a voice for men antifeminism imaginary backwards land irony alert men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA patriarchy that's completely wrong

A Voice for Men: Don’t blame us for patriarchy, ladies; you voted for it!

Women: Even their votes are bigger than men's
Women: Even their votes are bigger than men’s

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:

You see what I mean by that Wrongness Onion thing?


Here’s how AVFM teased McL’s post on its main page:

How will Nominee Trump pander to women?  Winning an election means winning the votes of women. August Løvenskiolds explores how to concur the votes of the leisure class.

Concur? Do they mean “conquer?”

And, no, AVFMers, women are only “the leisure class” in your delusional minds.

Who the hell “edits” these things?

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Dr. NicolaLuna, Epic Slut
Dr. NicolaLuna, Epic Slut
6 years ago

You don’t want women looking for casual sex because you don’t want sex with a willing woman.

Wow. I knew something about that made me uncomfortable and you’ve articulated exactly why. That’s disturbing, I need a shower now.

Speaking of elections, and since Khan and Brexit were mentioned upthread, are they related. That is, does Khan mean anything Brexitwise. Like, does his win speak to which way the country (countries?) might go, or is it more limited in predictive power? Just curious…

Sorry, just noticed this question. No, it doesn’t mean much as it’s a referendum and kind of separate. Even the main parties don’t have a party line on it. Some conservatives are pro, some are anti Brexit. Same with labour.

6 years ago

@Dr. Luna

Sorry, just noticed this question

Literally no problem, and thx
comment image

6 years ago

ohmigod I have the hugest crush on Rachel Maddow. She is brilliant, funny, kind, and so adorkable

And would be very interested in Glenn’s reply to my last post to him, but I don’t think saying his name three times is going to summon him this time.
buk buk buk buk buk

6 years ago

Glenn came back? Why? So he can keep insisting that the creepy things he does are okay? They’re super not, Glenn, and you’re not going to be able to convince anyone otherwise. Go talk to people who don’t think you’re an entitled jerk.

@PI, this is a couple of days late but we share the same birthday and I just think that’s wicked.

6 years ago

The Glenn came back, he wouldn’t stay away, he was sitting on the porch the very next day…

6 years ago

@Katz – Oh wow, I have that same banjolele

1 3 4 5
%d bloggers like this: