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?
I’m not exactly a food snob here (I just ate pineapple slices straight out of a can for breakfast ’cause I’m a lazy-ass bachelorette) but I don’t think this:
is a bullshit standard. Expecting a vegetable? A side? Napkins? Any one of those? If she’s been making dinner I’m sure he’s not unfamiliar with the concept of bread or salad; that’s not a super high bar for making dinner for your partner! :p
“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.”
Sir, please be reborn into ancient Greece.
Was Jacques Futrelle a mangina?
Wait, what am I saying? He died on the Titanic, of course he was. All the bitches got to go on first.
Jack: Hey, you’re still around! I assumed David would ban your alts.
Do you take sock puppetry requests? The MGTOW trolls are my favorite!
This isn’t an alt, this is my new name because I’m not an MRA anymore.
Really? And you’re still using the word “bitches?”
If I was on the Titanic, I would have punched some bitch in the face and gotten on the lifeboat. Then I would have shot all the manginas in the face.
Just a mysogynist asshole.
Gotcha.
Fuck you asshole.
I see your maturity level has stayed the same.
Cynickal: I don’t that it needs to be limited to just misogyny.
Miserable asshole?
This is what’s hot in the streets, huh? We’re making fun of people who died tragically?
“Way to die, you fuckin’ mangina!”
…Okay then.
Well, if he wants to define himself as being a jackoff, we can’t stop him.
But obviously you’re sock puppeting if you change your handle and don’t tell anyone.
I would have a much easier time believing that MGTOW movement wasn’t inherently misogynistic (or a least severely gynophobic) if the overall message I was getting from these men was something like “I’m having difficulty trusting women right now for whatever reasons, but it’s my own problem and this how I’m dealing with it.”
But when one of the top ten threads on a popular forum is questioning whether or not women are capable of the full range of human emotions, then frankly, I just don’t buy that there isn’t whole lot of hatred there.
“…that [the] MGTOW movement …”
We’re getting off topic. The question is, was Jacques Futrelle a mangina or did he fight for his life?
made dinner for my fiancée
i hope you made it on your terms
“We’re getting off topic. The question is, was Jacques Futrelle a mangina or did he fight for his life?”
That’s not the topic, you little squirrel.
I searched “David Futrelle” on Google and got a picture of a fat guy with a beard looking to the right. Is that you David?
It was more of a goatee actually.
@bagelsan:
A napkin isn’t a high bar (though she is as capable as he of getting her own damn napkin); a napkin folded at each place is frillsome.
But I worry, now, that I’m painting a clearer picture than I intend of dinnertime in the Ostropoler household. I don’t disagree on the salad and bread, anyway.
@jackoffasaur:
Oh, I was worried you’d lost your stripes.
@katz
On the other hand, people worked it out immediately. So does it still count as sock puppetry? Is a lie still a lie if everyone you tell it to knows what the truth is?
Jackoff, none of those things is actually disreputable, except perhaps “looking to the right,” and then only if he were doing it metaphorically.
I thought the main topic was “When did MRAL go off his medication again?”
Look, if he’s gonna be jacking off repeatedly I can only imagine his mom prefers that he make liberal use of socks. Instead of having to break out the black light she just throws the laundry in on a hot water cycle and doesn’t ask questions. So I’m fine with anything that makes that poor woman’s life easier. 🙂