>
 |
| The Ideal Woman, apparently. |
Freud asked: “What do women want?” Mel Gibson answered the question in that movie in which he could read their lady minds. I never saw it, but I’m guessing based on Gibson’s behavior since making the film that women want lots of drunken anti-Semitic tirades and verbal abuse.
Anyway, over at A Voice For Men, MRA elder Paul Elam doesn’t really give a shit about what women want. But he knows what they deserve, and what they don’t deserve. Which turns out to be shovels and love, respectively. As he explains in a recent comment:
We don’t need to teach young girls to marry for love; we need to put shovels in their hands and put them to work in ditches, digging their way to self sufficiency. We need to leave them to their own survival devices so that they can learn some humility …
But what we most need to teach young girls is that until there are social pressures established that place firm boundaries and limits on their hypergamous instincts, that they cannot be trusted with love, as women in this culture have been proving for 50 years … .
Keep shoveling, Paul.
—
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.
>That's a pretty ignorant claim on Farrel's part. Ancient Greece may be the most famous culture to endorse widespread man-on-man action, but it was far from the only one.It sure is an ignorant claim, and even if he is/was not aware of other cultures/tribes that did (and maybe some that still do) endorse and institutionalize man-on-man action, Ancient Greece might just be, as you said, the most famous for it; and to be so totally unaware of that when using historical perspectives to support one's contentions, well…. need I say more?He even goes so far as to say that the reason why some men, particularly blacks, Native Americans and homosexuals (regardless the ethnic background) are dealt with a lot rougher amongst the entire population of men in America is for the same reason as he proposed for the historical and universal condemnation of homosexuality… they don't provide the economic and protective security blanket that women need. Yep, no other possible factors, such as racism, classism, etc.The MRAs and MRM eat this shit right up because it speaks to what they believe… that men have been the unsung heroes, the disposable providers and protectors of women since time immemorial, and now women dare to bite the hand that feeds, and have been doing so for the last 40-60 years. Meanwhile, Farrell laughs his ass off all the the way to the bank.
>Actually, societies who are extremely misogynistic tend to be more accepting of homosexuality – a very strictly defined one, too. It's permissible for an older man to pursue a younger boy, but same-sex relationships for partners of equal age and status are generally verboten. This ethic usually arises when women are considered to be so inferior that they are not valued beyond a housekeeping uterus. Athens practiced this, and so did Sparta – though Sparta was perhaps more forgiving of male relationships, given that it was pretty much expected that a male soldier would form sexual relationships with his peers during training and before marriage. You can also find evidence for this in the colonial Mideast – quite a few European painters have works showing a younger boy trying to seduce or being seduced by older men. This is also currently practiced in some places of tribal Afghanistan, so it's not like this is a tradition from the Dark Ages, either.
>Also, cultures that have a very low tolerance for premarital sex find it useful to endorse male homosexuality. Or they could just be like American evangelicals and denounce both, so that everyone gets so sexually frustrated that you end up with widespread unintended pregnancies and STDs. That should work!