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?
This one time, I got with a guy and then he didn’t call me or return my calls or even text. He used me for my pussy and then just left! And I thought he liked me. Ergo all men are incapable of love. But if all women are incapable of love too, is there any love in this world at all???
@Joanna,
So, if we’re unsavory, does that make us sweet?
The fact that you have such a hard time comprehending of women as individuals that it strikes you as completely rational to want to avoid all members of a certain gender because a few members of that gender wronged you is pretty much a neon sign.
I’ve been hurt pretty severely by plenty of men. One man raped me. Three others were in positions of power over me as caretakers and took advantage of that to abuse me. The combined stress of every strange man who’s harassed and outright threatened me has worn on me so much that, if I don’t dress up to be read as male when walking down certain big-city streets, I have an anxiety attack because of how frightened I am that some dude will yell rape threats from a passing car and trigger my PTSD.
And yet I still manage to see dudes as varied individuals, some of whom are assholes and some of whom are not and a bunch who fall somewhere in between. Even if I did have a visceral ‘oh shit’ reaction when I ran into a guy, it’d make me a misandrist to not recognize that reaction as irrational and work to not assume all men are out to get me. I realize men are all unique from each other because I don’t objectify them. It’s not quite as hard as y’all make it out to be.
@ Fatman
“Our agenda is to mock misogyny. Usually we don’t get to enjoy that in its pure form because misogynists (e.g. your own lovely self) show up and we end up mocking them.”
Here is the accusation. Now I’ll ask again, where is the evidence that I am a misogynist? I note that Pencunium has gone rather quiet on the matter.
I don’t think that “Just for the record, are you a misogynist?” is really an appropriate question to ask someone who has shown no signs of such behaviour. I do not feel an obligation to answer this question. It is a false accusation.
@VoiP
With respect, your knowledge of MGTOW appears to be quite limited. At it’s core MGTOW is about living as a man free from the expectations placed upon him by society. It is about avoiding the pitfalls laid out for him by society. It is about protecting ones freedom and living ones life the way one sees fit. It is about being true to yourself. It isn’t about being a misogynist.
Lyn, you put into words what led me here in the first place; I needed a proper outlet for such profound revulsion after stumbling across The Principles of Social Competence, and it turned out laughter was that outlet.
@ Feyline
“The fact that you have such a hard time comprehending of women as individuals that it strikes you as completely rational to want to avoid all members of a certain gender because a few members of that gender wronged you is pretty much a neon sign.”
Just more unsubstantiated claims. I don’t even think that you’ve read what I have written. I don’t see what’s so hard for Pencunium to admit that he/she has accused me of being something that I am not, and apologise accordingly. I would do the same if in Pencunium’s position.
At it’s core MGTOW is about living as a man free from the expectations placed upon him by society. It is about avoiding the pitfalls laid out for him by society. It is about protecting ones freedom and living ones life the way one sees fit. It is about being true to yourself. It isn’t about being a misogynist.
Can you link to any MGTOW sites that express this set of propositions without expressing bigotry against women as a group? Actually, can you link to an MGTOW site that doesn’t mention women at all?
Also, Feyline put the issue of your misogyny or lack thereof better than I did:
The fact that you have such a hard time comprehending of women as individuals that it strikes you as completely rational to want to avoid all members of a certain gender because a few members of that gender wronged you is pretty much a neon sign.
Just more unsubstantiated claims.
No, that’s what this quote led us to conclude:
“The thing with MGTOW is that, for most men, there is no apparent need to GYOW until something forces them to do so e.g. your wife leaves you unexpectedly and you lose contact with your children. Such events often lead men to MGTOW and when they arrive there they are very angry individuals, and quite rightly so”
I admit I haven’t followed along with the whole “debate” here, but has it really come down to “you can’t prove I hate women!”
Shit, dude, if you think women are people equal to men, you’re free to just say so, and end all such accusations right here and now.
I sort of respect the idea of a person “going their own way” in a very vague sense, but when you make it gendered–when you’re going away from women and not men–that’s a problem right there. And that’s before you actually read any MGTOW posts and find out that it’s usually worse than that.
You approve of this. You think that it’s a good thing that, having been wronged by one woman, a man gets angry at all women.
qwert666, there’s a lot to unpack from your earlier comments. Quite a few erroneous assumptions and a handful of logical fallacies to boot. I will say this, if you find the “tone” here so unpleasant and so “troubling” may I suggest that you also find the door. And please understand, I’m not telling you that you should or have to leave. I just don’t think the regular posters here, though entirely capable of engaging in real -if at times adversarial- debate are particularly interested in molly-coddling you.
Now, as for what you’ve written -your theory about David’s agenda and the purpose of the blog- I can’t speak for David or anyone else but I don’t find MGOTW the least bit threatening. I think that men who find themselves unable to deal with women, for whatever reason, should probably avoid them as much as possible and create a life for themselves independent of social engagement with women to the best of their abilities.
I don’t find their decision to GTOW to be particularly remarkable or troubling. I’ve said it before and I mean it sincerely, “Via con Dios!”
But if David posts quotes of people who identify as MGTOW saying that women are monsters/whores/inanimate objects who are incapable of love, I’m going to mock that. That shit is misogyny just ripe for the mocking.
@ VoiP
The key thing to understand about MGTOW is that it is not a movement in the sense of the MRM or the feminist movement. It is an idea, a set of principles. The whole essence of MGTOW means to GYOW, meaning I as a MGHOW determine the meaning of what GMOW is. It is idiosyncratic to me.
Now many MGTOW have share principles, the most common one is to avoid marriage. However we do not as MGTOW avoid marriage because we dislike women or are bigoted towards them, we do so because we recognise that there is no need for us to marry. There is no tangible benefit for us to marry, and by avoiding marriage we can avoid divorce, alimony etc. There is nothing misogynistic about that.
For instance it is quite possible for a MGHOW to have a relationship with a woman, and still GHOW. So long as the relationship is on his terms, or rather, terms that are not dictated to him by an external force, then he is GHOW.
There are plenty of threads on the forum linked to in this very blog that talk about these ideas.
@ VoiP
“The thing with MGTOW is that, for most men, there is no apparent need to GYOW until something forces them to do so e.g. your wife leaves you unexpectedly and you lose contact with your children. Such events often lead men to MGTOW and when they arrive there they are very angry individuals, and quite rightly so”
If my wife cheats on me, divorces me and then takes my children away from me I have no right to be angry with her or the system that makes it possible for her to do so?
Is that what you are implying?
“There is no tangible benefit for us to marry, and by avoiding marriage we can avoid divorce, alimony etc. There is nothing misogynistic about that.”
Avoid alimony…you mean, avoid paying to help raise your own children? That’s why you go your own way? Do you see how we might think that’s a bit problematic – or do you plan to take an equal role in raising and paying for the children post-divorce? If the latter – that’s totally cool. But if you avoid marriage so that you don’t have to help raise your children and assume that the woman should just do it…that’s misogynistic. Or at least sexist.
“For instance it is quite possible for a MGHOW to have a relationship with a woman, and still GHOW. So long as the relationship is on his terms, or rather, terms that are not dictated to him by an external force, then he is GHOW.”
His terms. Right. What happened to relationships based on mutual need? Are a woman’s needs in a relationship completely antithetical the GHOW thing? Cos, that strikes me as misogynist, or at least sexist.
Feel free to correct me if I’m misunderstanding you here.
If my wife cheats on me, divorces me and then takes my children away from me I have no right to be angry with her or the system that makes it possible for her to do so?
It depends why she “takes the children away”–in most cases where men get no custody there’s actually more going on than just “welp, you divorced, can’t see the kids anymore”–but yeah, you have a right to be angry at her and/or at the system.
Neither one of which has anything to do with all women everywhere. We didn’t do anything to you.
For instance it is quite possible for a MGHOW to have a relationship with a woman, and still GHOW. So long as the relationship is on his terms, or rather, terms that are not dictated to him by an external force, then he is GHOW.
Oh for the love of ass. That’s not going your own way, that’s just being a petty dictator.
I mean, yeah, please, have a relationship on your terms–that’s what a lot of people do, really–but if those terms aren’t compatible with your partner’s terms, you aren’t a brave rebel, you’re just a bossy asshole.
So the man who expressed such disdain for his wife’s declaration of love? He’s GHOW, right? If his wife initiates divorce proceedings because she wants to love and be loved without disdain or wants to be loved by a man who doesn’t consider her to be depreciating in value, will she then become yet another woman whose actions cause pain and an understandable, we’ll call it distaste, for women?
In what way, if any, will his own actions and principles have contributed to her decision?
“If my wife cheats on me, divorces me and then takes my children away from me I have no right to be angry with her or the system that makes it possible for her to do so?”
But, that’s not what you said. You just said ‘divorce’ and ‘alimony’ as if their evils were self-evident…they are not. And, sure you can be angry at her – plenty of men and women cheat and it sucks, been there myself – and the system, but not at all women. That’s misogynist.
I would ask, though, about whether you were the primary caretaker of the children before the divorce? It’s rare for courts to sanction women being the sole caretaker of the children and just charge alimony without some sort of proof that you shouldn’t be a joint caretaker.
Alimony and child support aren’t the same thing. Depending on the circumstances of the marriage and it’s dissolution, I can understand objections to alimony. Child support is a very different matter.
@ Lyn
Please correct me if I’m wrong (there is no such thing as alimony in my country) but I thought that alimony was a different thing to child support? I would not object to paying for my children’s upkeep but I would be most aggrieved at having to pay for my ex spouse’s who, as an adult, should be more than capable of providing her own income.
“So long as the relationship is on his terms, or rather, terms that are not dictated to him by an external force, then he is GHOW.”
Try reading that sentence again and see if it becomes any clearer to you. Why would you want a relationship on terms that are not agreeable to you?
if your relationship with another person is on your terms, it’s not a relationship, you’re just bullying them. Love doesn’t want its own way, remember? St. Paul may have been a prickly old git, but by God he was right about that.
Anyway,
There are plenty of threads on the forum linked to in this very blog that talk about these ideas.
Can you point me to some of those threads that talk about these ideas without expressing hostility against women? This is not the first time I’ve asked you this, and if the MGTOW movement is as free of misogyny as you claim, then you should have little problem finding them. Inb4 you asking me to go find them: if you make a claim, it’s incumbent upon you to provide the evidence.
<i. I would not object to paying for my children’s upkeep but I would be most aggrieved at having to pay for my ex spouse’s who, as an adult, should be more than capable of providing her own income.
Except for the part where she took 20 years off her career to raise the kids and has to explain the blank spot on her resume to interviewers.
Please correct me if I’m wrong (there is no such thing as alimony in my country) but I thought that alimony was a different thing to child support? I would not object to paying for my children’s upkeep but I would be most aggrieved at having to pay for my ex spouse’s who, as an adult, should be more than capable of providing her own income.
That’s pretty rare as I understand it. It happens in the case of super-rich men and their trophy wives, but I don’t think regular people pay alimony all that often.
Try reading that sentence again and see if it becomes any clearer to you. Why would you want a relationship on terms that are not agreeable to you?
Oh, okay. That’s not GHOW, though. That’s, like, normal. Why associate yourself with a crowd of misogynists and paranoiacs just to declare that you don’t want a relationship that you don’t want? There’s plenty of ways to do that in the real world.
@ VoiP
“Except for the part where she took 20 years off her career to raise the kids and has to explain the blank spot on her resume to interviewers.”
I can’t tell if you are being serious here. Who exactly takes a stretch of 20 years out of the workplace to raise children? For a woman to legitimately claim this she would have to have about four children, one every five years. Most mothers that I know work, many fulltime. This is not a good argument for alimony.