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 love it. Regardless of the post, a bunch of you whiney MRAs come in here to spam the thread with completely irrelevant crap. But I have to stay, the comedic takedowns you get from the sane readers can be highly entertaining.
Or, I have say, even.
And again Buttman shows why I say he doesn’t argue in good faith. Gotta love his predictability.
Anthony Z…
Damn it! Okay, my comments start at “While you are attempting to be sarcastic…”
“And again Buttman shows why I say he doesn’t argue in good faith. Gotta love his predictability.”
He’s distracted by man hand on his ass. I think he likes it.
“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?”
You should read the paper before you run your mouth about it:
“On the Lusitania, selfish behaviour dominated … on the Titanic, social norms …”
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0911303107
In other words, socialization (i.e. culture) calls for “women first”, by a very large margin. How big a margin?
“For females in the 16-to-35 group, the gap was more dramatic: those on the Titanic enjoyed a whopping 48.3% edge; on the Lusitania it was a smaller but still significant 10.4% … Males ages 16 to 35 on the Titanic had a 6.5% poorer survival rate than the reference group but did 7.9% better on the Lusitania.”
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1969142,00.html
In other words: women were MUCH more likely to survive on Titanic (+48.3 for women, -6.5 for men) but even on Lusitania, women were still favoured (+10.4 for women, +6.5 for men).
The groups that did poorly on Lusitania were the very young and the very old … trampled, yes, but more often by WOMEN than by men.
Cheers.
@Tabby
You say I don’t argue in good faith?
“And again Buttman shows why I say he doesn’t argue in good faith. Gotta love his predictability.”
Zarat: Quotes from both the original paper and the TIME article about the paper and demonstrates that women were favoured on BOTH Titanic and Lusitania.
“Butt”man: Pulls incorrect number out of his … well, anyway. Gets it completely wrong, does not understand the numbers OR their interpretation, and probably never even read the PNAS paper.
But, despite these FACTS, apparently Zarat does not argue in good faith.
Nice try, Tabby. Check out my gravatar …. Grrrrr-wowowow [defeats] meow 🙂
Oops. I attacked the wrong guy. I meant “Amused” not “Buttman”.
Sorry brother. I am an idiot attack dog, and sometimes I accidentally bite a “good” guy instead of the enemy. Anyway, it was “Amused” who wrote the anti-MRA nonsense about Lusitania, and it is “Amused” who was the actual target of my post.
You could have stopped here: “I am an idiot.”
I missed the NWO/$1000/”There is no context!” thing. Sounds like comedy gold!
So far our MRAs in this thread have informed us that a) David takes things out of context by not reposting threads in their entirety; b) even if the man files for divorce, it’s because the woman must have cheated (the Buttman hypothesis, also known as “special pleading”); and c) there weren’t enough lifeboats on the Titanic, therefore women suck (?).
There should be a subforum so the trolls can get together and coordinate their efforts. They’re a bit scattered today.
Antz: You left these comments out (from the paper, not the abstract)
The likelihood that the passengers of the Lusitania knew about the tragic events of the sinking of the Titanic should not be excluded. For example, whereas many of the passengers on the Titanic may have (wrongly) believed that they would ultimately be rescued (8), those on the Lusitania may have learned from the experience of the Titanic. This may have led those passengers to change their behavior (i.e., increase self-preserving behavior).
We also see that being 1st class had a much higher survival rate on the Titanic: 1.167 vs. .40
And… These orders were successfully carried out on the Titanic, but not on the Lusitania, due to time constraints and problems launching the lifeboats (10, 26).
This allows for the idea that one of the more important social norms was obedience to authority.
The actual conclusion is a bit less clear than you purport:
In other words, there can be no absolute proof of the hypothesis that only time led to such behavioral differences. Ideally, more observations (comparable shipwrecks) are needed to better isolate the potential relevance of time.
I say again:
Titanic: +48.3 for women, -6.5 for men
Lusitania: +10.4 for women, +6.5 for men
Conclusion: Women are ALWAYS favoured, even in the scenario of a wreck that happens in 18 minutes (Lusitania), with no time for the feminist authorities to impose feminist privilege for women, and feminist discrimination against men.
Any questions?
I have no idea why they called it social norms-the concept of women and children first happened in 1856. And ended by the time WWI was over. Sixty years is a social norm?
“There should be a subforum so the trolls can get together and coordinate their efforts. They’re a bit scattered today”
Amen, Kristinmh. We “dogs” are a mess today. We are biting each other, chasing our own tails, and generally fumbling like idiots.
Strikingly, we are still winning every argument. I guess the underlying reality of massive discrimination against men, and massive privilege for women, asserts itself — even when the MRM messengers are exhausted and drunk.
Antz: Lusitania = one data point. Lusitania and Titanic = 2 data points.
As the study authors say that’s a sample size too small to draw any really solid conclusions from.
But you persist in saying that a sample of two events, in a very close window of time = a constant for all time.
That’s why we say you aren’t arguing in good faith.
Nobody but Bette Midler knows what love is.
Some say love it is a hunger
an endless aching need
I say love it is a flower
and you it’s only seed
@Bruce McGlory, you deserve way better than Buttman.
Oh, good god, who the hell cares? I am happy to take equal rights under the law over preferential treatment should I find myself on a sinking Edwardian ocean liner.
There, a decision has been made. On any future sinking Edwardian ocean liners, we all get an equal shot at the lifeboats.
Next debate: woolly mammoths! Who should hunt them?
Anthony, basically what Pecunium said. All right, women had a somewhat higher survival rate on the Titanic, but you’re going to need a hell of a lot more data to prove that they’ve been treated with kid gloves throughout history.
We menz are ignoring all facts and reality!
Yes, I suppose if you yell,”I PWND U NOOBS” at the monitor often enough you’ll “win” like Charlie Sheen.
I suppose your mom will give you ice cream after your SpaghettiOs® to help validate you.
My heart is like a singing bird
Whose nest is in a watered shoot;
My heart is like an apple tree
Whose boughs are bent with thick-set fruit.
My heart is like a rainbow shell
That paddles in a halcyon sea;
My heart is gladder than all of these
Because my love is come to me.
–Obviously a man, or else some woman who’s only happy because he’s bringing $MONEY$
My opinion is that on any sinking ship, or any disaster where everyone can’t be saved, children should get preferential treatment. Gender would have nothing to do with it. The important factor is age. Instead of women and children first, it would be children first. It’s the same for any situations where resources, like food or medicine, have to be rationed. Children haven’t had a chance to live long lives, so their needs are the top priority.
“Any questions?”
I have one. Since you’re such an extreme moron, how do you manage to remember to breathe? Do you have, like, post-its all around you saying “inhale, and don’t forget to exhale!”
“Strikingly, we are still winning every argument. I guess the underlying reality of massive discrimination against men, and massive privilege for women, asserts itself — even when the MRM messengers are exhausted and drunk.”
Okay, one MORE question: how long have you been off your meds?
You think because we’re mocking you, after handing you your ass, that you’re “winning”? Are you really charlie sheen?
@Bruce McGlory, you deserve way better than Buttman.
No kidding; just considering his track record of honesty here, I’m finding it hard to believe he is either “butt” or “man”… maybe he is a formless, sexless cloud of whining? Or the incarnation of chlamydia? Don’t fondle that! ;p
“Don’t fondle that! ;p”
I can’t help it. It’s just so much fun to turn a douchey bigot’s douchey bigotry back on himself. I’m lucky that I’m a big dude, because I love to fuck with misogynists and homophobes IRL too.
My hubby has a pic of me kissing Fred Phelps on the cheek. WIth tongue. LOL.
Like Zarat here, see how hard he’s flirting with me? He wants a squeeze too.