Several questions have been asked about Susan Walsh. I don’t have the time right now to run through all of the problems with her because such a thing would approach being a doctoral dissertation. Instead I will do my best to provide a brief summary with some examples. None of the examples I list are freak occurrences. They are part of a pattern on Susan Walsh’s part going back at least two years of lies, deceit, and woman firstism. She claims not to be a feminist, but only because she has tried to redefine feminist purely in terms of being a slut. This definition fails to capture what feminism is really about, female supremacism, and Susan Walsh is a female supremacist.
One question that was asked was whether Susan Walsh is pro-game or not. This should answer that.
The anti-feminist part is effectively a lie as I said, but there is no doubt now about her stance on game.
Susan Walsh appeared in the manosphere around two years ago give or take. Some the gamers tried to convince her of game. There were quite a few fights between the gamers and her because at first she didn’t buy into game. Eventually, she did, likely because she realized that the cult of Roissysphere game can be used to control men for the benefit of women. Once this happened all of the gamers that were fighting her stopped that and starting kissing her ass except one, Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech, one of the few (possibly the only) sane gamers out there. PMAFT’s perspective is not about game as much as it is about mens rights and respect for men, so he wasn’t taken in by her sudden conversion to being pro-game. PMAFT kept on disagreeing with her so she eventually banned him from hooking up morons. She tried to claim that PMAFT couldn’t hold a “civil conversation”, but those of us who know PMAFT know that is bullshit. You can read more about this on PMAFT’s blog at this link.
It was sometime after this that I came along to the manosphere. For a while I got on fine with Susan Walsh. Then one day all of a sudden, she went nuts about me. She started calling me “creepy”, not to me since she doesn’t talk to me anymore, but to other people. Calling a virgin man like myself, “creepy”, is no different than calling a black person a nigger, or using any sort of racist or anti-semitic slur. I can’t give you links exactly what happened with Susan Walsh because it’s all in her head. Here is an example of her calling me creepy.
Keoni, I’ve wrestled with this guy before. He’s impossible to reason with, he just lashes out irrationally. He was a fixture on HUS even before he started blogging and finally left in a huff claiming I’d banned him. I hadn’t but I would have been justified in doing so – he hijacked a bunch of threads complaining about everyone without taking any responsibility whatsoever for his own circumstances.
This is what women mean when they use the word creepy.
Not only did Susan Walsh call me creepy but she lied (like she does over and over again). I never said that she banned me from hooking up stupid. I left because commenting there was a waste of time, not “in a huff”. What she calls my “not taking responsibility” is my refusal to believe in game. Since game doesn’t exist, women aren’t just automatons responding to men. They are responsible for what they do, and I was holding women responsible. She also has the nerve to call me irrational when Hawaiian Fat Blob was writing a conspiracy theory about how I was down voting his comments on The Spearhead, and when I had to delete various comments from gamers because they were coming here to drive traffic to their blogs. One of HFB’s sycophants, Workshy Joe, another gamer who has employment problems, admitted to this.
For the sake of brevity, I going to skip a lot here. There’s a lot of talk about the 80/20 rule, where 20% of men are having sex with 80% of the women. Gamers think this is true, and more or less so do I. Susan Walsh has talked about the 80/20 rule as well, which the gamers took to mean that she agreed with them. She let them think this. What Susan Walsh meant by the 80/20 rule was that 80% of sex is happening between 20% of the men and 20% of the women. Not that long ago, Susan Walsh’s duplicity in this area was uncovered. Later in the comments, she tries to pull some BS by claiming various surveys about a person’s number of sex partners are anonymous which by definition can’t be. (The survey thing is better explained here and here.) What Susan Walsh is trying to do here is invoke the myth of equal suffering as described on The Spearhead, in order for women to not be held accountable for their actions. She tried the same thing when she was still talking to me. She said that there women “in the same situation as me”. I challenged her to produce a 33 year old involuntary virgin woman. Susan Walsh did not do this and let this insult to my intelligence stand.
As a result of all this one of her sycophants made up a conspiracy theory that I had “invaded” Dalrock’s blog, and all the anti-Susan Walsh comments were really sock puppets of me. I didn’t even know that there were people rightfully criticizing Susan Walsh until after that conspiracy theory accusation was made against me. Despite that, even many of the gamers were starting to catch on to Susan Walsh’s lies, passive aggressive behavior, and general modus operandi as explained in the following by Anonymous Reader.
Unfortunately a key part of her “hanging in there” consisted of simply ignoring facts that did not agree with her pre-determined conclusion. This is part of a pattern with Walsh; she makes some sweeping generalization, men provide examples that disprove it, she ignores them or even belittles them with some feeble snark, then she goes on to repeat the same false claim again in some other venue. In the case of surveys, there are some major issues with truthfulness of women that Walsh refuses to discuss. Basil posted a small study that clearly demonstrated that women will lie about number of sexual partners except when they believe that they are certain to be caught. This doesn’t surprise me as a man, but apparently it doesn’t fit in well with Walsh’s view of women – so she ignores it. I’m not impressed when someone claims to be ‘open minded’ one minute and then demonstrates obvious close-mindedness the next. Actions speaking louder than words, once again. I bet that even if someone went to Walsh’s own blog and posted links to the study, or even the study itself, she’d continue to ignore it.
And yes, I’m going to bring up her claim that she can spot entitled women just by looking at them from time to time. Because it is a claim that is testable, but she refuses to test it. It is a claim that flies right in the face of some men I know, and she refuses to acknowledge that. Her arrogant ignorance in this matter doesn’t give me any confidence at all in anything else Walsh has to say, frankly.
This matters because Walsh on the one hand is presenting herself as an honest debater, and an honest researcher. But honest debate means putting claims to the test, testing hypotheses and admitting if they cannot pass muster. Honest research means following evidence wherever it leads, not starting with a preconceived idea and only accepting data that supports it.
Susan Walsh says she’s willing to learn from men and admit when she’s wrong, but her actions to me are those of someone who has zero interest in men’s real experience and an arrogant refusal to admit any error.
PMAFT, another gamer, said something similar.
You have realized the same thing I have discovered a long time ago. The only difference between her and Amanda Marcotte is that Susan Walsh is running a better con. It’s telling that Susan Walsh’s only opposition to feminism is the part of feminism she perceives as harming women. She agrees with every other part of feminism. For example, she is against men going expat to find wives/form families (not to mention men going ghost). This shows that Susan Walsh wants to keep men in the marriage 2.0 system. This is one of a thousand examples.
Her attempt to redefine the 80/20 rule is another example of how Susan Walsh is playing for Team Woman and nothing more. She is trying to claim that women are suffering the same lack of sex men are. We know this is not true. Walsh’s subtle redefinition of the 80/20 rule is similar to duplicitous Middle Eastern leaders who say one thing in English for American/Western consumption and another thing in Arabic for local consumption.
Put all of this together, and it becomes clear that Susan Walsh is all about trying to keep men locked in to the feminist system here in the West. Just because she disagrees with (or is willing to sacrifice) some transgender sex-positive lesbians does not mean that Susan Walsh isn’t playing for Team Woman.
Over the last week, Susan Walsh’s true nature was exposed again at Dalrock’s blog when she revealed what she thinks causes divorce. A man commenting at her blog said the following.
Men are shattered and blind sided by divorce far more than women are. Usually the woman you files for divorce has slowly been making up her mind to do it for some time with much consultation with her girl friends. Maybe because she cheated and thus dissolved her feels of bondedness when married women have good emotional sex with another man, but not when men do.
This was Susan Walsh’s angry response.
Provide stats for this or shut up. Men cheat more than women do. How do you account for that in divorces initiated by women? He breaks the contract, she files. Sounds fair to me. Yes, there are frivolous divorces, but I’d like to know what percentage of female-initiated divorces they are. I think this theme is exaggerated and overblown in the manosphere echo chamber.
Everyone in the manosphere knows the truth about divorce. We all know how it is female initiated for the flimsiest of reasons, yet Susan Walsh both insults our intelligence and proves she is no anti-feminist with this comment. She said that divorce only happens because men cheat which we know is bullshit. You have to read all of the comments to that link above. (Don’t complain that it’s too long. It’s all relevant.) Eventually you will find out how Susan Walsh digs a deeper hole for herself on this issue, lies about what this gamer said, accuses Dalrock of taking what she said out of context when he didn’t, etc. Eventually, even Dalrock gets tired of Susan Walsh’s bullshit.
Even if she ultimately acknowledges the reality of frivolous divorce, there still is her bizarre denial that she ever wrote what she did, not to mention her characterization of her statement Provide stats for this or shut up. as I expressed a curiosity as to what percentage of female-initiated divorces are frivolous. She also is claiming that she was responding to an entirely different comment from Doug1 than the one she quoted in her response. She doesn’t characterize this as an oversight or error on her part, she simply denies her reply was actually a reply to the comment everyone can see she quoted.
Lastly, I’m not impressed by her stance that she hasn’t had a chance to look into the topic of frivolous divorce. Given her long history blogging with a primary goal of getting women married, at the very least it shows a profound lack of intellectual curiosity. How can this not have ever interested her before? Furthermore, she clearly has seen the issue raised repeatedly on my site and others across the manosphere and instead of considering what she read dismissed it out of hand. Her latest statement (the one the OP is in response to) betrays a deep hostility to men’s complaints about women taking advantage of the system. Taken all together her driving passion seems to be to put as many women as possible in the position of being able to victimize men through the unfair marriage laws and courts.
Read that last sentence several times to make sure it sinks in. The end result of this is that the gamers are all realizing the truth about Susan Walsh that PMAFT first realized back in early 2010, something he realized even before I did.
You will notice that sentence at the end about how Susan Walsh has both a daughter and a son. The fact that she has a son rarely comes up whereas the fact that she has a daughter comes up all of the time. When someone says, “Susan Walsh is just trying to help her daughter,” the question I have to ask is what about her son? That’s in addition to “helping her daughter” seems to mean “putting as many women as possible in the position of being able to victimize men through the unfair marriage laws and courts” which is by definition at the expense of her son. This is even more clear when you learn about Susan Walsh’s life story which was being a slut followed by snagging a beta to bail her out. What she is trying to do is make sure her daughter has that option because men are figuring out what is going on and will not be the beta to bail out an aging slut.
I could write about more examples from the last two years, but Susan Walsh’s pattern of lies, deceit, and woman firstism is clear. To end this, I am going to add a comment from Roosh’s forum about Susan Walsh.
ehh, I don’t care for her. Her tone of writing is insultingly saccharine, though I suppose that’s inevitable when writing for women. The woman earned an MBA from Wharton, but you’d never guess it from her writing.
She takes what male game/MRA writers say, misunderstands half of it, and then relays it to her female readers. Many of those readers, by the way, seem to be there for her patented 12 Step Slut Rehab Program™.
When I read her site, I feel like I’m reading “How to Manipulate Men for Dummies.” It feels like the goal is not a successful satisfying relationship with a man she loves, but rather how to “get what you want” out of dating, how to have the relationship on “her terms.” The man is merely an accessory, to good feelings and status among her peers. It feels like the impetus for the site is sluts get pumped and dumped, and they want to know how to keep Mr. Alpha around.
Slut Rehab is definitely what hooking up stupid should be called.
Update: Dalrock made the following comment, and I think it should be included.
I’m glad this is clear for you, because I read what she wrote several times and still have no idea where she stands on the topic of the post. It reminds me an awful lot of a speech by a politician. She made a claim, I refuted it. She then proceeded to deny making the claim, question my integrity, accuse me of taking her comment out of context, and obfuscate the issue. I have given her the benefit of the doubt whenever I could, and worked very hard to not make this a personal issue. In return she scolds, accuses, and makes it personal. Now, as someone predicted, she returns as if none of this happened and apologizes for offending anyone who feels strongly about the issue of divorce. I expected much more from Susan.