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?
Crap, sorry for the double posting. The internet is patchy here in South America. Sorry!
Love is when someone else’s happiness is as important to you as your own.
If “in sickness and in health doesn’t apply to women”, women should also up and leave when their spouse gets ill, yes?
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/12/men-more-likely-to-leave-spouse-with-cancer/
Oh.
IANASociologist but my guess is that both this finding and the one about employment are both more about the roles we push people into (he’s “meant” to pay, she’s “meant” to care) than any inherent suckitude of either sex, because neither men nor women inherently suck.
Who do these guys love? How do they show it? Why is a duck? What do you get when you cross the Atlantic with the Titanic?
PZ Myers has found a real winner:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/08/17/they-have-moved-beyond-parody/
@MissPrism
I am a sociologist. That is roughly an accurate assessment. The issue with MRA’s is their biological deterministic beliefs which is further enhanced by evo-psych crap (Poor references, poor/to no operationalization, blatant misreading of statistics, and untestable hypothesis).
Thanks Flib! IAAGeneticist and share your scorn of the bulk of evo-psych!
Sorry I wasn’t able to reply sooner, and it looks like others have covered my point quite well, so I won’t belabour it.
Nor to men, it would seem, as risk of separation/divorce is higher when it’s the woman who has the serious medical illness
Gender disparity in the rate of partner abandonment in patients with serious medical illness
I think I just found my new username.
“What do you get when you cross the Atlantic with the Titanic?”
If you are a woman, you live.
If you are a man, you die.
All part of the oppression of women.
/ a titanic reference?
Did you hunt mammoths too?
I’m just naturally a little suspicious when someone accuses someone else of being a liar, and the track record of the accused is good.
When the accusation is so well known I could write it, in a variety of substyles, and couched in a passive-aggressive, “you could do it so much better if you did it my way; and then everyone would know you were just making shit up”, I am even more suspicious.
When the actual thread is worse than Dave presented it, and you are defending it, I stop being suspicious.
I am pretty certain you are engaging in pettifogging, meant to derail the topic so we can talk about how to deal with misogyny, rather than dealing with it.
Buttman: Let me get this straight: A study says men who lose their jobs are more likely to initiate divorce means that women are more likely to divorce a man who becomes unemployed.
Oh, I see. The study says men lose their jobs and file for divorce. Rather than read the data provided you choose to add a subtextual narrative that when men lose their jobs their wives suddenly start fucking around; so those men are asking for a divorce because their wife “left” them when they lost their jobs, and you say that = women divorcing men.
And you wonder that people think you dishonest.
I wonder that people bother to be polite.
I’m thinking that someone who calls himself Buttman, and is also a raging and idiotic misogynist, isn’t really all that interested in ladies.
Come sit my me, Cuddlebuttman, I’ll give it a pinch.
LOL
AntZ,
Somehow, I think feminists would have been in favor of having enough life rafts. Your beef is with the White Star Line, not feminism.
@AnthonyZ: “What do you get when you cross the Atlantic with the Titanic?”
If you are a woman, you live.
If you are a man, you die.
All part of the oppression of women.
On the other hand, if you take the Lusitania instead, you can expect your chances of survival to be directly proportional to your physical strength. Strong young male passengers on the Lusitania stampeded over women, children and the elderly, and shoved them out of the way without compunction. But no, the Lusitania doesn’t count for some reason — right?
Also: a significant number of women died in the Titanic disaster, and a significant number of men were saved. You should also note that one of the reasons so many more men died on the Titanic, is that there were a lot more men on board to begin with than women.
Also: Whose decision was it to have a totally inadequate number of life boats on the Titanic?
Anyway, moral for women to take away from this, according to AnthonyZ: You were never oppressed, ladies. Having no right to vote, severely constrained education opportunities, virtually non-existent economic opportunities, no representation in the public sphere, no representation in politics, no recourse against abusive parents, husbands and rapists, no civil rights against involuntary confinement at the behest of male “guardians” and having your work, achievements and talents relentlessly devalued, derided and appropriated for the credit of others — all of that would be more than adequately compensated by the fact that, in the highly unlikely event of finding yourself on a sinking ship, you would maybe — MAYBE — have a somewhat better chance of survival than men. And maybe not. Also, men offer to walk you down the hall and maybe open the door for you, provided you are not a “slut”. Who wouldn’t want to be reduced to the same status as a piece of furniture in exchange for such awesome benefits? Would you, AntZ?
@ Pecunium
Maybe have a filter where you don’t acknowledge anything that goes against what you believe. It clearly states that women divorce men who become unemployed. I don’t know how you can miss that.
Well, according to Kyoko Mogami, love is ‘the prelude to destruction and despair,’ but she’s a special case.
I’m going to go read Skip Beat now.
SS Valencia: 37 men survived, 0 women.
Or does that also not count because of something?
Also: Whose decision was it to have a totally inadequate number of life boats on the Titanic?
Couldn’t have been a man’s decision. Men INVENT things, they don’t specify.
Buttman: It says no such thing. It says:
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’s not the same as, “man loses job =divorce” It says the odds go up. Ok, but that’s correlation, not causation.
You, when presented with that, made shit up… from someplace you pulled out this story of women “hopping back on the cock carousel” to justify the, “He will be the one who opts to leave.”
…men who are not employed, regardless of their marital satisfaction, are more likely to initiate divorce
Men who are not employed have a higher incidence than men who are to initiate divorce.
As to why women initiate divorce: According to the study, a woman’s employment status has no effect on the likelihood that her husband will opt to leave the marriage. An employed woman is more likely to initiate a divorce than a woman who is not employed, but only when she reports being highly unsatisfied with the marriage. .
Not that he’s unemployed, but that she’s unhappy. Since his odds of initiating a divorce go up, the evidence implies that situational satisfaction goes down, which is the primary trigger indicated for female initiation of divorce.
One could argue that his dissatisfaction over the situation spills over to other things, and takes the strain to unbearable levels.
But no, you don’t do that. You say the lack of income makes her decide to chuck fidelity, and that is why the men initiate. Then you say the women dump him for the lack of work.
So you have built, of whole cloth, a lose-lose situation for the motives of the women; and accused me (and by implication others) of refusing to look at facts, in the interest of not losing our preconceived notions.
Context? We don’t need no stinking context!
THERE IS NO CONTEXT!
Another thing the Titan lacked… Context.