Our old friend Paul Elam of Men’s Rights hate site A Voice for Men has promised his long-suffering and evidently increasingly broke donors that he would be looking into some exciting new money-making ventures in order to fund his lifestyle site.
We’ve already seen the the first of these get-rich-quick schemes in action: AVFM’s new publishing house. Elam evidently sees publishing as a sort of virtual ATM in which near-zero effort is repaid handsomely with cash.
The first book from what’s now called Zeta Press was a poorly received collection of re-edited blog posts about Men Going Their Own Way. AVFM followed with e-book reprints of the public domain writings of anti-women’s-suffrage socialist E. Belfort Bax, first published more than a century ago. (Never mind that Bax’s works are already available for free online at Marxists.org, the Internet Archive, and elsewhere.)
Apparently feeling that they are not yet squeezing enough blood from the turnip that is E. Belfort Bax, AVFM is floating another idea: a book that “translates” Bax’s often convoluted Edwardian era prose into hip and happening modern lingo. In an post today, AVFM “writer” August Løvenskiolds presents a little sample of what this might look like.
Unfortunately, Mr. Løvenskiolds may not be the best man for the job. For one thing, he seems to lack the necessary attention to detail. In his post today, he refers to E. Belfort Bax several times as E. BEDFORD Bax. I’ve indicated one instance in the screenshot below:
But there may be an even bigger problem with Mr. Løvenskiolds’ proposal: He seems to think that “translating” Bax into the parlance of our times means, well, completely rewriting it so it sounds like a Paul Elam fever dream.
Here is a sentence from Bax’s writings:
From all we have said, it will now be evident, one would think, to the most prejudiced reader that modern English Law, following obsequiously a deluded or apathetic stage of public opinion, has solved the problem of the division of rights and duties between the sexes, by conceding to woman all rights, and imposing on man all duties.
And here is Løvenskiolds’ “translation” of this passage:
So, it all comes down to this: even the most tone-deaf feminists have to be quaking in their Louboutins over the facts I’ve presented so far – so much so that I expect a false rape accusation from some disgruntled women’s studies ingenue will occur at any time. The general apathy to a critical examination of the claims of feminism is policed by such false accusations, which are a near certainty once a critical examination of feminism begins.
Rape hoaxes are well-known and were an “old school” feminist tactic at the time To Kill a Mockingbird was written fifty plus years ago. I expect one to drop on me like Dorothy’s tornado=blown house in The Wizard of Oz but unlike a privileged Wicked Witch I’ve taken precautions against such petards.
The fact remains: modern feminism has gained all the rights of men, and then some, while rejecting the obligations of men to preserve society and protect women and children. When women have all the rights and men, all the obligations, this system of society has a simple name. Slavery.
A person with no rights and lots of obligations is identical to the most downtrodden of slaves. A person with all the rights and no obligations is the most extreme of tyrants.
I’m not making this up; if you don’t believe me, take a look at his post.
I think we could probably do a better job than Mr. Løvenskiolds. And so I’d like to invite you all to try your hand at some Bax translations – take the passage above, or any other passage from Bax’s work, and “translate” it into something a little more groovy in far out ways.
NOTE TO EXCESSIVELY LITERAL MINDED READERS: Paul Elam is not actually our friend.
I… wha… where the fuck was he getting “false rape accusations” from the original paragraph???
“The historians…of AVFM…”
http://replygif.net/i/333.gif
from all we have said
feminists have eaten
our plums
meaning our rights
not anything sexual
and which
we were saving
in case m’lady wants
plums
(sexually)
forgive us
our plums are sad
so sour
so cold
“Women… Men. Long ago, the two genders lived together in harmony. Then everything changed when the Suffragists attacked.
Only E. Belfort Bax, master of anti-suffragism, could stop them. But when the world needed him most, he vanished.
A hundred years passed and I discovered the new E. Belfort Bax, an AVFM writer named Løvenskiolds. And although his translations skills are great, he still has a lot to learn before he’s ready to appeal to everyone. But I believe Løvenskiolds can stop the Feminists.”
How interesting and ironic that this attempt to modernize and simplify flowery Edwardianese has resulted in more verbiage and verbigeration than ever.
Also, Louboutins? Really? The stiletto-platform look is hideous (and, hopefully, passé), and no feminist worth her hard-earned salt would spend a thousand bucks just for some red lacquer on the soles of what amounts to a pair of stripper stilts. This guy has obviously never met a feminist, but he figures he knows ~fashion~, and so is just looking for a silly detail to latch onto, something he thinks that all trendy feeeeemales are gaga for.
Is it better to have bad reactionary nonsense preserved for a centuries or left to the wayside so that we can all forget about it and the new reactionaries can stop bringing it up? The jury is out.
I was about to mention that maybe, if we somehow lost all those old reactionary arguments, the new reactionaries would have to come up with their own material. Then I realized that, through a combination of their own inability to translate faithfully and their eternal game of one upmanship, they are at least managing unprecedented levels of awful. And that’s sort of new, if only by technicality. So at least there’s that.
“From all we have said, it will now be evident, one would think, to the most prejudiced reader that modern English Law, following obsequiously a deluded or apathetic stage of public opinion, has solved the problem of the division of rights and duties between the sexes, by conceding to woman all rights, and imposing on man all duties.”
OOOh let me try! Remember, guys, be hip!
From all the sites spammed and memes made from our incessant ramblings, you would think that even the most PC SJW would understand our position. That girls have cooties. They have cooties but somehow manage to live next to man. We have done literally all we can to appease them, but somehow they insist that “voting” and “having a job” is to small of a goal. They spit in the face of these freedoms the penis havers have awarded them, taking more while insisting that men do all the real work.
How did I do? Can Elam give me lots of money now?
Myoo, I may have read your translation with Katara’s voice in my head and grinned like a maniac the whole while. Thank you for that. <3
Here’s my effort, from Bax’s writings on sexual assault cases (TW – it involves children):
Translation #1: Men can do whatever they want. Even to young girls (it’s perfectly natural). Even if the young girls happen to be their daughter (again, perfectly natural). Women and/or girls who complain about it are sluts who actually like it, and they only complain because they’re jealous of any attention given to another girl. Because catty beeyotches, yo.
Translation #2: see Warren Farrell.
Yeah, this guy pretty much sums them up. Wonder what he thought about sexual assault against men?
Kirbywarp // lordpabu — best/worst part? Looks like the before pic there might not be before she got to it — http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/9491391/Elderly-woman-destroys-19th-century-fresco-with-DIY-restoration.html
That 2010 photo shows it in great shape for its age. Like, “put an umbrella against the wall and it’ll be fine” shape.
—
Who else remembers that it’s okay to destroy art if it’s for a good cause? Or how telephone poles are art? (Those that don’t remember, that’s, unfortunately, not one doofus destroying telephone poles, the first said exactly what it sounds like)
Katzzzzzzzz! I know Piere did that one…
First, we gave women legal protections from the most severe domestic violence, and I did not speak out–because I was not married. Then we let them participate in the abolitionist movement, and I did not speak out–because I did not own slaves. Then they got the right to vote, and I did not speak out–because I still had the right to vote. Then one of those hypergamous sluts put me in the friend zone–and too many other men had been friend zoned, so there was no one left to speak for me.
Urk. Oh no, skin, please don’t crawl off my body and under the couch. I NEED you.
I just…is that sick fuck actually saying that fourteen year old girls who are jealous when their father sexually assaults their younger sisters? I can’t deal.
And holy shit, Tracy! He actually is the pre-cursor to AVFM. Wiki lists him as an early MRA, and he definitely produced some arguments similar to the ones that the MRAs use today. Apparently, he was railing against restrictions against parent-child incest and child sexual slavery before it was cool.
Tracy, extra yuck? 14 was legal in the era (I think? I know it was in Victorian England) — what he’s saying there isn’t the ravings of a sexist asshole, it’s a window into common thought at the time. (Good old Victorian England, where was old enough to be an adult, and a prostitute, and it was probably safer than the job she’d been doing in some mill at 10)
@Tracy—
Ho. Lee. Shee. It. That is disgusting!
I wonder what AVFM did with that part, or if they just omitted/denied/labeled it “satire” after the fact like they did with Farrell’s shit.
My translation.
After we’ve been so kind as to exclude you ladies from business, government, and higher education you are so ungrateful that now you expect voting rights too? That’s nooooooo fair!
Argenti: If it was the same old woman who also scrubbed it, I guess no one had caught onto her yet. It is a really good example about how most historic things are better left alone than badly renovated.
I did find another article on the painting, in which everyone seems to have had an happy ending of sorts. (everyone except the painting, but I’m glad the woman is okay.) http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/15/theres-a-surprise-happy-ending-for-the-catastrophically-botched-jesus-fresca-that-became-a-worldwide-sensation/
Vanir,
Yeah, anti feminists always try to claim that they’re just fine with women having rights. Their problem is that feminism has gone too far and is advocating for female supremacy. This little project certainly betrays their real views. That they do have a problem with equal rights for women.
“I believe I have now rationally and logically shown that by giving women the right to vote and changing nothing about the rights of men, our society has in fact taken away all of man’s rights while leaving all responsibilities. I have been nothing but polite in this endeavor. You may now finish your breakfast. We shall resume in one hour’s time.”
“Also, Louboutins? Really? The stiletto-platform look is hideous (and, hopefully, passé), and no feminist worth her hard-earned salt would spend a thousand bucks just for some red lacquer on the soles of what amounts to a pair of stripper stilts. This guy has obviously never met a feminist, but he figures he knows ~fashion~, and so is just looking for a silly detail to latch onto, something he thinks that all trendy feeeeemales are gaga for.”
Not that I have 1000$ to spare on shoes, but I love heels and some of mine have platforms =/
@lordpabu:
“Ecce Homo (behold the man)” is now a tourist attraction named “Ecce Mono (behold the monky)”? Daww… Dang at the loss of a work of art, but daww.
A++ comment, would laugh hard enough to spill nail polish again
Like we sez, even dogs would undastand that since they don’t care enough to meet our demands, let alown care about each othr, modern hyooman lawz have basikaly broken down to girlz win, boyz lose. Feed me.
Ow. That hurts typing it out.
ARGENTI!!!!
Ahem.
How’s puff?
Since Kirbywarp made a fabulous sea lion reference…
http://funnyasduck.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/funny-sea-lion-bucket-zoo-keeper-stealing-pics.jpg
Voting rights are obviously like blue buckets and can’t be shared.