Maybe she’s just not that into you, because women are incapable of love
Maybe the MGTOWers just need a hug from this strange bald man with no pants. Or toes.
Sometimes the fellows on MGTOWforums.com get all philosophical on us. At the moment they are discussing a question of great import: Are women incapable of love to the degree men love?
I suspect you can guess their unanimous answer – women are incapable of love — which is pretty much what you’d expect men who hate women to say about women and love. Some highlights:
Fairi5fair thinks women are monsters; he just can’t figure out which kind:
Women are just incapable of love period. The thrill of being able to use her pussy to get free shit is what women mistake for “love”. …
They are cold, grasping, selfish, and heartless parasites. They have no souls. They are all vampires. Undead zombies lurching from meal to meal.
Wait, so are they vampires or are they zombies? I think I can handle either one by itself, but if they are both at the same time we’re doomed!
Goldenfetus seems to be smoking something powerful:
Yes, they are less capable of love than men, or totally incapable.
One possibility I’ve considered is that in a natural … environment male ‘love’ (platonic) would be reserved only for other men, while women would be viewed as property or objects of reproduction whose value was derived from fertility and subservience without any basis in ‘love’ reciprocation. If so, I would identify feminism as the factor that misled men into extending this love, disastrously, to females – tricking them into believing that females have souls and are like males.
Loving a woman is like trying to pet a toilet, water a sandwich, or plow a parking lot and then wondering why you aren’t getting results. The defect (of understanding) lies with the man loving an object incompatible with love, rather than in the female whose nature precludes reciprocity.
Arctic thinks it’s all about the Benjamins:
Love to a woman is a man who is their servant 24/7 365 a day. …
The idea of love involving sacrifice to a female is as foreign as periods are to men. Why should she care about a relationship involving sacrifice on her part, when she is taught all her life to exploit men for her own uses? Sacrifice herself for a mere man? WHY? Why, when beta males are selling their souls to sniff her crotch? …
[I]ts safe to say the idea of women being in love begins and ends at the ATM of her committed male asset.
The Accomplice agrees:
Women do not seek love or companionship. Their main objective is to find a man of the highest status possible (Richest men, the toughest guys, most popular guy etc) who will protect them, provide for them and satisfy their selfish desires. … [T]he majority of women are too weak physically and mentally to do these things on their own, hence why they always chase after men …
A women’s idea of love is all hypergamy, nothing more.
Superion goes all Evo-Psych on us:
Women are incapapble of love is the great, horrible secret that society has tried to hide from men since the dawn of time.
Women are physically and mentally weaker than men.
In order to survive and pass on their genes they need the resources of the strongest and best providing male available.
To do this, women rely on beauty and guile to trick a male into being her slave.
Women do not love.
For men, love is a self-delusion.
We trick ourselves into wasting our resources on one particular female.
This makes no sense so we tell ourselves we’re in love to justify it.
Such an unromantic bunch! Maybe this will cheer them up.
Actually, screw them. Maybe it will cheer me up:
And if that didn’t do the trick, how about this?
Posted on August 17, 2011, in $MONEY$, alpha males, antifeminism, beta males, evil women, hypergamy, men who should not ever be with women ever, MGTOW, MGTOW paradox, misogyny, oppressed men, vaginas. Bookmark the permalink. 389 Comments.
qwert, when you don’t have an actual legitimate complaint, and you’re just rambling on about your suspicions and Just Asking Questions, it’s called “JAQing off” — no one cares to see it and you’re the only one enjoying it. :p
qwert666, I did, indeed click through and have also read the entire thread. It isn’t especially long; at least it wasn’t earlier in the day. In fact, I took another quote -sans ellipses- and referenced it for one of my comments. There are one or two (possibly three) posts that are illustrative of some amount consideration.
The rest of them vacillate between outright misogyny and a deep and wretched sadness.
What do you imagine David’s agenda to be?
@Lyn
I’ve come to understand that the world is not a very nice place, and that many of the people who inhabit it are beyond abhorrent to me. Every time I watch or read the news I shake my head in disgust, but the idea of holding up David (or anyone else for that matter) as some sort of filter, or shield, to take all the nastiness out of the world or deflect it away from me is holy repugnant. I mean, what exactly does David know that you or I don’t?
BTW, if anyone here would like to categorically state what love actually is I’d really like to know.
what a great question! let me crack open my copy of bonghit philosophy for assholes and look it up
@Shaenon, You are too right. These guys are the ones that don’t try. They walk around with a mullet and expect a supermodel. They want the most superficial woman but they want to be loved for who they are, pit-stained tee-shirt and all.
nasty. And that’s not even mentioning their lack of humor, grace, logic and good sense.
also, i totally want to hear about the missing context that makes
not a fucked up thing to say
the idea of holding up David (or anyone else for that matter) as some sort of filter, or shield, to take all the nastiness out of the world or deflect it away from me is holy repugnant
i agree. if you dont read the comments on a fringe website for lonely misogynists totally unfiltered you are a failed human being
ffs – I’m not trying to use David as a filter against the world’s nastiness. Last I checked, I live in the freaking world. However, it’s common practice when on the internet to filter information in some way because there’s a lot of it. The internet is also a place where people are usually anonymous and don’t get a chance to edit – two things which leads to a lot of instances where people say very stupid things because they don’t think too hard before posting and feel like they won’t be held accountable for what they say. I rarely read the comments on obnoxious blogs because I already know that there are idiots in the world who think that having a vagina means you aren’t a human being, but I don’t feel the need, in my leisure time, to be reminded of it at length. I prefer to be reminded (as I am here) that there are people who think that misogyny as often seen on the interwebs is patently ridiculous.
Or what Sharculese said ;)
qwert666, if you actually read this thread you would see that many of the commenters have in fact gone and read the whole thread, many of them quoting specific comments that I ignored that are clearly as misogynistic as the ones I posted.
Again, can you give a specific example of how my edits of any specific comments have distorted their meaning? Otherwise your complaints are meaningless.
Obviously, every time I quote someone, even if I quote them in their entirety, I necessarily have to make some sort of selection. I can’t simply quote every single thing said in the “manosphere.”
Qwert666, love is a word used to describe the feelings caused by the interplay of dopamine, norepinephrine, serotonin, oxytocin, and vasopressin coupled with memory and interaction. Recent studies show a high correlation to increased levels of nerve growth factor. Love is generally accompanied by feelings of well being due to the dopamine and serotonin increases. Over time pair bonding can occur, accompanied by increased levels of oxytocin and vasopressin. Sensory input can even become more pleasurable when one is experiencing love due in part to the norepinephrine.
Of course this definition is just a long way of saying that love is in fact a feeling, and nothing more. What do you think love is?
I read the whole thread, and the stuff David quotes is representative. I assume he cut down the quotations with ellipses for the same reason I would: because these guys rant on and on and ON and it gets boring. A couple of paragraphs is more than enough to get the bile across, thanks.
I have to say, though, David did leave out some of the more hilarious bits. The first comment from which he quoted, for example, also contains this line:
Look at a woman’s sexuality: find me a woman who fucks because she really loves a man for who he is and wants to experience orgiastic union with him. I dare you!
That’s right, guys! Find him a woman who wants to bang his brains out! Right now! He’s daring you!
@Bagelsan
Ooh, you’ve got me all excited!
@Sharculese
Sorry, I’m not quite as intelligent or educated as you clearly are. Are you saying that, in fact, you can’t actually state what love is? Is it possible that no one can actually can define love?
@Nobinayuma
Misogyny, wretched sadness or whatever. These are peoples thoughts. Peoples thoughts and reasoning on life. If you disagree with them then fine. I’m not here to defend their beliefs and to be honest, I doubt these people really care what you think. My point is simply this: if you are going to belittle, attack, criticise or dispute these thoughts the least you can do is present them in the context in which they were originally made. You and David may not find this to be a big deal but it doesn’t sit quite right with me. Maybe David has, in fact, no agenda, who knows but him?
David has an agenda, it is to mock misogyny.
It is listed at the top of the page.
Those of us who read here regularly like his efforts.
That is all.
im saying that over centuries upon centuries of human civilization there are probably few subjects which have had as much ink spilled over them as the nature of love and demanding someone define it in a blog comment is just stoner sophistry
The cherry-picking accusation again. Will you guys please get some new material?
You know, it’s amazing how many times I’ve said this in the last few days: Dude. Look. At. The. Top. Of. The. Page.
We mock misogyny. On occasion this mockery leads to vigorous debate; sometimes it ends up in strange and completely off topic places. Sometimes it amounts to nothing more than posters making fun of the OP and arguing, in circles, with resident trolls. But it generally starts with mocking.
We mock misogyny. David presents it, and we mock it.
You’ve been provided with illustrative examples and detailed definitions of love, whether you accept them or not. Posters have stated, unequivocally, that they did in fact read the entire thread and found David’s selections to be accurate and representative. When people put their thoughts out on the internet, for all to see, there is a reasonable expectation that those ideas and “reasoning on life” will be judged by others.
So, either explain how -and I mean precisely how- David presented these quotes out of context or talk about why you’re really here. Because, frankly, we’ve already got a guy who specializes in “Well since y’all are so smart…” and you’re not anywhere near as entertaining.
Thank you everyone for your questions. Sadly, at this moment, I don’t have time to answer them all. Before you cry ‘flouncer’ (as you so often like to do) I do have some, somewhat important, things to attend to. David, I shall look forward to answering your specific questions tomorrow.
Hey, speaking of context, who was that great troll a month or so back who had the hypothetical situation of a wife wanting to spend $1,000, and the husband not wanting to spend it, therefore who should get their way? And he refused to specify how much money they had in the first place or if they had separate accounts or what she wanted to buy or what the couple’s agreed-on method for determining purchases of $1,000 was? And when everyone kept asking he started yelling “There is no context!”
Who was that guy? Remember him?
Because that was some good trolling.
I am also curious as to what my reaction is supposed to be to the original thread in context. My reaction was unadulterated horror. Was it supposed to be something else?
MizDarwin, that was NWOSlave that had the hypothetical situation about the couple not agreeing on buying a $1000 item. I kept insisting that me and my husband compromise on such issues, and he kept adding absurd variables to make compromise impossible. I should have told him in those rare situations where we disagree on an issue, and compromise isn’t possible, we settle things in A CAGE MATCH! Another solution we could use is a round robin tournament of rock, paper, scissors.
Women aren’t incapable of love. They love their parents and children. They’re just incapable of loving men. I saw a study just a couple of months ago that showed that men are very likely to be left when they suffer unemployment while women’s employment status has no effect on her risk of divorce. That whole thing about “sickness and in health” does not apply to women.
Buttman,
Citation needed.
‘Women aren’t incapable of love. They love their parents and children. They’re just incapable of loving men.’
So women are capable of loving every human…except men? Although you must realize that women have sons and fathers who are men. Which makes your comment fall into the realm of poorly thought out gibberish.
Yaz: If they’re related to women, then they’re not Real Men.
Wow, really, Kendra? How the mighty have fallen. He’s not nearly so good now, that’s why I’d forgotten it was him. “There is no context” might be the best troll statement I’ve ever heard.
(Particularly in reference to an economic question. Ought to have pointed out that if there were no context, there would be no $1,000, just little pieces of green paper. Economics IS context.)
@filetofswedishfish Real Men are born without need of a womb! It’s a whole immaculate conception sort of thing. Which sort of makes the whole MRA woman hating thing make a little more sense, I suppose.
**love is a word used to describe the feelings caused by the interplay of dopamine, norepinephrine, serotonin, oxytocin, and vasopressin coupled with memory and interaction. Recent studies show a high correlation to increased levels of nerve growth factor. Love is generally accompanied by feelings of well being due to the dopamine and serotonin increases. Over time pair bonding can occur, accompanied by increased levels of oxytocin and vasopressin**
One of the things that has been bothering me in this discussion is the lack of social context/social pressure in this discussion of “love.” Interplay-of-dopamine-yadda-yadda-yadda,” but no mention of the intense social directive that we are all supposed to couple up and find our own true love. LIke a lot of things we take for granted, “love” is a social construct. These demands that we “define” love seem to assume that there is some transcendent, absolute and determined thing that love is. But it’s not. It changes over time, history and culture.
That doesn’t mean we can’t care deeply and passionately for one another, and some of us can bond and trust and “love”–however we define it–for a long time, or forever, or til one of us decides it’s time to move on. But this idea that “love” has one definition, one absolute meaning–that is ahistorical and sloppy thinking.
As someone who has been lurking for awhile, I will say: I don’t read this blog because David is some kind of god or guru. I read it because he is smart and funny, and the interaction between the MRA nutjobs and the regular commenters here is hilarious, if often disturbing.
So I will confess to a perverse sense of humor–something I imagine I share with a lot of the people reading here.
JP
That’s funny. I’ve known plenty of women who stay with unemployed bums and drug addicts a lot longer than they probably should.
Real Men grow from sooper seekrit trees. When finally ripe, they fall to the ground, to Lone Wolf it through life, becoming tough, yet still capable of deep deep Love, creators and designers of this great world.
MGTOW theory:
Redefining Manhood to include Charismatic Independence Spiritual Centeredness, Fostering Nobility, building wealth & MASTERING OUR BIOLOGICAL IMPERATIVE is the goal of going our own way…..
We’re not here to morn the 1950’s….Fur Christ’s sake I’m BLACK!….wtf do I need the 50’s for?
BTW this is soo Cool..If I said half this crAp on YouTube I would’ve been Jail-Broken over a pooltable by now…..(figuratively)
I’ve also been the breadwinner in a relationship long after it’s used-by date and the problem was actually that my partner was so caught up in crappy masculinity narratives, that he was all upset at not making more money than me/being productive. It threatened his masculinity…so he lashed out at me. We actually broke up not long after he started earning money and I earned less – because he was a penny pincher who didn’t think he should help me even though I’d helped him financially for, like, four years. I stayed as long as I did cos I freaking loved the idiot, despite his flaws.
Even though this is one data point, I think the understanding of masculinity as being tied up with working outside the home, and femininity with working inside the home, that when otherwise ok couples have this messed with they fall apart. That would explain why men don’t dump unemployed women as often as women dump men (even if that were actually the case – doesn’t seem to be any actual evidence for it…plus, does it account for women quitting their jobs to stay at home and look after the kids?).
My point is just that there’s an alternative explanation for women not staying with unemployed men than as so-called ‘proof’ that women don’t love men (I assume he meant male partner rather than all men given that ‘parent’ and ‘man’ are not mutually exclusive).
No, that’s not quite what it was that the study showed…
For a man, not being employed not only increases the chances that his wife will initiate divorce, but also that he will be the one who opts to leave. Even men who are relatively happy in their marriages are more likely to leave if they are not employed, the research found. … That men who are not employed, regardless of their marital satisfaction, are more likely to initiate divorce suggests that a marriage in which the man does not work “does not look like what [men] think a marriage is supposed to,” the researchers write.
Husband’s Employment Status Threatens Marriage, but Wife’s Does Not, Study Finds
There are a few comments at the link about how the men think that women are being dishonest or incapable of love, because when the relationship went bad, the women were different from how they behaved at the first of the relationship.
Now, show me a person in a relationship that ends badly who doesn’t think at some point, “Who IS this person? This isn’t the man (or woman) I fell in love with! How did I not see this?”
I’ve assumed it’s not a male or female thing, just a human problem.
@ Pam
None of what you quoted is different from what I said. I don’t understand your point.
Buttperson, the study showed that unemployed men are more likely to both leave and be left. You only said they are more likely to be left.
This part seems different from your conclusions, Buttman
“Even men who are relatively happy in their marriages are more likely to leave if they are not employed, the research found. … That men who are not employed, regardless of their marital satisfaction, are more likely to initiate divorce suggests that a marriage in which the man does not work “does not look like what [men] think a marriage is supposed to,”
‘None of what you quoted is different from what I said. I don’t understand your point.’
What you posted implied the wimminz dumped teh menz if they were jobless. Being vile bitches and all. What Pam posted showed that often a man will initiate divorce or choose to leave if he’s lost his job. HUGE difference there.
Buttman. I’m a woman. I love my boyfriend.
A white crow has been found.
Sure, I’m just one woman, but if the argument was none, well, there ya go.
I love the fuck out of my boyfriend and that should settle this too-dumb-for-kindergarten argument in its entirety.
Besides, I thought we demoted you–to Butt-boy, or at least Butt-lad.
qwert666
How does what you said act as a trigger for people with PTSD?
You’re welcome to post quotes which you believe refute David’s claim.
Why is anyone even dignifying Buttman’s assertion that women can’t love men at all? He hasn’t remotely demonstrated it. Even if his source singlehandedly supported his claim, and even if a single study could substantiate it properly, that study doesn’t. It finds women are more likely to leave men who are unemployed. Notice that at no point in that sentence, neither he, nor I, said “All women leave men who are unemployed”, which would be a pretty good data point in favor of that claim if it were true, it’s just not.
I mean that’s ignoring everything else wrong with it.
I’m in love and getting married, although currently, my man is upset because he imagines I would rather do other things than talk with him. This is entirely untrue, now I have to figure out a way to fix this without reinforcing a negative communication pattern. Kind of depressed. But overall happy happy, excited for the future, all of it. All that mushy gushy stuff.
If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.
If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.
If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.
It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.
Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.
It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.
For we know in part and we prophesy in part,
but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears.
When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me.
For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
Or this too, whatevs.
Short answer is you’re trying to set us up to look bad, but going about it really stupidly. Seriously, Why don’t YOU define love then, HUH? is the best you can manage?
WIN
Is the context a fictional character written so broadly that he truly thinks no woman is capable of love? I’d have my criticisms, but okay. However, if it’s a real human being who is saying that I’m incapable of love because I’m not a man, then fuck him and I will belittle, attack, criticize, and dispute those thoughts to my heart’s content. Has he been hurt by women? Well boo hoo. It’s the rare person in our society who hasn’t been hurt by someone of the sex or sexes they are attracted to. That’s no excuse to dehumanize half our friggin’ species, no matter how often someone’s been hurt.
Now for Buttman who does not argue in good faith, but I’ll address this anyway…
Knowing how willing you are to misrepresent things… Hell, even without that, I’d question this as you’ve written it. Is it the unemployment, or is it the financial strain that makes the difference? Because a major factor in divorce is the strain on relationships caused by financial difficulties.
As for unemployment in women and it’s effect on the risk of divorce, for many couples the ideal situation is for a wife to be technically “unemployed” (where she works taking care of the house and children).
I did, right after I printed off a copy of the internets.
Oh, crap! I didn’t quote the entirety of his post!
Why can’t blogging be more like UseNet or email chains where everything is automatically spammed to everyone on my mailing list in its entirety and then someone starts a flame-war using the “Reply All”?
Won’t anyone think of the series of TUBES!?!?
VoiP –
Wow, dude/dudess. I’d forgotten about what a huge literary wallop the New Testament can pack, especially in the excellent translation you quoted here.
Yep, that’d pretty much describe it. Love. You might not be able to describe it, but you sure as shit know it when you see it.
@ Yaz
“What you posted implied the wimminz dumped teh menz if they were jobless.”
It doesn’t imply anything. It is a fact that women are more likely to divorce a man when he becomes unemployed. The attempts to explain it away as anything other than the obvious are just pathetic. Sure, guys are more likely to file for divorce when the Mrs. jumps back on the ole carousel when he is down and out.
“Attempts to explain it away as anything but the obvious…” do you mean as ‘obvious’ proof that women are incapable of love in heterosexual relationships? Cos that’s what you used it as proof for and, I’m sorry, but there’s a bit of a logical break there. There are alternative explanations – as many have pointed out.
Financial strain, for example, makes for grumpy people, which makes for unhappy relationships. Given that many households (because of patriarchal understandings of gender roles) depend primarily on men’s income, when they lose this it is likely that the financial strain will be greater than if a woman’s non-essential income is lost. Plus, women often have to leave the workplace when they have babies because the workplace was designed with people who don’t get pregnant and who have a ‘wife’ at home doing unpaid housework and child-rearing in mind.
And your assumption that women will just start fucking random men when their husband loses his job is completely unfounded. And stupid.
This entire thread has proven that the Walkmen’s “Everyone Who Pretended to Like Me is Gone” is the perfect song to listen to while reading Manboobz stuff. I don’t know why. It’s just, so, so….. I don’t should’ve sent a MRA poet. A totes Brotastic poet.
This entire thread has proven that the Walkmen’s “Everyone Who Pretended to Like Me is Gone” is the perfect song to listen to while reading Manboobz stuff. I don’t know why. It’s just, so, so….. I don’t know, should’ve sent a MRA poet. A totes Brotastic poet.
“Besides, I thought we demoted you–to Butt-boy, or at least Butt-lad.”
Hey, how did you know my Halloween costume. Butt-lad was my best Aqualad cosplay ever!
“Men love women. Women love children. Children love Elmo.”
Crap, sorry for the double posting. The internet is patchy here in South America. Sorry!
Love is when someone else’s happiness is as important to you as your own.
If “in sickness and in health doesn’t apply to women”, women should also up and leave when their spouse gets ill, yes?
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/12/men-more-likely-to-leave-spouse-with-cancer/
Oh.
IANASociologist but my guess is that both this finding and the one about employment are both more about the roles we push people into (he’s “meant” to pay, she’s “meant” to care) than any inherent suckitude of either sex, because neither men nor women inherently suck.
Who do these guys love? How do they show it? Why is a duck? What do you get when you cross the Atlantic with the Titanic?
PZ Myers has found a real winner:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/08/17/they-have-moved-beyond-parody/
@MissPrism
I am a sociologist. That is roughly an accurate assessment. The issue with MRA’s is their biological deterministic beliefs which is further enhanced by evo-psych crap (Poor references, poor/to no operationalization, blatant misreading of statistics, and untestable hypothesis).
Thanks Flib! IAAGeneticist and share your scorn of the bulk of evo-psych!
Sorry I wasn’t able to reply sooner, and it looks like others have covered my point quite well, so I won’t belabour it.
Nor to men, it would seem, as risk of separation/divorce is higher when it’s the woman who has the serious medical illness
Gender disparity in the rate of partner abandonment in patients with serious medical illness
I think I just found my new username.
“What do you get when you cross the Atlantic with the Titanic?”
If you are a woman, you live.
If you are a man, you die.
All part of the oppression of women.
/\ a titanic reference?
Did you hunt mammoths too?
I’m just naturally a little suspicious when someone accuses someone else of being a liar, and the track record of the accused is good.
When the accusation is so well known I could write it, in a variety of substyles, and couched in a passive-aggressive, “you could do it so much better if you did it my way; and then everyone would know you were just making shit up”, I am even more suspicious.
When the actual thread is worse than Dave presented it, and you are defending it, I stop being suspicious.
I am pretty certain you are engaging in pettifogging, meant to derail the topic so we can talk about how to deal with misogyny, rather than dealing with it.
Buttman: Let me get this straight: A study says men who lose their jobs are more likely to initiate divorce means that women are more likely to divorce a man who becomes unemployed.
Oh, I see. The study says men lose their jobs and file for divorce. Rather than read the data provided you choose to add a subtextual narrative that when men lose their jobs their wives suddenly start fucking around; so those men are asking for a divorce because their wife “left” them when they lost their jobs, and you say that = women divorcing men.
And you wonder that people think you dishonest.
I wonder that people bother to be polite.
I’m thinking that someone who calls himself Buttman, and is also a raging and idiotic misogynist, isn’t really all that interested in ladies.
Come sit my me, Cuddlebuttman, I’ll give it a pinch.
LOL