Vox Day writes about what a woman wants in her male partner and compares two approaches, one from an actual female and another from what appears to be Vox’s own inflated self-image. This first one is from Marianne Murciano, a self-described “award winning writer, journalist and Emmy winning TV personality for more than 25 years” blogging at relationship advice outlet How To Train Your Man:
You can’t blame guys for feeling exasperated. We expect them to be psychic and to know what we’re thinking. As in the Dodge commercial, many men think that if they “behave,” their woman will be happy. If they disappoint us, we are unreasonable, intolerant, unpredictable, moody, PMS-ing or nagging. Sometimes it seems that it’s never enough. It’s really not men’s fault for not knowing what women really want.
So here it is, simply. Women want three things from men: someone who cares about them, someone who will listen and respond honestly, and someone they can share a laugh with. In other words, a good friend. Everything else falls under one of these categories.
Sounds pretty damn reasonable and commonsensical to me, and seems to be in-sync with that most women I’ve ever met desire from their male partners. But then, what do I know? I obviously don’t possess the insight into the female mind and heart brought about by years of experience and philosophical discussion such as that possessed by the (self-billed) “Dark Lord of Intersexual Relations”, who has this to say about what women really want:
The strongest woman and the most strident feminist wants to be led by, and to submit to, a more powerful man. Polarity is the core of a healthy loving relationship. She does not want the prerogative to walk all over you with her capricious demands and mercurial moods. Her emotions are a hurricane, her soul a saboteur. Think of yourself as a bulwark against her tempest. When she grasps for a pillar to steady herself against the whipping winds or yearns for an authority figure to foil her worst instincts, it is you who has to be there… strong, solid, unshakable and immovable.
Wimmen: stay in the kitchen and make me my goddamn sammich already!
Vox then asks: “Now, based on everything you know about women, based on everything that has been discussed here about women, which perspective do you think is more reflective of observable reality?” It would seem that this “observable reality” is only so in the alternate universe in which Vox Day’s brand of thinking isn’t quasi-universally reviled as chauvinistic misogyny by the majority of womankind (and the sensible part of mankind as well).
Because, you know, it’s not the case, here.
Just for kicks, here’s how Vox ends his post:
In summary, the correct way for a man to respond to a Man Trainer is in much the same fashion that Montecore responded to Roy Horn.
Or: “If some broad wants to ‘train’ you (which, as said blog explicitly states numerous times, is only meant as in ‘teaching your man to understand women as opposed to leash or dominate them’), the correct way to react is to take a leaf from the book of a tiger who mauled his trainer and beat the shit out of that uppity little girl.”
Maybe “chauvinistic misogynist” is going too easy on him.
UPDATE: (05/04/10 @01:01 AM) – First of all, howdy to y’all Vox readers. Though, I do ask that if you’re to leave a comment here, at least try to A) make sense and B) if you’re to insult, do so cleverly as to not bore me. It’s basic courtesy, see.
Secondly, I couldn’t suppress an open laugh as I saw this comment from Happy Gulliver in Vox’s comments [at 5/3/10 9:58 PM]:
Go easy on the tike, he is only 18. Let him get his balls systemically stepped on for a few years. He still like WALL-E and Titanic as movies.
Joe from Quebec, if you are reading this, call me in about 5 yrs and let me know how the whole gamma thing worked out for you.
Seeing this sort of wildly clever retort, it becomes rather clear how one should approach Vox and his followers: with mingled amusement and derision, a heaping of snark and, perhaps, a little bit of pity. I mean, come on – I also mention Harry Potter, Céline Dion, and even freaking Balto (yes, the 1995 animated one) as my favorites in my Blogger profile, and he settles for bashing me over my liking WALL·E and Titanic? They aren’t even popular trolling targets anymore, for crying out loud. Also, even if you discount the amusing patheticness and irrelevancy in denigrating someone over their interests, the fact that our dear aforementioned knuckle-dragging basher only used those two examples of things I liked just shows how in addition to sucking like a black hole at rational discussion, these folks can’t even denigrate someone effectively.
As I’ve stated before, insulting truly is a lost art. For shame, people.
EDIT: Made a few tiny corrections.