>
 |
| 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.
>I keep thinking of philosophers back in the old days who debated on things like if women could have souls or brains or the ability to anything more than churn out babies and butter. Part of that was the assumption that women were of a lower level then men and that their hotblooded bodies were unable to restrain from boinking anything. So best to lock them up in marriages lest they go crazy. Basically these guys are saying the same thing that was said back in 400 BCE about women. One would think these guys would have caught on to that but nope.
>Elizabeth, I recently read two histories of misogyny, and I was constantly running into the exact same exact "arguments' that misogynists make today. Practically the only original thing these guys talk about now is robot ladies.
>They seem to assume that if only women would just shut up, look pretty and do exactly as they want, life would be perfect.I think we should do a WGTOW movement and leave these guys behind. Somehow, I doubt that a society that women run is going to be the nightmare that these men think it will be.
>You know who else said to his enemies "work will make you free…?"Seriously, though, it reads like a decree from the days of Stalinism or the Cultural Revolution: enemies of the people shall be put to work until they are re-educated.
>It always bothers me when they talk about children.
>I mean, if all they want to do is teach girls to be self-sufficient, then I'm all for it. It's the punitive labor-camp vibe that creeps me out.
>David, what were these histories? I am intrigued by them! And this post reminds me of an old family story, whereby the patriarch would take his kids out into the backyard, make them dig a 5x5x5 hole and then fill it back in. This was somehow supposed to teach them the value of work. Oh, and they weren't allowed to eat until they were done. But you know, I am totally on Elam's side when it comes to empowering women to achieve their own careers and independence!
>Basically these guys are saying the same thing that was said back in 400 BCE about women. One would think these guys would have caught on to that but nope.At least some of them have. I remember one MRA–think he goes by the name of "Hollenhund"–saying something along the lines of "the ancient Romans realized how stupid women were. Who are we to think we know better than Cicero, Cato, etc. etc. etc." That said, I'm not much of an expert on Roman history or politics, so I'm actually not sure what their attitudes towards women precisely were…maybe they weren't as misogynistic as they're made out to be (or Hund would like them to be).
>"they cannot be trusted with love"The way that you're having that feeling, in your head, is wrong! You're feeling incorrectly! Start feeling the way I tell you to feel or you won't get to feel at all; your emoting privileges will be revoked! Or something.
>On one hand they were terrible for women. On the other hand they were very liberated. An example: divorce was a lot easier on the women but if they were raped, they were supposed to kill themselves.
>hm… does this mean that my own feelings don't count? Because I'm pretty much the opposite of hypergamous…
>Oh Paul! You came so close with that "self sufficiency" line, and then you went all Malleus Maleficarum on us. Lady Victoria: butting in to recommend Misogyny: The World's Oldest Prejudice by Jack Holland. It’s got an especially interesting last chapter where the (male) author summarizes, and describes the experience of writing about misogyny as a man. It’s not heavy reading, but it’s good.
>Elam wants women to be more "humble" (read: less uppity), and he thinks work and self-sufficiency is the way to do that. Here's my question to Elam: What the fuck? The reason women are "uppity" today is because they're allowed to work and be self-sufficient. The more they work for themselves the more they'll be convinced that they're fully worthy human beings with a right to self-determination.And in Elam's twisted mind, women shouldn't think such things because it's insufficiently humble of them.I'll definitely look up Misogyny: The World's Oldest Prejudice by Jack Holland per bathorie'sr recommendation, but I'm also interested in knowing what books you're referring to, David. I'm currently looking for some new nonfiction to read.
>Elam is confusing "self sufficiency" with "being enslaved".
>Hey Tri, and anyone else who's interested, one of the books I read was indeed Holland's book on misogyny. The other one is David Gilmore's Misogyny: The Male Malady. Neither book is what you'd call great, but both are really useful. Of the two, I'd recommend Holland's book first. It gives a better historical overview and is better written. Gilmore's book is a bit more scattershot; he jumps around from topic to topic seemingly at random, and tends to repeat himself. He does have a lot of examples, though, and a lot of anthropological data.
>Thanks!
>I must say, my good chap, this blog is starting to ripen past prime. Commenting on other people's comments could, for a while (I suppose) be entertaining. But, the monotony of the formula is getting old. Are you getting bored of the subject matter? Could you add some writing to your snark. I mean, you've published for some of the best periodicals and zines in the land. Could you take some poetic license to make your subject matter, not so mundane? kisses, ma99ie
>I must say, Maggie, that I really have no interest in writing a blog that you personally would actually like. kisses, DF
>Hahaha. Magdelyn, maybe you can learn how to ask for things like a grown up.
>It is official, Aristole was an ass.
>I must say, Maggie, that I really have no interest in writing a blog that you personally would actually like. kisses, DFHey David, I think I would enjoy this blog more if you tattooed feminist poetry on your arms and posted pictures of it. Do this or you're a failure in my eyes.
>Wow. Paul ElaMao. And, women can't be trusted with love? Paul Elam is a bitter nut. How does that make any sense at all?
>"…I must say, Maggie, that I really have no interest in writing a blog that you personally would actually like. kisses, DF…"That's too bad. I do have wonderful taste, and an appreciation for fine writing. What you are doing here is mental masturbation.
>Haha, Magdelyn, your love of passive aggressive, saccharine bullshit makes me seriously question that you have an appreciation for fine writing.
>Magdelyn:He's making fun of mental masturbation, and from his fans myself included who is even checking in on holidays alot of people are finding it very funny.I checked out your blog faux whore (your other two seemed to not get off the ground at all) ……. maybe your comments are out of jealousy? Seriousy if you don't like it don't read it, but a blogger without an audience telling another with a large and growing one that he is lame is quite sad indeed. You must trying to do other things to get the attention you seem to crave. Negative attention really isn't everything it's cracked up to be.