The charming Man Going His Own Way who calls himself Rex Patriarch has written up a short treatise entitled “Women Are Incapable of Love.” (He’s also posted a video by another MGTOWer making the same point, but we’ll just ignore that for now, because I didn’t bother to watch it.)
Anyway, here’s Rex’s argument, such as it is:
Look guys, women are like pets.
Do pets love you?
No, of course not but they do feel the warmth which is the love you may have for them. At a minimum you are their meal ticket. That in of itself is why they stick around.
Same same with women. As long as you are their meal ticket they “love” you but the very moment you can’t provide for them. The very moment they find a better deal, find some higher status.
Watch how fast that “love” goes out the window.
The reason being is it never was there to begin with. It was just something they were telling you to keep the goodies coming. Up until they could find something better. If they can.
The thing is men can love women all they want or none at all but don’t expect them to love you back in the same measure. They simply do not have the ability.
What’s interesting about this argument, insofar as anything about it is interesting, is that he’s not just, you know, wrong about women. He’s also wrong about pets.
Now, anyone who’s bonded with a pet certainly feels that their pet loves them back. (Or at least some pets do; I’m pretty sure the turtle my brother had as a kid didn’t really love anything other than worms.) Still, some skeptics insist that we’re just anthropomorphizing when we look at our pets and see love in their eyes.
But researchers are increasingly seeing harder-to-dismiss signs that animals may have emotions remarkably like our own — and that they can indeed feel love. By scanning the brains of dogs, Emory University neuroeconomics professor Gregory Berns has found that dogs and humans are alike in some key ways:
All in all, dogs and humans show striking similarities in the activity of an important brain region called the caudate nucleus. So, do dogs love us and miss us when we’re gone? The data strongly suggest they do. And, those data can further move humanity away from simplistic, reductionist, behaviorist explanations of animal behavior and animal emotions and also be used to protect dogs and other animals from being abused.
You can read more about his research, and what he sees as its implications, here.
More on animal emotions here and here.
You can also learn a lot about how animals — including the animals called humans — think and feel by just fucking paying attention to them and having a tiny bit of empathy. This is apparently a bit too much for some people to manage.
Good: You wanna address your earlier comments about how women are incapable of truly loving men and instead are more interested in the shallow novelty of being in love, or you just gonna pretend like you didn’t say that?
Simon & Barrett are completely unrelated to your point, Good.
Course, I’m probably giving you more credit than you deserve by assuming that you do, actually, have a point.
I knew Not-So-Good was stupid, but he has hit a whole new level of shit-tastic. This is the hill he wants to stick his flag on? “Women don’t love like men do!!!!” That is so weak.
You’re actually trying to argue women are less human than men. It’s pretty pathetic. I must say my experience with women has been vastly different. We can love, we can love very deeply. Perhaps you never had a good relationship with a woman, but that’s not surprising. You’re so obtuse, who could stand you?
Well good manages to be half right. Because he doesn’t link to studies directly, and one has to try and chase them down I ended up at a different study on the subject. A different study by the same author.
A different study which undercuts his thesis.
Here comes Dragon Breath pitching in her two cents, yet saying nothing.
And a study which (Good, note the differences in method), I read, and linked and cited.
As opposed to, oh I don’t know, tossed out a link to a Cosmo Article, or a MarieClaire piece, or a string of sit-com references, or a bunch of assertions about what women do/don’t/think/feel about love from my own ass.
I also, when directly addressed on an evidentiary issue, or an argument, responded.
You could learn something from that.
The other study doen’t say what you think it says either.
Good, please. It’s obvious you don’t think women are human enough. You can drop links and ‘argue’ all you want, but we all know you’re wrong. You can try to debate our humanity, but we’re not buying it.
Pecunium. I posted the following link well before you posted yours. It gives you all of the information you need to search for the study.
http://www.wfu.edu/wowf/2010/20100608.simon.php
“Dragon Breath” sounds like an insult a 9th grader at a DnD game would through at you, if I must be honest. I think he’s just upset that no one agrees with him that women are cold-blooded monsters.
Love:
http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/93/a5/7a/93a57aea70d3b7400e098d41dccf1e26.jpg
http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e1/eb/61/e1eb61956d6de9e52ab2341477b6c9ce.jpg
http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/5c/f9/a7/5cf9a784085c6733ae1bc9cf0a4127d8.jpg
http://media-cache-cd0.pinimg.com/736x/c9/89/26/c98926bfc2aab79b2eaf0aaa51f454c8.jpg
Again, Good, Simon & Barrett does not support your assertion that women are incapable of truly loving men and instead are more interested in the shallow novelty of being in love.
Ze obviously has nothing. Ze is ignoring comments directed at zir and is resorting to childish insults.
Can we get a show of hands?
Has Good become entirely boring and pointless?
While each man tends to love the woman herself, each woman seems to tend to love the idea of being in love or the idea of being loved more so than actually loving the man himself.
I’m sorry you feel unlovable, but that’s your feeling. It’s not something other people are doing to you.
You seem to be setting up a series of Catch-22s here. No matter what your “evidence” actually states, you interpret it as meaning that men feel love and women don’t.
If women show an interest in romance, you can claim it’s because they don’t feel real love and have to fake it. But if women don’t show an interest in romance, you can claim it’s because they’re cold and emotionless.
If women are more likely to say “I love you,” it’s proof that they don’t really know what love is. But if men are more likely to say “I love you,” it’s proof that men love more.
Men are emotionally affected by relationships? Proof that men feel love. Women are emotionally affected by relationships? Proof that women are stupid and manipulated, but certainly not really in love.
I imagine it’s an amusing game up to a point, but that’s all it is. It doesn’t mean anything in observable reality.
I mean, what would convince you that I feel the same emotions you feel? Can you describe how a woman who was really in love, in the same way you might be in love, would behave?
The old dynamic between men and women relationship wise has always been a case of men loving women and women respecting men.
I want both respect and love from my partner. Don’t you?
(raises hand)
Hyena Girl: My hand is up, too.
And it’s Dragon *Lady*, idk if “breath” was supposed to be an insult or just a typo.
Was it a typo or insult when she called me “Not-So-Good”? You practice selective outrage.
*raises all the hands, plus both feet for good measure*
So let’s look at this other study:
Ooh…Data do not reveal why and, “highly dependent on the person
Yep, that sure as shooting says men are more prone to love than women are.
Oh shit, no! it doesn’t. Fuck. Maybe somewhere else
Maybe we have something in the demographic data which makes this clear:
Well shit… this isn’t about all men/women. It’s about men/wmen in Miami Florida.
Let’s look at the methodology:
This implies the sample size for women was a bit under-represented. We don’t get the rate od participation for the males, but a reasonable assumption is that it tracks to the females.
Female participation was 611. Male participation is estimated at 967. So the rate of males in the survey was 158 percent of the females.
So we don’t have as representative a grouping of women. Maybe if the sample sizes were the same (and if there had been more women of a higher Social Economic class: “The females in the supplementary sample are, however, more likely than those in the original study to be from families with lower SES. Given the differential response rates of the SES subgroups within the supplemental sample, our findings may overrepresent the experiences of less-advantaged young women. [Simon and Barrret 2010 p. 172]/i>) the results for women might be more like that of men.
Oh shit… look at this!
Not a look at overall issues of how men and women “look at love”, but an analysis of how one group (young men and women in Miami Dade County) react to emotional issues related to non-marital intimate relatinships at a point in time
In other words, this study doesn’t even address the issues you said it does; isn’t generalisable to the US as a whole (much less the entire world. i.e. “men and women”) and may have some issues about it’s actual conclusions based on non-balanced and somewhat non-reprentative aspects of the smaller sample size.
You are wrong again (I know, I know, but I keep hoping someday you will be right about something material. A person can hopes, “A man’s reach should exceed his grasp, or what’s a Heaven for?” and all that.)
Oh god, the old love vs. respect thing. Good, are you a complementarian?
*raises both hands*
*beagle raises all four paws*
http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/82/3f/09/823f0935efac10c41a507d1e55dd1922.jpg
Also, how did we go from “women are bad because they are incapable of loving men” to “women were never supposed to love men, they were only supposed to respect them?”
++Un-Good, to the Max: Was it a typo or insult when she called me “Not-So-Good”? You practice selective outrage.
Nope. We practice outrage at the outrageous.
(deals out five card stud to ten people, lifts all hands)
*raises her own paws for good measure*