Most women, it is fair to say, don’t want to be deprived of education; they don’t want to be considered little more than baby-making machines; and they don’t want “independent” women to be maimed or murdered.
But according to the influential manosphere blogger Vox Day, women who object to any of this just don’t know what’s good for them. In one of the most repellant manosphere rants I’ve run across yet, Vox attempts to rebut PZ Myers’ critiques of evolutionary psychology with a series of bizarre and hateful assertions about women, offering his own “scientific” rationales for keeping women down. Is this all somehow satire on his part? He certainly seems sincere.
TRIGGER WARNING for all that follows; Vox explicitly defends the maiming and murder of women.
Vox starts out by arguing that depriving women of education makes solid evolutionary sense:
[E]ducating women is strongly correlated with reducing their disposition and ability to reproduce themselves. Educating them tends to make them evolutionary dead ends. … 40% of German women with college degrees are childless. Does PZ seriously wish to claim that not reproducing is intrinsically beneficial to women?
Instead of being educated, Vox goes on to argue, girls should be married off young so they can start popping out babies:
[R]aising girls with the expectation that their purpose in life is to bear children allows them to pursue marriage at the age of their peak fertility, increase the wage rates of their prospective marital partners, and live in stable, low-crime, homogenous societies that are not demographically dying. It also grants them privileged status, as they alone are able to ensure the continued survival of the society and the species alike. Women are not needed in any profession or occupation except that of child-bearer and child-rearer, and even in the case of the latter, they are only superior, they are not absolutely required.
Next, he defends the practice of throwing acid in the face of “independent” women:
[F]emale independence is strongly correlated with a whole host of social ills. Using the utilitarian metric favored by most atheists, a few acid-burned faces is a small price to pay for lasting marriages, stable families, legitimate children, low levels of debt, strong currencies, affordable housing, homogenous populations, low levels of crime, and demographic stability. If PZ has turned against utilitarianism or the concept of the collective welfare trumping the interests of the individual, I should be fascinated to hear it.
He moves on to honor killings, arguing that they too are good for women, because
female promiscuity and divorce are strongly correlated with a whole host of social ills, from low birth and marriage rates to high levels of illegitimacy.
He offers a similar rationale for female genital mutilation, before launching into this bizarre racist attack on abortion rights:
[F]ar more women are aborted than die as a result of their pregnancies going awry. The very idea that letting a few women die is worse than killing literally millions of unborn women shows that PZ not only isn’t thinking like a scientist, he’s quite clearly not thinking rationally at all. If PZ is going to be intellectually consistent here, then he should be quite willing to support the abortion of all black fetuses, since blacks disproportionately commit murder and 17x more people could be saved by aborting black fetuses than permitting the use of abortion to save the life of a mother. 466 American women die in pregnancy every year whereas 8,012 people died at the hands of black murderers in 2010.
Vox wants “girls” – presumably teenagers — to be married off young and start popping out babies. Yet in his mind female fetuses are “unborn women.”
Despite Vox Day’s repellent ideas about women – and his proud racism – he’s an influential figure in the manosphere, mentioned approvingly and regularly cited by others who present themselves as more moderate voices. It may not be a shock that the reactionary antifeminist blogger Dalrock includes Vox in his blogroll, and cites his work with approval (see here and here for examples). But, astoundingly, he’s also regularly cited approvingly by antifeminist “relationship expert” Susan Walsh of Hooking Up Smart (see here, here, and here). And she has even written at least one guest post on Vox’s “game blog” Alpha Game.
At this point I suppose I shouldn’t be shocked by any of this. But I still am.
@Aurini:
Ugh! So you’re saying no man ever would be triggered or made to feel awful by the defense of terrorism? All men everywhere are fundamentally okay with a call to commit genocide against black people?
And you say feminists have a low opinion of men? I don’t WANT to know any men who are unaffected by that shit.
Whoa. So, let’s list some occupations that involve government work:
– the military
– law enforcement
– firefighters
– teachers
– the Coast Guard
– all the doctors and nurses who work at publicly operated hospitals, including VA centers
Yeah, I can see how none of these are productive endeavors because GUBMINT IS EBIL.
I dunno, Farmer John, seems to me YOU are the moocher here.
Falconer — I probably was giving them too much credit, considering they also seem to think that atheism causes crime, or something (more like not-Christianity causes crime, but whatever).
Pecunium — “‘it was satire’ (which is the more affected way of saying, “Can’t you take a joke”).” — but satire =/= a joke, Swift knew that. VD is fundamentally failing to reveal anything damning about anyone besides himself, therefore, not satire.
Aurini — how is “how easy it is to defend Islam” in any well relevant to PZ anyways? And deciding PZ’s questions are all about Islam? Add Islamophobia to the list of reasons I think you can go fuck yourself.
I wonder Aurini, does “All men everywhere are fundamentally okay with a call to commit genocide against black people?” include black men? Or are they just not people to you?
y’know, it’s sad enough when you guys try to engage in these ‘blame women for your failings’ fairytales, but when you can’t do it without adding a bunch of arbitrary rules to your bitterness narrative it is just extra pathetic
Also, don’t quite get how repaying one’s loans, even with someone else’s funds, represents a “net drain” on society.
‘women are stoopid, therefore shit girls do isnt real work because i is a sooper he-man. waaah waahhh.’
that’s you, aurini. that’s what you sound like. except less articulate.
To add to Amused’s list:
– all court employees, from the one’s filing to the judges
– sanitation employees in many places, sewers everywhere I can think of
– public water works employees, ie the people who get the tap water to your faucet
– the entire foster care system (this includes basically everything in an orphan’s life)
– all the various consumer protection agencies, or would you prefer products that kill?
– the FDA, or maybe you’d like mercury as a “cure” for everything again?
Oh and the highway system, your roads are also maintained by government employees.
but seriously- women don’t contribute to society, therefore throw acid in their faces. this is the work of a brilliant thinker who should be taken seriously and not have his sharp scissors confiscated.
isn’t it cute how Vox’s flying monkeys are coming here to defend his honor? lol
type “like” if you understood that reference xD
Hey — I got that joke! [/Avengers]
@Falconer
haha yes!!! xD
Why is Human Resources useless? They hire people, enroll the employees in health insurance programs, help employees manage their retirement plans, and schedule activities that boost workplace morale, which increases productivity. Men work in HR departments, too. Is it useful when they do it, but a waste when women do it?
I also visited Aurini’s pretentious blog, but had to leave due to boredom. I tried to watch his video of why feminism ruined the Fantastic 4: Rise of the Silver Surfer, but I only made it through two minutes. I’d rather watch Rise of the Silver Surfer ten times in a row than one of Aurini’s videos.
Argenti Aertheri:
They don’t give a shit about orphans. People like Aurini would much prefer if orphans had no social safety net at all, which would allow orphans to be used as slaves. You know, all that social Darwinism bullshit.
And that’s really saying something when it’s Rise of the Silver Surfer you’re talking about. (Or so I hear; never actually seen it.)
To spare anyone else of the boredom that will come from visiting Aurini’s blog, I’ll sum it up for you. It’s basically just “Look at me! I’m a smug reactionary, isn’t that interesting!” LOL, as if I’ve never seen a blog like that before.
@Kendra
Manosphere commentary on movies is hilarious and disturbing. One blogger…(I forget who it was though) predicted Avengers would have rape and a Spearhead article predicted it would be feminized and do badly or both.
Fail on both of those predictions lol.
ahahahahahahahah that is like compound levels of sad
WELL THAT EXPLAINS IT.
Good lord, do none of these idiots actually understand satire?
Apparently they don’t.
Find who he is trying to satirize in this “answer”:
Note that you should take this into consideration when making your answer:
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/inevitable-return-of-racism.html
http://www.wnd.com/2010/05/151689/
He’s just taking his own racism and applying his misunderstanding of utilitarianism to that. Not only is it not satire, as a reductio ad absurdum it doesn’t even land. The only one Vox Day is satirizing is himself, and he doesn’t even realize it.
It was a slow day at the office so I was reacquainting myself with my old friend Jack; he doesn’t talk a lot,but he has a way of lifting my spirits. I was just finishing another slug when the door opens; I tip up the brim of my fedora to see Glass Eye Joe walking in.
“Get a load a this satire” He sez, handing me the local rag.
I glanced over it, and it didn’t take long to see that Joe was off his rocker.
“Joe,” I sneered “I didn’t realize that Jimmy the Blade took yer brain as well as yer eye that fateful night. This here is satire like I’m the Queen of France. Listen close ya dumb palooka, if we assume he is satirizing, who is he satirizing?”
“Well, uh” Joe stammered, sounding like my pop’s old truck when the engine starts to knock.
“Certainly not this Meyers putz!” I interjected. “Just look at question number 5”
“Now see here, a more consistent response” I started, but realizing I sounded like an old school marm, I took another slug of whiskey; a man has to keep these things balanced.
“As I was saying, the more consistent response would be along the lines of ‘Rape is just a byproduct of promiscuity see, by further stigmatizing promiscuity, via death penalty for rape victims, the dames’ll be more likely stay in their roles as baby incubators and child raisers.’ However, what does this ‘satirist’ go with?”
I shove the rag back in Joe’s face, and he’s looking as jumpy as a frog in a pogo stick shop.
“That’s right Joe!” I explode, “He goes with false rape accusations, what does that sound like to you!?”
“M…MRAs?” he stammers
“That’s right” I reassure him, finally having lead the mouse to the cheese, “At best this is a poor satirization of the MRM, but this guy here, he’s just too genuine with his hate.”
Suddenly I, feel a draft across the back of my neck, then POW, cold metal strikes my temple and stars burst over my vision. I have just enough time to realize that Joe set me up before it all goes black.
When I come to, it’s all dark. But I can tell it’s somewhere unfamiliar, there’s something wrong with the air. I can’t put my finger on it, so I put my hand up to my head to assess the damage. Blood. Dammit what mess had Joe tied me into this time. And that’s when I realize what’s wrong with the air.
Candles.
Scented. Fucking. Candles.
“You know, all that social Darwinism bullshit.” — shit, that’s why I specifically mentioned orphans, in the hopes that the social Darwinism crowd could manage to see how having your parents die isn’t remotely related to social status >.<
I might have to read this one off his blog though — "To understand Trayvon Martin, you first must understand Charles Manson." — I've read Helter Skelter, and I doubt he has.
again, we totally get that vox day is making a tenuous, moral panic heavy, slippery slope argument. it’s just that that argument isnt worth taking seriously.
Oh gods his point is just that Nixon didn’t call Manson an alleged murderer but said he was a murderer, versus Obama calling Trayvon Martin’s death a tragedy, because that somehow is the same as calling Zimmerman a murderer, that’s it, I’m sure. (MRAs are making me want that on a shirt)
And Zimmerman is the victim, of course >.<
Yeah, clearly doesn’t know shit about Manson either.