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.
TROOF
Getting a bit racist huh?
Another assertion for which you have offered no proof.
LOL another fail! I knew you’d try reading men’s power as meaning you, personally. You really are stupid, and disingenuous.
You used “men are taller than women” as a statement. It’s not allowing any exceptions, it reads as an absolute.
Not that it matters, because as Dvarg mentioned, physical matters can be tested empirically, but your assfax are about human emotions, and are straight-out lies whether one says “tends” or not.
Why are you so wedded to the idea that men can love but women can’t, or can only love an idea? Could it be that you don’t want to admit that you, personally, are unlovable? That you’re yet another misogynist who won’t admit the common factor in all his failed relationships is not women’s failings, not our biological inferiority, not our cruel whims, but himself?
That’s all your endless walls o’ text say to me: that you’re just another failure when it comes to treating half the human species as human.
Men tend to rape women more than women tend to rape men is equivalent to
Men rape women more then women rape men.
So your defense of tend is tendentious, and facile, and wrong.
You used weasel words so you could deny the plain meaning of your words in aggregate.
Wait…. did Mr. Two-Shoes just say this:
I have no more power over women than I have over men (probably less). Who are you to say who I have power over?
After getting his knickers in a twist with, “And the conversation is not about me nor you. when someone said, his use of, “women” applied to them?
Selective outrage much?
I hope Good’s given his goalposts their vitamins this morning. They’re sure gettng a workout.
Anyone else reminded of Persuasion?
Dvarghundspossen:
And isn’t it interesting how Good keeps changing the subject? Oh no, wait, it’s not interesting, it’s totally tedious.
C’mon, goodygumdrops. Admit you hate women. It’s bleedin’ obvious. C’mooon, trolly, you can do it. All this pretence and trying to keep a lid on it can’t be good for your blood pressure.
Kitteh — nope, I’m as confused as you are!
And I haven’t tested it, but the convert to comic sans button should be functional.
kittehserf, some white people in the US do say “troof” as an attempt to make fun of the way black people supposedly speak, although I’ve often seen people use it as a kind of baby talk too. Probably best to avoid when talking to USians to avoid misinterpretation.
But really, Good, this is scraping the bottom of the barrel, even for you. Obviously you’ve got nothing if you’re reduced to just hurling charges of racism at Australians who don’t know common USian racist tropes.
So, as I thought, Goody thinks everyone is American and uses Americanisms. Colour me surprised. Or maybe he thinks Mockney’s racist, who knows? He’s an idiot, either way.
*joins pecunium in plotting the typographical desecration of Argenti’s eventual headstone*
RE: emilygoddess
FICTION IS NOT REAL LIFE. Why is this so hard for MRAs to grasp?
You have to ASK?
“I hope they use Comic Sans on your gravestone”?
Dude, too far! Too far! Even NWO doesn’t deserve that!
RE: Hyena Girl
Aren’t claims of human emotional primacy just attempts to put Descartes before the horse?
Oh, that was TERRIBLE. How dare you think of it first!
RE: Good
You’re watching me? Pervert!
Says the dude who mentioned our panties.
MRAs don’t seem to feel love as most people do, but rather feel a sense of ownership over women and children as though they were property and assume that is what love feels like. And of course property is incapable of feeling ownership, don’t be silly!
LBT – “putting Descartes before the horse” is an old pun, emilygoddess doesn’t get the blame/congratulations for it, alas! There’s even a book on animal rights called Putting The Horse Before Descartes.
In that case, Kittehs, I’m embarrassed I didn’t hear it before now!
Argenti/LBT: *joins pecunium in plotting the typographical desecration of Argenti’s eventual headstone*
Not typographical, physical.
I said decoupage. I intend to plaster it with sheets of papyrus.
Whoopie, NotVeryGood is here pooping all over the thread! Did he already drop a bunch of links that don’t back up his point, and then start nit-picking random, unimportant things people have said to avoid having to explain how his sources support his stupid argument?
He did?
Yaaaay! The internet is fun!
Of course, I might be persuaded to use thin strips, and make words.
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
In comic sans
I realize. And I approve.
Assuming I don’t outlive him, which is sorta doubtful the way he drinks with his painkillers, my father will get all Super Serious and the Italian side…isn’t. You totally have my permission to encourage the silliness.
One problem though. I don’t want a headstone. I want a natural burial. Return to the earth from whence I came. Plant pot or something if you wanna be a smart ass 🙂
The obvious solution, pecunium, is to decoupage with strips covered in the required typefaces, and then decoupaging those strips into the shapes of letters from the appropriate typefaces!
Make sure to fuck up the kerning!
http://www.11points.com/Web-Tech/11_Photos_Made_Raunchy_With_Bad_Kerning
Why is manboobz so much more design-savvy than the MRM? They just had a design contest for a terrible new logo, and people here are talking about typefaces and kerning.
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.
“While each person who looks like me tends to be a kind, loving human being with real and admirable feelings, each person who looks different from me tends to be a sort of soulless animal/appliance hybrid incapable of experiencing emotions in the way that I, as a real person, do. These things don’t apply to each individual, but it does seem to be the trend.”
Are you trying to argue that you’re not being sexist if you say women aren’t human but allow for the possibility of a few rare, exceptional women who might be almost human? Because no.
Again, please answer my question. What would I, as a woman, have to do to convince you that I have the same emotions you do?