A place for a


A mother’s love is selfish

I sit at the lake and watch my birthday card burn. The part with the message is already gone. No way to know what grandma and my mother wrote me. My gut aches with guilt and sentiment, but I am consciously too cruel to acknowledge it. I sent them away months ago and now I must be firm. I need to learn to live without their support. Totally.

Some time later, I get a letter from my mother. I hesitate to read it, but curiosity gets the best of me.

She writes that she is sorry for all the things that went wrong in my life. The usual blah blah.

Before you dismiss my judgment as too cold: How is it that you willingly accept a cold analysis of women’s sexuality, but not of their motherhood?

Food for thought.

She writes why she did not leave Germany with my father. Interesting, but irrelevant.

She writes that if she could take all my pain upon her, she would.

She begs to see me. She writes that it would not hurt me, after all, to see her once a week.

Yes, it would.

Is it not curious that she brags about her wish to take my pain upon her in one sentence, yet is not willing to grant me my freedom of her company?

Although claiming to want to help me, she ignores my wish for solitude and imposes her presence upon me.

The selfish nature of a (my) mother’s love

A mother’s love is about caring and smothering. From her perspective, she is a giver. Altruistic and of purest intent. She wants me to be happy.

Altruism seems to confuse quite a lot of people, in that they see it as anti-proof to selfishness. It is not and I will explain why.

First of all, altruism / mother’s love is only an emotion. Yes, I understand it. To be willing to feel miserable if only the subject of your love is happy.

A noble intent. And yet it is about her wish to see me happy. If I am not, it is her who suffers. She needs to see me happy in order to be able to be happy herself. It is her who will not tolerate me being in distress, even if I want and need to be.

This should suffice to refute the notion of altruism. It is illogical. Even when you are doing something for somebody else, it is still you who is driven to do it.

That said, I do not oppose selfishness. On the contrary. I did not point this out to make a mother look like a monster, but to demystify her love.

But the selfishness is not the problem of a mother’s love. The problem is that, as all emotions, it is impulsive, instinctual and irresponsible.

Mother’s love as a destructive force

By now, you should know enough about women’s nature to agree that emotions are an imperative to them. They cannot help themselves. If they feel something, it is right.

Therefore, if a mother sees her kid in distress, she will not be able to do anything but smother it. She will not be selective. Any kind of distress needs to be attended to immediately.

But why would I oppose being happy?

The answer is, of course, because distress is necessary in life. I have read the statement that a mother’s unselective care giving can be like a shoe on the head of a person who is trying to stand up. It is all okay. You do not need to stand up. You are good as you are. I like you on the floor.

There is a place for a mother’s love, but it definitely needs to be regulated. She cannot be allowed to indulge in it every time, because that will create a weakling.

A mother’s love as a delusion

Combine this knowledge with the female hamster and you are left with  mother who not only desperately needs to see you happy right now and here, but also is deluded enough to think that her affection is the one thing you could possibly need, her love the one ultimate pill that solves all your problems.

And how cruel would you be to reject her love? How cruel to refuse a hug you neither need nor want? A hug that was only offered to you because she saw some stupid trace of sadness in your eyes. So important is her need for you to be happy, that you will even pretend to be, only so that she will leave you alone and not force her intimacy unto you. 

A mother’s love does not gauge the long-term consequences of each engagement. It just is. It does not care whether the kid deserves the affection or whether it actually does him good.

It is quite likely that a mother would not truly understand to leave her kid alone even if somebody reasoned to her that it will make the kid happy in the long term.

And this leads me to a quite Machiavellian aspect of a mother’s love.

A mother’s love as a commodity

A mother is a saleswoman. More than once has my mother and grandmother told me that no person on earth will ever love me like she does. It is a unique selling point.

She is indeed the perfect saleswoman because she blindly believes in the all-encompassing healing power of her love. She will therefore administer it any time she gets the chance, even if it is not really helpful.

How do you call it when you substitute the real solution with a quick fix? A drug.

Your mother’s love is like the pimp’s heroine. Coincidentally, I have heard a drug addict compare the effect of heroine to momma’s warm chicken soup.

Administer a drug often enough to smooth you through some problems without solving them and you generate addiction. Next time you face a challenge, you will not be used to dealing with it and crave another fix.

That is what a mother’s love is about, at least partly. To make you an addict to her affection.

As females always do, mothers also have the unconscious intent to bind you to them. It does not necessarily take a ring to do that.

Of course, she only wants to see you happy in that moment. She wants to help. She will look into your eyes and swear she wants nothing in return.

But next time she wants something, be sure that she will remember all the things she did for you and use them to make you feel guilty.

A mother’s love is a power play.

She wants you to be around when you grow old, so that she will not be alone. Not being left without anyone to take care of her. And my mother admitted that on more than one occasion. My grandmother never fails to tell me how miserable she is, alone.

She needs to be a pillar for you so that you may later be one for her.

Do you wonder how this makes sense evolutionarily? I have not thought about it. If you have a good remark, share it.

Stop pedestalizing a mother’s love, the last holy grail. If anything, it is useful to her. It is her product which she is programmed to give. Affection. And when the time comes, she will want to capitalize on that investment.

And she will not know that this is true until the day actually comes.

As the Illimitable Man points out, women are perfect Machiavellians. They are perfectly convincing because they do not know they are lying.

See any parallels between your relationship with your mother and other women?

I recently had a talk with a woman that infuriated me. She had a son who lived with his father. I told her that this was great for him, but she acknowledged that this was not the reason she let it happen. She said that she merely allowed it for financial reasons and would not give him away else. She saw him as something she owned, while a father typically sees a son as a friend to teach something.

Given my own pains growing up without a father, this ignorance left no doubt in my mind about the fact that women do not really rationally care if you are happy or grow up a strong man. They just satisfy themselves by satisfying you in any given moment. The consequences do not matter to them. They rationalize it by thinking that a mother’s love solves everything.

A mother coddles you not because you need to be coddled. But because she wants to coddle you. Understand the difference. The first is (would be) a logical decision, independent of her own needs. The second is based on the mother’s urgent need to see you happy.

My mother once gave my father a present he did not ask for. When he told her he did not need it, she broke out in tears.

It is all about her need to give, to make you happy.

She does not know you need what she has. She feels it.

Of course, a mother is different from other women in one aspect. A mother will never leave you alone – while other women will. She will never possibly have as much leverage on anybody as she has on you.

Incidentally, she primes you for guilt trips, which all other women can capitalize on.

The sacrifice argument

But a mother will sacrifice herself for her child.

Well, yes, I believe that this is true. Maybe. Does it matter?

No. There is no honor or rationality in that. It is an instinct. A woman sacrificing herself for her child is no more noble than me taking a shit when I need to.

The important point for all deluded moralists is: Sacrifice is a very unique and rare situation. And outside of that situation, this special instinct does not play any role.

The fact that she would eventually sacrifice herself for your life does not mean that she will actually willingly sacrifice herself for your true happiness and much less for your freedom.

Because her sacrifice is not based on principle. It does not flow from her conviction that she actually wants you to be happy, even without her. It is a mere vulgar reflex.

In everyday life, her wish to make you happy will by far overshadow her possible wish for you to be happy.


A mother, like a woman, is a source of pure pleasure that can distract you from all life’s struggles. But like any woman, this comes at a price. Not when you are receiving it. At that moment, it is for free. But once they feel it is fair to give something back, they will readily say so.

“I have given so much to you for free. Now it is time for you to do something for free for me!”

Not only is it an investment in your dependency, it is – in very equal quantity – an investment into your inability to overcome adversity by yourself.

In a traditional family, a strong father can shield the kid from too much motherly affection and the dependency can, in such a regulated environment, perhaps exist in a healthy dose. To my disgust, though, I have seen fathers use the same guilt tripping women do.

Struggle is necessary to grow and absence of loving is necessary to learn to love yourself. Logically follows what happened to me: I was so loved by my mother that I never learned it.

Do not be selective when it comes to the red pill. Your mother is the first woman in your life. The greatest power over you. And yet an alien power, because she is female and you are male. She is not your kin, she is not your friend. She is one who provides you with pleasure and she is a saleswoman. Be wary of it.

Is it fair for a woman to expect you to be around for having brought you up with her love? As far as I am concerned, I feel very much more content and like myself when she is not around. That is reason enough for me to banish her from my life. I do not need her. I did not ask her to bear me. She had as much joy making me happy as I had being made happy. It is a fair deal.

If you feel indebted to your mother, go ahead and stay with that old annoying hag. Or read No More Mr. Nice Guy.

And if you still believe that a mother only wants your best at her own sacrifice, remember the letter excerpts at the top.

4 votes

3 Pingbacks/Trackbacks

  • Pingback: A mother’s love is selfish | Manosphere.com()

  • Pingback: Dark realism: thoughts from the western Single Mother Societies progeny. | pop~agenda~culture()

  • Mack Moore

    It is painful to recognize deep truths that our culture doesn’t prepare us for, and cannot prepare us for, because some truths are so contrary to our culture as to be heresy. We are left to discover these truths for ourselves. It is sad that we must do so very often alone.

    > She needs to be a pillar for you so that you may later be one for her.
    > Do you wonder how this makes sense evolutionarily?

    I think woman’s tendency to depend on social structures and interactions has “evolutionary” advantages. Her ability to motivate others verbally to serve her own survival interests also means serving the survival interests of her children in utero, which is a clear “evolutionary” advantage.

    Whatever it takes to achieve this, including creative interpretation of reason, evidence, or arguments. Including promoting a delusion that she is the most giving member of the community and therefore “deserves” care. This is true only in terms of reproduction, not emotional care of others. Perhaps the transference from one to another (deserving care because of her role of reproduction as opposed to deserving care because she is supposedly a loving being) is a subconscious echo of an ancient biological truth.

    Let us recognize and support the biological truth, not the transferred delusion. Women are not more loving overall, where “love” means giving altruistically. Their “love” does indeed carry an element of self-interest.

    My mother’s love nourished me as a child, and this helped keep me sane in later years; but the sociological phenomenon of allowing subconscious echoes of ancient biological truths to get expressed sideways as goddess worship impairs the search for truth and justice, creating excuses to dehumanize men.

    Women are not goddesses any more than men are gods. Yet it appears otherwise to those stuck in the romantic illusion of the “drug” you’ve discovered. In order to move beyond the adolescence of our species (and actually promote the truth and justice we say we want), perhaps we need to wean ourselves from that “drug” as you have already done personally.

    • I have been thinking about this war between the sexes and I have decided that it makes absolutely no sense. In fact, it is so damn weird that I almost suspect there is some psychopath pulling the strings to have some fun. Really, how moronic is that? Make people absolutely identify with their sex and then make them believe their sex is better than the other and then let them fight it out. Is the other sex really the enemy? Is the other sex even a valid group / collective or is it just an arbitrary line drawn to wage war?

      • Mack Moore

        > some psychopath pulling the strings to have some fun.

        I agree completely. It’s pretty well documented. Google “Aaron Russo feminism Rockefeller”. And there’s much more than that available, of course.

        Karl Marx invented feminism and the ultra rich financed it for the same reason, in order to weaken families so as to turn the dependence and loyalty of citizens from family to state. Citizens who are dependent on the state and loyal to the state empower the state, and that is what Karl Marx and other elitists were after all along: Power.

        Yes, I know Marx tried to maintain the opposite persona, “a man for the people”, but everything about Marxism points to centralized control by elites. He’s definitely an elitist, believing that the common man is too dumb to decide anything for himself, while believers in democracy believe contrarily, that the common man is smart enough to decide for himself how to live without centralized planning or interference.

        It’s not stupidity that the elites do this, it’s genius; just EVIL genius. They didn’t make us identify with our sex, that was natural. They didn’t make men believe their sex was better, that’s feminist propaganda. They did make women believe their sex was better, in order to enhance the divide-and-conquer effect. The genius in their plan is weakening family in order to enhance state power. The plan has definitely worked, and they don’t care that it results in massive human suffering.

        No, the sexes are not fundamentally each other’s enemies, even though Karl Marx and his financiers have succeeded in making the feminist and unknowingly-feminist-complicit masses believe otherwise.

        One of the lies of feminism is that the sexes are the same. No, we’re not. We are significantly different in many ways. The sexes are not arbitrarily or artificially defined groups. Nature is written in our DNA.

        Feminism claims that traditional masculinity and femininity were artificial constructs. No, it was nature. Nurture only reinforced nature, not caused it. And that’s proper, for it’s wiser to reinforce and work with nature than fight against it.

        The artificial constructs are the new politically correct multiple genders which disregard nature and instead exalt engineered mind games as the standard. Feminism has caused this popular trend, yet feminism is absolutely bereft of scholarly work. It doesn’t even attempt to be scholarly, objective, or reasonable.


        • I have a different view of feminism. I believe feminism means well. Women should not be dependent on men. In Nature, the mammal mother is a fierce animal, who breeds offspring raised to be independent and unattached. Human women have enslaved men for millenia, with marriage; Until Death Do You Part. Marriage is the corruption of our species, it’s the source of all the evil. Girls are infantilised by Society’s wives / mothers who are desperate to protect their illegitimate entitlement to control their male slaves. Cue modesty, purity, shame >> narcissism.

          Feminism is needed, it’s long overdue. Women aren’t supposed to be leeches, preying on men (and children). But in classic narcissistic fashion, feminism itself has been corrupted. Women reduced by shame get it into their tiny minds that men are their prey, and feminism became a battle of the sexes.


          • It’s kind of a bad analogy though. What feminism does to make women ‘fierce animals’ is to throw money and entitlement at them through the state. So while superficially they seem independent, they really are still dependent on other men, if only through the labor that is stolen from them by the government and that they are forced to pass on to women.

          • Oh sure, feminism has completely lost its way. It’s stated goal is to make women independent, but women will never be truly independent until their mothers are independent. So we’re screwed…

            The children of reduced women will be reduced.

          • Yup, been thinking the same thing. No ideology in this world can fix our society because even if you knew, “on paper”, how to raise healthy kids, you just wouldn’t be able to do it without being healthy yourself. So what to do when almost everybody seems to be fucked up? Give them more rules on how to ‘act healthy’? Nah. Won’t work. I don’t know the solution. Maybe there is none.

          • All I know is, children are only brought to this world of suffering by monsters-in-denial. When you find yourself playing in a rigged game, the only way to win is not to play.

          • MGTOW?

          • Yeah, I guess…or take a jump off a highrise. I don’t see that there’s any other viable option…every single girl is trying to sell her worthless favour, even girls with careers, it’s just surreal.


            To be happy, I’d have to find what I don’t think exists: a brutally honest girl who doesn’t need a thing…

          • What’s your take on the ‘PUA and game is another form of pussy slavery’ concept?

          • I think Society’s women have rigged the game by reducing the value of every girl to sub-worthless. It seems to me as if the PUAs are getting played.

          • It’s funny, not a long time ago I read a little about shamanic traditions, one of which is soul retrieval, which is based on the idea that sometimes we lose a part of ourselves to something or someone. Like when we say ‘You have my heart’, we mean it literally on a metaphysical level.

  • rox123

    A mother’s love is indeed selfish, be it to a son or a daughter. Mine told me since childhood that adult children that “abandon parents” are bad, whereas I, as a child envisioned my life detached from my parents, so as a consequence I hid a lot of my desire to be independent and anger when she would involve herself in minutiae of my life as I grew up and started pulling back from her “nurturing”.

    Wanting to be free from mother’s company is something I deeply resonate with. I personally would not push my presence onto anyone if I as much suspect I am not welcome, so I can simply not understand how she can pressure me to spend time with her when it’s obvious I do not enjoy it.. and I am stressed by her requests for my support on various occasions – it is so annoying to be told she needs my help, and it makes her even more repelling when she does that.

    • Yeah, I understand that.

    • Just realized my response may seem a bit dismissive. I meant to say that I empathize with how you feel about your mother and your situation. Hope you will be on your own soon!

      Take care and thanks for your comment.

      • rox123

        No worries, I didn’t read it as dismissive. I already am on my own financially and hope it won’t change, ever. The discomfort I was talking about was happening a lot in the past while living with her and later while visiting her out of obligation (I still visit), and now even less because I was able to establish some healthy boundaries recently. However I am not fully free , that I will never be :)
        I love your articles by the way, first time I have been reading this mother-child relationship perspective on the web and I have been searching the internet a lot for some kind of confirmation that I wasn’t out of line with my ingratitude.

        • Great to hear! Why do you say you will never be fully free? I would say I have been just that for the past year. What’s stopping you from achieving that?

          • rox123

            I am not fully free because it is not what I am seeking, and severing all relationships with her is not what what I want now. I can tolerate some of her misdemeanors, because two things happened lately: as I said above, I enforced some boundaries (one of them was no more trash talking my dad, btw) which is what probably made her back up – no more laments that I don’t call her often enough and less prying, and second: she lost most of her grasp on me, emotionally. Less and less her sneaky, nosy and interrogation-like behavior (which is also less, as I wrote above) bothers me.
            Had I had the kind of notions that I do know about what is healthy in a parent-child relationship ten years ago, I would have severed contact with her, and saying this I don’t feel it would have been a mistake, as she certainly deserved it. Also, had I had known how to enforce boundaries ten years ago I would have probably forced her to behave better. It did me no good to keep on visiting her considering every visit was hell, but she was getting what she wanted: drama and my visits. It actually did neither of us good.
            Bottom line, the noose loosened, it doesn’t bother me anymore.

          • Interesting, thanks for sharing!

  • Pingback: The Epidemic Of Overmothering - Charles Sledge()

  • Anon515

    I think you just have a poor relationship with your mother and you’re looking so far into everything you’re missing whats in front of you – The big picture. Don’t blame yourself. Men’s primitive brains only allow them to think with tunnel vision and that’s why they’ll only work out half the universe. Shame they’ve had such a head start with the ludicrous oppression of the female sex.

    But speaking of what is ludicrous, the very notion that your mother cant be a bad parent and still love you. The truth, if you wanted to know, is that not everyone makes a great parent, but most of them hopelessly love their kids while never knowing how to really show/prove it consistently. If you bothered to pick up a book (a scientific one that is backed by studies) you’ll get a better understanding of why you feel the way you do about the world and especially about women.
    The Road Less Travelled by Scott Peckk is a particular eye opener on people in general.

    People like you get trapped in this cycle of blame blame blame, you begin to avoid responsibility in your reality. You cant find a women because THEY are the problem etc. Everything in your life is the result of something else and you claim to have little to no control of it. I can understand how it must be frustrating to exist like that and i believe that is the reason these kinds of communities online exist. “man-spaces” where guys literally get together and pat each other on the back for being men and then start playing the blame game in the comments section to validate their feelings and beliefs – Perfectly understandable, but in the long term, totally destructive.

    Just my 2cents. Im not a feminist. Im not an american. Im not a brunette. Just someone who’s decided to take time out of their lives to write up this post for the sake of presenting the counter argument. The purpose of debate is not to win but to expand your worldly view, kid.

    • I disagree.

      • ReturnOfTheQueen

        I had this crazy female intuition that you would.

    • Some remarkably salient points, but you do know that because of the nature of this one’s self-induced beliefs, he’ll never be intellectually capable of grasping them.

      I especially like the bit about the manospherian spaces where everyone pats one another on the back just for being a man, no matter how egregious any of those men are. In a sick way, it’s sort of like the giving of Participation Trophies just for playing… which most manospherians rather ironically rail against.

      • You are wrong. I get regularly criticized by other ‘manospherians’ and vice versa.

        You could take your argument and apply it to feminism just the same, if not more validly. Women seem to be universally lauded these days, ‘no matter how egregious’ any of them are.

        Also, it is my observation that women are herd animals in an itensity men can never hope to rival. Being naturally weaker, it makes sense for them to band together and form mobs with strong ‘social’ ties and intense shaming to keep everybody in line.

        • I’ll agree wholeheartedly that many manospherians regularly criticize the living snot out of one another’s positions — and I never claimed otherwise. But within those manospherian “safe spaces”, the PUAs will talk shit about MRAs and MGTOWs, the MGTOWs will talk shit against the MRAs and PUAs, and so on. You people are like a constant, unending game of idiot-rock, idiot-paper, idiot-scissors, where you get to manufacture opinions about why your manospherian religion is clearly the superior one. This is why men will never get ahead. That in-fighting, plus the projection of accusing women of what men are more guilty of demonstrate more consistently.

          I would love to visit any such land where women are lauded, let alone universally! I mean, I hear a brief, “hey, girl, good movie you were in!”, followed immediately by the bowels of Hades* shitting all over the woman who received the “laud”; likewise with any woman who is recognized for her work/success in any field. She gets a brief, kind notice, and the mass-coordinated hate-campaign is set loose upon her.

          Being a herd animal is the way to go. I WISH women could see the benefit of that. Other than perhaps heading to the restroom together, I really see no evidence of women being anywhere near the beneficial route of herd animal. Men, yes. Women, I would LOVE to see that begin.

          As for shaming, only guilty people can be shamed, and it’s sleazy to shame regardless of what adjectives and pronomials one is labeled by. It’s evident that you feel shamed by women for whatever reason(s), and perhaps enough so that you miss how often men are more guilty of that. It’s not a debate I’d bother getting myself into, as I have no problem letting most people believe wtf ever they feel is the one valid truth.

          {*generally Twitter, Reddit, and manospherian sites, often bleeding over into meatspace}

    • Shame they’ve had such a head start with the ludicrous oppression of the female sex.

      It’s amazing that you would actually believe that men, enslaved by women for millenia with religion’s marriage, could possibly have a motive to oppress women.

      Women have been oppressed, don’t get me wrong; but it’s women (mothers & wives, specifically) who have done all the oppressing. But then an old wife can’t compete with a young, promiscuous girl. Cue modesty, purity, shame, fear…religious acid sprayed onto every girl, reducing all of them into worthless leeches who need to prey on men. The children of needy leeches will be needy leeches. And the religious cycle of madness / conflict / war continues…


  • Rachel Muller

    I really dont enjoy the way you talk about womeN. I really do care about my children and if they wish they can leave, i encourage them to be independent, let them cook and make mistakes, i let them miss their bus and have the consequences. I dont coddle them.