Categories
antifeminism MGTOW misogyny MRA reactionary bullshit

>Shovel ready

>

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.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

53 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Elizabeth
10 years ago

>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.

David Futrelle
10 years ago

>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.

Elizabeth
10 years ago

>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.

Captain Bathrobe
10 years ago

>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.

calico
10 years ago

>It always bothers me when they talk about children.

Captain Bathrobe
10 years ago

>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.

Lady Victoria von Syrus

>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!

thevagrantsvoice
10 years ago

>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).

Hide and Seek
10 years ago

>"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.

Elizabeth
10 years ago

>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.

briget
10 years ago

>hm… does this mean that my own feelings don't count? Because I'm pretty much the opposite of hypergamous…

bathorie
10 years ago

>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.

triplanetary
10 years ago

>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.

DarkSideCat
10 years ago

>Elam is confusing "self sufficiency" with "being enslaved".

David Futrelle
10 years ago

>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.

Lady Victoria von Syrus

>Thanks!

magdelyn
10 years ago

>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

David Futrelle
10 years ago

>I must say, Maggie, that I really have no interest in writing a blog that you personally would actually like. kisses, DF

Sandy
10 years ago

>Hahaha. Magdelyn, maybe you can learn how to ask for things like a grown up.

Elizabeth
10 years ago

>It is official, Aristole was an ass.

triplanetary
10 years ago

>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.

zbutterscotchpudding
10 years ago

>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?

magdelyn
10 years ago

>"…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.

Sandy
10 years ago

>Haha, Magdelyn, your love of passive aggressive, saccharine bullshit makes me seriously question that you have an appreciation for fine writing.

Kave
10 years ago

>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.

magdelyn
10 years ago

>Hmmmm… That's an interesting argument, Kave. With that logic, we can assume that the Spearhead, Angry Harry, A Voice for Men, GlenSacks.com are all literary accomplishments, since they have very VERY large audiences. Now, you've mentioned my blog – I didn't – and you compare a personal blog about my own experiences in this life to a blog written by professional writer who has nationally published in major publications? Okay. I expect for from him. I expect some analysis and argument, not "snark." BTW, I do love your writing. It's so, minimalist.

kysokisaen
10 years ago

>They seem to assume that if only women would just shut up, look pretty and do exactly as they want, life would be perfect.That's my ex's problem. His new girl's hobby is gazing at him adoringly and thinking he's brilliant, and yet things have yet to improve for him. Must be her looks, hopefully the new haircut is helping.

Bee
Bee
10 years ago

>David, I have to ask … where on earth did you find that photo? It's brilliant! I'm trying to think of what happened on the set that day: Okay, we've got the sexy lady in a leotard and high heels and elbow-length gloves, we're all set for a glamor shot. Wait, wait–something's missing. Hey–who forgot the shovel? SOMEONE GET ME THE GODDAMN SHOVEL! This shovel-porn calendar isn't going to make itself!

Elizabeth
10 years ago

>If this was a professional blog (like the HuffPost) then your criticism would be valid Miss Magdelyn. but this is not a professional blog and any money made from it goes to charity. And really, tell the people that David quotes to get new material, not tell David to do something different…they are saying the same stuff said in 350 BCE. Do you not think they should be updating what they are saying just a tad?Or are you an excuser of such bile?

thevagrantsvoice
10 years ago

>they are saying the same stuff said in 350 BCE.Plenty of the stuff said a thousand years ago is still around because it's true. Doctors still swear by the Hippocratic Oath despite the fact that Hippocrates himself has been dead for centuries. The fact that this stuff's been around since 350 BC doesn't, in and of itself, mean that it's wrong.

briget
10 years ago

>vagrant, most of doctors do not swear by the Hippocratic oath anymore because it claims that abortion is murder, which anyone with any kind of biological training knows is flat out untrue

Elizabeth
10 years ago

>Vagrant-so you are saying that you think that we should start exposing our babies if they do not suit us?They said that we should do that in 350 BCE.

thevagrantsvoice
10 years ago

>Vagrant-so you are saying that you think that we should start exposing our babies if they do not suit us?They said that we should do that in 350 BCE. Nope. What I said cuts both ways–merely because something's been around since 350 B.C doesn't in and of itself make it right either. The fact that people killed babies 1000 years ago doesn't necessarily make it right…or wrong, either. Same applies to the "misogynistic" stuff the Greeks or the Romans or Aristotle or whoever said. If you want to argue for or against it, you'll have to address something besides its "antiquity" or lack thereof.

Elizabeth
10 years ago

>Vagrant, the point was "this was wrong then. It is wrong now. Get something different to say since it has been wrong for over two thousand years."

David Futrelle
10 years ago

>bee, glad you like the picture. I usually just do simple google image searches, but I look and look until I find a really good one. I have no idea what the context of this one was. It's allegedly a picture of Natalie Wood, and it does look a lot like her — I think it probably is her. Beyond that, I have no idea. Just glad it exists! vagrant, I'm not sure what sort of misogynist arguments you think need to be addressed. Misogyny isn't a logical thing; it's based on opinions and assertions about how women are lesser than men. When Aristotle says that "the female is a mutilated male," there's no need to rebut it. The only people who would think that assertion was true would be misogynists.

thevagrantsvoice
10 years ago

>"this was wrong then. It is wrong now. Get something different to say since it has been wrong for over two thousand years." Again, as I mentioned above, the MRAs say the exact opposite–Hollenhund essentially told…I don't remember if it was Susan Walsh or somebody else ('d have to check), "the romans were right then, they're still right now, you feminists are arguing against ideas which have been conclusively proven correct for over a thousand years." The ancient Greek misogynists may be wrong, and by extension Hollenhund and his contemporary misogynist friends, but you'll have to give a good reason *why* they were wrong, and simply being ancient and/or greek is not really a good marker of wrongness (or rightness). This is not to defend either the MRAs or the ancients overmuch (I have little affection for the former and comparatively little knowledge about the latter), but I merely dislike seeing people disregard ideas based on their age.Misogyny isn't a logical thing; it's based on opinions and assertions about how women are lesser than men. When Aristotle says that "the female is a mutilated male," there's no need to rebut it. The only people who would think that assertion was true would be misogynists. Like I said, I'm not an expert on Aristotle, but I imagine he wrote more on women than just that one line. Why would he think "the female is a mutilated male" in the first place? You might not "need" to rebut a misogynistic statement; as always, you don't "need" to do anything on behalf of guests like me. Rebutting the reasoning behind such statements might be interesting, though.

Hide and Seek
10 years ago

>@magdelyn:"What you are doing here is mental masturbation."Ain't nothing wrong with masturbation, mental or otherwise.

Pam
Pam
10 years ago

>Same applies to the "misogynistic" stuff the Greeks or the Romans or Aristotle or whoever said. If you want to argue for or against it, you'll have to address something besides its "antiquity" or lack thereof.Fair enough. The opinions and assertions concerning women put forth as fact by Aristotle, and which were believed by not only the Greeks but also the Romans and others for a great many years, have been proven erroneous by advances in the sciences….and yet in many ways we still cling to some outdated assumptions, having long forgotten the reasoning behind these assumptions.Women were considered to be lesser than men because women could not produce semen, due to their body temperatures not being able to rise to a sufficient degree to cook their menstrual blood into semen. The seed that men produced in their semen contained the entire essence of a human being, soul and all, women contributed nothing more than the fertile soil for the seed to germinate and grow… they were the passive receptors of the male seed. And since it was only the male seed that contributed to the making of a human, women were the result of defective sperm taking root, so they're weren't considered exactly human and were not considered to have souls…. they were, for all intents and purposes, walking incubators, and wives were relegated to the dankest, darkest room in the home.Women were also considered to be lesser than men in leadership capability. Men were considered natural leaders and women considered natural followers. This revelation occurred to Aristotle when he observed bees and noted that the colony followed just one single bee, which he incorrectly assumed was a male bee.

Elizabeth
10 years ago

>Vagrant-I have to explain to you how women are not inferior to men? And you see nothing wrong with that?I found this dissertation on Aristotle's view on the treatment of women. Maybe it will help.And it just reinforced my view that Aristotle is an ass.

David Futrelle
10 years ago

>due to their body temperatures not being able to rise to a sufficient degree to cook their menstrual blood into semenI'm not much of a scientist, but didn't it occur to anyone back then to try to cook menstrual blood to see if it DID become semen?

Elizabeth
10 years ago

>Cooking was a woman's job so probably not.

thevagrantsvoice
10 years ago

>Vagrant-I have to explain to you how women are not inferior to men? And you see nothing wrong with that?You don't have to explain anything to me. All I'm saying is that the age of an argument has nothing to do with its validity one way or the other.In any case, thanks for the dissertation.

shaenon
10 years ago

>I'm not much of a scientist, but didn't it occur to anyone back then to try to cook menstrual blood to see if it DID become semen?It's amazing, in retrospect, how long it took humans to come up with the idea of testing theories rather than just pulling stuff out of our asses.Aristotle also famously argued that women were inferior to men because they have fewer teeth, which he believed was a sign of physical weakness and shorter lifespan. This idea was repeated for centuries before it occurred to anyone to check to see whether women actually do have fewer teeth than men. SPOILERS: They don't.

Elizabeth
10 years ago

>I can understand your belief that simply because something is old does not mean it does not have validity. However what I am saying is get some new material instead of endlessly repeating the same old incorrect thing of centuries ago. Here is a court case that shows your point very well I think. The presumption of innocence is an ancient idea that has validity no matter how old it gets.

Elizabeth
10 years ago

>One wit said that if he had let his wife open her mouth once in a while he could have realised he was wrong.

shaenon
10 years ago

>Aristotle: OWNED by Bertrand Russell!

Captain Bathrobe
10 years ago

>One wit said that if he had let his wife open her mouth once in a while he could have realised he was wrong. I'm not certain that Aristotle was all that concerned about any of his wife's orifices, if you know what I mean. Not that there's anything wrong with that…

Pam
Pam
10 years ago

>I'm not certain that Aristotle was all that concerned about any of his wife's orifices, if you know what I meanYes, I know exactly what you mean, but one of the idols of the MRA/MRM seems to be blissfully ignorant of this well-known fact. Warren Farrell, in his "seminal" book The Myth of Male Power stated (in so many words) that societies have historically and universally condemned homosexuality because it is non-reproductive and does not provide an economic and protective security blanket for women.Yes, he puts forth his own version of history in order to support his contention that men are and always have been the powerless, disposable protectors of women.

triplanetary
10 years ago

>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. Certain Polynesian cultures looked favorably on man-on-man action as well, at least in the past. I have no idea about present-day Polynesian cultures because my senior thesis research didn't cover that ground.But Farrel's ignorance is telling. It's always amusing to watch these self-appointed cultural critics demonstrate that they have no real knowledge of any culture outside their own. And yet they feel perfectly comfortably applying their cultural standards to all of humanity.

walkertall
10 years ago

>“It's amazing, in retrospect, how long it took humans to come up with the idea of testing theories rather than just pulling stuff out of our asses.”Why should anyone have to test their theories! It’s right because they say its right and, even after its proven wrong, it’s still right because they say its right. Religion makes that very, very clear. As do our poor, broken misogynist friends. /snarkSeriously though, we still do this. We still make shit up and believe it, without ever having done any research at all – largely because someone with some sort of authority, be it real (i.e. a politician) or manufactured (i.e. a “psychic”) – tells us we should. We’re hierarchical pack animals. That dude at the top must be right because he’s the dude at the top.