MGTOWs, like most of the misogynists I write about in this blog, love to talk about the male gender as being more rational and scientific than the allegedly irrational and overemotional human female. Unfortunately, most of MGTOWs seem to have learned science at the University of Mianus.
The latest example I’ve encountered of this massive science fail comes from the veritable fountain of science fail, and failure generally, that is the Men Going Their Own Way subreddit.
In a posting yesterday, a fellow named E46M54 announced his latest findings:
Scientific fact: women are not capable of loving men in the same way men love women.
Mr. E46M54, relying heavily on information provided by the Scientific Fact department at the University of Mianis, elaborated:
This stems from thousands of years of evolution as a species. Historically, it was the men that risked their lives hunting dangerous animals, going off into battle, doing dangerous physical labor, and fighting other males to the death for a chance to mate.
Dangerous animals, eh? Would that include … THE MAMMOTH?
While the current inhabitants of r/MGTOW are free to hunt mammoths to their heart’s content in Far Cry Primal, the notion of prehistoric “Man the Hunter” may have more to do with sexist anthropologists than with science. Today, many anthropologists think that both men and women hunted, and our ancient ancestors seem to have, wisely, focused more on hunting small, non-dangerous animals, as these animals were – you know — much less likely to kill them.
If you were on a sinking Titanic, you had to drown in frigid waters while women boarded the lifeboats.
Not so much “a sinking Titanic” as THE sinking Titanic, as the “wealthy women and children first” evacuation procedure used on that sinking ship has never been the general policy on sinking ships.
As a result, the chances of being killed as a male were always astronomically higher than it would be for females. This made men essentially expendable, and females evolved to not place too much emotional stake in any one particular male, as he wasn’t likely to be around for long.
Not so much. While women today tend to outlive men by a significant amount, this hasn’t always been the case, at least as far as we can tell from the limited historical data we have.
In England and Wales from the early 1600s to the start of the 20th century, to take two examples for which we have actual numbers, the differences in mortality due to gender were small, and there were stretches of time during which men were likely to live longer.
In the prehistoric world before the invention of agriculture, men may have lived slightly longer as well. Apparently, getting stomped to death by mammoths was less of a risk to men than childbirth was to women.
Another factor in this is the manner in which males have typically been the providers. Yes, feminists will claim this no longer applies because they’re oh-so-independent. However this is only true for about the last 50 years. For the other 200,000 years of human existence, it was the male who provided for, protected, and offered security to the females.
This assertion is so clearly ass-derived and so obviously, totally WRONG I’m not even going to bother to refute it.
Well, maybe I’ll refute it a little. Hey E46M54, what exactly are these women doing?
I’ll stop.
This is another evolutionary truth that carries over into modern times. What a women calls ‘love’ is more likely to be this feeling of being provided for, often by way of money and social status, or in it’s most rudimentary form; entertainment (“make me laugh”).
Ok, admittedly it’s true that MGTOWs make a lot of women laugh. Men too.
In contrast, the male historically gained none of this by being with a woman. So if a man says he loves a woman, chances are it was really love, as there was little else to be gained.
So men, collectively, have been the biggest suckers in history? I thought men were supposed to be the smart ones?
Finally, we should note the suicide statistics. It is actually very common for males to commit suicide over a woman leaving. Many of us may actually know a male or two who’s suicide was associated with a breakup. In contrast, women committing suicide over a male leaving is VIRTUALLY UNHEARD OF. Little else is needed to explain this other than acknowledging that women in general do not care about or ‘love’ men as deeply as men love women.
Breakups may trigger suicide, but the leading cause is untreated depression. Women attempt suicide at higher rates than men. Men succeed more often because they tend to use more lethal methods. In particular, guns. Men are far more likely to shoot and kill themselves with a gun than they are to be shot and killed by someone else. Given that suicide is generally an impulsive act, and those who try and fail generally regret trying, it seems pretty clear to me that fewer guns would mean fewer male suicides.
But MRAs so love using male suicides as a trump card in internet arguments that they rarely bother to think about ways to actually reduce male suicide other than yelling at women online, which is not actually terribly useful for anyone.
In conclusion, women cannot reciprocate the same levels of affection you give them, and hence you are far better off NOT BOTHERING WITH THEM.
Huh. Apparently the best way to NOT BOTHER WITH women is to talk shit about them endlessly on the internet.
Naturally, Reddit’s NOT BOTHERING WITH WOMEN BY TALKING SHIT ABOUT THEM ON THE INTERNET community — that is, the regulars in the MGTOW subreddit — gave Mr. E46M54’s scientific treatise a warm reception, and several dozen upvotes.
Others weighed in with their own ass-informed theories.
“In prehistoric times, life was very tenous,” wrote Five_Decades, using a more efficient, time-saving spelling of “tenuous.”
There were predators, wars, intra-tribal violence, accidents, diseases, famines, etc. An alpha male was not guaranteed to be alpha forever, he would get sick or injured eventually and I think women evolved to branch swing to the strongest male when an alpha showed signs of weakness. The women who stayed with a broken, diseased alpha male were at a disadvantage over the women who cut their losses and moved onto the next guy.
Damn, those gals are cold!
Jaeryth, meanwhile, set forth his own somewhat-less-than-glowing take on modern relationships:
Men are typically the ones who are providing, with long hours worked and spending gratuitous sums of cash on the woman – who may claim that they don’t ask for much but most likely do.
When he comes home, he has to listen to her complain about how he’s never home, how he doesn’t care about her, how he doesn’t love her or how things have ‘changed.’ You’ve all been there, you’ve all had to deal with the upset and bored woman with nothing better to, do mulling over thoughts for weeks before coming at you with the kill. …
And you get called uncaring for it, all kinds of harsh names and stereotypes. And what’s best, the ungrateful c**t doesn’t ever want to hear about your troubles, and will probably leave you the moment you even bring them up. You’re just a living dildo to fill her holes and her wallet so she has a nice purse and some tits to seduce a higher status man.
Is it me, or is that last sentence just a teensy bit, well, hard to parse?
You’re just a living dildo to fill her holes and her wallet so she has a nice purse and some tits to seduce a higher status man.
If I’m reading this correctly, women are filling their wallets with, er, penises, in order to improve the quality of their purses and to grow breasts. Women are then using these penis-wallet-enhanced purses, as well as their new breasts, to seduce some better dude?
I’m still a bit confused. Perhaps someone could draw me a diagram?
Victor_knight offered his own “evolutionary” perspective.
Put simply, from a strictly evolutionary standpoint (and this shit cannot be ignored even with humans today), a man’s entire purpose of existence is to get his sperm to fertilize a woman’s egg. After that, nature couldn’t give a shit if he lived or died. In fact, better he die because he will not be consuming any more of (limited) resources available once his genes have already been passed on.
Wait, I thought men were supposed to provide both sperm and money. If women are just using us dudes for our sperm, how are they getting money? I thought they all they were good at was sitting around eating those proverbial bon-bons?
Oh, wait, I forgot about Big Daddy government. As victor_knight argued in a followup comment:
Once children come along, the “prized” man becomes even less important to the woman than he was before. In fact, at this point, she really doesn’t care if he sticks around or not (in many cases she actually wants him gone) as long as someone (e.g. the state, the divorced man, the public) is paying her bills.
Got it! For a second I was afraid that the entire ideological edifice of MGTOWism was going to crumble underneath me.
Cynicalsimon offered his cynical take:
Women have NEVER brought much to our species existence and quality of life EVER!
Furthermore, a womens ‘love’ with a man is only infatuation because she has hundreds of other male ‘options'(all disposable to her of course)
Simon ended his comment with a confusing reference to fellatio that I am still trying to parse.
SigmaDiabolicum summed it all up with this Zen koan:
Men love unconditionally (until given a reason not to, anyway) … .
So, unconditionally, except with conditions.
What is the sound of one MGTOW fapping?
Probably a bit like this, actually.
Is that you, terrible ex boyfriend? You know, the one who would buy me expensive gifts after I told you that they made me uncomfortable? The one who insisted on taking me out to fancy restaurants when I said I was perfectly happy having a quiet evening in, and then got all pissed at me for apparently being so expensive and demanding?
So, question for those with the levels of intestinal fortitude necessary to actually venture into places like r/mgtow:
do they ever actually post about anything other than women?
@weirwoodtreehugger
That’s because their philosophy, for lack of a better word, comes from their extreme resentment towards women rather than any serious thought. That’s why they’re so inconsistent.
@bina
One cliche trope from the manosphere is this idea that men are these independent, critically-thinking, creative geniuses while women are drones who think whatever the establishment wants them to think while huddling in insular groups. The pathetic irony is the drone cliche describes the people of the manosphere extremely well. Just look at how these people behave on Reddit, YouTube, and 4chan. Their little groups can only exist because the Internet allows them to form insulated groups and anonymity allows them to dissapear into a large collective. That way, it’s harder to separate them as individuals and for them to accept individual responsibilities. But I thought women were the drones.
Almost every alt right person out there is a philosopher-artist-tyrant-warrior-king. Nietzsche would’ve been proud.
I know one man who committed suicide because of a woman. My high school chemistry teacher’s wife became terminally ill and he mixed up something effective and painless for them to take together.
I like how one of the things which contributed to the evolution of women who don’t like Mr E46M54 is the sinking of the Titanic. Dude, passenger liners have existed for barely two hundred years, and the number of people in such sinkings is a teeny tiny fraction of humanity. Do you understand how evolution works?
I’m having a little trouble with the reasoning that men are more likely to be killed and are therefore a dime a dozen. I’d have thought dying a lot would make men less available, not more. Probably just my fuzzy, pink ladybrain failing to comprehend superior manlogix again.
Smart, rational, intellectual giants, but still somehow beasts of burden.
You know, in a way I can almost understand the ‘men do everything important’ and ‘men do all the work’ ideas. I recently commented on another blog I read that years ago someone gave me a medieval fantasy to beta-read and every.single.character, aside from the hero’s love interest, was male–servants, shopkeepers, farmers, whatever. This might be an exaggerated example, but when you look at literature and media it’s almost invariably true that the only actual ‘people’ in the story are male; men do actually do everything. In another comment on that same blog I mentioned that this often seems to be true even in ‘literary novels’–the two I was thinking of, which I read because they were highly recommended to me, were Out Stealing Horses and The Kite Runner. The only female characters in the former were literally nameless, and only there to sexually incite or gratify the protagonist; even the unseen (presumably) male driver of the snowplow actually had a personality and backstory, but not the women in the story. In the latter the only female character is the attractive, supportive and self-sacrificing protagonist’s wife. So anyway, I can easily understand how someone whose understanding of the world is largely mediated and vicarious could justifiably come to the conclusion that women are some kind of add-on or ornament to actual human culture and activity.
@FoxKit
Or vice versa — it works well both ways!
“Women are incapable of loving men the way men love women” say men who hate women
So a guy named Diabolicum is going to lecture me about how men love unconditionally–for a while, at least–but women cannot match this almost-deathless, practically endless love.
But I’ve been in a few relationships. I’ve seen a few other relationships. I’ve observed some relationships from a distance, my mobile phone in my hand in case I needed to call the cops. So I’m calling bullshit on Diabolicum and his notion of unconditional love.
MGTOWs, you’ve been yelling at women for years now about how mad we are at you for “going your own way.” How we no longer have a hold over you. And how any moment now we’ll be really, really sorry that you’re gone.
Have you noticed? No woman is upset.
Have you noticed? You’re not gone.
@guest
Woah. Excellent point.
Already been done
@guest
Yeah, women’s contributions IRL are often discounted, dismissed, sneered at — or feared. The same is true of female characters in literature and art, who often have very limited roles — wife, mother, love object, or Bad Woman (either a bitch, or a woman who’s had sex with more men than the author or artist approves of, or both).
Take that counterculture-except-it’s-just-the-same-old-shit novel One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. Nurse Ratched and every other female character, with the exception of the (compliant) prostitutes, are evil. Hey, Ken Kesey, if you’re dissing the women, you’re not fighting the power!
Consider that antiwar-except-it’s-just-the-same-old-shit movie M*A*S*H, in which the nurses are villainized and humiliated. The television show is a different story. It started off mean toward women but really turned around. I assume that leading man Alan Alda, a feminist, played a role in that.
Both the book (Cuckoo’s Nest) and the movie (M*A*S*H) came out in the 1960s, a time when my mother (over the rage-and-fear-filled objections of my proto-MRA father) worked as a nurse. My mother, like all nurses in those days, made little money. Unlike Nurse Ratched, she was neither all-powerful nor cruel. IRL what she did, like all nurses, was to save lives.
@MexicanHotChocolate
Someone (well, a lot of someones) already has, many of them. They consists of the history, anthropology, economics, psychology, and current events sections of your local university’s library. Pick a book at random off the shelves, it’ll be about things that MGTOWS don’t know/understand.
I know no one who committed suicide because of the end of a relationship.
I do know of one person who did: that person was a woman.
It’s all a cultural Marxist conspiracy to them, so of course they won’t bother to read any of it.
@Kat
I’d never hear that the movie of M*A*S*H was notably anti-war, only the tv series (mostly due to Alda’s influence). Robert Hooker, he author of the novel it was based on was a pro-war right winger, and by all accounts it’s even more sexist (and racist, and everything else-ist) than the movie. He hated the tv series with a passion, and wrote several sequels to his novel in which Hawkeye and Trapper are even bigger assholes to absolutely everyone.
Maybe the MGTOW have never heard of Isidor Straus (co-owner of Macy’s Department Store) or Ida Straus, his wife. MGTOWs, don’t get any ideas: anyone married to one of you would jump into a lifeboat so fast! — and not even bother to wave as she was rowed away.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ida_Straus
@Dalillama
Yes, it was seen as a war-is-hell antiwar film. It made this list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Anti-war_films
And here’s the (in no way sexist!) poster for it. Note that the top part of the photo is a man’s hand (with a tiny American GI helmet on one finger) making a peace sign; the bottom part is a woman’s bare legs:
I had no idea that the author of the book was a right-wing guy. It explains a lot! (Although Ken Kesey, author of Cuckoo’s Nest, was–to the best of my knowledge–no right winger.)
I haven’t seen the movie or read the book, being content with my memories of the TV series untainted, but one thing baffles me. How do you write a story about a war hospital, especially a front line hospital in the 50’s, and not be slightly anti-war?
Seriously, the vast majority of your patients will be enlisted soldiers, kids who have no choice in how the war is done or how their lives are spent and wasted. Further, unless your doctor’s commit war crimes, they’ll treat a few enemy soldiers as well. How do you create a story with real characters and humanity in that situation while cheerleading the war without being a hack?
Oh, wait…
Good news! Nature couldn’t give a shit if you pass on your genes, either! Nature doesn’t give a shit about anything! Doesn’t that take some of the pressure off?
The above should be a link for the M*A*S*H movie poster.
ETA: The link refuses to embed. I’m not the geekiest of geeks.
Try again. I do not know why my post was removed but it was either because of an unfortunate spelling regarding women working in Cornwall or because of my unexceptional views on the place of love in marriage prior to the last 80 years.
First, MGTOWs have no knowledge of the history of either of work or marriage – so far so uncontroversial.
Next: women working at mines in Cornwall had a specific name. It is pronounced “bahl maidens” and it is spelled b-a-l. A bal is a single mine. Mine workings including the processing works are a “Wheal” and groups of such mines are “Consols” (Consolidated)
A link to a site dedicated to documenting these undervalued and workers is not a link to a pornographic site. Wikipedia has a page for such female labourers and an image search will uncover a trove of images such as those to which I attempted to link.
Finally: love played little role in who people married prior to the 1920s. This was probably due to the small size of the communities in which most people lived and the difficulties of travel. Yes, you were supposed to feel affection for your spouse but love was something that was attained after matrimony.
“Unconditionally”?? No other group has such a strict, lengthy laundry list of terms and conditions that they require in a partner. No other group spends their days justifying nine ways to Sunday why it’s OK to cheat if their partner slips up or fails to satisfy one of their conditions. Oh sure, MGTOWs love unconditionally…until their partner wears thick-rimmed glasses, puts on weight, dyes their hair, wears makeup, has an opinion, turns 25, wants to work outside the house, fails to provide a bj when she’s tired or sick, and so on.
All love is conditional, isn’t it? No matter how much I might love my partner, if he turned into a massive douchebag or started hitting me, of course I’d stop loving him. What they really mean is dealbreakers, and what people are willing to forgive or overlook in a partner. MGTOWs have hair-trigger standards for nexting, because it’s all about their needs and insecurities. I doubt any of them would stick by their partners if they were going through a major life crisis. These guys are exactly the type to dump their wives when they’re going through chemo (and bring the newer, younger, model to the hospital with them).
It’s fine to have astronomically high standards, but then you don’t get to claim the moral high ground and act like you’re some kind of noble, self-sacrificing gift to humanity. You don’t get to treat people like commodities and objects who only exist to serve your ego and your physical needs, then (in practically the same breath) claim you’re Mother Theresa. You don’t get to claim to be the superior sex because Logic and Reason, and THEN claim you’re also better at emotion.
It’s such distorted, inconsistent thinking. The rule seems to be that if a human does a thing, and it isn’t horrible, then women must be incapable of it. All the good actions and feelings are for men, while women get all the bad stuff (narcissism, venality, cruelty).
On top of that, I love how they try to reverse-engineer history and science to validate all the hatred and bad feelings churning sloppily around in their minds. Who cares what anthropologists and historians have to say? None of it is as valid as MUH FEELS! I bet they actually picture cavemen negging each other and lifting when they write this dreck.