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?
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?