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.
Wait, EVEN IF prehistoric women had only gathered, didn’t the animals still live there anyway? I’m picturing sabertooth tigers sitting around like “Hey, should we go eat those cave people?” “Naaah, that’s the laydeees. They’re just after berries. Let’s take the day off.” And I’m pretty sure a lot of trial and very nasty error went into figuring out which plants were poisonous too.
It must be fairly common to make bitter assessments of the opposite sex when you’re alone, but it’s also the norm to grow out of it, move on.
The closest thing to “unconditional love” is familial love from parents; it doesn’t apply to romantic relationships, even life-long relationships. Do they honestly think people pair up for entirely altruistic reasons, as if personality, character traits (and at least in the beginning, appearances) weren’t factors? If so would they be willing to do that with women they felt nothing whatsoever towards?
@Hambeast
That’s the thing, tho. All of their ‘this is how the system works’ stuff is so fucking cool. Like, it’s horrible and misandrist (as an ‘andro’, it doesn’t seem too fun for me). OTOH, a post apocalypse with unlimited bonbons, overly pierced lesbisluts with Furiosa robot arms, and sinister spermjacking supervillains sounds like the best/worst 80s Schwarzenegger vehicle script ever rejected. Kinda want it now…
It’s funny watching them try to reconcile the idea that men (and only men) are indispensible to civilization with the idea of male disposability. They can’t decide whether they’re worthless cannon fodder or genius inventors. No middle ground there, apparently.
And they can’t believe that philosopher-king demigods still have to take out the trash. It’s an outrage. It’s an affront to evolution.
I was going to post something mocking the MGTOW that David quoted, but I read @LindsayIrene’s first link and now I don’t feel like laughing at anything.
Bleh.
Some days are bad.
@Rhuu
Hah! I had the same problem, except in my language it was “-Red” for “redaktör”.
I’ve heard that women slightly outnumber men overall, but boys outnumber girls at birth. The reversal comes about because boys have a slightly higher mortality rate than girls and reach maturity at lower rates. In developed countries, the infant mortality rate for boys is marginally higher than that for girls due to higher rates of sex-chromosome-linked disease. For young men, the mortality rate is highest when teenagers get their drivers licenses, and there is another, lower spike when they become legally able to drink. Young women see a similar, but slightly smaller, increase, and overall it works out that more girls make it to adulthood than boys. Not by a lot, but enough to tip the gender balance.
A lot of stories have been spun to me about how nature somehow compensates for young men’s higher rate of fatal accidents by making boys easier to conceive, but the direction of causality is not established there, and that puts an awful lot of fore-knowledge into “nature.” The only explanation for the birth disparity that makes sense to me is that sperm carrying Y-chromosomes have a marginally lighter load than sperm carrying X-chromosomes. This leads to a marginally higher probability that a Y-carrying sperm will beat out the rest.
Then the causality arrow actually points the opposite way: that boys are more likely to take risks and die from them because there are more of them at the start than girls, and “nature” doesn’t need to preserve as many.
IMHO this is just so much bullshit – there is no way to separate genetics from culture to this extent amongst humans. But it is interesting to think about why people would create the first story (that nature compensates for boys’ recklessness by making them easier to conceive) absent any evidence that an unthinking and uncaring evolutionary process loves male humans so deeply.
Looking for a piece of news about college male bystander being punished for not stopping a false rape” (evil women again… – IP)
ugh. aurgh. feminist hulk mad. feminist hulk smash.
assholes.
Is every rape a “false rape”?
wtf wtf wtf
*incoherent cloud of rage rage rage*
@PoM
http://www.indexmundi.com/world/demographics_profile.html
According to this source, the global male/female ratio is 1.014 to 1, i.e. something like 50.35% male.
^The % figure is, of course, assuming gender binary.
Having spent way too much time on the Purple Pill forums, where Red Pill guys and decent humans try hilariously to reach some kind of common ground, I can provide manosphere answers to some of these questions.
You’re forgetting the power of evopsych. Humans spent millions of years living exactly like you see in “The Flintstones.” It’s hardwired in our DNA for men to hunt the mammoth and bring it home in foot-powered cars while women sit in caves filing our nails with birds that look up and say, “It’s a living.”
Therefore, we are biologically incapable of doing anything else. Just as men evolved to do all the work in the world, women evolved to stand around admiring men for their hard work. Women having jobs and doing stuff is terrible news for men, because a woman is biologically incapable of being attracted to a man who makes less money than she does. But she’ll be sorry when she’s an old spinster of 30 and never got to have sex because she was too successful!
This would make sense if you had a logical man brain.
They complain about this a lot! It’s called the “burden of performance,” and it’s super unfair that women are attracted to men for things they do and say, while men base their attraction on the higher things, like how big her tits are.
I saw a RPer arguing in utter grim seriousness that women don’t feel real love because they only like men for ephemeral things like their personalities and actions, which can change, whereas men love women for their looks, which are intrinsic to them. (As all manospherians know, a woman’s body never changes unless she maliciously does something like eat a sandwich or get old.) There were many dudes on the thread agreeing that real love is chasing the hottest, blondest chick you can find, and falling in love with someone’s personality is shallow and wicked.
Hope this helps.
@Shaenon
Really? Now I’ve heard everything. It’s official – anything a woman does is wrong and horrible. She likes a guy for his looks – shallow! She likes a guy for his personality – shallow! She likes a guy for his money – shallow! She doesn’t like guys at all – horrible evil woman. Also probably shallow for some reason.
Actually, all the research I’ve ever heard of shows that men and women have roughly equal emotional intelligence. If men are less sensitive and caring than women, it’s a product of culture, not genetics.
Our women? We’re people. We don’t belong to you or men in general. I’m wondering where you get the idea that men are constantly killing to protect women and children though?
If you have to be trained to be killing machines, then it’s not actually a biotruth, is it? Not that it matters all that much because the entire male gender are not killing machines and never were.
Actually, humans protect themselves by having safety in numbers. In order to live together as a group and get that safety, empathy and altruism for each other is necessary. Obviously, intelligence helps, but it’s humans as a whole that have high intelligence and there’s absolutely no way to prove that tool making was solely a male thing.
As someone else has already pointed out, the notion that only men ever hunted was a sexist assumption made by past anthropologists and not an actual thing that is supported by evidence. However, even if it really was men who did all the mammoth hunting, large game would not be the biggest source of protein. Small game and fish would be much more of an everyday source of protein and fat.
@ Buttercup
That reminds me of a few silly “evolutionary based” arguments why women should Stay At Home Where They Belong, so that the men can do the Most Important Work for society.
1) “There are more genius (high IQ) men than women.” Nevermind the fact that high IQs are exceedingly rare, so much so that any gender gaps could easily be statistical noise, and that in many parts of the world women are actively discouraged from pursuing intellectual jobs. Also, IQ doesn’t matter much, anyway.
2) “Men are warriors that will die for their countries.” Of course, that usually translates into ‘that’s why men should only be able to vote’ because of their apparent reproductive disposability. But just because men are reproductively “cheaper” than women, it does not make them useless. Most of the sperm doesn’t “make it” to fertilize the egg for various common (and uncommon) reasons; that’s why there’s so much of it. If you argue it from a purely reproductive view, that “means” all the military must be composed of those who cannot or will not have biological children, including gay men. *gasp* (Watch the MGTOWs get their brains twisted up with rage if you argue that based on their logic!)
http://24.media.tumblr.com/6aa4e4539bc9207970f7faf4f4b19d71/tumblr_n4gz5nfn2H1qzuo00o1_500.gif
Not to mention the fact that IQ tests are far from objective and only include knowledge that’s viewed as important. If they included more feminine-coded knowledge it might skew higher for women.
First off, har har, way to just flat-out state that women are emotional and stupid.
And, uh, humans were frequently prey for other animals thousands of years ago, and still are preyed on today in some parts of the world. Being preyed on=/= going extinct. One way humans reduce their chances for being eaten is by staying in groups. Being in a group takes… emotional intelligence.
Some other things that help us stay unchewed-upon: our fight/flight/freeze response, our color vision, and our ability to communicate with each other. The first two aren’t linked to intelligence, and the last seems awfully connected to emotional intelligence to me.
IQ is a bizarre statistic. It accurately measures only one thing: how well you do on an IQ test. While that would not be a problem if IQ correlated perfectly with intelligence, the correlation isn’t perfect, and its imperfections introduce systemic biases. IQ tests were originally made by white middle-class men to test other white middle-class men, and they reflected the bias that the only real intelligence is the kind that white middle-class men have. Later IQ tests have tended to extend the bias by ensuring that the results of the new tests correlate with the results of the older tests.
Real intelligence ought to not depend upon education, but IQ tests, to a large degree, measure someone’s education. “Spatial intelligence,” for instance, can be taught. Some people just kind of pick it up without being taught, just like some people are able to just kind of pick up art skills or reading skills without a formal education for it. Most people who have spatial intelligence were taught in some manner, or they were encouraged to do activities that caused them to learn through practice. When you divide boys and girls into shop class vs. home ec, as many schools did and some schools still do, you are teaching the boys, formally, spatial intelligence and withholding that education from the girls. Playing football teaches spatial intelligence: you have to be able to visualize the field in your head and calculate/predict where all the other players are/will be. There are a lot of boys-only, or girls-discouraged, activities that teach spatial intelligence, and almost zero that aim that education at girls.
We ought to be singing about how spatially brilliant women are that they manage to do so well in this area despite that education being intentionally withheld from them. Instead, the story is that the female brain is more poorly wired for spatial intelligence. Why is spatial intelligence even on IQ tests in the first place? There are a lot of kinds of intelligence that IQ tests leave off, why choose this precise one to include? Well, it’s because the results tend to line up with the results of old-school IQ tests, the ones that were explicitly biased.
I wonder where that other number came from. Was it old data, before sex-based abortion became common? Or was it an extension of the developed world to the entire world? I know I didn’t make it up, but if it’s wrong, I have to wonder how it went wrong.
@kat
News to me, but I never bothered to watch it. I was assured by people who’ve seen it and know me that I wouldn’t like it.
That’s definitely true. Kesey was a big ol’ lefty, albeit with some unfortunate blind spots.
@Bakunin
As I understand it, the characters in the book share basically nothing but names with those in the tv series. They have no particular humanity, and are two dimensional at best.
@Playonwords
Combined with the fact that one or both participants usually hadn’t actually got a choice in who they married to begin with, the matter having been prearranged by their respective parents.
@Kupo
Indeed, IQ tests principally measure the degree to which you have been molded by a Prussian-style (Or, in some cases, British public school) educational system.
@Caligula Rex
Are you familiar with the phrase ‘not even wrong‘?
@PoM
Both seem like plausible explanations. According to recent figures, something like 54.1% of children born in China are boys, and for India it’s 52.4%. Considering those two nations make up more than 1/3 of the global population, that should have a signicant impact on the global sex ratio.
The world’s female scientists/doctors/other professionals would like a word. I hear Carol Greider, Nobel Laureate, is on Twitter if you would like to ask her what she has brought to our species’ existence and quality of life. Something about telomeres.
@David
Caligula’s banned.
And my memory for the usernames and rap sheets of one-off trolls worries me.
“Men are naturally more rational and logical, unlike the emotional feeemales; therefore we’re superior.”
Ghostbusters 3 is announced.
“Aaaarggh! Whst, what, WHAT?! I am outraged, saddened and shocked! How could God permit my childhood to be [ ] like this? A bloo bloo bloo!”
Also, Caligula Rex needs a refresher course on human history (the kind that actually happened). There was a lot of killing of men, by men, at the direction of and for the benefit of other men – and many many women raped or killed by men because that’s what they had been taught to believe was appropriate. According to some historians, the population of (what is now) Germany was reduced by half during the Thirty Years War. Thinking in terms of ‘our women’ who need/deserve/merit protection inevitably leads to thinking of ‘their women’ who do not. As Granny Weatherwax would say, evil always starts with thinking of other people as things; it goes a variety of places from there, but that’s how it starts.
@Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
We all have our own quirks. Mine is noticing how their entire line of thinking is basically to avoid responsibility for their actions; and also that their line of thought aligns entirely with ur fascism. That and holding grudges for a long while.
https://www.goodreads.com/author_blog_posts/9950746-eco-ur-fascism-and-dogs
Though that may not be a quirk so much as an observation.
@Caligula Rex
You did not learn anything from your ban had you? And you did not even bother to read the previous posts dismantling your entire argument?
I’ve accepted the fact that in a MigToes’ eyes I’m a beta mangina because I was the stay-at-home parent. My wife also makes more money than I do. I cook most of the meals. Heck, we struggled with infertility which was due to something wrong with me. And, yet, I am so much happier than every one of those guys. ‘sfunny old world, ain’t it?
Every time I read one of these “men do everything and yet we’re such victims!” screeds, all I hear is, “Mommy! Mommy! Look at me, Mommy! Look at ME!” interspersed with the occasional, “It’s not FAIR! Moooooooom!”
If these guys really do want to go their own ways they’d be well served to get over their mommy issues first.
Re: intelligence vs. IQ, my two older brothers and I all tested in the low genius range, and all within a couple of points of each other. It means nothing. The ways in which we’re intelligent are so different from each other, I doubt the test has been devised that could quantify it.
I will say this: one of my brothers is gay, the other is straight, and IMO they’re both more emotionally intelligent than I am. Go figure.