GirlWritesWhat

Thing is, when you're developing your own theory, you still need to have sources to back them up. You can't just spew whatever comes out of your head.

Again, I am speaking from the point of view of academic quality here. This is what is necessary to be up to a good academic standard.

edited 29th Jun '13 6:40:15 PM by 0dd1

On the other hand. She is a blogger, not a Ph.D. She is more comparable to an opinion columnist in print media, than to an academic historian. And as an opinion columnist she is hardly the only one who engages in this. I didn't want to imply that she is affiliated with extreme right wing groups either, merely that I find her research and sources highly dubious. Sorry if it came across otherwise.

Hold on, whatever else you think of her work, you can hardly call Girl Writes What or her arguments "lazy".

As for "academic quality", you might want to watch this video.

I remember that my history teacher had us analyze propaganda films in class for a few hours. It was pretty interesting.

Now, before you beat me, I don't want to equate her videos to Communist- or Nazi-propaganda. I just wanted to point out that being used in a curriculum is not necessarily a sign of containing indisputable facts or well-founded hypotheses.

I disagree with a lot of her reasoning, among other things because of the aforementioned problems with her historical research, and because I am wary of the popular pop-neurology and evo-psych-lines of arguing, regarding different wiring of men and women.

But MRA-material being discussed in university-courses is in my opinion actually a good thing, because I still maintain that at least the part of the public that isn't into men's studies or feminist theory, aka most of it, wasn't much aware of topics like DV or sexual assault against men, and if at all only dimly aware of the harmful effects of gender roles on men, before the controversy about MRA in the last 10 to 20 years, and confronting students with it serves to keep this awareness up.

Would you mind elaborating that?

Watched the OP video. While her style and demeanor make me wary, the content really hit home for me, especially the stuff in the middle about men being taught that their fears and traumas are worth less than women's.

So who else was there to see her catfight with The Woolybumblebee?

It wasn't really a catfight between GWW and TWB, and more TWB picking a fight with the entire MRM.

I'm rather disheartened with how the whole thing went down. I rather enjoyed listening to AVFM radio when TWB hosted it with JTO and GWW.

I do know that GWW had this to say about TWBBB:

... which is pretty fucked-up.

I was surprised when I read that TWBB was having an issue with A Vf M, because I enjoyed most of her stuff. It saddens me a little, but I can tell most of what GWW says about her is true as she really does appear quite emotionally driven in most of her videos.

I like her "this is wrong, so fuck you and your hateful ideology" attitude, but she has no capacity whatsoever for tact, or to settle down and have a reasonable exchange when she disagrees with someone. She absolutely refuses to back down or give any ground at all, which can be good in some circumstances, but there is a time and place for being diplomatic and willing to compromise as well.

She basically turned her guns back on the MRM, which is what got her fired. A lot of people (myself included) were rather annoyed by her "libertarians are morons and have no place in the MRM" remarks, as well. Like what happened with Bernard Chapin, trying to privilege your own unrelated ideological hangups over men's issues is a sure way to get yourself excommunicated.

edited 8th Jul '13 7:13:15 PM by Talby

I have no idea what all those letters mean. Well, most of them.

Thanks.

edited 9th Jul '13 11:15:02 AM by AnotherDuck

Heh, acronym Hell.

GWW = Girl Writes What
TWB = The Wooly Bumblebee
JTO = John the Other
AVFM = A Voice for Men

Let's be honest here, though, whilst I did find TWBBB's (not sure whether the three Bs are strictly appropriate, but they appeal to my sense of aesthetics - twbbbbbbbb! ) critique of it a bit simplistic, classical libertarianism hasn't traditionally been a friend to the disadvantaged. The arguments used by Victorian factory owners to perpetuate their abuse of their workforces were libertarian, using Adam Smith's invisible hand as an invisible bludgeon, and many examples of institutional prejudice result from and are compounded by the various forms of market failure (a recent, though minor example would be the scandal over the erasure and attempted erasure of women from video game box art in order to try to increase your product's selling power, but the conservative, profit-minded Hollywood studio model is even better as a case study, recycling tired, damaging tropes for a guaranteed buck). It's not unreasonable to criticise the MRM's overwhelming adherence to a particular ideology if you think that that ideology is serving as a millstone keeping the movement from its goals.

Also, GWW's veiled (and eventually not-veiled-at-all) implications that TWBBB had wormed her way into the confidences of the AVFM staff using her seductive feminine wiles were pretty weird:

If her fears were accurate, it also speaks poorly of the environment towards women at A Voice For Men, if it seemed likely that one female speaker criticising another would be dismissed as a jealous, 'shopworn old bird'. Between that, the attacks on TWBBB's children and how she raises them (the 'because regardless of whether you’re a biological determinist/reductionist or whether you think it’s all environment, you have to admit those are five fucked up kids about to be unleashed on the world' bit was a particularly cheap shot), and the thing about her rival's evil 'female nature', the whole post was pretty terrible, not to mention deeply hypocritical (protip - accusing someone of being 'overly emotional' starts losing its impact after you do it for the fifth time in your three-thousand-word rant). Not for the first time, it makes me wonder whether Girl Writes What is a topic that's really suited to the uncritical gushing of It Just Awes Me.

edited 9th Jul '13 2:49:36 AM by Iaculus

If you're talking about the Bio Shock Infinite manufactured controversy, it must have been a pretty poor attempt at erasing women from the boxart of the game, considering that Elizabeth is on the box art and is featured prominently in all the promotional material.

As for libertarianism not being a friend of the downtrodden, many libertarian-minded thinkers like Milton Friedman would argue that free market capitalism has done more for the downtrodden than, say, Marxism. (how's that 100 million murders committed in your name working out for you, eh, Marx?)

Oh, c'mon, you really want to play the 'who killed more - communists or capitalists?' argument? Can't we just agree that they both killed a shitload of people (I mean, the colonial exploitation of Africa and China alone brings capitalism's numbers way, way up) and move on? And yes, Elizabeth was on the boxart, but she was specifically moved to the back so as not to upset the fanboys, and then there was the whole Naughty Dog thing with The Last Of Us, where they apparently had to fight tooth and nail to get Ellie included. That's nitpicking, though - I'm sure we can both think of thousands of similar examples in the entertainment industry, like Hollywood's curious reluctance to show interracial kisses onscreen.

It just strikes me as deeply bizarre that a social-justice movement would be so intimately associated with an ideology that champions inequality and seeks to erode the safety nets for the most disadvantaged in society. I mean, we've got MRAs complaining about how men are expected to be providers and to sacrifice themselves to bring in the family income, and then excoriating those on welfare as worthless leeches (the latter, for instance, was a particular criticism by GWW of TWBBB). That's just weird.

edited 9th Jul '13 4:15:07 AM by Iaculus

Considering respect for the rights of the individual is at the core of libertarianism, it's a tough sell to argue that the exploitation of native populations by imperialist explorers is a failure of libertarianism. The point being, everyone has different ideas about what ideologies are good/bad/evil, and that's why you leave that shit at the door if you're going to take an active role in men's rights.

I really don't want to turn this into a debate on libertarianism, but here goes; the libertarian argument basically boils down to the idea that coercion (by violence or the threat of violence) is morally wrong. Even if you think socialist programs to help the needy are the best way to alleviate poverty, not everybody agrees with you – but they don't have a choice, since they still have to pay taxes that go towards things like welfare and social security. You want to help the homeless? Fine – front up your OWN cash, put your OWN livelihood on the line to help someone in need. It's not altruism when you're giving away someone else’s money.

And, as the late Margaret Thatcher succinctly put it;

I honestly hate quote Thatcher, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

I also take exception to the claim that libertarians are all selfish and only care about themselves. I personally donate a portion of my income to an international charity that provides clean water and medical supplies for children in impoverished countries like Kenya and Somalia. This isn't me trying to toot my own horn, just pointing out that being against big government does not necessarily make one an evil selfish monster who hates poor people.

Just to be clear; I don't really consider myself a hardcore libertarian. If you asked me about my politics, I'd probably say something like “softcore libertarianism, with an emphasis on personal and economic freedom.” I'm not necessarily against social security or socialized medicine and what have you. (mostly because I'm in a “figuring things out” stage when it comes to politics lately)

Basically, the point is; libertarians don't champion inequality, they just have different ideas about how to go about achieving equality. People who disagree with you aren't evil people, they're good people operating with a different set of information than you.

And people still have issues with interracial relationships, for some reason. (or at least, marketing departments think people do) That's an issue with society in general that's reflected in media, not an issue with capitalism itself. Big corporations are by their nature cautious and conservative about alienating their audience, because there's a lot of money riding on it if they screw up. It's easy to sit on the sidelines and criticize when it's not your money and livelihood that's at stake. You want to take big risks on an unproven market? Fine, YOU can front the cash for it, and bear the consequences if it fails.

Still not buying the box art thing, sorry. Booker is on the cover of the game because he is the character you play as, and a gruff looking guy holding a gun is actually very representative of the kind of gaming experience BS:I offers. It is a first person shooter, after all.

As for The Last of Us, the fact that there was a debate about what to put on the box art doesn't prove anything. Game publishers usually go through dozens of different designs for box art, and generally try to go for something that will make people want to buy the game. In this case, the people railing against box art "erasing" female characters (again, how putting them on the box art is erasing them escapes me, but whatever) actually got exactly what they wanted - the main female character is featured prominently on the front cover of the game, moreso than the male character you actually play as.

Apparently even that is not enough, though. Just the fact that there was a discussion and some resistance to putting a supporting character on the box is enough to ruffle their feathers. Unpleasable Fanbase much? Or maybe Unpleasable Hatedom would be more appropriate.

No, I'm far more annoyed by Bio Shock Infinite being a rather shitty game. I think the box art is perfectly representative of the experience the game offers - uninspired and forgettable. But that's just me.

Another clarifiction: I am disappointed that the Woolly Bumblebee was kicked out of AVFM. Despite her abrasiveness and despite her dislike of libertarians, I like her content and think she has lot of genuine compassion for people. Her response to the bad reaction she got for her MGTOW video, though, pretty much gave the AVFM top brass little choice but to give her the boot. GWW and TWB seemed to be on friendly terms, at least, and I think it's a shame all of this crap had to go down, with hurt feelings all around.

edited 9th Jul '13 4:45:45 AM by Talby

And that's naive, utopian, 'wouldn't it be nice if everyone was nice' bullshit. I would have thought that the desperate attempts by megacorporations like Apple to safeguard their own profits, using loopholes to save billions of dollars whilst donating a relative pittance to charity as a token sop, would have provided ample evidence of that. Categorically opposing coercion in all its forms and definitions is the privilege of people who don't desperately need what they're asking for. It doesn't matter whether the disadvantaged were helped through the kindness and altruism of others - what matters is that they were helped.

That's an issue with society in general that's reflected in media, not an issue with capitalism itself. Big corporations are by their nature cautious and conservative about alienating their audience, because there's a lot of money riding on it if they screw up.

How is it not an issue with capitalism if the market system dictates that companies should prioritise guaranteed profit over encouraging social change? You said it yourself - to stay in business, you have to uphold the regressive norms of society. Plus, since we're talking about the entertainment industry, they're encouraging those regressive norms by doing so.

There is a reason why so many attempts at social progress have been opposed with libertarian arguments - even the Civil Rights Act was accompanied by whining that the big, bad government was oppressing and coercing those poor racists into not exercising their right to self-determination by treating black people like shit. I say libertarianism champions inequallity because economic deregulation is almost inevitably correlated with a massive increase in the gap between rich and poor - see the effects of Thatcher and Blair's reforms in the UK, for instance, and the pattern of economic behaviour during the birth of (and later regulatory shackling of) capitalism during and after the Industrial Revolution. I'll grant that you may believe you're seeking a better world, but really, what you're doing is presenting excuses for upholding the status quo, and that's completely counter to the goals of any social-justice organisation.

GWW and TWB seemed to be on friendly terms, at least, and I think it's a shame all of this crap had to go down, with hurt feelings all around.

Not according to GWW, apparently.

edited 9th Jul '13 5:47:50 AM by Iaculus

Conversely, you have people like Bill Gates, whose money has saved millions of lives, and improved the standard of living for millions more. And he's not the only one, there's dozens of entrepreneurs in recent history who have used their success to improve the lives of millions of people, even if you ignore the wealth and jobs they create with their business. Just because Steve Jobs and his cohorts are assholes doesn't mean all entrepreneurs are.

And I admit that a world free of coercion is an ideal. An ideal that's worth striving for.

Social change can be good or bad. That's completely subjective. Just because they're not pushing a political agenda that you personally approve doesn't mean they should be subjected to government control. You can't ignore the pragmatic reality that certain decisions will result in more or less profit, and if a business wants to survive, they have to provide a product that people actually want. That means catering to the interests of the public, even if those interests aren't consistent with yours. I really think this is just a case of media having to play catch up, though. The media will adapt to social change without the need of outside intervention, as it has done in the past.

Once again you're talking about people who were abusing the rights of other human beings, which is completely at odds with libertarianism. Libertarianism isn't just about economic freedom, it's about personal freedom as well. (although I'd also argue that you can't have personal freedom without economic freedom)

Says you. It's exactly this kind of argumentative bullshit is exactly the reason the MRM is apolitical, because people try to privilege their own politics above all else and try to shift the issue away from men's rights. There are socialist MRA's, and even though I disagree with them on many things, I play nice as long as they're willing to set it aside when it comes to men's issues. And I do the same.

Incidentally, going back to Bernard Chapin - if you don't know him, the guy is a right-wing nutball who was convinced evil leftists and Stalinists were trying to infiltrate the MRM, and insisted the rest of the MRM needs to follow his lead. He was given the boot not because of the specific political point of view he was advocating, but because he insisted on putting his own politics above men's rights issues. This whole derail on libertarianism actually just serves to proves my point about setting aside ideology - we've gone completely off topic and aren't even talking about the thread subject anymore.

They seemed to be on good terms back when they were hosting AVFM radio together, but whatever. None of my business anyway.

edited 9th Jul '13 5:56:18 AM by Talby

Conversely, you have people like Bill Gates, whose money has saved millions of lives, and improved the standard of living for millions more.

And I'm sure all the child workers Microsoft employed in China on his watch are extremely grateful, as are the small-business owners his company did its level best to bankrupt. C'mon, seriously, you're using Gates as your shining example of an ethical entrepreneur?

Social change can be good or bad. That's completely subjective. Just because they're not pushing a political agenda that you personally approve doesn't mean they should be subjected to government control.

Hold on, isn't the whole purpose of the MRM to promote a particular social agenda (i.e., gender equality), not to ensure that X rich person stays rich? Sounds suspiciously like you're subordinating the interests of the movement to your socioeconomic ideals there.

The problem with claiming your movement is apolitical is that men's rights are inherently political (as are the rights of any disadvantaged group), and sooner or later, you are going to have to talk about what economic models help and hinder gender equality. Unity of purpose isn't everything, especially if you have to routinely throw people under the bus to preserve that unity - that's the whole reason feminism had a third wave, after all.

Setting aside the fact that those people would have no jobs at all and starve to death otherwise, those kinds of jobs exist because the economies of those countries can't support the workplace standards we enjoy in developed countries, which aren't too dissimilar from the workplace standards in the west a century or two ago. They'll make progress in the area of workplace standards just like we did.

(And as a side note, don't get up on your high horse about third world labour. If you own a phone, a computer, a tablet, a television or any one of a thousand consumer products, then you are helping to perpetuate that system.)

As for small businesses, give me a break. They have to compete in the free market just like anyone else - just as Microsoft did when nobody had heard of them. If you're so concerned about small businesses, it may interest you to know that small business are the least able to adhere to minimum wage laws and other workplace regulations. I've worked (and still work) minimum wage, and in my experience small business are far worse than big corporations when it comes to actually paying for the hours I've worked, safety standards, and other workplace issues. Are they evil, too?

When I talk about men's issues, I don't try to inject unrelated political crap into the discussion. I'm only addressing it here because you pressed the issue.

First, it's not "my" movement. I'm "MRM friendly" but I don't call myself an MRA. But generally speaking, my understanding of the MRM is that it's about achieving gender equality within the system that currently exists, without turning the system on its head. (which is frankly what creating a libertarian system would require. I'm not even going to go there)

Edit: And now I am done with this derail. Make another thread for bashing libertarians if you want, this isn't the place for it. So how 'bout that GWW?

edited 10th Jul '13 9:14:48 PM by Talby

So, this is a few months old now, but GWW made a great video highlighting the double standards in the different reactions to the Adria Richards and the Lisa Brown controversies;

Wow, her latest video about false rape accusations and myths about rape is truly excellent, in my opinion.

Y'know, not for nothing, people always claim that false rape accusations are so common enough that men are so in danger of being next! ...but what proof is there of it supposedly being so rampant?