Love is in the air! On The Spearhead, WF Price has penned a piece with the intriguing title: “What’s Wrong with Wanting to be Loved?” To that I would answer: nothing.
Let’s see what lovely sorts of things Price has to say about the subject:
[S]till we have people whining about “misogyny.” Young feminists whose most important concern is the ability to have sex entirely free of consequences, and who shamelessly raise their voices for the right to kill their children in the womb. Lesbian gender feminists who wreck families for profit and sex. Male feminists who boast about fathering children and shuffling their responsibilities onto some duped cuckold, and who malign their fellow men for a crack at college girls.
Huh. Not sure how exactly this bit of nastiness is supposed to advance the cause of love.
(Also, I think that last bit – the line about those “who malign their fellow men for a crack at college girls” – is supposed to be a reference to … me, and the talk I gave on Monday at Northwestern, to which he has added his own little fantasies, like he did in his original, highly fictionalized, post on the subject. The man is obsessed.)
In the comments, Spearhead readers offered their own thoughts on the topic of love.
Revver started things off with this lovely thought:
Having seen and heard a great majority of women, being “unloved” becomes lighter and lighter a burden with each passing year.
How easily they make themselves look like fools.
Opus spat forth an opus; here’s an edited version:
Women judge men by pre-selection.
If you have been dumped, then a member of Team Vagina has deemed you unworthy, so as in Snakes and Ladders you start from the bottom again. There is simply no point seeking female solace, because the woman will see that you do not seek her, and thus, offended, accuse you of unsolicited attention, or alternatively act offended that you are not interested in her. (I speak from experience). …
Women as we know are programmed to get over even the worst relationship in no more than three months, whereas for a man (even when in hindsight it was Xmas come early) we are often talking decades, for to be ditched is to take away all that it means to be a man (provider, nurturer). … Now, why am I betting that Futrelle did not mention these things last night – and why am I also betting he has not got one single phone number from any female at Northwestern Univeristy?
(You guys are really are obsessed. Aren’t you supposed to mention my weight as well?)
Greyghost managed to work the phrase “gina tingle” into his ramblings:
Men actually have the capacity to love. Only a man can write an article like that. Women just don’t have the capacity to love. Women gina tingle. …
The big lie was and is that a woman can love. Romance is what men do women receive it. …
The MRM with women on board on not will never ever change the nature of women. No matter how much awareness of the pain men and even children are in, women will vote and demand what is in therir childish perception of their interest. ( It will always be uninhibitted status and hypergamy)
In a later comment, he added these creepy afterthoughts:
Women do not and can not love the way you do and can. The best a man can get is some good emotional gina tingle. Never ever forget it. It can be a very emotionally pleasing and soothing time for a man but a man can never forget he is a man and right or wrong is a keeper of civilization.
The emotional trauma brought down on men when the realization of the lie hits [is] off the charts. It is where murders and suicides come from.
Georice81 offered up a rather elaborate excuse for slut-shaming:
My observation is that when women have been sexually promiscous their ability to submit and be very loyal to a single man is very diminished. … They can’t respect that one man that may actually love them since they are contemptous of a man that could love someone like them. Men in the 1950′s understood this and would not marry someone who was not a virgin since they did not trust those that were not.
We men can love and want to love. We also have a huge capacity to forgive. Modern western woman don’t seem to comprehend this because of their own hangups.
Binxton, for his part, seemed to be posting from an internet café on Gor:
Women are by nature emotional, self-centered creatures. Absent controls on their behavior, they lack both morals and objective principles. They are too easily manipulated by their environment to allow them to be free.
Ultimately, female emotional nature requires men to control women.
Women will love when they endure hardship and respect higher authority, i.e., patriarchy.
Western women must acknowledge a male-centered world where they can enjoy the labors of man only if, and when, they show due deference to male authority. Those who fail to do so must be disciplined and punished as examples.
Joe set forth some similarly, er, traditional notions:
Women are capable of love but there’s a reason St. Paul tells wives to “fear” their husbands. Because women are just much more like children in their moral reasoning and in their emotional “resilience” (or capacity for cruelty). So for a woman to love a husband is much like a child’s love for his parents. It is a love that is requires her to be in a dependent position. This is why marriage in a feminist society of independent and irreligious (I don’t mean women without superstition, but women without fear of moral judgment) women, cannot work.
I think I’ve had enough of The Spearhead’s notions of love. Let’s try ten hours of Haddaway instead:
@lauralot89 I noticed him on there, and wondered if it was him. It sounded like his typical trollilng, obfuscating brand of not getting it. I think that article was linked on reddit, so a bunch of other guys came over to add their 2 cents on a topic they didn’t bother to educate themselves on in the first place, and fill the threads with tone policing, “not-as-bad-as” fallacies, straw men (feminists are saying men can’t feel sexual attraction! etc.), derailing by insisting the topic change to something THEY personally think is more important, and just the usual bingo space fillers. They were duly greeted with some sharp snark and logic, though.
So women are so emotional they aren’t capable of logic, but are apparently not emotional enough to be able to feel love. I guess because these particular men are so “logical”, this is why they are able to juggle so many cognitive dissonances at one time.
I wish that someone told me I needed to mourn a lost relationship for a decade. Apparently I’m actually a mega-ultra-woman for only mourning a couple weeks or so.
@Holly:
MRAs spend so much time talking about how they should be required to provide money or support, women should be able to take care of themselves and the children… Your assessment makes perfect sense.
Though “sex on tap” is kind of an amazing mental image. “Hmm, today I believe I shall have a glass of redhead, double… no… make that triple Ds! I’m feeling adventurous today.”
Also gives a whole new meaning to the phrase “titty bar.” XD
And the stupid but REALLY entertaining ones like Tom Martin.
Man, I keenly observed the clustfuck that was the Feministe “small boobs” thread. It hits every troll note, and resulted in some great witty counterposts. I was wondering yesterday whether the brandon there was the one so familiar here. It’s kind of funny to see familiar trolls crop up in other places.
Kirby – I wonder if that’s why MRAs can’t really comprehend rejection, either?
Because if relationships contain no element of affection or connection, then choosing not to have a relationship with a man is an act of sheer pettiness. One’s as good as another, so why let a guy down? Is it soooo important to you that you let a different man buy you dinner?
If you somehow can’t absorb the idea of “couples generally like or love each other,” then women’s romantic decisions will always seem shallow to you–because you don’t even know what deep is.
I thought the patriarchy was an evil misandric myth crafted by the feminazis…so now it’s not only real, but a good thing? Why am I expecting any kind of consistency here?
Crumbelievable – I think the idea is “there isn’t a patriarchy… but there should be.”
Kind of like how rape never happens, even though women are all asking for it?
Or how the wage gap is a myth, even though women are useless at work.
So that’s why women are always the first people out in the streets starting a riot after their soccer team loses!** Now it makes sense.
(** women do participate in riots of various stripes, and may even be involved in starting some,of course. Please read the above in a sarcasm font.)
@Holly:
Hmm… I feel like its more that a man’s love and devotion should be conditional (on how the woman treats him), whereas a woman’s love and devotion should be unconditional.
But that’s when a relationship has already started. MRAs don’t really talk a whole lot about how people (women in particular) should choose their partners in the first place… They usually just complain about how they can’t get the women they want because the women always want someone else.
Which makes me wonder. Let’s say that the ideal world is that women always go for the first man that asks. Would MRAs be satisfied in rejection that the woman is being loyal? Do they admire the loyalty of women who are currently with ALPHA FUCK ALPHAS and thus refuse them? Or is it just the case that loyalty is great only when all the woman I (as a man) am attracted to are loyal to me?
@drst:
… BRILLIANT!
David, can we get a special sarcasm font? Pharyngula used to have comic-sans quotes, can we have something like that? Can we can we please please please? 😀
@Ruby
What some men (the sexist and MRA ones typically) fail to realize is that anger is an emotion too. It makes you act irrationally if you don’t keep it under check. Somehow our warped society assigned anger as one of the few acceptable male emotions to show. But it’s still an emotion and its not based on logic, rationality and objectivity- something MRAs pretend they have but don’t. Yet another example is how they are trying to ruin the life of some guy who fucking trolled them on April fools day. A guy who wrote a fictitious story on the internet about a fictitious couple is resulting MRAs trying to call his college and get him disciplined. He didn’t harrass any individual or try to ruing the life, he wrote a story that they fell for. Hate group much?
Also David wtf is this? http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/s2sv2/rmensrights_must_avoid_harassing_behavior/c4ax973
My sympathies for having to deal with such an idiot >_< his "argument" is basically "you quote people from the internet that's the same as exposing their real name, addresses, work place, etc"
The stupid…it burns.
Women are emotional, self-centered creatures, but men take decades to get over a breakup and want to force women to endure patriarchy so that the men can control the women and force them to love the men?
MRA logic, folks.
Off to read the Feministe thread about small boobs! I’ve always wanted to send the more dim-witted trolls over there to watch Jill and friends bat them around.
@Quackers:
Wow… just wow. And the response to the question “do you have any evidence?” Just repeat the assertion. “I don’t need evidence, because I’m right!”
Elsewhere in the thread, David is single-handedly responsible for the SPLC calling the MRM a hate-group and Shit Reddit Says. Also, doxxing is fine as long as the targets are the MRM’s enemies. Yeesh…
We need to bring back David’s challenge of finding where the good majority of MRA folk are hiding, since David only picks and chooses from a small minority of outliers like Price and Elam and such. Better yet, perhaps they should get together and come up with a document listing what the MRM proper stands for. That way, any opinions counter to that can be disreguarded as contrary to the movement, and David can criticize the “real” movement.
My guess is that such a document would be very short, very abstract, and not actually cover what 90% of MRAs actually say.
Finally, an excuse to limerick B_don!
One day on old feministe
our friend B_____n got quite triste.
He liked small boobs
and he was one, too;
he posted and filmed it so Ashley’d be pleased.
Now I’m wondering if what these guys are imagining is a sort of dog obedience training school, but for women. I guess it will train us in sandwich making, giving sex on demand, and deference. Except that unlike actual dog training schools, if the dog/woman does not immediately obey then you beat the crap out of them.
(As Meller has informed us, disobedient women force men to do these things!)
You will only be able to pry MY gender from my cold, dead hands! 😉
@Tulgey:
That was nice… but I don’t think it captures the true essence of our friend. Allow me.
There once was a B_____n named B_____n,
Who B_____n B_____n Ashley B_____n.
He B_____n vocation,
B_____n allegation,
B_____n B_____n totally B_____n.
BRB, gotta go to Feministe to see my fave chew toy get nommed on some more. That guy is a monument to density.
“There once was a B_____n named B_____n,
Who B_____n B_____n Ashley B_____n.
He B_____n vocation,
B_____n allegation,
B_____n B_____n totally B_____n.”
It’s kind of like “Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo.”
I must be the womanliest woman that ever womaned, because it rarely takes me more than a day to get over a breakup…
Ruby: Troll.
@Kirby: I lol’d.
@the topic: being a dude, it took me seven weeks just to stop being upset at my last breakup. Obviously, these anecdata prove the hypothesis. Arglebargle women r eeevil.
Homeboy needs to bump a little Gilbert O’ Sullivan and cool out
Agreed Quackers. A woman cries, she’s emotional. A man loses his temper, no one says he’s emotional, even though anger is an emotion. I never did buy the BS statement that women are more emotional than men. Violent male criminals greatly outnumber violent female criminals, and violent behavior is NOT based on logic.
RE Ozy’s observation: Ruby doesn’t troll on the feminism topic, she’s saying here that it makes no sense to claim men aren’t emotional. She’s politically a libertarian, and that can appear super trolly, but I think she’s (?) sincere.
Like drst said
“So that’s why women are always the first people out in the streets starting a riot after their soccer team loses!** Now it makes sense.”
On another note, I just watched an old feministfrequency video and had to lol, because over on the side it said “As Seen On The Spearhead”… and my imagination of what they were saying made me giggle. Her current Hunger Games book critique is awesome, btw, can’t wait for part. II.