.
…
There may be no bottom to this.
Is this another case of someone mistakenly believing the mammoth is men/patriarchy?
Being a woman doesn’t give her a “Get out of criticism free” card. Saying that it does is also a form of misogyny (albeit a much less dangerous one).
Also, if you’d feel more comfortable with having another woman criticise her instead, well, ‘sup.