antifeminism bad history bad science boner rage empathy deficit entitled babies evil ex-wives evil single moms imaginary oppression men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misogyny reactionary bullshit red pill reddit that's completely wrong we hunted the mammoth

Women incapable of love, declares man incapable of empathy

Watch out boy, she'll leech you up!
Watch out boy, she’ll leech you up!

MGTOWs, like most of the misogynists I write about in this blog, love to talk about the male gender as being more rational and scientific than the allegedly irrational and overemotional human female. Unfortunately, most of MGTOWs seem to have learned science at the University of Mianus.

The latest example I’ve encountered of this massive science fail comes from the veritable fountain of science fail, and failure generally, that is the Men Going Their Own Way subreddit.

In a posting yesterday, a fellow named E46M54 announced his latest findings:

Scientific fact: women are not capable of loving men in the same way men love women.

Mr. E46M54, relying heavily on information provided by the Scientific Fact department at the University of Mianis, elaborated:

This stems from thousands of years of evolution as a species. Historically, it was the men that risked their lives hunting dangerous animals, going off into battle, doing dangerous physical labor, and fighting other males to the death for a chance to mate.

Dangerous animals, eh? Would that include … THE MAMMOTH?

While the current inhabitants of r/MGTOW are free to hunt mammoths to their heart’s content in Far Cry Primal, the notion of prehistoric “Man the Hunter” may have more to do with sexist anthropologists than with science. Today, many anthropologists think that both men and women hunted, and our ancient ancestors seem to have, wisely, focused more on hunting small, non-dangerous animals, as these animals were – you know — much less likely to kill them.

If you were on a sinking Titanic, you had to drown in frigid waters while women boarded the lifeboats.

Not so much “a sinking Titanic” as THE sinking Titanic, as the “wealthy women and children first” evacuation procedure used on that sinking ship has never been the general policy on sinking ships.

As a result, the chances of being killed as a male were always astronomically higher than it would be for females. This made men essentially expendable, and females evolved to not place too much emotional stake in any one particular male, as he wasn’t likely to be around for long.

Not so much. While women today tend to outlive men by a significant amount, this hasn’t always been the case, at least as far as we can tell from the limited historical data we have.

In England and Wales from the early 1600s to the start of the 20th century, to take two examples for which we have actual numbers, the differences in mortality due to gender were small, and there were stretches of time during which men were likely to live longer.

In the prehistoric world before the invention of agriculture, men may have lived slightly longer as well. Apparently, getting stomped to death by mammoths was less of a risk to men than childbirth was to women.

Another factor in this is the manner in which males have typically been the providers. Yes, feminists will claim this no longer applies because they’re oh-so-independent. However this is only true for about the last 50 years. For the other 200,000 years of human existence, it was the male who provided for, protected, and offered security to the females.

This assertion is so clearly ass-derived and so obviously, totally WRONG I’m not even going to bother to refute it.

Well, maybe I’ll refute it a little. Hey E46M54, what exactly are these women doing?




I’ll stop.

This is another evolutionary truth that carries over into modern times. What a women calls ‘love’ is more likely to be this feeling of being provided for, often by way of money and social status, or in it’s most rudimentary form; entertainment (“make me laugh”).

Ok, admittedly it’s true that MGTOWs make a lot of women laugh. Men too.

In contrast, the male historically gained none of this by being with a woman. So if a man says he loves a woman, chances are it was really love, as there was little else to be gained.

So men, collectively, have been the biggest suckers in history? I thought men were supposed to be the smart ones?

Finally, we should note the suicide statistics. It is actually very common for males to commit suicide over a woman leaving. Many of us may actually know a male or two who’s suicide was associated with a breakup. In contrast, women committing suicide over a male leaving is VIRTUALLY UNHEARD OF. Little else is needed to explain this other than acknowledging that women in general do not care about or ‘love’ men as deeply as men love women.

Breakups may trigger suicide, but the leading cause is untreated depression. Women attempt suicide at higher rates than men. Men succeed more often because they tend to use more lethal methods. In particular, guns. Men are far more likely to shoot and kill themselves with a gun than they are to be shot and killed by someone else. Given that suicide is generally an impulsive act, and those who try and fail generally regret trying, it seems pretty clear to me that fewer guns would mean fewer male suicides.

But MRAs so love using male suicides as a trump card in internet arguments that they rarely bother to think about ways to actually reduce male suicide other than yelling at women online, which is not actually terribly useful for anyone.

In conclusion, women cannot reciprocate the same levels of affection you give them, and hence you are far better off NOT BOTHERING WITH THEM.

Huh. Apparently the best way to NOT BOTHER WITH women is to talk shit about them endlessly on the internet.

Naturally, Reddit’s NOT BOTHERING WITH WOMEN BY TALKING SHIT ABOUT THEM ON THE INTERNET community — that is, the regulars in the MGTOW subreddit — gave Mr. E46M54’s scientific treatise a warm reception, and several dozen upvotes.

Others weighed in with their own ass-informed theories.

“In prehistoric times, life was very tenous,” wrote Five_Decades, using a more efficient, time-saving spelling of “tenuous.”

There were predators, wars, intra-tribal violence, accidents, diseases, famines, etc. An alpha male was not guaranteed to be alpha forever, he would get sick or injured eventually and I think women evolved to branch swing to the strongest male when an alpha showed signs of weakness. The women who stayed with a broken, diseased alpha male were at a disadvantage over the women who cut their losses and moved onto the next guy. 

Damn, those gals are cold!

Jaeryth, meanwhile, set forth his own somewhat-less-than-glowing take on modern relationships:

Men are typically the ones who are providing, with long hours worked and spending gratuitous sums of cash on the woman – who may claim that they don’t ask for much but most likely do.

When he comes home, he has to listen to her complain about how he’s never home, how he doesn’t care about her, how he doesn’t love her or how things have ‘changed.’ You’ve all been there, you’ve all had to deal with the upset and bored woman with nothing better to, do mulling over thoughts for weeks before coming at you with the kill. …

And you get called uncaring for it, all kinds of harsh names and stereotypes. And what’s best, the ungrateful c**t doesn’t ever want to hear about your troubles, and will probably leave you the moment you even bring them up. You’re just a living dildo to fill her holes and her wallet so she has a nice purse and some tits to seduce a higher status man.

Is it me, or is that last sentence just a teensy bit, well, hard to parse?

You’re just a living dildo to fill her holes and her wallet so she has a nice purse and some tits to seduce a higher status man.

If I’m reading this correctly, women are filling their wallets with, er, penises, in order to improve the quality of their purses and to grow breasts. Women are then using these penis-wallet-enhanced purses, as well as their new breasts, to seduce some better dude?

I’m still a bit confused. Perhaps someone could draw me a diagram?

Victor_knight offered his own “evolutionary” perspective.

Put simply, from a strictly evolutionary standpoint (and this shit cannot be ignored even with humans today), a man’s entire purpose of existence is to get his sperm to fertilize a woman’s egg. After that, nature couldn’t give a shit if he lived or died. In fact, better he die because he will not be consuming any more of (limited) resources available once his genes have already been passed on. 

Wait, I thought men were supposed to provide both sperm and money. If women are just using us dudes for our sperm, how are they getting money? I thought they all they were good at was sitting around eating those proverbial bon-bons?


Oh, wait, I forgot about Big Daddy government. As victor_knight argued in a followup comment:

Once children come along, the “prized” man becomes even less important to the woman than he was before. In fact, at this point, she really doesn’t care if he sticks around or not (in many cases she actually wants him gone) as long as someone (e.g. the state, the divorced man, the public) is paying her bills.

Got it! For a second I was afraid that the entire ideological edifice of MGTOWism was going to crumble underneath me.

Cynicalsimon offered his cynical take:

Women have NEVER brought much to our species existence and quality of life EVER!

Furthermore, a womens ‘love’ with a man is only infatuation because she has hundreds of other male ‘options'(all disposable to her of course)

Simon ended his comment with a confusing reference to fellatio that I am still trying to parse.

SigmaDiabolicum summed it all up with this Zen koan:

Men love unconditionally (until given a reason not to, anyway) … .

So, unconditionally, except with conditions.

What is the sound of one MGTOW fapping?

Probably a bit like this, actually.

133 replies on “Women incapable of love, declares man incapable of empathy”

I’m not doubting your figures, but do you know where they come from? I’m just curious as I know infanticide has been a problem in China in the past (maybe still is now?) and wonder if that could skew the numbers if, say, it’s only counting babies “officially” born.

Real intelligence ought to not depend upon education, but IQ tests, to a large degree, measure someone’s education.

The focus on a formal westernized education would probably explain why east Asians tend to score the highest on IQ tests (104-106 in NE Asia).

Assuming for a moment that IQ is at least partially valid test of innate ability, women actually score slightly higher on average than men, so while a larger standard deviation might imply few more male geniuses (as someone pointed out, after a certain point IQ becomes meaningless), the other side of that coin is more men with sub-90 IQs; men who might have more trouble fitting in, maintaining relationships, or finding a partner.


LOL, for someone who is supposedly endowed as a natural hunter and provider by virtue of their gender, you don’t demonstrate much understanding of realistic basic survival.

1. Humans ate mostly small game, which men and women would both collect as they came across it while gathering. You don’t need to be a killing machine to bag a few rodents or lizards. Even actual specialized predators will go after the weakest prey that are least likely to put up a real fight.

2. Hunting requires emotional intelligence because success was increased when hunting as a coordinated group. If you lacked the emotional intelligence to be part of a social group, your chances of survival dropped. Lone wolves that have been ejected from their pack often die on their own, and they are much better adapted to the wild and hunting than a human.

3. You need to be soft. If you are nothing but lean muscle, you are poorly adapted to the wild. Muscles burn tons of calories, and with no fat reserves you wouldn’t last very long without regular large meals, which would make you liability on the hunt. The fact that women have more fat reserves is an advantage.

4. With greater lower-body strength, women have another advantage when it comes to long distance endurance walking/running, which meant they were better at pursuing and overtaking exhausted prey and making the return trip. Remember, you lift with your legs, not your torso. The fact that women often prepared the food suggests they probably would have been adept at field dressing as well.


I see where he gets his science wrong. On the whole, us men are less emotional and have a low degree of empathy, because historically we have been always called upon to kill to protect our women folk, and therefore our progeny or put food on the table. Being a triained killing machine ensures the survival of our genes for the next generation then it begins again. If we had a high emotional intelligence instead of a high IQ we would have become prey for other animals thousands of years ago and mankind would have become extinct instead of developing technology to ensure his survival and conquering space. If we we all like women we would have been to soft to kill animals and provide our children with fatty acids to ensure the ongoing evolution of the brain.

You are getting wrong exactly what every evopsych-enthusiast gets wrong. You see a finding in a website article, like “Study so-and-so declares that men have X% less empathy than women!”, then you ignore the actual statement of the scientists in favour of the sensationalized article, and then you use this to justify your favourite pet theory.

Sweetie, let us scientists stick with the science, please!

re #IQ

IQ is interesting and useless; as has been said many times it’s not a very useful metric for actual intelligence. I actually study intelligence for work, in the form of changes in intelligence through education. And, you may be happy to know, no one really uses IQ for the rubber-hits-the-road metrics in competency assessment.

We in the computational and educational sciences understand that IQ isn’t much good for real life applications, so it’s been replaced with an ontological perspective, in which learning domains are divided into skills and sub-skills, each one with its own metrics unique to its domain. much more complicated, but much closer to the real thing. We’ve done some work in the “computer programming” learning domain, and are now happily chugging away in the “English writing” domain. I myself deal more with cross-domain structures, like self-regulation, willpower and the behaviours of competency change in general.

Thought you might want to know!

Of the 14 bakers on the Titanic, 13 survived. I’m not sure how that takes the discussion any further but I thought it worth mentioning.

> MYSARTOPOIOSY ! You try to blame bakers, i see you ! Not all your bakers !

All love is conditional, isn’t it?

So true. Unconditional love is meaningless.

No, you can (and must) have unconditional love. After some time in the Room 101.

All in all, rather than men going their own way, it is more men standing still and expecting the rest of the world going their own way. Is this by genuine conviction or mental lazyness, i could not say.

@Alan Robertshaw
Hmm. There must be some sort of commonality there, but a quick search of the Interwebz yields nothing about the bakers.

More Titanic stuff that probably doesn’t further the discussion:

I loved the (extremely commercial) movie Titanic, although I did get tired of Jack shouting, “Rose! Rose!” and Rose shouting, “Jack! Jack!” I also loved the Celine Dion song.

I saw a preview of the film about a year before it came out. (That movie took forever to edit.) And the preview showed some truly kick-ass long-distance shots of the Titanic at night–this huge ship in silhouette with a few twinkling lights. None of which made it into the movie.

And finally, my mother used to tell me about how her mother would talk about the tragedy of the Titanic. My mother wasn’t even born when the Titanic went down, but the horror of it obviously made quite an impression on my grandmother.

Unconditional love

It’s critical for parents to love their children unconditionally. It’s also critical for people to love their animals and plants unconditionally. That’s how children, animals, and plants grow and thrive. They are in the care of others and need those others to love them without demanding that they be a certain way.

But adults do not love other adults unconditionally. Sorry, Mister MGTOW, you’re going to have to grow up and face the fact that a woman can fall out of love with you for any reason at all. Given that you’re a MGTOW, any reason is probably extremely well founded. Who would want to stay with an abusive, ignorant lout! But by all means, keep shoveling that MGTOW women-cannot-love-so-it’s-fine-to-treat-them-horribly shit you’re shoveling!

@ kat

A legal colleague was a bit of a Titantic bug. He got me hooked and we had a lecture where we’d look at the legal aspects surrounding the incident. It’s well worth reading the original enquiry report(s). What’s particularly interesting is how ‘contemporary’ they sound.

Few random titbits:

Originally Titanic was designed with double the number of lifeboats. However, after an incident with another vessel, the view within the industry shifted and it was believed that lifeboats would only ever be needed to shuttle passengers to another vessel. So speed of loading and unloading became the critical factor. The original double davit system was perceived to be both too slow and also hazardous. So it was with safety in mind that the number of lifeboats was reduced (so that they could operate on single davits). It’s a bit like why they took the escape hatches out of lifts. Few people had died trapped in lifts but lots of people had been killed or injured using the escape hatch. Having fewer lifeboats was seen as the safer option.

Until the sinking, Titanic wasn’t that well known. Her sister ship was the famous one. Even at the enquiry they kept getting them mixed up. The plans and models used were from the Olympic so that didn’t help. Even today, nearly all pictures of the Titanic are actually of the Olympic.

There was only one example of White Star themselves using the word “unsinkable” without the qualification “virtually”. That was on a railway ticket though that they had licensed to someone else, so even then it’s not really down to them.

White Star self insured (this was common in the industry) so the motive for the conspiracy theory that it was an insurance scam doesn’t hold up.


My numbers for China and India were from the 2010 and 2013 population census respectively.

The 2010 Chinese census found that 51.27% of the entire population is male.

@ guest

The rivets theory is something that is often discussed in engineering and structural science circles: as is the theory that the steel plates used may have been vulnerable to brittleness at certain low temperatures (that theory has been pretty much debunked)

It is true that H&W used slightly lower standard iron rivets on the relevant sections (albeit still within allowable spec). They did double rivet though. At the time Titanic was built shipbuilders were moving over to steel rivets. They were stronger and didn’t need skilled labour to fit (there was a machine that did it). H&W used steel rivets on the the more critical areas of Titanic. There was a bit of a skills deficit amongst riveters, because it was a dying art, and the way they’re were fitted may have been as much of a factor as their actual integrity.

It may be significant that the damage stops where the steel rivets take over. However that may just be a coincidence. The current view is that the rivets may have been a factor but it’s not conclusive. The length of time the ship was in contact with the iceberg was probably more crucial and in view of the forces involved no one can say for sure that even steel rivets would have held up.

In essence it was a case of “a compartment too far”. Had the watertight bulkheads gone all the way to the deck as on the original plans the ship may have survived longer; the over spilling wouldn’t have been as crucial. But with five compartments holed below the waterline she would have sunk eventually in any case.


Thanks for the info! I was exposed to a tiny and probably carefully selected slice of intelligence research when I was kid, like 10 years ago. Was always interested but know nothing about what’s up in the field now.

Do you/your colleagues believe in g, but feel that IQ and g are weakly correlated? Or do you not believe g exists?

I feel a need to have a minor moment of despair. As this post deals with lack of empathy (albeit in a different context) this thread us as good a place as any.

Our parliament has just voted not to accept 3,000 unaccompanied child refugees. I don’t doubt they probably reflect general public opinion. But they did it in a building that has a plaque commemorating the rescue of 10,000 kindertransport kids on the wall (and what was 10,000 in the grand scheme of things compared to the kids who didn’t make it?)

I understand when people talk about pressure on resources and all that but I’m pretty certain we could have squeezed them in somewhere in a country of 70 million.

I used to pass this statue a lot when I lived in London. The usual sentiment when discussing the horrors of WW2 is “Never again”, but it appears there’s an unspoken “unless it’s a bit inconvenient” proviso.

Alan, yes, it’s fucking shameful. Unaccompanied children. And if I’m not mistaken (from news stories etc.) some of them specifically want to come to the UK because they have relatives here, ffs.

And this is our current government.

The usual sentiment when discussing the horrors of WW2 is “Never again”, but it appears there’s an unspoken “unless it’s a bit inconvenient” proviso.

I think “unless they’re scary Muslims” is the actual proviso at work here.

Aside questions to those in Britain:

*How much of this do you think could part of an attempt to ideologically (“THEY might do that but WE don’t!”) distance Britain from the EU? How much of it’s endemic xenophobia (or “caution” if you’d like to be more charitable than me)?

* How likely’s a Brexit look at this point?
From what we hear over here (discussions on NPR, the BBC Newshour, etc), it seems about 50/50, anybody’s guess.

@ mockingbird

Immigration is certainly an issue in the EU debate; but it’s quite complex. Intra-EU migration was originally more of a concern (having to compete with cheap East European labour etc) according to the pollsters. The migration crisis also features of course but it’s only become an issue recently. The worry there is that, because of the way borders work in Europe if someone is granted asylum in Europe they’ll have an automatic right of entry into the UK. That’s not actually the case of course because we’re not part of Schengen (which itself looks likely to collapse anyway precisely because of the crisis).

Controlling/restricting immigration generally though is seen as a vote winner across the political spectrum. Whilst obviously racism will play some part it seems the major concerns are economic. It’s about jobs and access to public services, so that’s something that the Labour core vote gets heated about. Some Labour apparatchiks have said that Corbyn’s laissez-faire stance on immigration is “Labour’s second suicide note”.

As for the referendum, gut feeling is it’ll be a vote for out unless there’s some major event before the election that changes things, and realistically all conceivable events (financial crash in European country, terror attack here etc) would only likely strengthen the leave campaign.


^ Posted to let you know that I’ve read your response and’m processing it.

@ mockingbird

I’ve read your response and’m processing it.

He, it might have been clearer if I’d just linked to the various Grauniad articles I plagiarised all that from. 😉

(The gut feeling about the referendum is my own work though! Albeit based on stuff I’ve also read)

@Alan – Nah, you were clear. I was in a rush. Still am a bit.
I’d just wanted to let you know that I hadn’t done a post and run (as I do).

re: Schengen: Huh. I thought that your exemptions were primarily monetary. Is there free flow of EU citizens but not other residents & visa holders?

(I realize that this is something that I can Google. I shall, though it might have to wait until this evening.)

@ mockingbird

TBH, it’s all voodoo to me. I think it gets quite complicated generally judging by the cases as to who and who does not qualify. That’s especially the case as a lot of immigration ‘law’ isn’t determined by primary legislation. The legislation just allows the relevant services to make ‘rules’ and the arguments are usually about how those rules are interpreted or applied. So there’s been a lot of cases about non-EU spouses and/or fiancés recently for example. (Are they allowed in per se, must they meet the ‘no drain on the public purse’ test, is the ‘primary purpose’ rule still applicable? Etc)

The only immigration stuff I’ve done is where there’s been a national security element, so fleeing ex government types seeking political asylum and the like (or are they here to spy? Dun, dun, dun!)

One of these case led to one of my favourite stories though. If you’ll forgive another of my anecdotes…

My star witness in an asylum case was the ex attorney general of a particular country. He was giving evidence about how the president had turned on my chap. On being cross examined by the HOPO (Home Office Presenting Officer) the conversation went as follows:

“And it was at that time that the president began acting in an unconstitutional manner…”
“I hesitate to interrupt, but what qualifies you to comment on (the country’s) constitution?”
“I wrote it”

I saw the MST3K episode with the Leech Woman movie. Interesting take on the Devouring Anima archetype – a woman can regain her youth and beauty*, temporarily, at the cost of a man’s life ( his pineal gland is extracted). An American woman finds out about this ancient African secret and goes on to kill and kill again. It’s like a Mig-toe nightmare!

*Conflated together in the narrative.

If American men do not want American women why does this = hate on this website? If US law favor men at expense of women and organization start online is called “WGTOW” that is ok. Yes??

So if yes…. then why it not ok on reverse?


Welcome back! This is an older thread that you’ve necro’d, but fair enough. I’ll try to answer.

I apologize in advance – I’m not in a nice mood at the moment, I guess.

If American men do not want American women why does this = hate on this website?

Because it is not true? American men do want american women. Evidence being: marriage, dating, sex, relationships, friendships and other not-hate happens very often in the USA! Basic level-one eyeballs can see that. The only reason to think otherwise is if [drumroll] you hate women!

If US law favor men at expense of women and organization start online is called “WGTOW” that is ok. Yes??

Of course that’s okay. If those women wanted to actually just go their own way and live without men, then all the power to them! (Many women actually do this, as best they can in a society where women are expected to give attention to men, at least)

If “WGTOW” was just a cover for the harassment and abuse of men, though? That wouldn’t be cool.

So if yes…. then why it not ok on reverse?

Because “MGTOW” don’t actually, you know, go-their-own-way. A quick check of the Reddit “MGTOW” forums reveals that pretty much all of the topics are about women and how terrible they are.

About how stupid, mindless, arrogant, conceited women are.

And about their efforts to bother, belittle and barricade women at every turn.

(Not to mention that there’s evidence for very few of the “MGTOW”‘s common complaints about how law works in the US. It can be shown that men do better in divorce proceedings than women, and courts favour split custody. All of their complaints about the “law being against them” is nothing more than a lack of self-reflection)

This site is about exposing sexism and then trying to smile through the disgust. If “MGTOW” were honestly about men going their own way? There’d be nothing to discuss here. They’d be living their dream of self-improvement, and we’d be happy to leave them be. Heck, that is basically the life I live. I’m voluntarily celibate, and concerned mostly about stoking the inner fires. I’d be happy for them. I’d call them brothers.

There is no growth in salted soil; there is no peace in hate. They lash out, and we can only laugh in shock at the hate that bubbles in them.

Is it in you, too, LEaving? Is that why you’re here?

Looking forward to your reply.

@ LEaving

So if yes…. then why it not ok on reverse?

I can only comment on English matters but perhaps this is relevant.

Last year I was talking to my neigbhour (she’s also a friend of course) and I was quite surprised to find out that in the 80s she had actually been in a group that was effectively WGTOW. It was a collective of women that lived a lifestyle that had as little to do with men as possible. It was loosely associated with the political lesbianism movement, although you didn’t have to be gay to join (but obviously no hetero nookie either).

She told me that it was still going, albeit with just a few of the old guard, and that they actually owned a property not far from our village. I told her “Oh, I didn’t know that” and her reply was of course “Well you wouldn’t would you?”

So these women had indeed gone their own way; and they didn’t feel the need to tell men that it was all our fault, that we’d miss them really and if we started to be a bit nicer maybe they’d have us back.

Now it may be that there are true MGTOWs, who by nature, we’d not hear about; but the public face of the movement is just Men Getting Totally Obsessed by Women.

Alan, let me put on my necromancer hat and robe.
I remember hearing back in the late 1970s, when I was just a wee gayling, about some men in San Francisco’s Castro Street district who boasted of how long it had been since a woman had entered their apartments. Purely apocryphal, and that hermetically sealed version of ‘community’ died out in the 1980s.

Your story is much more uplifting.

Scildfreja – beautifully done. You said more than I would have, better than I could have.

Aw, thank you Robert. You’re too nice 🙂 I usually think I say too much, too poorly. Not a bad state of mind to write things, but it’s nice to get a better perspective.

Yeah women are really good at working together :)) here is the problem: women have heard mentality, men have pack mentality. In a pack each person has a different role and his own task and work together to a similar goal. in herd mentality one tries not to be too different from the rest. Also in hunting animals running is not as important as you make it seem.

About why men were and are expandable is because women carry the babies. And no women means no babies means no humans. Also the fact that a woman produces just one egg once a month and once pregnant she cannot have another baby for aprox 1 year while men produce millions of sperm daily and can have a baby each hour makes man expandable. With one man and 10 women you can rebuild human numbers. With 10 men and 1 woman not really. Is just mathematics.

…I’ll bite. I’m bored.

If women are the ones who carry the babies, aren’t they the ones that need to be expandable?

I’m guessing that you’re writing this outside the UK, since in Britain, the Daily Mail would not be considered a great source for winning an argument.

Also – have you been thinking about that since April 2016? That’s nearly 9500 hours – think of all the babies you could have been making instead!

I’ve got to ask – are you Robert Byers?

“it seems pretty clear to me that fewer guns would mean fewer male suicides.”
This is a very America-centric view of the disparity between male and female suicide. Even in developing world regions where non-violent methods of suicide lead, such as drinking agricultural poisons, men still die at higher rates of suicide than women. In Europe, where the most common method of suicide is hanging, men still die by suicide in significantly greater numbers. It is not fully understood why men die from suicide so much more often than women, maybe they don’t seek help or recovery from mental distress the same way women do, but over-simplifications like blaming firearms or Prozac or whatever in one part of the world doesn’t do justice to what is a global trend.

It is not fully understood why men die from suicide so much more often than women,

Breakups may trigger suicide, but the leading cause is untreated depression. Women attempt suicide at higher rates than men. Men succeed more often because they tend to use more lethal methods.

Learn to read.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.