Can a Woman Love a Man?
The idea of love is tossed around in our society as if it is inevitable that we will someday fall in love and stay in love our entire lives. But, only in modern times has it received such exalted status. Traditionally, it has been considered a very fickle emotion.
Going back to some of the founding religious documents of our civilization, we find that Eve is commanded to be subservient and obedient to Adam. It is interesting that Eve is not commanded to love Adam, perhaps because the Bronze Age men who wrote these documents knew that was virtually impossible. Indeed, the Laws of Game and Laws of Hypergamy are based on the fact that a women will love a man’s power, social status or financial status but not the man himself.
To answer the question if a woman can love a man, it helps to look at the history of marriage, which is today considered the ultimate act of love. But the Western idea of falling in love in order to get married and have a family is a recent one. In the past, marriages were more about financial arrangements between families than ideas of love. People used to marry young and stay together their entire lives.
They also used to have kids young, rather than waiting for the perfect “magic moment” that never comes. This, indeed is quite a contrast to today when most women have been passed around quite a few times before they marry and have children in their 30s if at all, a time when declining fertility puts reproduction at risk. In fact, a woman’s window of peak fertility extends from her teenage years to about the age of 25. After age 25 and especially age 30, it becomes statistically less and less likely she will conceive and more likely she will have complications if she does.
This practical use of marriage for the purpose of creating and sustaining the family has changed enormously into a legal ball and chain for men in modern times. It offers lots of obligations and responsibilities and almost no rights. A woman begrudgingly gives a Beta male sex in the marriage, and she can dispose of him at any time in today’s world and be awarded cash and prizes. (In the past, such a woman would have been shunned by society.) These facts help illustrate the use of men as a utility by both women and society, and also demonstrates a lack of love for men.
The history of marriage is an interesting one. The 5,000 year history of marriage along with Briffault’s Law shows us male roles in relationships are more about providing utility value, rather than a woman loving a man.
Marriage: Practicality and Not Romance
Throughout much of human history, marriages have been arranged by families with the bride and groom having no say over the arrangement. This custom is still practiced in many societies today. Of course, having children and continuing family bloodlines, passing down property rights, and creating a stable environment for children were the reasons marriage came into existence. A dowry (financial reward) was often arranged to reward the groom for the difficult, lifelong task of taking on one of the family’s daughters as a wife.
Four thousand years ago marriage was used to preserve political power in Mesopotamia as kings married off daughters to form alliances, produce heirs, and acquire land. A couple thousand years later, the Anglo-Saxons saw marriage as a bartering chip to establish diplomatic and economic ties. This meant families wanted their children to marry someone at least as powerful and wealthy as they were.
Often, marriages took place without documentation and were based on people’s word. That is, until the 1200s when the Catholic Church declared marriage a sacrament. Following suit, Protestants later decided marriage was not a private institution. In the 1500s the Roman Catholic Church’s Council of Trent decreed marriages needed to take place in front of a priest and two witnesses to be considered valid. That decision made marriage a legal contract instead of a private arrangement, and is the beginning of the long arc that has led it to become all risk and no reward for men today.
For most of human history, marriage was considered much too important to be based on a the fleeting emotion love. It was about men providing material value for their wives, and women producing offspring. Stephanie Coontz, author of Marriage: A History puts it this way:
If love could grow out of it, that was wonderful. But that was gravy.
Marriage and love have often been considered incompatible. A Roman politician was expelled from the Senate after kissing his wife in a display that was called “disgraceful!” And, the French philosopher Montesquieu wrote that any man who was in love with his wife was probably much too dull to be loved by other women. (The man knew a Beta male when he saw one!)
The idea of loving your future wife or husband is a recent development in human history. In our own civilization, it can be traced back a thousand years to the Middle Ages and the troubadours. Troubadours wrote songs and poetry during from around 1100-1350 A.D. that deal with love and courtship. Before this time, a father had to give consent as to who his daughter would marry. A daughter not marrying who her father expected was considered a major show of disrespect to both her father and her family, for not giving him a say in the family’s bloodlines.
By the time of the Enlightenment, philosophers began to write about the pursuit of happiness, and told people to marry for love instead of wealth or status. Our notions of romantic marriage today stem from these developments.
Marriage and the family have taken a slide in the 20th and 21st centuries, perhaps because we have lost sight of the practicality of marriage for society in trying to base the entire institution on an emotion. The age of first marriage has been rising and the divorce rate stands at over half. However, before the time of the Civil War divorce was exceedingly rare.
And up until 1970, when Governor Ronald Reagan signed the first no fault divorce act into law, women had to prove their husbands had been guilty of cruelty, desertion, or sex crimes to get a divorce. This law set off a cultural seismic wave that weakened the family. In a hilarious footnote, up until the divorce revolution women often took the stand to play the victim card and make false claims during divorce cases, showcasing women’s natural talents for dissimulation. One California Supreme Court Justice recalls:
Every day, in every superior court in the state, the same melancholy charade was played: the “innocent” spouse, generally the wife, would take the stand and, to the accompanying cacophony of sobbing and nose-blowing, testify under the deft guidance of an attorney to the spousal conduct that she deemed “cruel.”
Perhaps the reason it was so hard for obtain a divorce in the past is reflected in these facts: women are flighty, and they’re often irresponsible. Today, four out of five divorces are initiated by or caused by women. Women often divorce for spurious reasons, or as seen above, totally fabricated ones.
By 1985, in response to changing cultural mores and women playing the victim card, every state in the country had no-fault divorce laws. But, many of them have punitive laws on the books for men which can literally enslave men for life with alimony to someone they were only married to a few years. This is further detailed in Anglo American Women Are Risky to Your Wallet and Your Freedom. The law has, in effect, pedestalized women and trampled men as Anglo society has a long tradition of doing. With women getting preferential treatment in the workplace and having godlike powers in the court system, they do not have to pretend to love men anymore. An anthropological survey shows us how they act when given total power.
Adding to the case that women only want men for their utility value is Briffault’s Law, given to us by social anthropologist Robert Briffault in his epic work The Mothers:
The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.
When combined with what we know about gaming women and hypergamy, it is easy to see a woman does not love a man as much as she uses him a resource. H.L. Menken supported Briffault’s idea:
Primitive society, like many savage societies of our own time, was probably strictly matriarchal. The mother was the head of the family. What masculine authority there was resided in the mother’s brother. He was the man of the family, and to him the children yielded respect and obedience. Their father, at best, was simply a pleasant friend who fed them and played with them; at worst, he was an indecent loafer who sponged on the mother. They belonged, not to his family, but to their mother’s. As they grew up they joined their uncle’s group of hunters, not their father’s.
This matriarchal organization of the primitive tribe, though it finds obvious evidential support in the habits of higher animals, has been questioned by many anthropologists, but of late one of them, Briffault, demonstrated its high probability in three immense volumes.
It is hard to escape the cogency of his arguments, for they are based upon an almost overwhelming accumulation of facts. They not only show that, in what we may plausibly assume about the institutions of early man and in what we know positively about the institutions of savages today, the concepts inseparable from a matriarchate color every custom and every idea: they show also that those primeval concepts still condition our own ways of thinking and doing things, so that “the societal characters of the human mind” all seem to go back “to the functions of the female and not to those of the male.”
Thus it appears that man, in his remote infancy, was by no means the lord of creation that he has since become.
For most of history, and in many other species the male is only a sperm donor who is discarded once the task of mating is completed. After a temporary move towards patriarchy and giving men roles in society other than sperm donor, the rise of feminism and the misandrist court system in Anglo America has once again legally reduced human fathers from “house-band” (he who holds the home together, or husband) to sperm donor. These lines of evidence point to one hard to swallow answer to the question posed by this article: Can a woman love a man?
Answering the Question
The history of marriage shows that romantic love is a recent concept to base marriage on, and marriages have endured without love in the past. It can be said that in reality marriage breaks down to economics for both sexes: Men have a surplus of strength and production capacity, that they trade for a woman’s valuable 10-15 year window of fertility. Briffault’s Law which was gleaned through enormous amounts of research also confirms this idea.
Therefore, human history and anthropological research shows female “love” for men is really more of a love for his resource provision, wealth, status, or power more than it is any emotional attachment. For if the man loses his ability to provision, or his status or power, we see it time and again that he will find himself alone because no woman wants a “loser.” We also see it with the 80/20 rule in today’s society. Women reward the minority of men with sex and attention while leaving the vast majority sexless and alone, no matter what nice guys they are. Men are a utility to women, and once the utility has been consumed she will no longer be interested.
This brings us to a harsh conclusion: From being coded into religious doxy as a commandment to Eve to serve and obey her husband Adam rather than to love him, to the fact marriage has existed as an institution that did not concern itself with love through most of history, to the fact since the sexual revolution women abandon lower status men almost completely, evidence mounts that no, women do not love men the way men love women. Men must realize this and control their emotions. Arthur Schopenhauer wrote about these fundamental differences between the sexes:
Because women in truth exist entirely for the propagation of the race, and their destiny ends here, they live more for the species than for the individual, and in their hearts take the affairs of the species more seriously than those of the individual. This gives to their whole being and character a certain frivolousness, and altogether a certain tendency which is fundamentally different from that of man.
In summary, women want the best genes, whether it be for provisioning, protection, domination or all three. They could care less about the man the genes come from, only the utility provided by them. Oscar Wilde, posthumous Red Pill man knows the time of day. He wrote: Deceiving others. That is what the world calls romance.
Help us grow by making a purchase from our Recommended Reading and Viewing page or our Politically Incorrect Apparel and Merchandise page or buy anything from Amazon using this link. You can also Sponsor The New Modern Man for as little as $1 a month.