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.
dirtydougal
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00224545.2010.522626#.UoJj47Xnbcs
http://www.cosmopolitan.com/celebrity/news/heartbreak-harder-on-men-than-women
emilygoddess
Fuck you, Good.
Thanks for the offer, but no thank you.
Sitcoms are not documentaries.
Sitcoms are referenced regarding media portrayals, not as examples of real life. In real life, men are not bumbling fools but sitcoms, as well as the media in general, can influence culture and behavior.
Rom-Coms are not documentaries.
Same as above.
Romance novels are not documentaries.
Same as above and the attraction to romance novels is what is referenced, not the accuracy of the content.
FICTION IS NOT REAL LIFE.
No one says it is. You’re discussion comprehension is poor.
So, since women can feel love and research indicates that pets could feel emotions too… then the original statement is actually correct? o_O?
HAHAHAHHAHHA, OMG OMG you guys, I was LITERALLY just about to say how NotGood will be linking to cosmo next! I’m psychic or something! That’s actually fantastic. Or maybe it means I know how ze thinks….thats worrying.
Well, if Cosmo says it’s so . . . time to break out the crow-favored bon-bons, my fellow feminazis.
And we’re discussion comprehension is poor.
NotGood, are you honesty suggest emotional pain can be measured? Physical pain can barely be accurately measured! Come on. As my dear father would say: engage brain.
>link to cosmo
HAHAHAHA oh dear
From LesserGood’s non-Cosmo article’s conclusion:
So, once again, even when LesserGood drops a peer-reviewed link, he hasn’t understood it.
As for the first link Good has in that comment, maybe next time he could try reading at least the abstract of an article before it thinks it proves his horrendously sexist point? Because I quote: “Analyses also showed no sex differences in attitudinal responses to items about love and romance.”
Explain again, Good, how women don’t science good.
Please provide links to that famous peer-reviewed journal, Cosmo, to support your position.
Kinda sorta ninja’ed by cloudiah.
Well, I’ve read Descartes, and IMO he mainly got his spot in philosophy history due to formulating really influential arguments for scepticism, but his attempts at then solving the sceptical problems aren’t exactly great (caveat that I’m a moral philosopher and not an epistemologist). And princess Elisabeth’s question really should have made him thinking on whether his theory of the soul was all that great, but instead he just avoided to properly answer the question. Even IF we assume that his strict body/mind dualism were true, there just aren’t any good reasons to suppose that other species don’t have an immaterial mind as well.
I get your point that we shouldn’t judge people until we’ve read their stuff ourselves, but I totally get Kitten’s point as well. If someone, say, was a serial rapist and proud of the fact, would we really read a book he’d written with an open mind thinking that maybe he’s got some clever ideas there as well? I think it does make sense to occasionally just dismiss someone for being evil.
“Citation needed”
Should be done with a reputable source, such as Cosmo, Daily Mail,National Enquirer, Weekly World News and /or whale.to
Other reliable sources include: my aunts’ neighbour and that bloke down the pub. SCIENCE.
Good
From the ‘Women and Men in Love: Who Really Feels It and Says It First?’ study
Robin Simon doesn’t work for Cosmo. Isn’t it a bit stupid to ignore a study and criticize the publication that cites the study? Some of you are immature.
Although, I should add, there does seem to be some controversy as to whether Descartes really tortured animals or not.
How clever. And not creepy at all.
Would you prefer “fuck off”? “Die in a fire”? “Hope u lego”? “I hope they use Comic Sans on your gravestone”? Pick one. Make up your own. I don’t care, as long as you realize that you’re a sexist, ignorant, dehumanizing asshole.
OK, I can see how my meaning wasn’t clear. Let me try again: all that wharrgarbl you posted about how men and women (supposedly) behave in love and relationships was ripped from sitcoms and movies, NOT from reality. That is not how real live people actually think and act, and pretending it is makes you look like you can’t tell fiction from reality, which is why I felt the need to point the difference out to you.
When I want to know about how _I_ experience love, I always ask some stranger on the internet.
Anyone uses either comic sans or papyrus on my headstone and I’ll find a way to come back and haunt them!
There is no Good in you:
You don’t do more than skim the abstracts do you?
When employing a Bonferroni correction to alpha for multiple comparisons, there were no sex differences in responses to any questions about love and romance.
Sitcoms are referenced regarding media portrayals, not as examples of real life.
So you admit that was a bullshit argument.
Can I just ask why ‘die in a fire’ is on the same level as ‘step on a lego’?
(plans decoupage project with papyrus for Argenti’s headstone)
Hi, Dana:
This might not be a good place for you to hang out. In case you haven’t noticed the tag line, this is a site focused on mockery. Also, Good has a history here, of dropping links that are either from ridiculous sources, or that don’t support his assertions — or often both! Finally, we actually did not ignore the study. We criticized the study AND the publication. Still, anyone aspiring to credibility should really not be dropping links from Cosmo and Marie Claire.
Thanks for your unsolicited opinion about our maturity level, though! That totally makes you look like a great person.
Yeah, die in a fire is one of those things which gives me some pause as an insult.
I see that it’s abstract, in that one isn’t making a threat, but it’s a level of horrific which bothers me,
Well, you can choose not to read someone for any reason you like, and knowing how they acted can inform your interpretation of what they said, but you still shouldn’t judge what they said without actually reading it. God knows we’ve got enough examples around here of that exact thing (“Valerie Solanas shot Andy Warhol! Therefore feminism is wrong!”)