In the midst of a mostly dull disquisition on the evils of marriage, filled with odd jargon he’s made up himself, A Voice for Men’s erstwhile cooking columnist
sexual fidelity (especially in women, to protect fatherhood), durability (to protect women and motherhood), and presumptive consent to sex (to maximize fertility and protect both father/mother from spurious rape allegations).
To put it in less euphemistic terms than Løvenskiolds: both partners agree not to cheat (but men do it with their fingers crossed); there’s little or no divorce; and marital rape isn’t regarded as rape. Which is, I suppose, one way to reduce “spurious rape allegations,” though it makes roughly as much sense as legalizing marital murder to protect married murderers from “spurious murder allegations.”
But that’s not the bit I wanted to tell you about. That was just some background so you could better understand the context in which Løvenskiolds makes his bizarre and revealing little comment. It comes at the end of this paragraph on the disintegration of traditional “andomarriage.” I’ve put it in bold.
With the rise of gynocentrism and leisure culture, the harsh penalties for violating the andromarriage laws began to erode – as our preferences for expanding the purview of women increased we became less willing to hold women to any standards or responsibilities. We now see women as lifelong children: too weak, frail, stupid and mercurial to be trusted with adult responsibility when it comes to adhering to the strict requirements of an andromarriage contract. Western countries now look on places that stone adulterers as barbaric even though we were killing them ourselves not that long ago. A woman stoned to death is a woman held to adult standards that feminists now reject.
Did he just say that “[a] woman stoned to death [for adultery] is a woman held to adult standards that feminists now reject?” Yes, yes he did.
Løvenskiolds also has some, well, interesting Evo Psychy thoughts on domestic violence. You might have to read these next bits a couple of times before it makes any sense at all. I’ve bolded some of the more striking bits.
Strong men were better at fulfilling the obligations of being fathers and women who chose those strong men left more progeny, so men became bigger and stronger over time as their genes spread. This is why women hitting men is still seen as less serious than the reverse: she is testing his strength and endurance in the face of pain to gauge his ongoing suitability as a mating prospect. A man who hits a woman – even defensively hitting her back – is displaying a weak intolerance for self-control in the face of pain and society reviles him regardless of the viciousness of the provocation unless he takes on an impressive amount of damage first.
Men who selected women based on markers for fertility – youth, breasts, hips and swayback – also were more successful at reproduction. To the dismay of modern feminists, these mate selection preferences still dominate human coupling: women still swoon for strong, successful men and men still have standards for women’s attractiveness. Weirdly, feminists still rigorously enforce the unequal violence standards that disadvantage weak men while they oppose beauty standards that equally disadvantage ugly women.
As far as I can figure it out, he’s suggesting that “unequal violence standards … disadvantage weak men” because weak men have less self-control and are more likely to hit women.
In other words, he seems to be miffed that women might prefer big burly men who don’t hit women to “weak men” who do. And he seems to think that women not wanting to date men who beat them is somehow akin to dudes putting “no fatties” in their personal ads.
Wow. Even after five years of doing this blog, I’m still surprised at the perverse ingenuity of MRA misogyny.
Løvenskiolds claims to be a Man Going His Own Way. I suggest he continue Going His Own Way, as far away from the rest of us as possible.
wordsp1inner…there were cats in that video? Nya! Nya! Nya!
Sometimes I think these people are just some bizarre asshole performance art troupe who want to see just how vile and misogynistic they can get without actually committing a crime.
No, not all of that. Women are supposed to be allowed to hit men without men hitting them back (unless there is extreme violence from the woman), because women need to test men’s strength in order to see whether they have good genes. That was pretty clear from his fucked-up post. And the flipside of this is somehow that men are allowed to only date hot women. But men are supposed to be allowed to cheat without getting stoned to death, like women adulterers are supposed to be. So, small comfort that a woman is allowed to, like, give a man a slap on the cheek in order to “strength-test” him.
You are NOT a MGTOW if you can’t STFU about women!
It seems like they’re always “going their own way” eventually — y’know, like after they’ve apologetically spewed buckets of misogynist vomit all over the floor. Reminds me of drunken house-party guests that you keep trying to push out the door so that you can go to bed, but they insist on another beer, with a side of telling you about why their life sucks (Hint: It’s everyone else’s fault but their own.)
@ brokensea
They are the kind of people who would choose for everyone to be worse off, as long as others are more worse off than they themselves are.
I often see hints of “divide and conquer” in gender oppression. It seems entirely plausible that the powered elite have historically been happy to let women be owned, raped, beaten, neglected and killed because disenfranchised young men are the cause of trouble and unrest everywhere, and they can sometimes be pacified by giving them a domestic slave to abuse and display as a status symbol.
That’s what the MRAs are asking for, too. They don’t blame social ills or their own misery on anomie, adapting to constant cultural and societal shifts, economic inequality, or any other actual reason decades of research have shown to play a part in making societies less happy. No, it’s that women are getting rights. In their spinelessness they’d be happy to hand all power to the economic elite and let everything go to shit, as long as they get to be the big mean pike in their own tiny pond.
That’s really pathetic and really petty.
Despite having lots of libertarian/objectivist type dudes and ultra-individualistic anti-social self-procalimed “”””alphas””” in their midst, manosphereans seem to be really obsessed with social order and “civilization” (and not just the proudly traditionalist, dark-enlightenened asshats). It’s really quite bizarre, one could see it as an example of shoehorn theory in action…
So different from how we used to see women as lifelong children, too weak, frail, stupid, and mercurial to be trusted with adult responsibility outside of matrimony. Corveture was so liberating, doncha know.
My swayback brings all the boys to the yard.
This is why women hitting men is still seen as less serious than the reverse: she is testing his strength and endurance in the face of pain to gauge his ongoing suitability as a mating prospect.
Is that just me, or did McLovin just excuse domestic violence against men? Don’t worry fellas, she’s not abusing you, she’s just testing your strength!
Disgusting. There are a minuscule number of situations where hitting someone is acceptable, but just clocking your nonconsenting SO as a test ain’t one of them.
Oh, he wasn’t excusing the violence on men, he was just using it as some kind of a bargaining chip/”checkmate, feminazis” talking point. Women can hit men, but men can’t hit women, but men should be able to hit women if feminists want those guys to have to date uggos. Or men should not hit women and ugly women should just evaporate. Becuz traditional marriage!
Or something like that. Who knows what goes on in the mind of somebody who bases his diet around desiccated chicken and Jell-O.
Blockquote Mammoth must have been only slightly hungry today, since he only snacked on one of my offering. The middle section should look like this:
Is that just me, or did McLovin just excuse domestic violence against men? Don’t worry fellas, she’s not abusing you, she’s just testing your strength!
Disgusting. There are a minuscule number of situations where hitting someone is acceptable, but just clocking your nonconsenting SO as a test ain’t one of them.
Ok. Im not the nicest or most caring guy out there. But WTF is wrong with people. How can people say this shit with a straight face. This is shaping up to be a shitty day on the web.
Sooo…Lovenskolds is *in favor* of women hitting their husbands? But, but…aren’t these guys opposed to that? Don’t they whine that there is some sort of uneven enforcement of domestic violence: men who hit get in trouble, women who hit don’t? I’m just so confused.
As for the being in favor of stoning women to death: I just…can’t…even…
Isn’t swayback a health problem, otherwise known as hyperlordosis?
They have reached the “free to murder” level of entitlement.
I know this is kind of nitpicky in the face of his advocating stoning, but the whole breasts represent fertility myth needs to die. I mean, yes adult women tend to have breasts where children do not, but you can say the same thing about leg hair.
Humans are unusual in that we display engorged breasts all the time, unlike most mammals, including many of our primate cousins, who only have engorged breasts while breastfeeding. If our ancient ancestors were anything like those other primates, then the same would have been true for them. When most mammals, including humans, are breastfeeding, they actually experience temporary infertility: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactational_amenorrhea
So there’s a good chance breasts in early humans represented a woman who could not reproduce for several months, and if a man was only interested in mating with fertile females he would have avoided her. And yet we evolved to have permanent boobs somehow. It’s almost like there’s more to early human reproductive strategy than just men spreading their genes to their favourite swimsuit model cave ladies.
Or is Lovenskolds basically trying to say “I like big butts and I cannot lie”? (Even though the shape of the spine is unrelated to the size of the butt).
Ooops that was meant to be a follow on from my comment above.
Some of them have been there for a while now. :/
Andomarriage, andomarriage
It’s an institute you should disparage
This I tell you dudebro,
It’s way more vile than your “food show”
Yeahhh, that sounds like a fair contract. Sloppily worded (“maximize fertility”? I think he means “maximize chances for conception”. Not the same thing at all), higher burdens and expectations on the wife, convenient truck-sized loopholes for the husband. Even the term “andomarriage” gives it away. It’s an arrangement for the sole benefit of the man.
I also love how not wanting to be stoned to death at the whim of a jealous husband is “rejecting adult standards”. How childish of feminists to prefer autonomy to the short end of the stick. Real grownups leap at the chance for a lifetime of misery and servitude, with the threat of a horrible death constantly hanging over them.
@steampunked, My Irish-Italian relatives handled abusive husbands by having the menfolk beat up the offender. Far from a good solution, but considering the menfolk in question, who included professional boxers, it was certainly effective. Some of the abusers simply disappeared, although I think they fled. I never heard of anyone actually bumping someone off, although there was that case with my aunt’s husband…
Divorce and domestic violence prosecutions are much easier on all participants.
I was expecting Løvenskiolds’ article to end with, “And I call it the Aristocrats.” But it didn’t. So I am now very sad for humanity.
Wow, an italics mammoth. You don’t see that every day.
I love this.
Yeah, he totally did. More of that Compassion For Men And Boys™ in action!
And that was pretty vile. Rubber chicken, anyone?
I really don’t see how violence in men is an evolutionary advantage. If violence against women wasn’t a common thing, we would have sex with them more, thus more chances for reproduction. But since we have to be careful about who we’re alone with, there are lots of missed copulation opportunities around the world every day. The evo psych belief that strong (read violent and aggressive) men protect fatherhood and the evo psych belief that men need to spread their seed therefore rape is okay, are incompatible aren’t they?
I haven’t had any coffee yet so I don’t know if I’m making sense.
I have known a number of men who actually were going their own way, single without any interest in dating. They spent their time with their interests. You meet quite a few of them when you love games and reading.
Those who self-identify as MGTOW and join the online groups don’t seem to include many of that type. MGTOWs are mostly divorced perfectionists who refuse to accept the possibility that they might have made mistakes. They are “going their own way” because no woman is good enough for them, which they will explain to you in excruciating detail at every opportunity.
They would, however, love to find the one woman on earth who is submissive enough to always tell them how perfect they are. Please be that woman, you ignorant slut.
“A woman stoned to death is a woman held to adult standards that feminists now reject,” because stoning people to death is WRONG, jackass!
Ok, I feel better now.