Mostly by giving her biased opinions,
taking far longer than necessary to get the point (as she always does),
and not knowing what she's talking about. Emotionally-charged rhetoric
sure looks good, and there's even talk in the comments of a "Feminazi
Regime" (lol). Charged rhetoric is definitely effective when it panders
to a base that already agrees with your (opinions and theories),
especially when you present them as factually contrasting to opposing
theories.
Amirite?
I'll let you all decide for yourselves:
http://reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1dbc18/girlwriteswhat_systematically_dismantles_feminist/
Here's a good analysis of her speech from /r/againstmensrights (which isn't very inclusive - but they often get it right):
...this:
"One need only watch the Life of Julia, Obama's most naked and blatant appeal to the natures of women--especially young, single women. Julia has no father, and no husband--she needs neither of those things. The state will take care of her needs from birth to death, and will support her when she decides to have a child of her own--a child that, in Obama's narrative, is also fatherless. The man in Julia's life, the one who will perform the roles--provision, protection, support--historically performed by husbands, brothers and fathers, is more powerful than any man she'll ever meet, more able to provide for her, and one she need make no compromises with."
What is "Life of Julia" (WARNING, this video is absurdly offensive)? It's a youtube video about a fictional person named Julia, that because of "liberalism," fails schools, gets abortions, becomes a radical feminist, gets a women's studies degree, becomes a lesbian, becomes a trans man, and marries a cat. Wasn't it just a few days ago that MRAs were bleating that they support the LGBT community...?
I have to admit, reading GWW public [rant] is just about the surest way to shoot coffee out your nose at 9 in the morning. I mean, the title of this r/MR post says it all: GirlWritesWhat systematically dismantles feminist theory in her address to the NY state libertarian convention, already invites significant chuckles, but the actual speech content is laughably ridiculous, astoundingly offensive, and profoundly troubling (not to mention peppered with so much cis gender, heterosexual, white, upper-middle class, western privilege).
Let me just highlight some of the amazing pieces of insight and thoughtfulness this grand FeMRA has to share:
"Some of you--maybe all of you--might be asking yourselves, what on earth is an anti-feminist gender theorist doing speaking at a libertarian party convention. What the heck does gender, or feminism, have to do with libertarian politics and philosophies? The answer to that question is at once extremely complex, and very, very simple."
Lol, "gender theorist," really? Is this the gender theory where you use Wikipedia factoids (search for the word "bonobo") about primate behavior to explain "female privilege" and "male disposablity"?
"To demonstrate these effects of gender I'm talking about, I'm going to make a few statements, and I want you all to pay attention to how you feel when I say them. They're statements I've culled from published books, newspapers, or the speeches of politicians, though you'll notice I've flipped the genders for effect..."
...to which she starts randomly quoting people but with the genders switched. She uses Obama, Hilary Clinton, some people I don't recognize, a poster, a newspaper, and Andrea Dworkin (who quotes Dworkin anymore, is it just MRAs?). As to her point with these dumb misquotes, I have no idea. I imagine she was filling time between commercials.
"Canadian libertarian philosopher Stefan Molyneux once described feminism as "socialism in panties."... I'm not going to bore you with a detailed history of the marriage of feminism and marxism. For that, I'll refer any who are interested to a lengthy but fascinating lecture by Soviet ex-patriot Valdas Anelauskas..."
Lol, it must say something that I have no idea who this person it (is he the guy who made those xbox games about the morality of being a hero?). However, the true hilarity is how GWW spends so much time laying the groundwork for her to argue that feminists are just cryptomarxists and secret soviet spies. LMAO, has anyone else read "The Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and Feminism: Towards a More Progressive Union" by Hartmann? I think it's pretty good. However, it's funny to read GWW's take on the issue, mostly because she doesn't know the meaning of the words "property" (as Marx was talking about private ownership of the means of production, not toothbrushes...), "marxism", "Bourgeoisie", "Proletariat", and "The Patriarchy" (why always always the capitalized words, these aren't proper nouns).
From here on, the rant deteriorates into vague, meaningless paragraphs, WORDS IN ALL CAPS, lots of Warren Farrell, women behaving badly, government is evil, feminism is even more evil, and...
"A lot of people have wondered aloud why there aren't more female libertarians. If there's a reason, it might lie in a lack of incentive. Big government costs the vast majority of men--their wealth, their civil liberties, their autonomy, sometimes their freedom--but for most women, big government represents an insurance policy and a perpetual subsidy of their personal choices, good or bad. Men pay, women benefit."
There is nothing more to say but laugh (There is link to the complete documentary at the very bottom of the page, which I find even more funny because it's "available online from the National Film Board of Canada.")
TL;DR GWW does an amazing job of being both a crazy libertarian and a dumb anti-feminist. She really has no idea what she is talking about, but is sure glad to talk about it to anyone who'll listen. She's offensive and uninformed, but dumb libertarians and MRAs love her because she can gab for hours. Honestly, Her existence clearly demonstrates how intellectually bankrupt the MRM is, but she advocates for dangerous political and social positions which actually harms men and women.
Amirite?
I'll let you all decide for yourselves:
http://reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1dbc18/girlwriteswhat_systematically_dismantles_feminist/
Here's a good analysis of her speech from /r/againstmensrights (which isn't very inclusive - but they often get it right):
...this:
"One need only watch the Life of Julia, Obama's most naked and blatant appeal to the natures of women--especially young, single women. Julia has no father, and no husband--she needs neither of those things. The state will take care of her needs from birth to death, and will support her when she decides to have a child of her own--a child that, in Obama's narrative, is also fatherless. The man in Julia's life, the one who will perform the roles--provision, protection, support--historically performed by husbands, brothers and fathers, is more powerful than any man she'll ever meet, more able to provide for her, and one she need make no compromises with."
What is "Life of Julia" (WARNING, this video is absurdly offensive)? It's a youtube video about a fictional person named Julia, that because of "liberalism," fails schools, gets abortions, becomes a radical feminist, gets a women's studies degree, becomes a lesbian, becomes a trans man, and marries a cat. Wasn't it just a few days ago that MRAs were bleating that they support the LGBT community...?
I have to admit, reading GWW public [rant] is just about the surest way to shoot coffee out your nose at 9 in the morning. I mean, the title of this r/MR post says it all: GirlWritesWhat systematically dismantles feminist theory in her address to the NY state libertarian convention, already invites significant chuckles, but the actual speech content is laughably ridiculous, astoundingly offensive, and profoundly troubling (not to mention peppered with so much cis gender, heterosexual, white, upper-middle class, western privilege).
Let me just highlight some of the amazing pieces of insight and thoughtfulness this grand FeMRA has to share:
"Some of you--maybe all of you--might be asking yourselves, what on earth is an anti-feminist gender theorist doing speaking at a libertarian party convention. What the heck does gender, or feminism, have to do with libertarian politics and philosophies? The answer to that question is at once extremely complex, and very, very simple."
Lol, "gender theorist," really? Is this the gender theory where you use Wikipedia factoids (search for the word "bonobo") about primate behavior to explain "female privilege" and "male disposablity"?
"To demonstrate these effects of gender I'm talking about, I'm going to make a few statements, and I want you all to pay attention to how you feel when I say them. They're statements I've culled from published books, newspapers, or the speeches of politicians, though you'll notice I've flipped the genders for effect..."
...to which she starts randomly quoting people but with the genders switched. She uses Obama, Hilary Clinton, some people I don't recognize, a poster, a newspaper, and Andrea Dworkin (who quotes Dworkin anymore, is it just MRAs?). As to her point with these dumb misquotes, I have no idea. I imagine she was filling time between commercials.
"Canadian libertarian philosopher Stefan Molyneux once described feminism as "socialism in panties."... I'm not going to bore you with a detailed history of the marriage of feminism and marxism. For that, I'll refer any who are interested to a lengthy but fascinating lecture by Soviet ex-patriot Valdas Anelauskas..."
Lol, it must say something that I have no idea who this person it (is he the guy who made those xbox games about the morality of being a hero?). However, the true hilarity is how GWW spends so much time laying the groundwork for her to argue that feminists are just cryptomarxists and secret soviet spies. LMAO, has anyone else read "The Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and Feminism: Towards a More Progressive Union" by Hartmann? I think it's pretty good. However, it's funny to read GWW's take on the issue, mostly because she doesn't know the meaning of the words "property" (as Marx was talking about private ownership of the means of production, not toothbrushes...), "marxism", "Bourgeoisie", "Proletariat", and "The Patriarchy" (why always always the capitalized words, these aren't proper nouns).
From here on, the rant deteriorates into vague, meaningless paragraphs, WORDS IN ALL CAPS, lots of Warren Farrell, women behaving badly, government is evil, feminism is even more evil, and...
"A lot of people have wondered aloud why there aren't more female libertarians. If there's a reason, it might lie in a lack of incentive. Big government costs the vast majority of men--their wealth, their civil liberties, their autonomy, sometimes their freedom--but for most women, big government represents an insurance policy and a perpetual subsidy of their personal choices, good or bad. Men pay, women benefit."
There is nothing more to say but laugh (There is link to the complete documentary at the very bottom of the page, which I find even more funny because it's "available online from the National Film Board of Canada.")
TL;DR GWW does an amazing job of being both a crazy libertarian and a dumb anti-feminist. She really has no idea what she is talking about, but is sure glad to talk about it to anyone who'll listen. She's offensive and uninformed, but dumb libertarians and MRAs love her because she can gab for hours. Honestly, Her existence clearly demonstrates how intellectually bankrupt the MRM is, but she advocates for dangerous political and social positions which actually harms men and women.
No comments:
Post a Comment