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?
And I remember somebody telling us how these ppl would make wonderful husbands xD
I thought the trope was that women just wanted love, and so they don’t understand men’s sexual needs or something? o_O (also perhaps they should stop watching so much of the Hills or w/e reality show involves rich spoiled women ppl watch now xD )
Jeepers, these guys sound like Dave Sim:
http://www.comicsalliance.com/2010/02/12/cerebus-valentines/
Biology and or God depending on you beliefs would design women to give birth and also not be capable of love? Not very logical is it.
I have no doubt that at least half of the posters who believe women cannot love are living in their mothers basements getting their laundry folded and coming upstairs from their lair for dinner.
I mean, have you noticed the number of MRAs who think women ought to be flocking to them because they lift weights and/or own a motorcycle? That’s stuff you do to impress other men, not women.
I remember reading some self-ided “omega male” somewhere (I can’t remember where nemore, my friend showed me) who was saying after being a “nice guy” and picked on as a kid, he shot up and became pretty tall (but was still picked on at school) and then hit the weights and learned martial arts and became strong, and now he beats up guys w/ hot girls in bars, and doesn’t understand why the girls don’t like him… and concludes that women are bitches that just want an Alpha no matter what the Omega does… : I guess he figured out from his being bullied that therefore women (of any age) want a guy who just randomly beats up other guys? :
I have no doubt that at least half of the posters who believe women cannot love are living in their mothers basements getting their laundry folded and coming upstairs from their lair for dinner.
Maybe they’re generalizing from their personal experience that their mothers are pretty fucking sick of their shit by now.
“I have no doubt that at least half of the posters who believe women cannot love are living in their mothers basements getting their laundry folded and coming upstairs from their lair for dinner.”
Maybe they’re generalizing from their personal experience that their mothers are pretty fucking sick of their shit by now.
Also that one Night Elf chick who dances for gold refused to whisper them. Proof!
It’s really sad how these people are excusing their dehumanization of women. If they think we are incapable of love, anything we say or do won’t convince them otherwise. As another poster pointed out we are either too emotional (misogynist translation: irrational) or incapable of human emotion, and they can switch to one or the other whenever it suits them so long as they don’t have to challenge their worldview.
What I found about all manner of prejudice is that it’s rooted in a sense of threat. These men feel threatened because they are held accountable for their actions. It’s sad.
So, gratuitous schmaltzy grandparent story: My grandmother turned 90 this past spring. She’s been a widow for almost three years. Most of her friends are widows as well. There are a few who remarried; their husbands died when they were middle aged. But most of them have never remarried. The very idea that this is “proof” that they never loved their husbands just hurts my heart and my head.
It gets better. In the original post, which David didn’t quote from, the main evidence of women being incapable of love is a survey the OP vaguely recalls in which college students were asked when they got over their previous relationship, and only men answered, “Never.”
So…men not getting over a relationship is proof that women are incapable of love. And women not getting over a relationship is proof that women are incapable of love. I’m starting to think this game is rigged.
(The other piece of evidence offered in the OP is a male comedian on TV making a joke about women sucking out your soul. Which is, um, proof of how loving men are? Seriously, go read the whole thread, it’s amazing. I can’t even get into the guy who goes off on a completely unrelated weird rant/fantasy about female soldiers.)
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?
Funny, I was taught my whole life (by which I mean from about age 8-10 onward) that I should “never let a man pay for a date or else he’ll ‘want something’ in return.” Now I’m confused. I guess I got the wrong lesson or something. Maybe my mom mixed up the wording from the Official Feminist Propaganda Book or something.
And I do find it problematic that women are often fed this lesson that if they get into any kind of relationship, they have to give up sex or else men won’t love them. But that’s a cultural problem, not a problem with the female capability for emotional expression. Women don’t spread their legs because they aren’t capable of feeling, in that case. They do it because they think that’s how men experience love. (To be clear, I’m talking about girls/women who otherwise would not be giving up sexual favors but get pressured/bullied into them. Not people who actually want to have sexy time.)
But.. but… but… I just sold my motorcycle and weights for a 95 level Tauren with epic armor and now that upity night elf won’t /whisper to me!?!
GHHHHAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!!!
qwert666, I provide a link to the original thread in the OP; generally I provide links to the specific comments, but this is a relatively short thread, and it is not difficult to find the original comments themselves. You can go and look at the comments in their entirety yourself.
I edit comments for length, to remove repetitive passages, to remove incoherent or unclear or irrelevant parts.
None of my edits distort the meaning of these comments in any way.
Again, all you need to do to see this is to click on one link and look at the original comments.
If you feel I have distorted the meaning of any of these comments, you are free to post them in their entirety here, and to explain how you think I distorted them.
BTW, if anyone here would like to categorically state what love actually is I’d really like to know. Y’all seem such kind-hearted and friendly folk that I’ve no doubt you’ve some suggestions.
qwert666, the original post and replies are so much worse than what David actually posted that I am not sure what your cherry picking charge is for. Are you upset that he did not post the worst of the replies?
quert, the story Nobinayamu told about her grandparents, that’s love.
But.. but… but… I just sold my motorcycle and weights for a 95 level Tauren with epic armor and now that upity night elf won’t /whisper to me!?!
GHHHHAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!!!
I know, right? Aren’t women the worst? Only women are heartless enough to sell sex for cash! Because that, uh, is definitely certainly a woman playing that NE.
Bostonian, damn, my cherry-picking skills must be failing me!
David,I’m sorry, I was really horrified by the first few replies. The ones you chose were kind of funny/silly. The ones I saw were soul crushingly horrible.
I wonder if the persons who wrote those words are even human.
@David Futrelle
I saw that you posted the link to the thread, as it happens, I’ve read the entire thread in question. Please forgive me for saying so, but your approach seems somewhat sloppy. You appear to cherry-pick choice quotes from the discussion and present them as if this is the entire flow of the discussion at hand.
I think that you might be insulting your rather accomplished readers by editing these things out on their behalf. After all, these people are clearly thinkers and it would seem to me that your self imposed editing on their behalf might be somewhat unnecessary. I’d like to hear their thoughts on this matter.
I could, as you suggest, post the entire thread: but I of course assume that your readers have already clicked the link and read the thread in it’s entirety. After all, they are not the type to make rash judgements or knee-jerk responses without seeking out the full facts of the matter.
…if we want to read the whole thing we just have to click on the link. Not a big deal.
The whole point of this site, for me anyway, is that David goes through all of the terrible stuff that I can’t bear to read and presents snippets in a sarcastic way that makes it all a bit less soul-destroying. I don’t think he tries to make his posts representative of the whole thread he quotes from… because the stated purpose of this blog is to point out misogyny. So, he’s pointing out misogynist bits.
@Bostonian
I’m not upset about anything, honestly. I’m just naturally a little suspicious when someone starts editing someone’s words. Why not post the entire comment? It just suggests to me that David is trying to present a fixed idea and he chooses to remove any ‘unwanted’ words which don’t quite fit with what he wants to say, or perhaps, bring up questions which he’d rather remain in the dark.
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.