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.
@ LEaving
I can only comment on English matters but perhaps this is relevant.
Last year I was talking to my neigbhour (she’s also a friend of course) and I was quite surprised to find out that in the 80s she had actually been in a group that was effectively WGTOW. It was a collective of women that lived a lifestyle that had as little to do with men as possible. It was loosely associated with the political lesbianism movement, although you didn’t have to be gay to join (but obviously no hetero nookie either).
She told me that it was still going, albeit with just a few of the old guard, and that they actually owned a property not far from our village. I told her “Oh, I didn’t know that” and her reply was of course “Well you wouldn’t would you?”
So these women had indeed gone their own way; and they didn’t feel the need to tell men that it was all our fault, that we’d miss them really and if we started to be a bit nicer maybe they’d have us back.
Now it may be that there are true MGTOWs, who by nature, we’d not hear about; but the public face of the movement is just Men Getting Totally Obsessed by Women.
Alan, let me put on my necromancer hat and robe.
I remember hearing back in the late 1970s, when I was just a wee gayling, about some men in San Francisco’s Castro Street district who boasted of how long it had been since a woman had entered their apartments. Purely apocryphal, and that hermetically sealed version of ‘community’ died out in the 1980s.
Your story is much more uplifting.
Scildfreja – beautifully done. You said more than I would have, better than I could have.
Aw, thank you Robert. You’re too nice 🙂 I usually think I say too much, too poorly. Not a bad state of mind to write things, but it’s nice to get a better perspective.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1168182/Catfights-handbags-tears-toilets-When-producer-launched-women-TV-company-thought-shed-kissed-goodbye-conflict-.html
Yeah women are really good at working together :)) here is the problem: women have heard mentality, men have pack mentality. In a pack each person has a different role and his own task and work together to a similar goal. in herd mentality one tries not to be too different from the rest. Also in hunting animals running is not as important as you make it seem.
About why men were and are expandable is because women carry the babies. And no women means no babies means no humans. Also the fact that a woman produces just one egg once a month and once pregnant she cannot have another baby for aprox 1 year while men produce millions of sperm daily and can have a baby each hour makes man expandable. With one man and 10 women you can rebuild human numbers. With 10 men and 1 woman not really. Is just mathematics.
…I’ll bite. I’m bored.
If women are the ones who carry the babies, aren’t they the ones that need to be expandable?
I’m guessing that you’re writing this outside the UK, since in Britain, the Daily Mail would not be considered a great source for winning an argument.
Also – have you been thinking about that since April 2016? That’s nearly 9500 hours – think of all the babies you could have been making instead!
I’ve got to ask – are you Robert Byers?
@ cyp
For me, it’s cakes.
“it seems pretty clear to me that fewer guns would mean fewer male suicides.”
This is a very America-centric view of the disparity between male and female suicide. Even in developing world regions where non-violent methods of suicide lead, such as drinking agricultural poisons, men still die at higher rates of suicide than women. In Europe, where the most common method of suicide is hanging, men still die by suicide in significantly greater numbers. It is not fully understood why men die from suicide so much more often than women, maybe they don’t seek help or recovery from mental distress the same way women do, but over-simplifications like blaming firearms or Prozac or whatever in one part of the world doesn’t do justice to what is a global trend.
Learn to read.