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 isn’t an alt, this is my new name because I’m not an MRA anymore.
Now, with 20% more dicketry.
Actually, Americans were far more likely to survive the Titanic, being more pushy than their British counterparts.
Of course, the biggest Alpha on the ship, John Jacob Astor, the richest man on the world, went down with the ship.
He may not be an MRA, but he still parrots their stupid talking points. Not really an improvement.
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.
Qwert666: this is a distinction without a difference.
I have identified as a feminist since 1982, or 3, I forget. I was in my 20s then. And my definitions of feminisms have changed. Feminism is a SET of ideas (some contradictory); many people use those ideas to set out principles and behaviors. Some of them work together in various ways, in various contexts, but not all do. These ways and contexts can range from the reform non-profit institution of NOW to loosesly connected CR (consciousness raising groups) to people like me who do not belong to any organized feminist group, or really, any other organized groups–I learned during my period in activst groups during the 1980s that I do not play well with others. I tried lots of groups from small/local to larger/national, that were organized with various different principles ranging from communal/non-hierarchical to hierarchical with annual elections to boards that hire the officers.
While I doubt that the MRM or MGTOW are as highly organized as *SOME* feminist groups (again, the National Organization of Women comes to mind), that doesn’t mean they are inherently different — it just means that they’re smaller, newer, less formally organized, etc.
If a group of MGTOW come together on the internet and made a communal blog or friended each other on twitter or make a LJ community and commented on stuff relating to their interests, I’d consider that a group, which might be more or less tightly organized, depending on the group. But I wouldn’t say any individual MRM or MGTOW had to be a member of the group to be self-identified as a MRM or MGTOW.
So don’t try to distinguish MGTOW from other sets of ideas and principles which are enabled/performed by people in various ways (from singletons to large national groups). Shorter version: you’re that that unique a speshul snowflake.
Jack: you may not be an MRA anymore (that’s your choice of self identification), but I agree with others who point out you’re still an asshole (that’s our assessment of your behavior).
And anyone who routinely refers to all women in any situation as bitches is a misogynist in my book.
I do my own laundry, fyi.
Do want a cookie? Most fully functional adults do their own laundry. Geez, next you’ll be telling us you get dressed by yourself.
I do my own laundry, fyi.
You’re a mensch. 🙂
Coincidentally he also always undresses by himself too.
Bagelsan: OOOOOOOOO, snap! Good one.
Bagelsan: Bravo.
[comment deleted by DF]
Language, MRAL! Don’t make us wash your mouth out with soap!
MRAL, do you need a time-out?
Yep, MRAasaur does need a timeout.
MRAasaur, you’re on moderation. Try to avoid excessive douchebaggery.
30% more dicketry.
@ ithilania
“this is a distinction without a difference.”
Feminism and the MRM are movements, they desire change. They want to change a society into one which is more agreeable to them, and so they organise and they lobby and campaign for change. MGTOW do not. Being a MGTOW is not about trying to change society and is therefore not a movement. GYOW means living your life on your own terms: it is essentially a personal mission. I’m not going to waste my life trying to bend the world to my will. I would die a very unhappy and frustrated man if I attempted to do this. A situation of me versus the world would likely not end well for me. I think that this is the difference in the distinction. Movements such as Feminism and the MRM seek to change society for their own ends, a MGTOW forgoes attempting to change the world in favour of adapting to it and attempting to live a life as best as one can whilst staying true to one’s principles and beliefs.
@ Pecunium
“Here’s why, you are defending misogyny, and saying it is a legitimate expression of the sense of being wronged by women.”
I assume that you are referring to this:
“Such events often lead men to MGTOW and when they arrive there they are very angry individuals, and quite rightly so. I believe that it is a perfectly natural and healthy reaction to such events to want to vent your anger at the people who have caused you to experience them. Quite often, I believe, this anger is misplaced and hence misogynistic. “
I’m not sure if you are merely clutching at straws because you have been caught out but if you read the above quote you will clearly see how I am not defending misogyny. I am saying why I think misogyny exists on the MGTOW forums. I clearly state that I think their anger is misplaced, this is clearly not a defence of misogyny and I am clearly not saying it is a legitimate expression of being wronged by women.
I could dig up examples of misandry written by feminists and say, “look everyone Pecunium is a feminist, here’s some misandric quote from a feminist, so Pecuniunm is a misandrist”. But I won’t, because it is clearly a nonsense to do so. Just as your claim that I am a misogynist is clearly a nonsense.
“but you have shown a non-reasoned categorisation of the entire group because some women, sometimes, treated some men badly.”
I haven’t done this either. Again, you are making up facts to prove a point. The point being that you already decided that I was a misogynist the moment I identified as a MGHOW. This is bigotry on your part, and this makes you a bigot.
Your refusal to withdraw your accusation and apologise shows your own prejudice against me as a MGHOW. If you have made an honest mistake in your misinterpretation of my words then I’ll graciously accept your apology. But I’d say that you’d do better to stop throwing stones until you get of your glass house, before you make yourself look even more bigoted and foolish than you have managed to already.
Goodness knows that, over the years, many men with SAH wives have been and still are perfectly content to come home from a long day at work and have dinner served to them in like manner; they didn’t and don’t have any bullshit standards.
@Pam
The standards are still bullshit. Men with SAH wives can get their own damn napkins too. I’m not claiming it suddenly becomes a bullshit standard when a woman expects it from her husband … although looking back I can see how it might have looked like I meant that.
I think that bolded bit was what the woman objected to in the original article, actually: not from you, but from her husband. Having bread/salad/napkins was obviously the standard when she cooked, but her husband didn’t even try to meet that standard when it was his turn — any extra effort on his part was suddenly “bullshit” when he was apparently fine with that effort from his wife.
(Also he was clearly being super passive aggressive about it. If he’s doing such a half-assed job to please his spouse it’s because he knows he won’t be asked to do it in the future — so disagreements over table settings aside he was also just acting like a douche.)
I don’t get the sense he meant to be super passive-aggressive; I suspect in his mind he was doing the minimum required, which is merely ordinarily passive-aggressive. She comes off a little whiny, but anyone who said “my spouse cooked dinner but didn’t do frou-frou shit” would come off as whiny to me, whatever the genders involved.
HO, even “ordinarily passive-aggressive” usually isn’t a great element when it shows up in a relationship. XD
qwert666: You have alleged they have justification for their misogyny: If you are willing to say they have none, that the reasons they see for going their own way are based on a misbegotten set of ideas about women, then I will accept that you are not a misogynist.
@ Pecunium
“You have alleged they have justification for their misogyny”
This is the sticking point for me: I haven’t alleged anything of the sort. I’ll try and put it into different words for you. If a man is angry at a particular woman for whatever reason, I believe that he has the right to be angry with this particular woman, if of course, he has good reason to be angry with her i.e. she has acted or omitted to act in a way which is a reasonable cause for his anger. He is justified to be angry, at her.
However, if this anger is misplaced and aimed at all women then this is misogyny and is not justifiable. It is, however, understandable that he might feel this way, or to put it another way, I understand how easy it can be to misplace your anger. So I understand why he is being a misogynist but I don’t believe he is justified in being one. Now I’m not saying anything here that I haven’t already said. Do you understand the difference here?
“the reasons they see for going their own way are based on a misbegotten set of ideas about women”
MGTOW is not expressly concerned with women. It is a way of living your life. If a MGHOW is avoiding relationships with women, marriage etc., it doesn’t necessarily follow that he believes women to be all the same or that he is being a misogynist. For instance, avoidance of marriage is the avoidance of the institution of marriage, not women. Not all women will divorce their husbands, but all women can, and no woman can divorce a man that she is not married to. Not all women will falsely accuse a man of DV, but all women can, and by avoiding women you can avoid such accusations. Or, to put it another way, you are trying to avoid the false accusation, not the women who might possibly make one. This approach to GYOW, avoiding all unnecessary contact with women (ghosting, as it is commonly known) is a bit extreme for me, bordering on extreme paranoia, but still, I don’t believe it is expressly misogynist. If your sole reason to GYOW is a hatred of women of course this is misogyny, and a pretty poor reason to GYOW in my view.
However, you do not need to avoid women to GYOW. The only thing required to GYOW is, if fact, to GYOW. Do you understand what I am saying here?
In conclusion there are most certainly MGTOW who are misogynists but it is also, most certainly not the case that MGTOW is about misogyny and MGTOW are not implicitly misogynists. This is why you have no justification in assuming that I am a misogynist.
If you’d like to apologise to me now then I will gladly accept it and get back to GMOW.