Categories
$MONEY$ antifeminism gross incompetence misogyny MRA woman's suffrage

A Voice for Men's brilliant new money-making scheme: Translate Edwardian antifeminist E. Belfort Bax into hip and happening modern lingo, make eBook, roll around in sweet sweet cash

E. Belfort Bax ... TO THE MAX!
E. Belfort Bax … TO THE MAX!

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:

baxmistake

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.

131 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
9 years ago

Aw, potty training twins! Good luck! How old are they now anyways? And are they old enough you can get those pull up diapers so your girl can do it herself at least? Might calm her no-diaper thing.

Miss Andry
9 years ago

Up till quite recently Socialists like Radicals other advanced persons, were supposed, as a matter of course, to swallow that conventional lie of modern civilisation – the theory of “woman the victim of man’s oppression.” This dogma, which, like the doctrine of Manchester school, that the ideal of human liberty is attained under the capitalistic regime of free industrial and commercial competition, has dominated the thought of the Anglo-Saxon race for two generations and has been the chief instrument in effecting a revolution which has placed the whole judicial and administrative machinery of the country at the disposal of one sex oppress the other (in all causes, i.e. into which the sex question prominently enters.) Let us look at the present condition of this so-called “victim.”

While under our present marriage laws the wife is under no obligation to maintain the husband, not even though she have money and he be destitute (saving the ratepayer’s right to be recouped for his maintenance in the workhouse) the husband is bound at criminal law to maintain his wife in comfort under all circumstances. Hitherto exception has been made in the case of adultery on the part of wife. Now, in a Bill before Parliament this last reservation is proposed to be virtually abrogated by a “caoutchouc” paragraph which enforces “alimony” where the husband can be shown by his defect or “misconduct to have contributed to the adultery.

I believe this roughly translates to:

Blue Pill Beta liberals have had the politically correct dogma of “the patriarchy” crammed down their throats since birth, even though women are totes better off than men. I mean, when a couple divorces, the woman, if she is wealthy and the man is poor, doesn’t even have to pay alimony or child support!…Eh? What? She does? Damn, a lot’s changed over the past century hasn’t it?

Shorter Bax:

Wait, you’re telling me women can vote? And hold elected office? Next thing you’ll tell me is that there are women in the armed forces, female Secretaries of State or even a *snort* woman running for President of the United States. <em?What? And who is this Hillary Clinton? Egad, that just twists my mustache! *manly fainting noise*

childrenofthebroccoli
9 years ago

I found this awesome tumblr a few days ago, and I think you guys would enjoy it too. Behold, the manslator! http://manslator.tumblr.com/

tealily
tealily
9 years ago

It cracks me right up when they drag out and play the “protection” card, completely ignoring the fact that there is nothing women need them to protect them from other than the assholes of life (them).

deniseeliza
deniseeliza
9 years ago

Translation: “Women cry in the street for bonbons and men give them money and scented FUCKING candles. This is obvious because reasons.”

Anyway, I’m always amazed at how MRAs know so much about fashion, when they purport to hate it so much. Louboutins? Is that spelled right? Are those shoes, or bags? How do you pronounce it? Can an MRA help a girl out, here?

deniseeliza
deniseeliza
9 years ago

Not too be too ethnocentric, but ‘Løvenskiolds’ isn’t an English name. Is English Mr. Løvenskiolds’ first language? If not, his awkwardness with it would be explained.

People speaking fluent but non-native English generally don’t make mistakes like translating a passage by quadrupling the original text and adding a bunch of crap about false rape accusations, designer shoes, and old novels. You are more likely to see mistakes like subject-verb agreement or incorrect pronouns, none of which are mistakes that are particularly evident in this fellow’s writing. In any case, that’s not what we’re making fun of here. His English is fine.

me and not you
me and not you
9 years ago

My boyfriend, who is a non-native English speaker, hates articles (aka “a” “the” etc) with a deep and undying passion. Also prepositions. He also tends to ask me complicated questions about grammar and idioms, which I can never explain.

But as a person who has edited work by both pretentious undergrads and fluent non-native English speakers, this dude’s is definitely closer to the former.

Mieze
Mieze
9 years ago

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.

Abra kadabra!

From all that we have vomited, it will now be believed, we hope, by the most impressionable reader that modern English Law, following inconveniently a stage of public opinion that we no likey, has solved the problem of the division of rights and duties between the sexes, by conceding to woman minimum rights, and imposing on man minimum responsibilities. Wah.

katz
9 years ago

Also, if English is not one’s first language and one hasn’t mastered it, one probably shouldn’t attempt to translate from English into English.

wordsp1nner
wordsp1nner
9 years ago

Off topic, but you guys have to see the new Oglaf. Orc. Chainmail. Bikinis. Gender-neutral orc chainmail bikinis.

http://oglaf.com/newmodelarmy/

ParadoxicalIntention
9 years ago

@wordsp1nner:

Yeah, but the one just before it though! It sums up so many things so perfectly for me.

http://media.oglaf.com/comic/clustering.jpg

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
9 years ago

Graphs based on valid data and statistics are sexy. I am weird.

Needing Victorian/Edwardian/etc English dumbed down is not sexy. I do not think I’m weird for this one.

dovefromabove
dovefromabove
9 years ago

deniseeliza: Louboutins are very expensive, usually very pointy shoes, designed by a Frenchman called Christian Louboutin. They have distinctive bright red lacquered soles. Louboutin and Manolo Blahnik are usually the two names most associated with high-fashion women’s shoes. I have no idea why the attempted translator thinks they are standard issue for feminists. I guess he assumes all feminists have lots of money (which they took from hard-working men, or “earned” in luxurious jobs that they were given just for being women) to spend on shoes that cost three hundred to eight hundred dollars a pair. They look horribly uncomfortable to me, but I have always preferred kitten heels to stilettos.

Kootiepatra
9 years ago

I would like to include audio of my proposed translation.

(Crossing fingers for the success of the embed)

https://archive.org/embed/PeanutsTeacherVoice

talbotfish
talbotfish
9 years ago

Doesn’t this remind anyone of Scientology selling and re-selling it’s followers the same core Hubbard books over and with a few words changed or a semicolon added where there wasn’t one before? (actually not making up the semicolon thing, incredibly)

oraclenine
oraclenine
9 years ago

Louboutins, trembling in?

Yeah- no. I’ve got running shoes because 85 pounds of dog requires a lot ofwalking. I’ve got hiking boots because moderate amounts of landscape requires clambering over with camera to hand. I have Docs and Docs are not trembling gear. Oh, wait, I have Fluevogs. So yes high heels but stable as hell and I can dance all night in them.

Dude is bad at translation and at predicting women’s fashion choices.

Plus, he’s weirdly sure he’s gonna be accused of rape, isn’t he?

proxieme
proxieme
9 years ago

^ He JUST wants to have sex with women whether or not they consent.

Guh.

And then they’ll be all like, “RAPE! RAAAAPE!” when they totally liked it.

Fickle whores.

/sarcasm

Buttercup Q. Skullpants
Buttercup Q. Skullpants
9 years ago

I think Lovenskiold was attempting to translate into Heartiste, but it’s not frothing and purple enough.

Aren’t all the youngsters speaking the hippity hop nowadays?

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.

“Bros be dissed, bitches be getting all the benjamins.”

Carnation
Carnation
9 years ago

Realistically, how much could Elam make off of this? Anyone got any ideas? My gut instinct is very little but I’m no expert.

tinyorc
9 years ago

@Carnation, my Masters in Publishing says your gut instinct is correct. The publishing industry as a whole is floundering, and independents in particular, with small to medium presses being swallowed up by big global players like Hachette on a monthly basis. Digital publishing is even more of a mess: Amazon has a seemingly unshakable monopoly and jealously guards any useful marketing information like Smaug on a big old pile of gold, ebook pricing is all over the gaff, and the ease and popularity of self-publishing makes it very difficult for publishers to show exactly where they can add value to digital products. Trade non-fiction presses generally make the bulk of their profits from one or two big names, with everything else running a loss or just about breaking even.

TL;DR traditional publishing is currently in a protracted state of LOL WHAT IS HAPPENING and there’s very little money in it unless you own Harry Potter or something similar. This is Elam’s worst money-making scheme ever.

Pelagic
Pelagic
9 years ago

Since I was duly chastened the last time I posted (for being a terrible human being), I’ll refrain from saying what I really think. But the gall of these bottom-feeding scum to compare their fever dreams to slavery is too much. Seriously. Slavery. Really? I remember why I do not read the derangements of these stupid clowns.

Miss Diketon
9 years ago

Translation: “Women cry in the street for bonbons and men give them money and scented FUCKING candles. This is obvious because reasons.”

Not one man has given me bonbons, money or scented FUCKING candles. I’m a bit upset about that. Where are those men who are giving away bonbons, money and scented candles? I want mine now!

Falconer
9 years ago

@Argenti: They’re almost two! We have some pull-ups, she just resists the whole idea of Wearing Something On Her Bottom.

They can adorably mispronounce the names of lots of animals already. S got most of the way through “hippopotamus” last night. Their potties came with reward stickers, one of which was a cartoon hippo. Beloved pointed out it was probably a hippo-potty-mus.

They also do jaff (giraffe), ossitch, panna, zeeba, eppant (elephant) and tiger rar!.

freemage
9 years ago

On some level, I feel the following video is probably wrong in a lot of ways, but I can’t help it, I laughed:

maistrechat
9 years ago

re:state of publishing

The legal publishers have started to move pretty aggressively into the ebook market and are making money hand-over-fist by selling subscriptions with “updates” to old titles that are just tables of cases, which means they don’t even pay royalties to the original authors anymore.
Of course, since there are really only three legal publishers in the U.S. and the texts are kind of necessary they’re more like textbook companies than they are a standard nonfiction publishing house.

Lexis, at least, seems to have realized that by doing their own ebooks they can charge their customers every year for the same books, plus charging them a platform fee, plus requiring additional subscriptions to get updates.

This isn’t supposed to be an attack on Lexis though – they’re at least making an effort at accomodating their customers. Wolters Kluwer doesn’t even have a public access model for their ebooks yet and West’s ebook policy seems like a total mess.

/offtopic