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.
I’m sorry you feel unlovable, but that’s your feeling. It’s not something other people are doing to you.
When did I discuss myself? Oh, thats right. You’re tossing in the ad hominem/feminist shaming tactic. I forgot. Carry on.
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.
Never said that women don’t feel love.
And the conversation is not about me nor you.
katz – A lot of goal shifting. *nod*
You’re left to wonder if Good works for maintenence for a football field.
Not caught up, but IE “get a real browser” is done, and we more or less validate (the less being that not all CSS3 properties validate, despite being valid 🙄 )
“peculiar Pecunium”…well he is…in a good way.
Also, remember how I cut a sundew leaf for you? Well I under watered mine and it died BUT that leaf is growing!
*raises both hands, gets puff to raise fins*
Good: Did you say these things?
Why yes, Yes, you did
The content of that diatribe (because you put it all in one comment) is that women aren’t really interested in, nor capable of, love; while love is what drives men (even to the point they will lie to women gain her interest; one supposes because she isn’t capable of telling the real thing from the fraud, what with love being a novelty).
“And the conversation is not about me nor you.”
This is where Good drives me bonkers. Conversations about people are indeed about people.
My sundew isn’t dead, but it’s smaller than it was.
You make sweeping statements about women to a group that’s mostly women and say it’s not about us? Ditto making sweeping statements about men, of whom you are, I presume, one?
How’s that alienation going, fuckwit? (OOH LOOK I CALLED YOU A NAME)
Ninjaed by grumpycat!
Maybe Good really is from the planet Zog and gets all his *cough* information *cough* about humans from Cosmo and so on.
Ah, I see that Good’s playing the “Don’t make a cogent argument, then claim that people are misrepresenting the argument” game. Tell me Good, have you ever engaged in good faith here?
That’s like one of those questions about whether you can believe someone who tells you they’re a liar …
Peculiar Pecunium — I suggest MOAR WATER. Seriously, that leaf is sitting at the bottom of a cup of water and growing.
kittehshit said:
You make sweeping statements about women to a group that’s mostly women and say it’s not about us? Ditto making sweeping statements about men, of whom you are, I presume, one?
If I say that men are taller than women, am I saying that there is not man that is shorter than any woman? Use common sense.
Hey Asshole: A Tip:
The reason you’re being insulted is because no one gives a shit about you and would be happier if you disappeared from the face of the Earth. HOWEVER, responding in kind is not exactly a way to be taken seriously, if that’s what you’re trying to do.
Then again, no one’s going to take you seriously anyways, since you’re a raging asshole of the most asinine variety. So carry on digging that hole, I guess.
*shruuuuug*
LOL you even blew it making that generalisation! Men are generally taller than women is true; the absolute statement “men are taller than women” is not. And that’s ignoring that making generalisations about physical matters is not the same as making generalisations about behaviour, let alone about emotions, for which you have nothing but assfax.
Has it ever entered your tiny, dim little mind that there are far more differences, far more variation, within the sexes than between them? This whole gender essentialism, apart from leaving out a hell of a lot of people who don’t fit the binaries, is about keeping men’s power over women and justifying it. It has precious little basis in physical reality.
But you’re determined to keep digging that hole, aren’t you? You really could just come out and say you fear and dislike women. It’d save you so many keystrokes.
Good, you fail in making generalizations. That is all.
They despise women and then claim men love women soooo much.
The mind, she boggles.
Well, I think it’s been about 2 hours since I first made what I think is an entirely reasonable request that Good provide us with any specific citations from the article(s) he wants us to read that he thinks back up his assertions. And I see he has utterly failed to do so. So, having read all of the articles he wanted us to read, and having found nothing in them that support his assertion that “men love women more intensely than women love men” I feel quite comfortable in arguing that Good is actually quite a bit stupider than your average planaria.
To be fair to the troll, context matters. You can’t point to an isolated statement and say what it really means, devoid of all context. In lots of contexts, “men are taller than women” would mean exactly the same thing as “men are generally taller than women” and be true.
Although I have no idea how that is relevant for anything in this discussion. Granted, haven’t really followed the discussion for a while now, but last I checked, it was about women loving men less than men love women or something to that effect, and I seriously doubt that this is true even as a generalization. It’s certainly not something you could prove with empirical means as easily as you can prove general height differences.
Oh! Here, Good, tell me this:
If I were to say “men rape more than women”, what would you think that I said? Would you call me a misandrist?
Yup. And mealy-mouthed little creepers like goodfornothing hang around and deny it while trotting out All The Cliches misogynists have used forever. Boooring.
Dvarg, you know asking teh menz for context is misandry! Good wasn’t offering any, anyway: he used the irrelevant absolute statement as an example of how generalisations are TROOF and “of course” people know they’re only generalisations.
Except he failed, ‘cos he’s talking out of his arse, as usual.
*Raises hand*
Kittehserf,
The word “generalization” is implied, especially since you called it a “sweeping generalization”. “Sweeping generalization” is not an absolute. You can’t even remain consistent.
Plus, from my original post, please notice the parts in bold:
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. These things don’t apply to each individual, but it does seem to be the trend.
This whole gender essentialism, apart from leaving out a hell of a lot of people who don’t fit the binaries, is about keeping men’s power over women and justifying it.
Talking about sweeping generalizations. I have no more power over women than I have over men (probably less). Who are you to say who I have power over?
If I were to say “men rape more than women”, what would you think that I said? Would you call me a misandrist?
At face value, you would simply be saying that men rape more than women. That is not misandry.