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?
Antz: Did you read the study, where it said one of the factors in survival on the Lusitania was being younger, and stronger, hence more able to get into boats which had been badly launched.
And the while bit where they say there were too many confounding factors for this to be more than a SWAG as to real conclusions; but it might make an interesting study in how the economics of escape functioned, if they could get enough data because even with the two sample they had the differences were too great to make real claims about social function?
Apparently not.
If that’s your idea of being the stronger participant in a debate… You might want to stick events like this one where the judges don’t hand you a written critique of your efforts, and you may console yourself with self-evaluation (albeit it does appear you had decided the winner before you started).
If you’re referring to someone who pulls incorrect information out of his … whatever… gets it completely wrong, and does not understand the numbers OR their interpretation, you had it right the first time. Luckily he’s one of the “good” guys, and not the “enemy”.
Right… I let that slip. Antz sees it not as a debate, where truth is being sought by all parties, but a war, which he, and his allies, are trying to “win”.
Anyone else recall the, “first casualty of war,”?
First comment here, but first I just have to ask, does AntZ really thinks the MRAs are winning these arguments? Talk about delusional. Back to the actual post.
When I first read this (and many) posts here I was pretty angry at the idiocy and bigotry shown by the MGTOWers, but thinking more about it their beliefs really are sad and not based in any reality I know (well, maybe one or two women I’ve met could count, but not the vast majority of them). I never let a man pay for me unless he insists, including the ones I’ve slept with, so clearly my innate female desire to get free stuff using sex is broken. Also, men trying to be all macho and protect/support me is a real turn off. I’m an independent adult and want to be treated as such, as do most women, which is something none of these people seem able to grasp.
I’m sorry, what’s the argument that’s being “won” here? More women and children survived during two ship wrecks so it proves that women have never been oppressed anywhere at any point in history? Which means that the MGTOW guys can’t be misogynistic because if women have never been oppressed then they are incapable of love?
I’m confused.
Not everything that has ever favored women (or harmed men) is the result of feminism. In the case of the Titanic, it was the result of a Victorian-era concept of chivalry and really had nothing to do with feminism.
From Wiki:
“The practice arose from the chivalrous actions of soldiers during sinking of HMS Birkenhead in 1852, though the phrase was not coined until 1860.[1] Although never part of international maritime law, the phrase was popularised by its usage on the RMS Titanic,[2] where, as a consequence of this practice, 74% of the women on board were saved and 52% of the children, but only 20% of the men.[3]
Unfortunately, some officers on the Titanic misinterpreted the order from Captain Smith, and tried to prevent men from boarding the lifeboats.[citation needed] It was intended that women and children would board first, with any remaining free spaces for men. Because so few men were saved on the Titanic, the men who did survive were initially branded as cowards, including J. Bruce Ismay.[4]”
Tragic, but not really the fault of feminism.
Also, it’s worth pointing out the class played a huge role in who lived and who died. In third class, the majority of women and children also died.
Hat tip to MGTOW:
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/features/n_9495/
There are so many gems in there. This is exactly what I am talking about. Women want equality until they get it.
Buttman: Way to misrepresent the content of the article. It isn’t “equality” where the woman is the breadwinner AND the primary caretaker at home. It isn’t “equality” where it is still considered to be the man’s prerogative to follow his calling, even if it leads him to basically just be an albatross around his family’s neck, while the woman is expected to take care of him and the children come hell or high water. And between a wife who works her ass off both at home and in business on the one hand, and a husband who just kicks back and does nothing productive, she isn’t the one who’s empowered. It isn’t equality — it’s fucking messed up.
You don’t have to keep pretending to be mad at women, Cuddlebuttman. It’s okay to not want to sleep with them. I mean, dudes won’t want to sleep with you either – such bitterness and rage is really bad for the skin – but it’s okay to admit that’s what’s really bothering you.
Buttman, you didn’t really read the article did you? It’s okay, you can admit it. You know, you do this a lot. You should try click through when you provide links and really read what’s being said whether it’s an editorial piece, or an OK cupid study. I know it’s probably easier to just skim the sites you visit and copy and paste a click because some other dude said that it backs up some point about women being venomous whores and all.
But you should read. You give a lot of citations that either disprove the point your trying to make or show, clearly, that you didn’t understand the nature of the material presented. You aren’t illiterate.
You should read.
Gems like this?
Yeah, women are terrible! :p
Typos: “…should try to click through…” and “… copy and paste a link…”
Is it Friday yet?
The women in the article aren’t getting equality; they’re getting men who don’t work and don’t pull their weight around the house.
Having said that, there were some pretty repugnant things in that article. Society still largely defines men’s worth in terms of earning power. That’s wrong, but I don’t really see it as the fault of feminism, but rather of die-hard traditional ideas about gender roles.
Or gems like this:
or
Equality is women taking an equal number of the breadwinner roles. They quickly find out that this so-called Patriarchy isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. They don’t even want to pay alimony.
Nobinayamu: Nope. It’s five o’clock somewhere (and just about here) but most of my bar is lost in transit (they sent half my stuff to Washington, not New Jersey, it will probably be another week until I have my own bed if I want to sleep in it).
But we can make do. I have some gin, some vermouth, olives and my favorite martini glass.
It could be worse.
Say it with me: “PATRIARCHY HURTS EVERYONE!”
If you take away no other point from your interaction with feminists, Butthead, take away that one.
Pecunium: That’s a really good idea, actually. I also have gin (Hendricks best gin evah), vermouth and martini glasses. I need to get some olives but we can make this happen.
Buttman, I just…
Some women are happy to make more money and/or be the bread winners and some women aren’t. I realize that you didn’t actually read the piece but as a concept, that shouldn’t be very hard to understand. Some men love being the sole/primary bread winner; some men hate it. I like what I do for a living very much. Most of the time. Not this week. But most o fthe time.
Do you?
Captain it’s also in the New York Times magazine. Classism and false assertions about Manhattan’s (because let’s be honest, the other 4 burroughs do not count) “meritocracy” aside, it’s devoted to gender essentialism. Despite it’s reputation for being such a liberal rag.
Oy. The Titanic argument again.
My great-grandfather actually, literally, no joke, died on the Titanic. (Well, in the icy water near the Titanic.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Futrelle
I blame the White Star Line for not having enough fucking lifeboats. And the captain of the Titanic for ordering the ship to continue on at night in basically zero visibility in a part of the ocean where numerous icebergs had been spotted.
@ Nobinayuma
You seem to be under the impression that I am here to entertain you: I am not. My agenda is quite simple and, since you asked, I’ll try to make it clear for you below.
@VoiP
I’m certainly not trying to set you up to look bad. The reason I asked what love is, is because I myself have great difficulty in understanding what love is. I can’t define love. I can theorise about what it might be but in the end I don’t think I’ll ever really know for sure. I asked because I wanted to know how sure the people here were about their own definition of love. After all, to embark on a discussion about who is more capable of love, would be for me, rather difficult or even futile without a better understanding of what love really is.
@ Tabby Lavalamp
I think you misread my comment. You can interpret someone’s writing anyway you see fit and that whatever your reaction to that interpretation is then you are quite entitled to it. My point is, essentially, that to take a sentence or sentences from a written paragraph, omit the rest, and hold this choice quote up as the entirety, or essence of their entire view point is a little dishonest.
@ kristinmh
I am not an MRA I am a MGHOW. Incidentally, I find David’s definition of MGTOW on this site rather lacking, it certainly does not describe me or what I believe in.
@ David Futrelle
David I’m under no obligation to provide you with examples of how you have “distorted their meaning”, what’s more I don’t believe you have distorted their meaning. I think that it’s clear what their meaning is. Let me try and explain what my issue with this blog is, as it’s far bigger than this one point.
What I find rather odd about the Manboobz blog is in understanding it’s purpose. As has been pointed out to me the idea is to “mock misogyny”, but I find it hard to grasp why anyone would want to do this. I find it a rather strange activity to spend your time with i.e. to actively look for examples of people who are displaying hatred and then to laugh at them rather than try to understand the cause of their hatred, as if it is somehow inherent to their being and not born of external forces. I struggle to understand where the motivation for this must come from. That aside, if that is your aim then you are doing a fine job of laughing at other people.
But, and you may think me paranoid, it is my suspicion that this might not really be the aim of this blog and that there is possibly another agenda at play here. Let’s say for instance I am a feminist, and I have concerns about the growth or formation of a men’s rights movement or the spread of the ideas of MGTOW (the actual ideas behind MGTOW) then I would, possibly, feel threatened by the growth of these ideas. I might decide that the MRM is not in my best interests and I might decide that I want to stop the MRM. If I am a powerless individual, then I will have limited options in how to go about this. One way I could do something would be to try and sour people’s opinion of the MRM or MGTOW buy associating these ideas with misogyny. I could do this by setting up a blog, finding examples of misogyny in the MRM or MGTOW and post them in an attempt to claim that because the MRM and MGTOW house misogynists then the MRM and MGTOW are all misogynists, in order to discredit the movement or MGTOW ideas.
This to me would seem a more feasible reason for devoting so much of my time to “mocking misogyny”.
Now David this is by no means an accusation, it’s just a theory. You are obviously going to say that this is not the intention of this blog and I’ll quite probably have to take your word for that. I will keep reading as there is definitely some truth to what you post although I do find some of your writing to be somewhat jarring: such as writing articles which are little more than poking fun at peoples spelling or grammar, this is really scraping the bottom of the barrel in my opinion.
The greatest strength of the blog is in this comments section. It is most welcome that I am free to type my thoughts without being moderated or censored. I would however make comment at some of the rather unsavoury characters who seem to reside here. Many here post with a quite aggressive and somewhat condescending tone which is quite unpleasant to endure, especially when you are being faced with questions from several of these people simultaneously.
They quickly find out that this so-called Patriarchy isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.
Preeeetty sure most of those women didn’t have a high opinion of the Patriarchy in the first place, hun.
And thanks to some of the stay-at-home husbands who can’t learn to cook pasta or set a table or sweep a floor or change a diaper (thanks to their uber manliness, presumably) those women now have an equally low opinion of their spouses. Doesn’t mean they don’t still like their jobs or their paychecks! They just need less douchey husbands — which some other women have, and do just fine with. Shock horror.
“The greatest strength of the blog is in this comments section. It is most welcome that I am free to type my thoughts without being moderated or censored. I would however make comment at some of the rather unsavoury characters who seem to reside here. Many here post with a quite aggressive and somewhat condescending tone which is quite unpleasant to endure, especially when you are being faced with questions from several of these people simultaneously.”
You might find this enlightening.