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?
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.”