A Response to the Hysterical Housewife

by Keoni Galt on February 19, 2011

Laura Wood wrote another post in response to my piece yesterday about her criticism. At first glance, it looks to be disingenuous and dishonest. But after a couple of readings, I think she honestly just can’t help herself. When she encounters criticism, obscenities and hyperbole, she gets rather hysterical.

I will now respond directly to her latest response:

Please note Laura, that not a thing I write here can be construed as an attack, hateful, nor a vile assault on you.

First off, the title of your response:

The Bullies Speak

Ahh…so disagreement and criticism is now “bullying?” My dear, you are the one who sought to criticize this entire community as a “hateful ideology” that was the “counterpart” to the cultural garbage of what you correctly call† “Eat, Pray, Love† Syndrome.” I merely sought to point out that this was a false, moral equivalency.

You picked this fight, and now you cry bullying?

THERE IS a lengthy highbrow discussion at the menís website, The Spearhead, in response to the post here in which I said that a wife can never deprive a man of his honor and character.

Which was not really point of contention. To reiterate, you made a judgment of moral equivalence between anti-marriage, feminist-driven cultural propaganda like EPL and what you tried to claim was some kind of coherent, uniform ideology here at The Spearhead. The first half of my piece was to point out that your judgment was wrong.

I have not read the whole Spearhead entry, but I have glanced at it. To give you an idea of the tenor of the discussion, or at least of some of the participants, one reader writes of me:

“She is worthless, untouchable filth. She should have been aborted with a chainsaw.”

Hawaiian Libertarian, who moderates the discussion and who has not deleted threatening comments such as this…

First off, Laura, The Spearhead is by and large a free speech zone. Because of this, you will always be able to find some sort of extreme hyperbole in the commentary. The only time comments get moderated is if a comment could bring about possible legal action against The Spearhead. Other than that, this is a free-for-all zone. To find a comment like that and than ascribe it to the entire tenor of my piece and everyone that participates here is disingenuous and a complete cop out.

Second of all, I do not moderate anything at The Spearhead. Only the founder, Bill Price, and two other volunteers, have that authority. Even if I wanted to delete commentary I personally found offensive and counterproductive, I couldn’t. I do not have that authority or power. The only thing I can do at The Spearhead, is submit articles and comments like anyone else.

…falsely states that I do not accept comments here.I accept the comments of anyone who writes to me, provided they are civil and to the point, as is clearly stated on my home page at the bottom of every entry.

OK Laura, I concede this point here – though you try to make this seem like I’m deliberately lying about you. I should have been more specific in that you do not allow normal comment threads like most blogs, you only cherry pick and you edit your email commentary to suit your purposes. Let’s just say I did not give you the benefit of the doubt that my long critique would be posted at your site un-edited and not have parts taken out of context…if you even posted it at all. That is why I posted it here.

He also falsely states that I am a reader of The Spearhead. I am not, though readers do occasionally send me links from there.

Hilarious. I never said you are a daily reader. I wrote that I was posting it here because I knew you’d read it. And I was right…even though you laughably claim you only “glanced” at the article.

That’s an amusing claim on your behalf, when the statement you found most objectionable was halfway down the comment thread, and was the last line of a two paragraph comment. You HAD to have read a substantial portion of the thread to cherry pick out that one line you found so offensive (and I’ll even agree with you, that was a rather offensive comment.)

Another reader in the discussion states that I have said all men must marry. I have never said any such thing, but this appears to be a common rumor about me in the manosphere. I have said that men who donít marry should decline intimate relationships with women and I have said that men should not seek to destroy the institution of marriage or urge other men to never marry.

This is precisely why I wrote a criticism of you for The Spearhead rather than submit it as an email to you. You go for the hyperbole that supports your caricature view and ignore anything of substance. Like Novaseeker’s excellent comments regarding these view of yours.

You equate men encouraging other men to not marry as “destroying the institution of marriage.” In other words, if men learn from firsthand experience just how badly they could have their lives devastated by the current state of the institution, they’d better not warn other men, or they’re “contributing to the destruction of the institution.” This is perhaps your worst fallacy you regularly reiterate.

I have also said repeatedly that the surge of female-initiated divorce is one of the greatest injustices of our time. No-fault divorce is wrong. All divorce is wrong. Women who leave their husbands for any reason other than danger to themselves and their children are abusive traitors. Men should have presumptive custody of children. There should be no government-benefits or garnished wages for single mothers.

Women who leave their husbands, except when a man is physically dangerous, are traitors in deed and by example to women everywhere.

Why yes Laura, on this we agree. As I wrote, I don’t disagree with everything you write. Unlike you, I can look at your arguments objectively and judge them for their own merits, rather than look at something you write that I find objectionable than simply write off everything you espouse as a “hateful ideology.”

However, because I refuse to say that even involuntary divorce and harassment by the state cannot destroy a manís integrity and his honor, I am the object of withering hatred and threats at The Spearhead.

That is not what you wrote. As I responded, I agreed with that particular premise. What I disputed was your claim that “Men have nothing to fear in marriage other than the loss of their own honor. That is the only thing that counts and it is something each man controls and no wife can destroy.

To which I responded:

“Men have nothing to fear in marriage. Itís the DIVORCE we have to fear! We rightfully fear for the loss of our children, the garnishment of our wages, the loss of a lifetime we attempt to build for the benefit of our family!

Honor has got nothing to do with it.

Is that what you call withering hatred and threats? Perhaps you would do well to re-read my article again. While it contains vulgarities (which was a response to PATRICK’s asinine moral equivalence between “EPL Syndrome” and curse words), not once did I threaten or attack you in a personal manner. I merely pointed out that you were not using logic, but rather resorting to emotional outrage and trying to brand the entire Spearhead community as nothing more than a “hateful ideology.”

The menís movement brooks no deviation from the view that men are holy victims. Even a woman who repeatedly stands up for the rights of men is hated if she does not agree that men are doomed and have lost everything.

This is a straw man argument that cannot be backed up by fact. As I previously pointed out, there really is not that much for which we here at The Spearhead agree on. We regularly have spats in our comment threads here about that very topic. Yes, there are some men who view all men as victims. There are plenty of us who disagree with that. But you don’t acknowledge the difference in viewpoints, you simply seek to marginalize us all with this straw man caricature.

I stand by my main point. The greatest losers in the world are those who commit evil, always and in all times, not those who are the victims of it. That does not mean injustice should not be resisted. If I thought that, I would not be writing here.

Let’s go through your claims here: if men point out they are victims of evil of the likes of EPL Syndrome, than you say “The menís movement brooks no deviation from the view that men are holy victims,” but if men try to warn other men not to get married in today’s anti-male marriage legal system, than we are evil and assisting in the destruction of the institution?

This is why so many men in the men’s movement have a problem with you. If men are victimized by the feminist-warped institution of marriage, they are claiming “holy victimhood” status. If men try to warn others about the evils of the current system, than we are evil for trying to destroy the institution. You deign to pass judgment on men with a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” conundrum. This is a false dichotomy, and we reject your attempts at trying to seize the moral high ground and impose this double standard on us. Men ARE victimized by Marriage 2.0. Men MUST warn others about the perils of subjecting themselves to it.

If you did bother to read The Spearhead with an objective mind, you would see that there are plenty of men that STILL advocate for marriage…but only if they are fully aware of the risks, and that they have found a woman who is least likely to destroy the family via divorce after the vows have been exchanged.

By the way, men are not the only ones injured by female-initiated divorce. Children, mothers, sisters, and friends are too. And, of course, women are not the only ones who divorce their spouses without their consent though their rate of doing so is much higher than that of men.

Why, how gracious of you to concede that Men Do That Too! (Seriously, Laura, read that link. I promise, there are no attacks or withering hatred…)

One other point. I will not be accepting comments in this entry from anyone who participated in the thread at The Spearhead and who did not object to this violent language directed towards me, as well as to the threat by another reader there to disable my website.

Which is precisely why I did not email my criticism to you…I posted here, in a place where I knew it would be published in it’s entirety and not have it cherry picked apart and have parts of it taken out of context as you are wont to do.

I object to violent language towards you. I did not use any, nor did I approve of it. But I have no control of other people who comment here…this is a free speech zone, and that is far more important to keep it that way, than trying to get everyone here to adhere to some code of speech so as to not offend you or anyone else’s sensibilities.

I believe my criticism of you and your piece were fair, non-threatening and based on logic. You sought to brand The Spearhead as the moral equivalent to the anti-marriage/pro-divorce propaganda of EPL.

In short, your reaction was hysterical. You focused on a few comments that were over-the-top hyperbole and sought to claim that they were the sum total of our commentary and criticism of your writing and attitude. There are plenty of people that offered substantive, non-threatening criticisms.

You ignored those and acted as if the entire piece and all the comments were nothing more than a vile hate-fest that was entirely without reason or logic.

Either you are being purposefully disingenuous…or simply hysterical. Which is it?

{ 204 comments… read them below or add one }

Leave a Comment

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: