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.
Ahahaha, but women aren’t human, therefore don’t have human rights! That’s Dudelogic, that is.
@bodycrimes Hatosphere? is that related to a suggested love of fedoras?
kittehserf, nice reference–teh dudebros do resemble Tweedledum and Tweedledee, don’t they!? 😀
P.S. Sorry for the (inadvertent) sock puppetry. WordPress hates me.
LOL I didn’t even realise till you commented I’d lifted a line from Carroll – but yeah, the dudebros are just like Tweedledum and Tweedledee. All that shrieking over the nice new rattle. 😀
Hatosphere could refer to the dudebros who’ve given the beautiful fedora an undeservedly bad reputation.
Oh lard, kittehserf, the more I think of it, the more it fits. So I had to go and check my copy of Through the Looking-Glass.
First of all there’s the contempt and the dismissal of the lady-person’s feelings, as the Tweedles accuse Alice of being just a thing in the Red King’s dream:
Then after the sighting of the Rattle, there’s the huge macho to-do, with Alice’s assistance required. The boys’ Battle is EVER SO IMPORTANT:
Hatosphere – ha, no, meant Hate-osphere.
BWAHAHAHAHA oh gods, it’s like when the MRAs have hissy fits at each other, isn’t it?
If I could copy Tenniel’s style I’d redraw those pics.
The description of Tweedledee trying to close himself in the umbrella, and lying there opening and closing his mouth and eyes, would just do for a pic of Elam doing his boggle-eyed look.
I adopted a semi-feral young cat (just out of kittenhood) about two years ago. When I’m home over the weekend, he’ll come in several times a day, just meowing. I’ll try feeding him, nope, he just wants to snuggle. Dunno if that’s love, but I’ll take it.
I believe my ratties love me – I don’t know if they giggle like these ones though:
http://m.wimp.com/ratslaugh/
Hachiko is my go-to story about Akitas as a breed, and it’s such a classic “loyal dog” story.
Because so many people have read Descartes and his is probably the only opinion on animals from his era that people are familiar with? Or maybe because it makes a good strawman for the opposition, like “we used to think the world was flat”.
He’s also arguing that “witholding sex” is just as bad as paying for sex with someone who’s being trafficked or abused, and indeed that participating in said abuse is justified by an unsatisfied libido. The real evil here, you see, is men not getting laid.
I’m skeptical about the dog comparison, so I won’t even address that. But I do believe that women’s love for men is quite different from men’s love for women. 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.
The popularity of romance novels and love stories is an outward indicator of how love is a novelty for many women. This is why so many woman are into the shallow displays of love, such as repeatedly telling men that they love them, demanding that men repeatedly tell them that they love them and all of the other displays of romance. When the novelty wears out, women are left with men who they are irritated and dissatisfied with, which results in the common practice of wives berating their husbands and the fact that women are significantly more likely to initiate divorce than men.
Basically, women want to be “in love”. Thus, they seek out the most desirable guy they can achieve a relationship with and they declare to this guy that they love them. Often, when a guy is not all that desirable to a woman, all it takes is a verbal declaration of love from him to gain her interest. Unfortunately, many men will use the word “love” dishonestly to get a woman to have sex with him.
The old dynamic between men and women relationship wise has always been a case of men loving women and women respecting men. Male love is the type of love that makes him willing to lay down his life for his woman. It is why males have, for so long, accepted being the disposable gender. It is why chivalry had become such the norm and why men are more negatively impacted emotionally after breakups. The problem is that feminism has convinced women to no longer respect men (something that men desire from women more than love). Thus, from modern western women, men no longer receive the respect afforded our forefathers as well as not receiving real love.
http://dating.about.com/b/2013/08/27/do-men-fall-in-love-faster-than-women.htm
“A survey published in tandem with Elizabeth Noble’s novel – The Way We Were in the UK and When You Were Mine in the US – found that men fall in love faster, dwell on their ex’s longer and have experienced more unrequited love than women.”
Good
The survey you linked to is a piece of churnalism – it even says so “published in tandem with Elizabeth Noble’s novel”
re Rex Patriarch’s blog post on prostitution: It strikes me that his whole argument serves to remove both agency and responsibility from men. It’s women’s fault that men visit prostitutes because they withhold sex from men. And men have to have sex, they are completely at the mercy of their libidos and unable to make any kind of moral or rational decisions. Women are to be used, but it’s their own fault their being used, they are both helpless and in control of the situation. Like what emilygoddess said about abuse of prostitutes being justified, because in his view the real evil is men not getting sex. And what Lady Mondegreen said about withholding sex being immoral. It’s a pretty damn bleak view of both men and women that he holds trying to wriggle out of any actual responsibility, and it’s completely wrong.
And what the heck was with that bright green text? Dude, you must freaking hate your readers to cause them that much eye hurt.
And goddammit Good, nothing in that About.com dating guru’s article had anything about women being incapable of love. And if your basing your view of human relationships on fucking romance novels, then it’s no wonder its so skewed. Women are human. Men are human. People who don’t fall into binary gender categories are human. All are capable of feeling the human emotion of love.
I mean, holy shit, is this the level if discourse? “Yes, women are human.” Why must the patently obvious have to be pointed out?
http://www.marieclaire.com/sex-love/dating-blog/study-men-in-relationships
“The researchers behind a new survey from Match.com”
More churnalism.
Translated NotGood by paragraph:
Women only like the ‘idea’ of loving a man, not the man.
Romance novels are popular so women are shallow. (No mention of why pornography is so popular).
Women are easily tricked into having sex by declarations of love because that’s all they care about.
Men don’t get no damn respect anymore! Male disposability!
Some nonsense link. Y’all knew that was coming.
Marie Claire’s dating blog, Good? Seriously?
He’s stupid.
There is so much failure to reason.
What that says, in a nutshell, is that pets (and women) can recognise love, but not express it.
1: They “feel the warmth of your love”.
2: They stick around because you are their meal ticket.
3: They don’t love you in return, because they are incapable.
4: If they are incapable (and in the case of pets, not possessed of language to describe/define this non-tangible object, which he is therefore reiifying) how do they recognise it?
What’s interesting in this is that it undercuts everything else he says. If women are independent, they don’t need a meal ticket.
Doesn’t help I was listening to Buffalo stance while reading NotGoods’…leavings.
Haha, Marie Claire! But thats like an instruction manual for feeeemales is it not?? How dare you make fun of NotGoods’ links!
Fuck you, Good.
Kitteh, you have not read anything by Descartes, so I’m not going to give your opinion on him terribly much weight, for the reasons previously stated.
Sitcoms are not documentaries.
Rom-Coms are not documentaries.
Romance novels are not documentaries.
FICTION IS NOT REAL LIFE.
Why is this so hard for MRAs to grasp?
@Pecunium
I am (very likely) probably wrong, but can’t scientists communicate in words with some apes, but because of the physiology they can’t talk back, only sign?
Maybe women are physically incapable of love? Is this the proposition?
Even if we were to pretend that Good’s surveys were valid science, they still don’t support his argument. As per usual.
Don’t ever change, Good!
I suppose Good thinks he’s being civil.