Categories
creepy dawgies empathy deficit evil sexy ladies evil women evo psych fairy tales hypergamy irony alert mansplaining men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misogyny

“Rex Patriarch” explains why women, like dogs, are incapable of love

Is it love — or do they both just like spaghetti?

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.

409 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
leatapp
leatapp
8 years ago

Good,
You are trying to tell women who know very well that they feel love, that they don’t because you think YOUR experiences and some idle chatter you once overheard tell you so? Great gravy, that’s dim!

Wait…you just called other people immature? o.0
Wow. You have reached a special level of obtuse.

leatapp
leatapp
8 years ago

Good, admitting you’ve never known the love of a woman =/= special knowledge of what emotions women are capable of. It certainly does not trump our own lived experiences of loving.

Dvärghundspossen
Dvärghundspossen
8 years ago

@Kitten, I bet you already know that Sweden killed Descartes?

pecunium
8 years ago

No-Good:

So you admit that was a bullshit argument.

If you are referencing your own argument, yes.

Weaksauce.

1: I see you don’t respond to the comment(s) eviscerating your failure to so much as examine the abstract of the paper you cited; since even that makes your claim specious, but 2: “no, you are” is pathetic.

I admit to not thinking you much more intellectually adriot than planaria, but common man, give it some effort.

However, the point stands, you cited a bunch of references to sitcoms to prove something. You didn’t qualify it in any way, just dropped the link. When one does that, one assumes the link is to be taken at face value. A person of the meanest intelligence would know that. You, having been ’round these parts ought to know (after all, even planaria can learn simple mazes) that absent such a qualification it is going to be taken as if it were what it was, an argument.

So, your argument is, self admitted, by you, to be bullshit. Your secondary attempts to divert the conversation from the bullshit of your argument is dispositive.

Ergo, you confirm that you know your argument was bullshit, ab initio.

emilygoddess
emilygoddess
8 years ago

First off, I apologize for “die in a fire”. I’ve seen it used so much, I never really stopped to think about it. I won’t use it again.

Oh, Good,

Others agree with this point.

Well then it must be true.

So you admit that was a bullshit argument.

If you are referencing your own argument, yes.

I LOL’d (@ u). Are you twelve?

Are we sure Good isn’t Al or Pell? The escalating ridiculousness would match up.

@Talacaris

David, I propose another level of moderation; to switch somebody posts to to Comic Sans to give them the correct gravitas. (Like my old one’s)

I actually like this idea. It’d be like disemvoweling, only more embarassing.

@Dvarg,

An alternative strategy I sometimes see is to give an evolutionary explanation of loving behaviour in animals, and then go “so it isn’t really love, you see, it’s just a behaviour that historically maximized the spreading of their genes”

See, this is how I argue that love must exist in other species: if it’s just there to encourage cooperation between members of a social species, I don’t see why we’d be the only animals to take advantage of it.

moldybrehd
8 years ago

Wow, when I snarked ‘Don’t ever change, Good!’, I didn’t think he’d view it as encouragement….

Alice Sanguinaria
8 years ago

Wait, so our current resident troll actually posted Cosmo as a source?

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

kittehserf
8 years ago

@Kitten, I bet you already know that Sweden killed Descartes?

::laughs evilly:: Pneumonia’s revenge! 😛

Dvärghundspossen
Dvärghundspossen
8 years ago

Oh, another update on Lucia from someone on my Swedish feminist forum… She’s got a little kid, and was just told that at their school, the kids can dress up as any Lucia character they like when they’re little. They could be Lucia, maid or star boy regardless of gender. But at AGE NINE they have to get with the gender program – from that age onwards there’s gonna be a girl Lucia, girl maids and star BOYS.
Like WTF, who makes up these rules? I don’t have kids myself, but every year this time of year there are loads of boys around who are sad because they’re not eligible for being Lucia, as well as the occasional girl who wants to be a star boy. So many people are like “oh, girls like dolls and boys like toy cars, that’s just the way it is” – don’t they even see the crazy amount of gender-policing that goes on?

Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

So not caught up, but “(plans decoupage project with papyrus for Argenti’s headstone)” is sweet of you. Most people I’d figure just wanted to torture me but you’d actually like having me around indefinitely huh? (And hey, I could finally teleport there!)

And yeah, dying in a fire…*squirms* I have extra reason to be terrified — I’d probably not even try to get out without saving the fish. (Yeah, I know, and pecunium is going to lecture me, but they’d stand no chance at all without human intervention and they’re right by the window over the porch roof, getting them out first isn’t as stupid as it may sound)

Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

“David, I propose another level of moderation; to switch somebody posts to to Comic Sans to give them the correct gravitas. (Like my old one’s)”

This is a thing I can do. Once I’m done telling IE users to get a real browser.

Good
Good
8 years ago

Good, give it up, you got nothing. You have yet to prove that women are incapable of love.

I never said that women were incapable of love. Keep the straw men coming though.

Dana, no, see, Cosmo and Marie Claire are not reputable sources. I don’t care who’s writing the article. Fashion magazines are not peer-reviewed journals. Before accusing others of being immature, maybe you should educate yourself about how science works.

Dana has far more sense than you. Here is the study cited in the Cosmo article. Now lets see how far you and your friends reach down in your panties to try and discredit Wake Forest University. The magazine is not the source of the study. The magazine references the source. Are you too slow to understand that? Yes, you are LOL:

http://www.wfu.edu/wowf/2010/20100608.simon.php

Alice Sanguinaria
8 years ago

People still use IE willingly to do something OTHER than downloading a new browser? O_o

Alice Sanguinaria
8 years ago

Good, sweetie, that doesn’t say that women are in love with being in love. It only says that men aren’t stotic lovers and that have differing reactions to express distress.

You might want to learn reading comprehension.

Tam
Tam
8 years ago

And yes, most of you act like 12 year olds.
Yes, you are LOL:

This might be the least self-aware person I have ever encountered on the internet, and that’s going some.

LOL, indeed.

Alice Sanguinaria
8 years ago

Plus, that’s a press report. Press reports are often rather misleading, and it often makes professionals sound like idiots. You’re going to need to give us a link to the actual study.

pecunium
8 years ago

Good: Get with the program, the Study has been read, and comments made. You were wrong (I’d say get over it, but that implies it might be a non-unitary state).

Good
Good
8 years ago

Also, we are LOL? I’m not sure if you understand what lol means.

It means that I laughed out loud immediately after saying “yes you are”? You really are reaching now.

pecunium
8 years ago

Alice: the study is here It’s a 40 page pdf..

Good
Good
8 years ago

Plus, that’s a press report. Press reports are often rather misleading, and it often makes professionals sound like idiots. You’re going to need to give us a link to the actual study.

The actual study is linked to in the “press release”.

Good
Good
8 years ago

Good, sweetie, that doesn’t say that women are in love with being in love.

Alice, baby, I didn’t say that it does. But it does support my contention that men love women more intensely than the reverse.

katz
8 years ago

This joker is hanging around and it doesn’t make you guys appreciate Pell?

dlouwe
dlouwe
8 years ago

How to attract a loveless, money grubbing, hypergamous feeemale; aka: Basically My Relationship In A Nutshell:
1) entice her with disclaimer: “I don’t want to get married, or cohabitate, basically ever.” In general seem aloof and flighty.
2) after appropriate length of time, spend months being openly uncomfortable with the idea of saying the “L word”. literally compare yourself to robots w/r/t emotional capacity.
3) exchange robot heart for human heart, fall deeply in love, move in together, and spend the next year or so in a happy and equitable relationship, both making roughly equal wages
4) make plans to go back to school for 4-5 years while she helps support you financially and you load up on debt
5) hopefully become moderately successful within the next decade, and try to catch up to her rather steep career trajectory
6) for the love of god never have babies

but wait none of that fits in with, and can’t really be accounted for at all by man-o-sphere philosophy? colour me not shocked at all, not even a little bit

pecunium
8 years ago

Good… what you are too lazy to click through to the study? Or you decided to pass the press release off as the study and got caught?

Oh! I see, it was a failed appeal to authority, Wake Forest said some stuff about the study (meant to get people to read/cite it, which is what improves the reputational standing of a researcher/institution) so we had to “discredit” that bit of fluff.

But you were too late, we’d already looked the source material (which fact you are continuing to ignore, as is your wont… but it’s no more true for you than it is for a three year old that what you refuse to look at goes away).

But go on, keep fucking that chicken if it makes you happy.

cloudiah
8 years ago

But it does support my contention that men love women more intensely than the reverse.

No it doesn’t.

1 6 7 8 9 10 17
%d bloggers like this: