Courtly love showing obsequious male behaviour to women

MGTOW: 12th century style

Middle Ages Europe is widely considered the birthplace of ‘protofeminism’ – the forerunner to modern feminism. At that time a chaplain named Andreas Capellanus, whom we might consider the first antifeminist and ‘MGTOW’ of the period, wrote a book describing the escalating problem of female avarice, manipulativeness, narcissism, underserved sense of entitlement, and hypergamy. Interestingly, Andreas links all these problems with the birth of courtly love – the subject of his book – and recommends all men learn to reject romantic relationships with women and “trample under your foot all of its rules.”

While the piece is written in anger at the emerging gynocentric culture, it contains truths that echo much of what MGTOW are reacting to today – in particular the world’s encouragement, protection and enforcement of female hypergamy. The following is an excerpt from Capellanus’ amazing work. PW

 

The Art of Courtly Love
By Andreas Capellanus (1174)

Andeas_bookThe mutual love which you seek in women you cannot find, for no woman ever loved a man or could bind herself to a lover in the mutual bonds of love. For a woman’s desire is to get rich through love, but not to give her lover the solaces that please him. Nobody ought to wonder at this, because it is natural. According to the nature of their sex all women are spotted with the vice of a grasping and avaricious disposition, and they are always alert and devoted to the search for money or profit. I have travelled through a great many parts of the world, and although I made careful inquiries I could never find a man who would say that he had discovered a woman who, if a thing was not offered to her, would not demand it insistently and would not hold off from falling in love unless she got rich gifts in one way or another. But even though you have given a woman innumerable presents, if she discovers that you are less attentive about giving her things than you used to be, or if she learns that you have lost your money, she will treat like a perfect stranger who has come from some other country, and everything you do will bore her or annoy her. You cannot find a woman who will love you so much or be so constant to you that if somebody else comes to her and offers her presents she will be faithful to her love.

Women have so much avarice that generous gifts break down all the barriers of their virtue. If you come with open hands, no women will let you go away without that which you seek; while if you don’t promise to give them a great deal, you needn’t come to them and ask for anything. Even if you are distinguished by royal honors, but bring no gifts with you, you will get absolutely nothing from them; you will be turned away from their doors in shame. Because of their avarice all women are thieves, and we say they carry purses. You cannot find a woman of such lofty station or blessed with such honor or wealth that an offer of money will not break down her virtue, and there is no man, no matter how disgraced and low-born he is, who cannot seduce her if he has great wealth. This is so because no woman ever has enough money – just as no drunkard ever thinks he has had enough to drink. Even if the whole earth and sea were turned to gold, they could hardly satisfy that avarice of a woman.

Furthermore, not only is every woman by nature a miser, but she is also envious and a slanderer of other women, greedy, a slave to her belly, inconstant, fickle in her speech, disobedient and impatient of restraint, spotted with the sin of pride and desirous of vainglory, a liar, a drunkard, a babbler, no keeper of secrets, too much given to wantonness, prone to every evil, and never loving any man in her heart.

Now woman is a miser, because there isn’t a wickedness in the world that men can think of that she will not boldly indulge in for the sake of money, and, even if she has an abundance she will not help anyone who is in need. You can more easily scratch a diamond with your fingernail than you can by any human ingenuity get a woman to consent to giving you any of her savings. Just as Epicurus believed that the highest good lay in serving the belly, so a woman thinks that the only things worth while in this world are riches and holding on to what she has. You can’t find any woman so simple and foolish that she is unable to look out for her own property with a greedy tenacity, and with great mental subtlety get hold of the possessions of someone else. Indeed, even a simple woman is more careful about selling a single hen than the wisest lawyer is in deeding away a great castle. Furthermore, no woman is ever so violently in love with a man that she will not devote all her efforts to using up his property. You will find that this rule never fails and admits of no exceptions.

That every woman is envious is also found to be a general rule, because a woman is always consumed with jealousy over another woman’s beauty, and she loses all her pleasure in what she has. Even if she knows that it is the beauty of her own daughter that is being praised, she can hardly avoid being tortured by hidden envy. Even the neediness and the great poverty of the neighbour women seem to her abundant in wealth and riches, so that we think of the old proverb which says, “the crop in the neighbour’s field is always more fertile, and your neighbour’s cow has a larger udder,” seems to refer to the female sex without question. It can hardly come to pass that one woman will praise the good character or the beauty of another, and if she should happen to do so, the next minute she adds some qualification that undoes all she has said in her praise.

And so it follows that woman is a slanderer, because slander can only spring from envy and hate. That is a rule that women do not want to break; she prefers to keep it unbroken. It is not easy to find a woman whose tongue can ever spare anybody or who can keep from words of detraction. Every woman thinks that by running down others she adds to her own praise and increases her own reputation – a fact which shows very clearly to everybody that women have very little sense. For all men agree to hold it as a general rule that words of dispraise only hurt the person who utters them, and they detract from the esteem in which he is held; but no woman on this account keeps from speaking evil and attacking the reputation of good people, and so I think we can insist that no woman is really wise. Qualities that a wise man has are wholly foreign to a woman, because she believes, without thinking, everything she hears, and she is very free about insisting on being praised, and she does a great many other unwise things which it would be tedious for me to enumerate.

The feminine sex is also commonly tainted by arrogance, for a woman, when incited by that, cannot keep her keep her tongue or her hands from crimes or abuse, but in her anger she commits all sorts of outrages. Moreover, if anybody tries to restrain an angry woman, he will tire himself out with a vain labor, for you cannot keep her from her evil designs or soften her arrogance of soul. Any woman is incited to wrath by a mild enough remark of little significance and indeed at times by nothing at all; and her arrogance grows to tremendous proportions; and as far as I can recall no one ever saw a woman who could restrain it.

Commons_image_MedievalFurthermore every woman seems to despise all other women – a thing which we know comes from pride. No person could despise another unless he looked down upon him because of pride. Besides, every woman, not only a young one but even the old and decrepit, strives with all her might to exalt her own beauty; this can come only from pride, as the wise man said very clearly when he said, “There is arrogance in everybody and pride follows beauty.” Therefore it is perfectly clear that women can never have perfectly good characters, because, as they say, “A remarkable character is soiled by an admixture of pride.”

Every woman is also loud-mouthed, since no one of them can keep her tongue from abuses, and even if she loses a single egg she will keep up a clamor all day like a barking dog, and she will disturb the whole neighbourhood over a trifle. When she is with other women, no one of them will give the others a chance to speak, but each always tries to be the one to say whatever is to be said and to keep on talking longer than the rest; and neither her tongue nor her spirit ever gets tired of talking. A woman will boldly contradict everything you say, and she can never agree with anything, but she always tries to give her opinion on every subject.

No woman is attached to her lover or bound to her husband with such pure devotion that she will not accept another lover, especially if a rich one comes along, which shows the wantonness as well as the great avarice of a woman. There isn’t a woman in this world so constant and so bound by pledges that, if a lover of pleasures comes along and with skill and persistence invites her to the joys of love, she will reject his entreaties – at any rate if he does a good deal of urging. No woman is an exception to this rule either. So you can see what we ought to think of a woman who is in fortunate circumstances and is blessed with an honourable lover or the finest of husbands, and yet lusts after some other man. But that is precisely what women do who are too much troubled with wantonness.

Indeed, a woman does not love a man with her whole heart, because there is not one of them who keeps faith with her husband or her lover; when another man comes along, you will find that her faithfulness wavers. For a woman cannot refuse gold or silver or any other gifts that are offered her, nor can she on that account deny the solaces of her body when they are asked for. But since the woman knows that nothing so distresses her lover as to have her grant these to some other man, you can see how much affection she has for a man when, out of greed for gold or silver, she will give herself to a stranger or a foreigner and has no shame about upsetting her lover so completely and shattering the jewel of her own good faith. Moreover, no woman has such strong bond of affection for a lover that if he ceases to woo her with presents she will not become luke-warm about her customary solaces and quickly become like a stranger to him.

Avoid love and trample under foot all of its rules:

It doesn’t seem proper, therefore, for any prudent man to fall in love with any woman, because she never keeps faith with any man. Everybody knows that she ought to be spurned for the innumerable weighty reasons already given. Therefore it is not advisable, my respected friend, for you to waste your days on love, which for all the reasons already given we agree ought to be condemned. For if it deprives you of the grace of the Heavenly King, and costs you every real friend, and it takes away all the honors of this world as well as every breath of praiseworthy reputation, and greedily swallows up all your wealth, and is followed by every sort of evil. As has already been said, why should you, like a fool, seek for love, or what good can you get from it that will repay you for all these disadvantages? That which above all you seek in love – the joy of having your love returned – you can never obtain, as we have already shown, no matter how hard you try, because no woman ever returns a man’s love. Therefore if you will examine carefully all the things that go to make up love, you will see clearly that there are conclusive reasons why a man is bound to avoid it with all his might and to trample under foot all its rules.

If you will study carefully this little treatise of ours and understand it completely and practice what it teaches, you will see clearly that no man ought to mis-spend his days in the pleasures of love. If you abstain from it, the Heavenly King will be more favorably disposed toward you in every respect, and you will be worthy to have all prosperous success in this world and to fulfill all praiseworthy deeds and the honorable desires of your heart, and in the world to come to have glory and life everlasting.

Source

The Art of Courtly Love, by Andreas Capellanus, written in 1174, Translated by John Parry in 1941; Excerpt is from pp. 200-211

? Image at top of this article shows a golden casket from the Middle Ages depicting scenes of servile male behaviour typical of the emerging culture of courtly love. Such objects were given to women as gifts by men seeking to impress. (Note the woman standing with hands on hips in a position of authority, and the man in blue being led around by a yoke or leash in a position of subservience).

About Peter Wright

Peter Wright has been a MHRA for 30 years, a Man Going His Own Way for more than 10 years, and is the creator and publisher of gynocentrism.com

Main Website
View All Posts
  • theoutside

    Great to draw attention to this.

    In a short book I interpreted aspects of 20th century French Surrealism as being a kind of rebirth of Petrarchism. I.e., it’s a very persistent tendency that can take many forms. If it is ever entirely gotten rid of, it will be a different world truly, at least in the West.

  • Anti Idiocy

    The guy is a bit hard on women. Nevertheless, reading this makes me wonder if men will ever learn.

  • Robert St. Estephe

    An online university for men is what is being built here. This post is another 100% must read reference text that no boy should be kept in the dark about. He need not adopt the viewpoint of the text whole-hog, but he absolutely must know this text and must think about it — over a period of years as he gains experience.

    Real education is about open informed discussion based on a diverse selection of evidence. Indoctrination with a fixed interpretation is not education. AVfM’s strength is its commitment to dialectics and disdain for ideology (and its rejection oif the temptation to create a new orthodoxy).

    The selection and presentation of classic reference texts as this (and Bax’s and others) on AVfM is a great service to all who seek to escape indoctrination and embrace autodidacticism.

    • http://vilo13.blogspot.com/ Lucian Vâlsan

      „An online university for men is what is being built here.” – I would have laughed at this 3 or 4 years ago.

      But now, it is right on the money.
      I disagree with a significant portion of the text – but it is undoubtedly a text to which any boy should be exposed to.

      • J Galt

        Each man a college unto himself.

  • Feuillet

    Even as a anti medievalist I must give deep respect to this writer. One must place him along the side of Roger Bacon as being in the time of darkness he is a air of freshness..

  • Alphabeta Supe
  • J Galt

    I don’t know why but this piece reminded me of the movie trainspotting and the song “born slippy.”

    watching the guy enter the bathroom stall reminded me of marriage. Particularly when he entered the porcelain vagina to find his shit. I was left to ask myself; what is the opposite of transcendental……….lose-endenta? I’m renaming the movie “Brainspotting.”

  • corbyworld

    Excellent find, thanks Peter. Though I may not agree with every phrase, it contains many important lessons. I wonder, just how many of these old gems of wisdom are still out there? A proto anti-feminist bookstore would be a great resource to have, indeed.

    It seems numerous people of previous ages penned thoughts on the feminine mystique and the plague that would be known as feminism.

    Geoffrey Chaucer – “The Canterbury Tales” circa 1390

    693       By God, if wommen hadde writen stories,
                    By God, if women had written stories,
    694       As clerkes han withinne hire oratories,
                    As clerks have within their studies,
    695       They wolde han writen of men moore wikkednesse
                    They would have written of men more wickedness
    696       Than al the mark of Adam may redresse.
                    Than all the male sex could set right.

    1037       “My lige lady, generally,” quod he,
                      “My liege lady, without exception,” he said,
    1038       “Wommen desiren to have sovereynetee
                      “Women desire to have sovereignty
    1039       As wel over hir housbond as hir love,
                      As well over her husband as her love,
    1040       And for to been in maistrie hym above.
                      And to be in mastery above him.
    1041       This is youre mooste desir, thogh ye me kille.
                      This is your greatest desire, though you kill me.

    I wonder if he was predicting the coming of Dworkin in the first quote above. Must have been one hell of a vision.

  • Shrek6

    Tarwil, yet again a fine article.

    As for this guy being a bit too angry against women.
    Well, I’m not sure I agree with that.

    For me, I think he has put together a pretty accurate opinion of what women are truly like. And I say that from my experience, even with the so-called ‘normal women.’

    I believe there are varying degrees to this malaise that affects the female of our species.
    I believe that just about every female on this planet is infected to some level or has been infected at some point in their lives, but have now been able to de-brief and redesign their thought patterns and belief structures to the point where they now see themselves as only equal to men and not superior. Where they now respect men unconditionally, in the same manner they expect men to respect them. But those women however, are like Hen’s Teeth!

    And I say this about both Traditionalists and those infested with feminism.

    Just do a little exercise. Just take note of all the comments that come out of the mouths of all the good women in your life and just be conscious of the derogatory remarks that are made about or toward men.
    Or the negative and incorrect beliefs of men in general.

    You will see that even your good women to some extent, believe some of, or a lot of the vomit that has been spewed out about men.

    Sure they may innocently believe this, or they have suffered at the hands of a man for some reason, but then blame all men, which does tend to be a mostly female trait.

    Don’t trust one, you don’t trust them all!

    This seems to be one of the worst female character traits that to me is inherent in every female on the planet.

    Of course I will be told I am wrong and that my perceived narrow experiences with regard women, don’t prove a thing. I do a lot of reading and I have known a lot of women and I’m always prepared to admit defeat if I am proven wrong.

    I do not know one single female on this planet, who has not been infected at some level. No, not even in my own family.

    And I am obviously leaving out the women on this site, because I don’t know any of them personally, so I cannot comment on them. Only to say that from their comments, they appear to have been able to shake off the bullshit they were fed when they were younger.

    We cannot change women, but we can change ourselves.
    So yes, we need to educate men to stand aside from women and take up the MGTOW flag. Once we have a large movement of men doing this, women will be forced to have a long hard look at themselves and start changing their selfish childish attitudes and behaviour.

    Sadly though, it’s gonna take a very long time for that to happen!

    • GQuan

      I’m troubled by a lot of this, particularly the following:

      “Sure they may innocently believe this, or they have suffered at the hands of a man for some reason, but then blame all men, which does tend to be a mostly female trait.

      Don’t trust one, you don’t trust them all!

      This seems to be one of the worst female character traits that to me is inherent in every female on the planet”

      I’m sorry, but this is worthy of a feminist, the sheer disconnection between the first and second assertions, and the apparent failure at self-reflection. “Those awful women, always blaming all men for the poor behaviour of a few…As a man, I blame all women for this!” And meaning it, not as satire but as honest commentary.

      There are useful and relevant warnings in the text being quoted here, but unless this place suddenly became about reverse-feminism rather than simply oppositional to the ideology, we should be taking this as an example of how even back then there existed tensions, warnings and mistrust in society due to perceptions of an uncontrolled gynocentric cast to courtship, gendered expectations, etc. And that the feminist assertion that these societies were all about women serving men is wrong. That’s the issue here. Not that this guy is somehow correct with his blatantly sexist viewpoints, but that the issues we deal with had their genesis long ago and that societies didn’t correspond to a simple feminist model.

      I’m disappointed to see people seizing on the writing above as some sort of inherent truth. This is about MGTOW in the 12th Century, not “how the female sex is awful and this guy shows us why”.

      Some of these comments are blatantly anti-woman, and in my mind at odds with the spirit of the site. You don’t encourage positive change and awakening by telling people “these behaviours and attitudes are bad…oh, but you can’t help but exhibit them, because they’re inherent to your sex”.

      • Shrek6

        Well Mate, you either deliberately misread my whole comment to support your pathetic attack on me, or I wrote it so disjointedly that it came across the wrong way.
        If the latter is true, I apologise for the misunderstanding.

        As for, “Don’t trust one, you don’t trust them all! ”

        That is not my opinion or attitude. That is indeed the attitude that women use against men. And if you think that me saying that is sexist, then you need to get your head read my friend.

        Just because I don’t like the attitude of the overwhelming majority of women who brand all men with the same tar brush, and yes, most of the so-called ‘good women’ do as well, doesn’t make me a woman hater or sexist.

        So sport, before you go shooting your mouth off with the sexist woman hating ‘FEMINIST’ crap yourself, maybe you should simply put up a post and ask me what I meant in a polite manner.

        If you don’t afford me some simple respect, you won’t get it back from me!

        • GQuan

          I quote: “…character traits that to me is inherent in every female on the planet”.

          Inherent. To every female. That’s what you said. And then you say you’re not sexist.

          If insisting that negative and hurtful character traits being in your opinion *inherent* to a sex, and to all members of a sex, isn’t sexist, then what is?

          • Shrek6

            Oh well, I guess I am sexist and a woman hater.
            Just don’t tell all my female friends who think the world of me, cos they might actually laugh at you.

            Even those friends of mine, agree that they pretty much all have the same sort of flaws/traits that are peculiar to women and not men. But they know that it is the bad ones who use those traits to harm men.

            Like I said in my first post. It’s my opinion and nothing more. This blog site doesn’t endorse my opinion which is fine. So don’t go blaming AVfM, because lil ol sexist me is acting out!

  • tallwheel

    The two paragraphs beginning with “No woman is attached to her lover…”

    A perfect description of hypergamy. Awareness of it is not a new concept at all.

  • http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F (Ian Williams)

    Fascinating to know that Andreas Capellanus penned about the gathering storm in 1174, exactly 231 years before Christine de Pizan wrote her book, ‘The Book of the City of Ladies’.

    Her book spoke lovingly of the evisceration of lowly males for them not being tethered to the divine things only women are tethered to. Pureness of good spirit, strength of heart, wisdom and of course inventiveness.

    Did you know that according to this book all advancements of humanity came from women and not men? The sciences, engineering, language, art, agriculture and yes even mathematics and writing. All from women?

    I didn’t know it either, but now I know that some believe it because the ramblings of an entitled PD idle-rich “Cake of the Cups” scratched it during bouts of menstrual fever. If she said it then well, I guess there must be something in it?

    Feminists roll this Pizan proto-form of themselves on blogs and books and give men a parting smack to the head with, “There! Proof that we were oppressed even then!”

    Solanas and Dworkin were only slivers that echoed her words. Make no mistake about it, Pizan was the original Gorgon.

    I ask myself about the work of Pizan. Was her hatred a pre-emptive strike against someone speaking only the truth 231 years before?

  • earl

    I’m not going to be so haughty to say that I don’t share some of these characteristics…because every man does.

    However…I’m glad I wasn’t born a woman. Because I can see the downside of continuing down the path of those characteristics.

  • donzaloog

    He may have been a little to hard on them but there is truth in what he say as has been proven throughout history. I believe there are women who do genuinely fall in love with men and devote themselves completely, but the are rare to be sure.

  • rexxthunder

    I knew Tom Leykis was an immortal being.

    • feeriker

      LOL. It would indeed be interesting (and hilarious) to update this text in “Tom talk.”

  • feeriker

    Thanks, Tawil, for this timeless piece of wisdom, which could just as easily have been written by anyone here today in describing contemporary womanhood. Like others here, I do believe that Capellanus paints with a bit too harsh of a broad brush (his repeated use of the word all in ascribing to women the characteristics he lists is, to me, over the top and careless, even in describing women of his own day and age). However, no man who has lived in the post-Medieval western world and who has interacted with and established relationships with women can deny the prevalence of what he describes.

    I’m just waiting for this work to gain the wider attention of the femisphere, followed by shrieks of “YOU SEE? MISOGYNY IS TIMELESSSSS!!!!”

  • KeanoReeves

    This is the crux of feminism. They need to have a common hate point to have unity.

  • Sredni Vashtar

    Hi. I am a young woman who believes in gender equality, the freedom of the individual and the removal of society’s cruel and arbitrary restrictions on both genders. As such I was excited to find your site as I was hoping to find like-minded people who care about issues such as prison rape, gender disparity in criminal sentencing, male victims of domestic violence and antiquated custody laws.

    Instead I found this hate-speech. It’s not advancing anyone’s rights to spew this regurgitated Medieval bile about those who had the temerity to be born female. Guess I’m going to move on; there MUST be somewhere on the internet that actually gives a shit about these issues and isn’t corrupted by disgusting bigotry. Enjoy your delusional hate-party, everybody.

    • Sting Chameleon

      The rhetoric is very vitriolic, but the text contains several valid points that are true even in this day and age.Greed, corruption, narcissism and the notion that women are somehow superior to men have existed since time immemorial. Of course, you wouldn’t acknowledge any of these because it’s “hate speech” and clashes with the feminist narrative.

      Now begone, filthy cur!

      • Sredni Vashtar

        I’m not disagreeing that greed, corruption etc have existed since time immemorial – I’m vehemently and passionately disagreeing that these traits are inherent characteristics of any one group of people, and I’m perplexed how AVFM can claim to be a human rights movement and publish this crap. I’m not a slave to any ‘narrative’…I’m just not an odious sexist, that’s all.

        I’d actually respect you all more if you actually came out and said ‘yeah, you know what, we hate women, and this site is a bitching-ground for disseminating that hatred’ rather than claiming to be an organisation with a humanitarian agenda.

        • Sting Chameleon

          Weren’t you on your way out, slimeball? You can’t stand the fact of not having the last word eh? You come here to express your righteous indignation over something written by a medieval scholar (which is being shown here for historical interest), and call everyone on this site “woman-hater” without even reading the mission statement of this site or taking any time whatsoever to read this site’s news and advocacy articles. You didn’t come here to learn anything, you had your preconceived notion of AVFM as a nest for misogynists and came here for validation.

          We don’t hate women, we hate disingenuous, cowardly gender ideologues such as yourself.

          • Sredni Vashtar

            Perhaps I was unclear – I meant I’d go somewhere else to discuss men’s issues; I deliberately opted in to be emailed about follow-up comments in case anyone wanted to engage in debate.

            The piece has not been published as a historical curio – the author even fawns on it as ‘amazing’, and much (although hearteningly not all) of the commentariat here seem to have agree with its central (in fact, only) thrust: that women are steeped in vice and devoid of virtue. This is poison and, more importantly, IT IS DEMONSTRABLY FALSE. If that belief makes me an idealogue then so be it – it certainly doesn’t make me disingenuous, and I fail to see how on earth standing up for it makes me a coward.

            One more thing I should clear up – I did not intend to insult everybody commenting here, just the unfortunate, unthinking majority who haven’t called out this Medieval work and it’s uncritical regurgitation by Peter Wright as sexist. In fact, reading the comments, I have seen some commenters who have called it out, and whom I have upvoted.

            The only idealogical point I expressed is that I believe it is wrong (in both sense of the word) to give truck to sweeping rants about the unworthiness of one gender, just as it would be wrong to do so on the basis of race. If anyone truly believes that this inalienable truth is an ‘agenda’ or a ‘narrative’ to be downvoted, then downvote and be damned.

          • http://gynocentrism.com/2013/07/14/about/ Peter Wright (Tawil)

            @Hypergamous feminist: “I did not intend to insult everybody commenting here, just the unfortunate, unthinking majority who haven’t called out this Medieval work and it’s uncritical regurgitation by Peter Wright as sexist.”

            It wasn’t the ‘sexist’ element that this piece was published for. It was published for it’s recognition of female hypergamy 800 yrs ago and the MGTOW response that hypergamous behaviour elicits – a fact about which you have been predictably silent.

          • Sting Chameleon

            “Inalienable truth” my ass. You focus on the original author’s harsh rhetoric and conveniently ignore the valid points he makes (female hypergamy, when left to run amok, is destructive to societies, and how men even at that time decided to disengage from sexual and romantic relationships due to the ever-increasing personal costs to them). But of course, acknowledging that would be too much.

          • Sredni Vashtar

            @ Peter Wright -

            Hi, ‘hypergamous feminist’ here!

            If you can label me a ‘feminist’ on the basis of the single point I’ve stood up for – gender equality – then so be it – labels are just words, after all. There seems to be a lot of debate in both feminist and manosphere circles about what a ‘feminist’ actually is but ‘believer in parity between the genders’ IS certainly a very popular definition. So you’re in good company there.

            On the other hand, you don’t know diddlysquat about my relationship or lack thereof, so you cry me out to be ‘hypergamous’ because I mentioned that I am a woman. I don’t buy the dogma of ‘female hypergamy’, and I’ll explain why.

            Hypergamy can be defined as ‘the inclination to marry or date an individual of higher status than oneself’. (Where status is measured according to financial security or social class). While this has been traditionally expected of women, I can assure you that I myself, and indeed most (all?) of the women I know today are not interested in choosing a partner on the basis of these factors. We dig honesty, kindness, shared sense of humour, sexual connection, shared interests, etc. Of course, you may counter that I am lying about the true desires of myself and my female friends – perhaps everyone with a vagina really IS a rabidly hypergamous social climber seeking to marry their way up some bullshit ladder. I essentially can’t prove, over the internet, that I’m telling the truth here – but I can give you my word that I am (whatever that’s worth!). Incidentally, people identifying as ‘feminists’ have been some of the most vocal about the need to abandon the notion that women should ‘marry up’ – consider for example the feminist backlash against that ridiculous ‘Princeton Mom’ who told young women studying at Ivy League schools that they can only be truly happy with an Ivy League educated husband.

            The other sense in which I’ve heard the word ‘hypergamy’ used is in PUA/manosphere circles is to claim that no woman can be constant in love, can be faithful, can be true to her lover and happy to be so – UNLESS he is THE BEST MAN OUT OF AAAALL THE MEN (which seems to be suggested in Capellanus’ butthurt Medieval rant). This is ridiculous – exactly who is ‘the best man’? President Obama? Is the First Lady really the only truly devoted, loving wife out there? Nope, sorry. Both women and men are capable of loving someone less than ‘perfect’, and capable of loving that person forever, even if someone slightly sexier/smarter/more successful comes along. Yes, some people are shits, always looking out with a hungry glint in their eye to ‘trade up’ – but inconstancy is not a flaw particular to the female gender. If you’ve ever tried to console a woman whose partner has left her by promising her there’s better out there, and heard her heartbroken wail ‘but i don’t want someone better! I want Daaaave’ (or Bob, or Mike, or whoever) then you’ll know I speak the truth.

            ‘no woman ever loved a man or could bind herself to a lover in the mutual bonds of love’ – nope, sorry, Messers Capellanus and Wright, I’m not buying it – and I don’t think my boyfriend would buy it either.

          • Sting Chameleon

            ” UNLESS he is THE BEST MAN OUT OF AAAALL THE MEN ”

            Nope, he just needs to be the best man she can find given her capabilities and social sphere.

          • http://gynocentrism.com/2013/07/14/about/ Peter Wright (Tawil)

            @Sredni Vashtar: “Hypergamy can be defined as ‘the inclination to marry or date an individual of higher status than oneself’. (Where status is measured according to financial security or social class). While this has been traditionally expected of women, I can assure you that I myself, and indeed most (all?) of the women I know today are not interested in choosing a partner on the basis of these factors.”

            ROFL, you are killing me.

          • Sredni Vashtar

            @ Sting Chameleon – right, okay – I stand corrected on the definition of the term…but all my original points still apply. The dogma of female hypergamy rests on the notion that there is one objective ‘best’ man who any particular women could get. This is such a narrow outlook it just doesn’t make sense – one woman might really like a man to have a dark sense of humour while the next couldn’t stand that; one woman might value passionate environmental activism and another might want a guy with a keen interest in white water rafting… its a complex interaction of many characteristics that determine which particular man is the ‘best’ man for any one woman, same as which woman is the ‘best’ for any one man. Is it any wonder that, out of all the people they know, women – like men – tend to fall in love with the person who happens to be most desirable to them? Seems perfectly reasonable to me! Then, once they are in a loving relationship, if someone equally good but with a better head of hair/perfect pitch/a more chiselled jawline comes alone – you know what? Most women (like most men) won’t falter, because mutual love that’s been forged through many experiences together – that counts a helluva lot towards being the ‘best’.

            @ Peter Wright – Okay – I guess you think I’m simply lying. Well, there’s not anything I can do to prove otherwise over the internet, so there’s a certain brute infallibility to your argument, I’ll give you that. But…I can’t think why, if I was just sitting here all hypergamous to my very core and whatnot, I’d want to waste my time lying about it on the internet. What if, just WHAT IF I’m telling the truth – what if women are as capable of real love as men are?! Then, uh-oh, you’ve all been sold a dodgy pill folks – and you could be selling it on to young or otherwise impressionable men and boys. I’ve nothing but respect for anybody’s choices not to date or marry – hell, I wish men ‘going their own way’ nothing but happiness! But it’s pretty sad if some of them actually WOULD be happier with romantic love in their lives, and they’re only avoiding it because they’ve been sold the big fat myth called ‘female hypergamy’.

            I realise that was a really lengthy post, but I happen to know that women are capable of love, and I believe men and boys need to know that.

        • Bewildered

          @Sredni Vashtar

          I happen to know that women are capable of love, and I believe men and boys need to know that.

          Actions speak louder than words! I for one would fervently wish that what you said was true but a honest appraisal would lead you to the conclusion that it’s the exception rather than the rule.Do you honestly believe the present zeitgeist encourages this? {Muses : Cosmo,TV, other POP crap and Women’s studies creating fairy tales about ‘evil menz’ etc}
          Unless there’s a drastic attitudinal change to undo the damage caused by feminism these desirable women would be like the oasis in the desert of gold diggers and other myriad opportunists who croon “What’s love got to do with it”

  • wingsclippedwolf

    He was a little harsh on them? No, he was sexist. It infantilizes women by saying they can’t help but be shits. Further, it forgives lack of loyalty, dignity, honor, and accountability because they were female. Looking out for yourself and your own needs is different from giving half the assholes in the world a pussy-pass. Assholes incapable/unwilling of self-examination, or brought up with an inflated sense of entitlement should be avoided or dealt with carefully. Capellanus’s work is an interesting read, and it has wisdom in it, but it isn’t gospel and shouldn’t be treated as such.

    • Sting Chameleon

      This. Capellanus takes moral agency away from women, which is the very trap that led us to this mess.

      • Alex462

        It is not men’s job to fix women. They have little agency, because 1) that is their evolved nature and 2) men enable it.

        We cannot change 1, that is an inherent female trait (*maybe* we can influence our daughters and attempt to carefully select females with whom we associate), but we can change 2, since we are the ones doing it.

        At the end of the day, MGTOW is about disengaging from groups who actively hate us and building the environment which we, as men, want to live in. We’ve realized that it’s -our- labour, -our- blood, -our-intellect which form the foundation, walls and roof of this and all societies, and we are no longer willing to be taken advantage of.

        If women are willing to toe the line, they are welcome to participate, but only on -our- terms.

        • wingsclippedwolf

          Our terms? Should we ask for unconditional surrender of the gender war? Is this about supremacy and not equality? Feminists have had their vindictive and insidious experiment run amok for half a century now, and counting. Men AND women built society. Men have been responsible for the scourge of feminism too-for their complacency and giving agency to it.

          • Sting Chameleon

            The gender war will end when gender ideologues get discredited and wiped out of history. Some evil women (backed up by powerful men) started this war, and we will end it.

          • Alex462

            “Is this about supremacy and not equality?”

            That would be a bitter way of looking at it, but yes. We know we’re capable of building stuff, we know that women want to take stuff we build. Some women are capable of building, but why take risks?

            Feminism has not been around for a mere half century. Females have always been acquiring the wealth of males.

            The truth is never sexist, it is what it is. If your neighbour digs a pool, and you shit in it, you can hardly complain when he moves away, digs a new one and builds a fence.

            The idea that the productive owe the weak, merely for the fact of their productiveness is the parasite at the heart of socialism, feminism and the fall of every empire.

        • Sting Chameleon

          It’s not our job to “fix women” (the very idea is megalomaniac as fuck), but to CALL THEM OUT ON THEIR BULLSHIT AND STOP ENABLING DESTRUCTIVE BEHAVIOR. Feminism succeeded because powerful men enabled it.

          • Alex462

            “Feminism succeeded because powerful men enabled it.”

            All men enabled it.

            Stop working for them, stop giving them your labour, and we’ll see how quickly the engine of the world stops turning.

            It doesn’t really matter anyway, since they started this process themselves. Young men no longer have incentive to be good little drones. Soon, there will be no more gold for feminists to plunder.

  • Justice

    Women are incapable of loving a man. Their DNA will only let them love children.

    Women will fake loving a man, until she decides another man can give her a better deal.

  • Sredni Vashtar

    @ Bewildered –

    I’m totally non-plussed by this; I can only think you all must have been spectacularly unlucky in the subset of women you’ve had dealings with. My ‘honest appraisal’ of ‘the situation’ would be quite different – ‘NAWALT’? Bullshit – MOST women aren’t ‘like that’. Most of us are no more fickle, jealous or ‘hypergamous’ than most men are. Decent, non-hypergamous ladies – myself, my female friends, you (if you’re a woman), your decent female friends, the female MRAs on this site (presumably) – we’re NOT shining oases in a desert of vice, we’re not dogs walking on our hind legs, we’re not freak exceptions, we’re not ‘that one woman in ten thousand’ – we’re the norm. Get used to us.

    Of course, spectacular ill-luck aside, the hypergamy myth might be perpetuating itself because some of you guys seem to see the spectre of ‘hypergamy’ in every shadow, where it’s not there – e.g. in this very thread, Mr Wright called me ‘hypergamous’ for absolutely no reason, without a shred of evidence about my romantic life, just because I think his article peddles falsehood and that a site purporting to champion a humanist cause should be ashamed to publish such crap.

    Here’s the thing: women are just like people in general – some are dicks but most are basically decent. If you don’t want a romantic relationship, good for you, but if you do, don’t let this ‘hypergamy’ hate-vomit put you off.

    P.S. I actually think the present zeitgeist is almost fixated on long-term, faithful love (what someone somewhere called ‘love according to the gospel of the radio phonograph’) and I think this is (if anything) particularly true of media marketed at women, rather than at men.