
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.


Oops, need to move this:
I know from type because I used to do journalism. I’ve done layout, and paste up. I’ve even set lead type.
Shaenon – Obviously, you would have to submit fully to him in a traditional womanly way, but even then it would be iffy.
Peculiar Pecunium, pop over to the thread I just commented in, we have an “I joined the military” attempt at GOTCHA.
And do you have typography suggestions for the Borg? You’re certainly better at it than I.
Is it weird that I think that makes you super cool? I fucking love typography.
@titianblue – I did think of Persuasion, but this conversation is unworthy of Austen. Or sensible people.
The height analogy is useless, unless you believe that men experience and express height in a different way from women.
Generalizations aren’t the problem here. I’m impressed that some of you have patience to slog through this nonsense, but I can’t take this reductive gender essentialism run wild. These studies (at best) reflect sensibilities of the people who were surveyed, and it’s questionable (at best) to apply this to “contemporary America”, much less to other cultures and historical periods.
That’s not what happened in this thread or any other thread, but the dozen exclamation points are a nice touch. You are LOL.
I haven’t completely caught up with this topic yet, but I’m putting Good and his, uh, friend Dana on a little time-out until they give me a good explanation as to why the two of them seem to be posting from the exact same location, why their email addresses are similar in form to one another, and why “Dana’s” email address is being used by someone with a male name elsewhere online.
I may post the explanation so you all can vote on whether or not I should accept the explanation or if this should be a permanant timeout.
MRAs: “We men are superior to women in every way. We even love you shallow bitches more than you love wonderful us!”
Well, I’m convinced. For shame, ladies. We do not appreciate their
narcissismdeep, deep love for us feeble wimmenz. *hangs head*LOL, LesserGood. Really? Sockpuppeting?
So Good is not only the worst arguer ever, but the worst sock-puppeter ever. WHO IS SURPRISED?
It was the only way he could get someone on his side. For shame not-so-good. For shame.
What? Good and Dana aren’t even 11km apart?
I vote the ban’s permanent. Boring is bad enough, but add sockpuppeting …
I really want to see the explanation though. XD
Wow, sockpuppet fail.
You know you’re losing when you resort to a freaking sockpuppet just to have someone be on your side.
RE: cloudiah
Since when has Good explained everything? You know he’ll just poop another link in the punchbowl and jet.
Also: good reason to make it permanent? Good/Dana’s so boring and I highly doubt ze’s arguing in good faith.
I’ve changed my mind. Good for troll of the year! I like watching people make asses of themselves in public.
There was a point in time when he wasn’t both of those things?
Also, this whole conversation amuses me. Is it even possible to come up with an argument that makes it more clear that your entire motivation for involvement in the MRM is that a woman dumped you than “women are incapable of love”?
I have a whole host of valid reasons, but I’m not going to give him ideas.
Perhaps the better question is if that IP matches any previous customers.
CassandraSays – “Women are all gold digging bitches?”
Oh wait, that’s basically a variation of the same point. NVM
Argenti – who was the contender for “Good is [past troll]’s sockpuppet” again?
Whenever a new troll shows up and acts as if they already have a grudge against everyone here I assume that it isn’t really their first visit, so it wouldn’t surprise me if that was the case with Good.
@ Alice
Pretty much every standard MRA complain seems to boil down to “a woman once hurt me, therefore all women are evil”, but in this case they’ve turned the obviousnessness dial up to 11.
Complaint.
Enh, I don’t care if Good never comes back. Dude is boring as pocket lint.
CassandraSays – I think the most pathetic excuse an MRA gave me for being an MRA was this:
(Paraphrased) “Once upon a time I was a feminist. Then one day I posted something on the Internet, and a woman told me that I was wrong! She insulted my manliness! That’s how I learned that women and feminism is EBIL, and hence I woke up and became an MRA.”
I’ve had pocket lint that was much more interesting than Good.
I wish I could find the quote – I think Virginia Woolf said it – asking some misogynist git if a pretty girl once laughed at him in his cradle. It applies to every MRA ever.