Over on the technically still alive Men’s Rights hate site A Voice for Men, our old friend August Løvenskiolds deposits a piece of “political analysis” that is so completely contrary to fact and logic and basic historical understanding that we might call it a Wrongness Onion — no matter how many layers of wrongness you pull off of it, there are still more layers lurking underneath.
Also, it stinks, and might make you cry, though mostly out of embarrassment for Mr. Løvenskiolds, also known in these parts as McLøvenskiolds.
Near the beginning of a post titled “How will Nominee Trump pander to women?” but which in fact argues that “Nominee Trump” won’t “pander to women,” McLøvenskiolds drops this onion:
Women are 52% of voters, and so technically women control the outcome of all elections in ways that men do not: should women desire it, no man could ever win elective office.
In Imaginary Hypothetical Land, I suppose. In the real world, even though women do make up the majority of voters — both because women slightly outnumber men in the US, and because women are more likely to vote — women don’t vote, and never have voted, as a bloc. Neither do any other large demographic groups.
Also, as is clear to any political observer who does not have their head up their posterior, there is a lot more to politics than the gender ratio of voters. Women may slightly outnumber men, but the overall power structure, in the US and around the world, is heavily dominated by men, Men control the party apparatus of both major parties in the US; wealthy men (and groups of mostly men) skew election results by pumping money into the system to cover ads and other expenses.
I could go on and on about this one sentence from McLøvenskiolds, but like I said, this thing is an onion.
And we haven’t even gotten to the best bit. Let’s continue:
Men cannot control elections in the same way because men as a class are not the majority of voters.
Men “are not the majority of voters” in part because individual men are less likely to vote than women. If men started voting in higher proportion than women, they could easily become the majority of voters.
Also, all the stuff I said above. Political life in the US is so heavily dominated by men that men can opt out of voting and still expect men as a class to get more than their fair share of power.
So far, so bad. But it’s at this point that McLøvenskiolds sets forth his most, well, unique perspective on human history:
That’s right, feminists: your alleged “patriarchy” was created and maintained by the female electorate. Everything elected officials do is the responsibility of women as a class, not men. It is all YOUR fault, not men.
Er, dude, the patriarchy has been around for literally thousands of years. Historian Gerda Lerner’s celebrated The Creation of Patriarchy argues that the mixture of legal subordination and lopsided social power that we now call patriarchy developed “over a period of nearly 2500 years, from app. 3100 to 600 b.c.”
Women in the US got the vote less than a hundred years ago. They only became the majority of voters in presidential elections in the US in 1980.
Yes, women were involved in the creation of patriarchy — as Lerner notes, elite women benefitted from it in various ways, thought obviously less than their male counterparts — but unless there was some gigantic rift in space-time that sent modern American women back to the ancient Near East that I’ve never heard about, women didn’t vote patriarchy in.
Demonstrating an understanding of politics as keen as his understanding of history, McLøvenskiolds goes on to suggest that Trump might get a bump in the polls if he were to pick Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg as his veep.
She is a successful author and businessperson like Trump himself; Trump and the recently widowed Sandberg would make a formidable pair that would make progressives like [nickname of college student currently being harassed by MRAs and other terrible people deleted by DF] fling her toddler arms so fiercely they would surely fly off her well-marbled torso.
And that whole “widow” thing puts her over the top!
Asking a recent widow to be his running mate would strike a chord of sympathy with women that would ring on for months. It would be a masterstroke worthy of The Donald.
Never mind that Sandberg is a feminist and a longtime donor to Democratic causes who supports Hillary Clinton.
Also, Trump would probably have to apologize for this:
Just watched Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg on 60 Minutes. She should spend more time trying to get the F stock price up & less on her ego!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 30, 2013
You see what I mean by that Wrongness Onion thing?
EDITED TO ADD:
Here’s how AVFM teased McL’s post on its main page:
Concur? Do they mean “conquer?”
And, no, AVFMers, women are only “the leisure class” in your delusional minds.
Who the hell “edits” these things?
I don’t think “men have most of the money and power” works as an argument to people who believe that women can easily manipulate men with money and power using a little T&A.
@Snowberry
Yes, I know. I know that they are ur fascists, they need their opponents to have a paradox of infinitely strong and weak enough to topple. I still think that’s a very important thing to point out. If they really believe that women hold a global conspiracy, at that point I just will act like a jerk and troll away, since I have no patience for conspiracy theorists.
Back to your point they’ll still maintain their contradiction to hold onto the belief that they are never at fault and aren’t in a position of power while maintaining the position. To argue them on that point would mean so much fucking links and outright dismissals cause muh conspirasoi.
To convince would mean that they would be open to listen, instead all of the time for them it’s just a way to appear naive or a South Park third way jerkoff. To convince, it would mean so much education that and basically becoming an internet feminist lecturer and constantly shooting down the questions. If you want to that would be good, but frankly I don’t blame anyone for not wanting to do that.
Minor typo, David. ‘thought’ should be ‘though’.
Damn it, they’re right! I moan and kvetch and complain, but once I get in the voting booth, I always vote the straight Patriarchy ticket.
Next time, Imma vote the straight Feminist Revolution ticket:
100 percent female, politically progressive Congress, White House, and Supreme Court for the next 6,000 years to offset 6,000 years of patriarchy — after that, we’ll talk about letting men have a shot at power
generous guaranteed income for all
free childcare for all
free government-facilitated healthcare for all
free college and graduate school for all
free solar roofs for all
a diplomat corps that works morning, noon, and night to bring peace to every corner of the globe
a large organic garden on every corner of every hamlet, village, town, and city
24/7 library branches across the street from those organic gardens
Kat gets a date with Brad Pitt
Yep.
“Well-marbled” is used of beef with veins of fat in amongst the lean, so it not only means she’s fat, it also implies “a piece of meat”. And, arguably, “dead”.
The combination of that with “toddler arms” is pretty revolting, but then… they are revolting.
@ Kat – OK, I’m sold. Where are they standing?
Code Pink held a Mother’s Day peace festival in front of the White House today. They’re celebrating in the original spirit of Mother’s Day, which was about peace.
Join CODEPINK . . . in front of the White House to celebrate the original Mother’s Day call: a time for women to come together to organize against violence and war. It’s a day to say DISARM, DISARM!
The next time a troll accuses feminists of not caring about men being drafted, you can point them here:
http://www.codepink.org/mother_s_day_peace_festival
I think this is the most important layer of the onion. Assorted Red Pillers (MRA/MGTOW/PUA/Whatever-A) don’t want to take responsibility for anything. We can replace ‘elected officials’ with pregnancy, welfare, sexual assault, harassment, vile actions, committed by men, pretty much anything. Because it’s always something women did, men have nothing to do with it. There was a post here just a few days ago where some dipstick was going on about ”women get themselves pregnant”, as if no man has ever had a hand in the whole pregnancy thing.
Women have problems? It’s THEIR fault.
Men have problems? It’s the fault of women.
The country has problems? It’s the fault of women.
The life of Random RP guy is not as great as he would want it to be? Women are to blame for that as well.
”Things aren’t going well, but it’s not MY fault, it’s the feeemales fault, because I’m so great and can not possibly do something wrong! Neither can any of my buddies!” would be the summation of most of their rants.
@bluecat
So far the Feminist Revolution Party is in one’s heart.
But when we take action — defying the trolls and dementors of doom — we’ll see what’s in many people’s hearts reflected in the world.
I heart the Feminist Revolution Party!
Meanwhile, Social_Autopsy loses all brakes and swerves wildly in Twitter, going reverse on freeway.
https://twitter.com/DJCPI/status/729137915012485120
Ninja’d by JoeB, I too prefer “fractally wrong” (wrong on whatever scale you choose to examine it).
@GrumpyOld SocialJusticeMangina
Turnip also says that “Hillary Clinton has a ‘bad temperament — her husband learned that a few times’ …” via Raw Story
Personal opinion (remembering that I have the same predictive success rate as Bill Krystol) is that Turnip will choose a man. Depending on his poll standing he will either choose a white guy – Chrisp Chrispy, Scott Walker, Kassich or perhaps Michael Petyo – or a black man, Carson being top of the list.
The most common misconception about patriarchy (Especially amongst the alt right, but I’ve even seen some feminists not getting it) is that it is something men do, and women suffer.
They seem unable to grasp that is is how society works structurally at it’s deepest level, and is not an active decision of any individual. (Except of course most of the aforementioned douchecanoes of the alt right)
Patriarchy, as a result of its existence for 1000’s of years, is deeply embedded in the way we ALL think and feel, men and women both. You don’t overcome it by a few decades of voting rights for all. It can only be defeated by people first recognising its existence, then understanding how it works, and finally actively making choices to remove it from their speech and behaviours. Unfortunately this means ALL people – and we have a metric fucktonne of dead weight to lift.
Hang on. I can just vote out the patriarchy? Why didn’t I do that this past week! I’m a fool. I should have noticed the “yes or no to patriarchy” referendum question that went along with the rest of the ballots.
Democracy is easy, right?
(As an aside to my fellow Londoners: Khan won. It was great. Despite all the racist shit that was thrown at him from every quarter, he won and we now have our first Muslim mayor.)
Wait, I thought some RP intellectual giant figured out recently that women should have never been allowed to vote, because we vote for silly smooshy left wing things that lead to the downfall of civilization and the collapse of the nuclear family.
Now apparently we voted for patriarchy.
But of course, consistent logic is totes the manosphere’s specialty.
@Chiomara:
My very best wishes for the boy’s continued progress. You are a fantastic person and deserve someone special in your life; if he treats you the way you deserve then I wish both of you every happiness.
Please never sell yourself short or accept bad treatment because you’re afraid that you’ll never find better.
@Skiriki:
That’s amazing! She’s gone straight to train wreck from almost a standing start. It’ll be interesting to see if her allies continue to use her as a shield, now that she’s saying exactly the same things as the rest of them.
Because women represent the hive mind mentality. They do really act on mass. It is only women who vote for American Idol or Dancing With The Stars. They see this as democracy and personal power wherein it is not. You see whenever a new fashion item or new cleaning product comes out women act on mass to be the first to own it. If the same logic was applied to politics, they would act on mass to overthrow the patriarchs but do not because they are happy with the luxuries it affords them to be able to own said cleaning products and fashion items.
@ Chiomara
You’re a stronger person than me. I’ve just taken several months (the entire duration of the relationship) to come to the decision to leave an otherwise decent man who doesn’t understand feminism and is too comfortable with most current societal power structures. (He does complain when they don’t favor him, for example with any kind of “reverse discrimination” or cronyism or corruption of the elites – he’s quite blind to his own relative wealth, privilege and power and all the ways in which he benefits from the unfair treatment of others himself.)
Naturally, he doesn’t see a problem or any reason to change. I’ve considered taking this as an opportunity to make the world a bit better and trying to win him over to the side of the oppressed, but in the end this has only postponed the inevitable and made it harder for us both. I’m sure he would listen; he cares about me and often says he wishes I’d share more of what’s on my mind with him. But I don’t know that he’d take what I say seriously if it contradicted something he already has beliefs about, and I’m scared to find out. It doesn’t seem likely we could ever develop the kind of trust I’d need to speak openly.
I’m so very tired of defending, justifying and explaining myself, my life circumstances, personality, identity, mental illness, and appearance to people. Feminism is incendiary by its nature (although it shouldn’t fucking be), and I get that we’re all going to have to either shut up about it or always keep defending it. But in my own home, where I come to be safe and rest, from those I love and trust and who are supposed to be on my side? That’s too much.
I hope you keep us posted on how your SO’s conversion is going. Not to put a burden on you, but if you’re successful, a lot of us here may find it easier to feel hopeful about the world. I know I will. Also I’d like to know how it’s done, in case my new plan to only date guys who are already feminists when I meet them doesn’t work out.
Good luck, we’re all rooting for you. And lots of strength and patience!
@ EJ
Unfortunately, for many women this means being alone. Which absolutely is better than being in a relationship with someone who doesn’t treat you well, but it’s still very sad.
There just aren’t as many straight men out there who have divested from male privilege (small minority) as there are straight women who deserve to be treated as true equals by their partner (all of them).
@EJ – yes, congrats on Khan! Amazing.
@14 cats and counting – is your name true, or are you just cruelly teasing? 14 cats is my idea of a perfect life 🙂
I like “wrongness onion”. I like it a lot.
Also, Mei-Mei iz gamer kitteh:
So excited about this. Boris Johnson terrifies me, he’s like a core of evil disguised by a layer of ridiculous cluelessness.
I’m not too far from you (milton keynes) and our options in the vote were pretty crap. I also don’t recall the patriarchy referendum, maybe it’s next month along with Brexit?
Mamotheers, top tip on how to use politics as another tool for committing misandry – a couple of weeks ago I found out that a man I’d arranged a first date with votes ukip (a far right uk party known for being homophobic, racist and misogynistic) so I cancelled the date. I was surprised that he’s a ukip voter as he’s into open relationships, and was pretty respectful. Until I cancelled the date and a ton of red flags were revealed.
In 2014, my area voted 72% left of center, including 13.4% for the Feminist party, with 71% participation. I guess my neighbors are mostly fine? :p
Manospherians are right that there’s a shortage of “men who get it” compared to “women who get it”, and many wonderful women will, just from sheer mathematics, end up alone. But the answer isn’t to decrease the number of women who get it (by removing basic human rights, limiting access to education and the wider world and pressuring women to marry and have kids at 19 “Before It’s Too Late!”). The answer is to increase the number of men who get it. Ultimately, everyone ends up happier that way, except for the small authoritarian minority of men who aren’t satisfied unless they’re being worshipped as tin gods – and frankly, that isn’t a need that society is obligated to fulfill. I don’t know how to do that, except by chipping away at pervasive assumptions, articulating what’s wrong with them, and helping people re-examine their beliefs. It’s exhausting, though, and you have to carefully pick the hills you want to die on. All too often we have to choose whether to speak up and jeopardize our livelihood, friendships, and “family harmony”, or bite our tongues when someone with power is being an asshat and watch a little piece of our dignity die. It’s a fine line that cishet white men rarely have to navigate.
In the meantime, stay strong, Chiomara and dust bunny. Virtual hugs if you want them.
@dust bunny
I hear you.
The best advice I got was to look for a guy who resonates with me. This is an intuitive, unspoken kind of thing.
And you’re right — alone is much better than suffering. I know this from experience.
Good luck in your search!
@Dr. NicolaLuna
Far right?
Forget it!
Good for you for taking care of yourself!
Re: the Orange Malware’s VP pick, LOL at the assumption that women pity-vote, and are as blindly loyal to horrendous candidates as Republicans are, so long as they have the right label and look just like them. Because Sarah Palin worked out so well.
Maybe Mitt Romney can lend Trump one of his binders full of women.
Yeah right. She’s probably one of those fake gamer kitties who just pretends to like gaming to get tuna and catnip from humans. I can tell by the way she’s flaunting her floof. I’ll bet the only game she really plays is Candy Crush!
I won’t be shocked if he picks Sarah Palin herself.
However, the running mate has to consent to it (although I looooooove the mental image of Trump announcing a running mate and that person saying, “WTF no way”), and I don’t know if Sarah Palin would be up for that. She has a high tolerance for misogyny, but I seem to recall her objecting to it one or two times, so her tolerance probably isn’t as high as Trump’s capacity to dish it out.
wrt: being alone
I’ve spent long periods of time not in a romantic relationship, and I wasn’t “alone.” Why do we talk about single women this way? We don’t talk about single men as being “alone” with anywhere near the same frequency. Dumping a loser who was dragging me down didn’t send me to a deserted island, or into a hermit cave. Why do we use this language to describe single women?