Men Going Their Own Way [MGTOW] forums.

[drstrangepimp]

So basically it's a bunch of old guys with failing or failed marriages telling young guys not to get married because it didn't work out for them.

Strong generalization.

Yes, the young guys magically appear with no prompting of their own and wait in line for registration to open so they can be indoctrinated.

The herbivores of Japan are young guys, not bitter old guys. Off the top of my head about 30-40% of the guys under 40 in Japan are MGTOWs.

Never married BTW but I know over 10 men personally who have been through the system.

I know guys who still are on the run from the law and have had a family member who has been in and out of jail since I was a kid and still owes 30k that he can never pay. His kids are in their 30s now.

I know many more that are trapped in some kind of relationship where they are used completely.

You don't want to do that.

[ZahL]

Lol good.luck with your newton goals of 2013

[TheFourthPooper]

i dont think you know what bitter means. Theyve experienced first hand what can happen in todays society and so choose to be indifferent. You can endlessly parrot 'oh he just picked the wrong girl, hes insecure etc.' but divorce rates are not going down anytime soon. Child support payments arent going down anytime. The 'good' girls (whatever that means) are becoming even more scarce (perhaps they never existed in the first place?).

If you decide to not undergo an interaction which has more costs than benefits then youre bitter?

Simply deciding not to get married based the risks is something I am sure a lot of guys do currently, and I expect more to do so in the future. That has nothing to do with being bitter. However, if you get burned in family court, or cheated on in a long term relationship, or w/e else it is that happened to these guys, there will be an element of bitterness. Yes, they might see some things more clearly than they did before when they were more naive, but I think their experiences made them overly pessimistic; which is perfectly understandable. I do not think joining a group like is helpful either, b/c is just becomes an echo chamber and it can make you even more spiteful than you were before.

There is a difference between giving good info to young men about the risks of marriage in todays society and actively hoping to see other marriages fail so you can say "I told you so."

[KingChiefKeef]

i think the key word is GOOD. thes gguys are not finding good ones and the numbers have a reduce some

thats like finding a micro bacteria in a hay stack in this era

[drstrangepimp]

Simply deciding not to get married based the risks is something I am sure a lot of guys do currently, and I expect more to do so in the future. That has nothing to do with being bitter. However, if you get burned in family court, or cheated on in a long term relationship, or w/e else it is that happened to these guys, there will be an element of bitterness. Yes, they might see some things more clearly than they did before when they were more naive, but I think their experiences made them overly pessimistic; which is perfectly understandable. I do not think joining a group like is helpful either, b/c is just becomes an echo chamber and it can make you even more spiteful than you were before.

There is a difference between giving good info to young men about the risks of marriage in todays society and actively hoping to see other marriages fail so you can say "I told you so."

It's basically a support group so yes it is good because it prevents relapse.

Marriage and cohabitation is like a heroin addiction.

You need people to remind you why you quit.

Seriously, men can watch another man lose his house, car and everything else from junk and say "man you need help".

But do the same with a female and they'll cheer you to get right back in there. There are guys been married 2 or 3 times and living in a shack somewhere or in a van and nobody tells them to knock it off.

Sick.

It's not about hating women or spite, it's about self preservation.

Nobody hopes anyone's marriage will fail, that's ridiculous.

[NickDaQuik]

mgtow isn't a group, or a support group

its a lifestyle plain and simple

[syth1230]

Simply deciding not to get married based the risks is something I am sure a lot of guys do currently, and I expect more to do so in the future. That has nothing to do with being bitter. However, if you get burned in family court, or cheated on in a long term relationship, or w/e else it is that happened to these guys, there will be an element of bitterness. Yes, they might see some things more clearly than they did before when they were more naive, but I think their experiences made them overly pessimistic; which is perfectly understandable. I do not think joining a group like is helpful either, b/c is just becomes an echo chamber and it can make you even more spiteful than you were before.

There is a difference between giving good info to young men about the risks of marriage in todays society and actively hoping to see other marriages fail so you can say "I told you so."

It just seems that because you disagree with them you call them bitter. I dont agree with some of the people in the 'movement' as some choose to abstain from women altogether but i dont call them bitter because if it makes them happy who am i to question this? They arent hurting anyone so calling them bitter only seems to be some form of projection or delusion.

[LordBroski]

Feminism is a crooked, evil, and selfish movement that seeks being in a dominant position of power over men, NOT an equal position. If you look up a purely ideal feminist society, they want full reproductive autonomy (get phucked by whoever they want and bear their children), but want to be financially supported by their husband (who is most likely not the father of the children, but rather, marriage is a contract to agree to take care of the wife and children), or the state (I can see this happening already through taxation and social welfare programs).

As most men (80%+) are beta, they're pretty much going to be mooched and exploited. Let's be real, it's the betas who get rejected while younger that go on to make bank in pioneering fields such as engineering, tech, medicine, science, etc., and advance the world, so what feminism will do is tap into this work ethic, allow society to advance, but use the proceeds of men's efforts to support them sitting at home and raising kids they made with the top 1% of men with elite genetics, who will likely just lay around and bang women all day. The other 19%+- of men will be part of the police/military, and force the betas at gun point to do the bidding of women.

You see this already. It's happening. And with a few precedent court cases and more feminist-minded liberal agendas being pushed, we're a few pen strokes away from being trapped into being enslaved as a gender.

Unfortunately, with MGTOW, what happens is these men take a passive approach which gives clear way for the feminazi's, and men best served by this system, to take control. We need to FIGHT feminist reforms LEGALLY. We need lawyers who represent men's interests in courts, we need politicians arguing over birth rights and overhauling the child support and alimony systems, we need people to fight for men to have equal length paternity leave, the list goes on.

I'm going to law school, and will gladly phuck up many feminists in my legal career.

[jmt92]

This. That site is nothing but a bunch of passive aggressive pussies who can't handle their business properly.

this..


sheep tryin to fit in wolves clothing, come off as a minpin in the end.

[TheFourthPooper]

It just seems that because you disagree with them you call them bitter. I dont agree with some of the people in the 'movement' as some choose to abstain from women altogether but i dont call them bitter because if it makes them happy who am i to question this? They arent hurting anyone so calling them bitter only seems to be some form of projection or delusion.

Okay instead of bitter how about "overly pessimistic." Their view of society is overly pessimistic, and if it were really as simple as just doing what makes you happy, you would not join a forum like that and spend so much of your time giving the subject that much thought. It is not like they invented the concept of "do what makes you happy," and I do not think that is what the group is really about even if they say otherwise. It is a group to discuss how bad western society is, how bad men have it, how much modern women suck, and to promote a certain way of living. As a test take a look at their threads, and you tell me which one of us is more accurate.

I agree with some of what they say btw (marriage becoming a bad deal, men denied legal rights, institutional discrimination against men), and I do not have anything against them. It's just that I am not going to let them tell me they are something they aren't.

[cubaboymatt1316]

The bad news: I went over to the MGTOW forums for a bit.
The good news: I feel a LOT better about my life with my wife and 3 children.

I cannot imagine being so jaded and insecure.

[LordBroski]

The bad news: I went over to the MGTOW forums for a bit.
The good news: I feel a LOT better about my life with my wife and 3 children.

I cannot imagine being so jaded and insecure.

I hope divorce doesn't hit you bro. Because if it does, and you find yourself out there single and looking, your perspective will change completely. Cherish the current life you got (srs).

[conceptions]

First wave was. Third wave, not so much. Even some of the founders of first wave feminism have stated that it has long since abandoned any idea of equality and since progressed to seeking dominance.

That dominance is in defining what it means to be masculine by levying mass shame on Men for traditionally masculine activities.

It would be difficult to summarize without touching on a bunch of how / why tangents, but the tl;dr is:

Early to mid 1900's Women's Rights -> 1960's Feminism -> Gender biased legislation and courts -> Destruction of the family -> Massive number of single parent (matriarchal) households

= Generation of boys raised by women

The result of which is the current crop of women who bemoan ad nauseam the boys who "never grow up." How did you expect a boy to answer the male condition when you have removed all male role models from his life and shame every bit of masculine behavior he ever engaged in?

They are: by trying to convince Men that "privileges" still exist, and shaming behavior that is not beneficial to women. At best it's misinformation. At worst it's active subversion. My dead great-grandfather might have enjoyed male "privilege" in leading a family and getting a job. I enjoy a 55%+ divorce rate and the worst job market since the great depression. The same double standard applies over and over again, no matter the venue.

It's the same line of reasoning that a feminist uses when convincing men that men should still abide by chivalrous activity like paying for dates, vacations, and all sorts of other expenses in the realm of a relationship: all while men's role as the breadwinner and provider is undermined? All while feminists stridently protest for equal pay? So equal pay in the workplace, but not equal obligation to pay for expenses? We've really progressed, huh?

The feminist wants equality, but only when it benefits them. Otherwise they want to keep their gender-specific privileges to opt out of the responsibility that comes with having said equality.

And of course this results in the dumbest **** you've ever seen. Check the responses to any video in which a chick unloads punches on a guy. Chivalry would say he shouldn't hit a woman, right? But go figure as soon as he one-hit KO's her, white knights will be riding to her rescue in the comments, ready to defend her honor and uphold this corrupted idea of chivalry. Who do you think taught them that? Did they figure it out on their own? If you take a little boy and sit him on the playground, and a girl comes up and starts hitting him, what do you think his natural response is going to be? To hit back.

It's a learned behavior. The parent or teacher is the person admonishing the boy, telling him to not hit girls. And whether you think it's right or wrong, my point is that it's a learned behavior. In a world of "equality" if you hit someone, you should be prepared to get hit back - whether you have a penis, vagina, or otherwise. But in a world of Feminism, this is not the case.

Previously the feminist and women's rights movement were synonymous and petitioned for exactly that: women's rights and equality. But take a look at the outcome of the Equal Rights Amendment and how women killed it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllis...ghts_Amendment

It marked the beginning of a massive paradigm shift in and the divergence between Feminism and the Women's Rights movement. Women's Rights proponents (essentially 1st wave Feminists) understood that equality meant taking on equal responsibility and boy did they put the brakes on that one because they wanted to maintain their privileges. And people wonder why I can't help at laugh at feminists who now tell me to "check my privilege!" ?

Lol, better make sure those departments get equal funding, amirite?

If Feminism isn't the answer, then neither is Masculism. And I've argued this before to MRA groups and gotten quite the enraged responses from it. If you want equality, then you're going to have to accept equality. I know that sounds redundant, but I don't think many people understand the meaning of the statement.

Equal rights. Equal responsibilities. Right now everyone wants the first one with as few of the second as possible.

The day people can figure this out and balance it is the day we'll be one step closer to ending the gender war.

My adherence to "you don't need the opposite sex to drive your life" has such a stigma attached to it that they developed an internet meme to describe it FFS. There have been multi-million dollar movies made about it.
Because you are female.

And I like women, and I do not allow them to define my life in any significant way - however since society STRONGLY thinks I should, the stigma that comes with this life choice is immense. It's a stigma you don't have to deal with as a female in the West. Meanwhile the double standard continues - and as much as I've mentioned it, I don't bemoan it regularly. Crying about it doesn't change anything. However if I'm to continue to live, I have to work around it, so I do.

____________

tl;dr for glorious winged *******s:

1. Feminism and Women's Rights used to be similar. Now not so much.

2. Women killed the Equal Rights Amendment because they wanted to maintain gender-specific female privileges. Meanwhile they want to convince you that Men still have privilege.

3. Neither Feminists or MRAs (especially Feminists) want actual "Equality." They just want all the rights with none of the responsibilities.

4. As I've stated in the FA thread before, the entire premise of an FA female is about as realistic as fairy dust and unicorns.

1. You've ingested a lot of misinformation if you think third wave feminism is the problem. Third wave feminism reacts against second wave feminism which is the wave that contains a lot of the bits of feminism that are polarizing to people on the misc and in general (celebrating the specialness of women in particular over and above men sometimes). Third wave feminism comes back more to equality, especially in light of previous waves not embracing women who did not fit the western white standard. Moreover the list you have refers to 1960s feminism, which is second wave feminism, which you say led to the destruction of the family. You don't seem to be up on the subject as much as you think you are. Researching it might alleviate some of the grief it seems to be causing you-- you don't have as much to worry about as you think.

2. You can't state as fact the list above and take the connections for granted. They are subjective, and only people with your POV agree that they're connected.

3. What you're harking on as chivalry is something that has no basis in feminism. It is what feminists call benevolent sexism.

[PitaGriffin]

Ive spend some time lurking over there.. read some of the classic thread, etc.

Im 28 years old. I have been close to marriage once, really close... I Have had experiences with alot of women over the years. More than any man should have in his lifetime, things have always come easy on that front

I was lined up to be one of those bros. Bought a house than she lived in, Started making decent money, was planning a wedding, etc. She was beautiful, so beautiful that I ignored every single red flag I saw. I was living in perpetual denial without the safety net of personal experience.. a dangerous combo.

Her dad got sick. and down went the whole ship...

It took a few years to really piece it all together. In retrospect, I was fortunate. I was saved by the events that unfolded.

so...I can sympathize with some of those guys, I choose to live unmarried, and reject the social norms that surround me to the point of suffocation. I enjoy my lifestyle, I cherish every single f*cking day. A mindset that I couldn't have without the hell Experienced previously... and my story is peanuts compared to some of the bros over there.

all that being said. I feel no need to join a forum to discuss or preach about these things, or bash guys who choose a conventional lifestyle. I feel fortunate that I figured out things before it got ugly... and maybe it was just luck.

Live and let live bros.

[CitizenVagrant]

Researching it might alleviate some of the grief it seems to be causing you-- you don't have as much to worry about as you think.

I didn't take a gender studies class in college if that's what you're eluding to. It's amalgamated knowledge from my own experiences and connecting them to what I have understood as 1st / 2nd / 3rd wave.

I establish 3rd wave Feminism as current Feminism, and if I want to get a taste of it, all I have to do is look around:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvYyGTmcP80

If 3rd wave Feminism is "coming back more to equality" then why are 3rd waves still harping on Patriarchy or chivalry (read: not chivalry in name, but chivalrous activity) as if they still exist? If anything, the Matriarchy exists. Case in point: check the gender of the parent in the majority of single parent households. Those kids being raised by those parents are being raised during those critical formative years in a Matriarchy.

The only vestiges of Patriarchy left are a bunch of dying, old, wealthy white guys like Buffet / Soros / etc, and they're more in line with an Oligarchy. But they'd love to convince you that the guys sitting next to you are in it though so you play the willing idiot and vote for who they want at the polls and buy their products. The truth is the guys are in the same sinking economic ship that's being driven by the Oligarchs, not a non-existent Patriarchy.

2. You can't state as fact the list above and take the connections for granted. They are subjective, and only people with your POV agree that they're connected.

Of course. Only a Man knows what it actually means to be a Man and have a Man's point of view. Just like people who have been to the Moon are the only people who know what it actually means to be standing on the Moon. People can describe these things to you, but you will never connect the ideas to the experiences in the same way, because the experiences are not there - they're approximated or abstracted.

I don't know what it feels like to menstruate. You don't know what it feels like to have a dick. Does this prevent me from understanding your POV, or from you understanding mine?

If it did, there wouldn't even be a need for a conversation to occur, because we wouldn't be able to share ideas. The point is to have the required empathy and insight in order to even try to comprehend the ideas and experiences that connect inside a person's mind in order to share their understanding. This isn't just POV, nor is it a matter of two people knowing the same thing - it's two people getting as close as possible to knowing the same thing in the same way.

Can you ever get synchronous? Probably not, but you can easily get close enough for it to matter.

I don't know what you're trying to say by making this a point. No, males and females will not think alike - if that's what you're getting at. Can we try? Sure. But keep in mind that there's usually reciprocation if it's going to work.

3. What you're harking on as chivalry is something that has no basis in feminism. It is what feminists call benevolent sexism.

I don't see feminists stridently protesting that Men stop getting custody yanked away during divorce, or pay alimony / child support, or pay for dates, or sign selective service cards, or the rest of the laundry list of things that only Men do that benefits women.

As soon as they do, I'll believe that they don't want "benevolent sexism." Until then, they seem to be enjoying it.

[TheFourthPooper]

I establish 3rd wave Feminism as current Feminism, and if I want to get a taste of it, all I have to do is look around:

Wtf are you guys talking about? When you start discussing things like "3rd wave feminism" then you are at the point where you are so academic that it does not reflect reality. Only people in obscure academic circles know what any of this garbage is. Lol @ anyone who thinks "3rd wave feminism" will be the downfall of western society. It was not the Nazis, it wasn't fascism, it was not communism, 3rd wave feminism is what will bring us down.

The more I look at MGTOW the more I think it is worthless. At first I said I agree with what I thought was their message: that everyone should do what makes them happy even if it goes against social norms. But if you look at it that really is not their message. Google MGTOW, type MGTOW in youtube, read their forums, it is ALL the same chit. It is just angry guys complaining about how much society sucks. It would be fine if they actually tried to discuss things in a productive way and leave it at that, but that is not what they are doing by a long shot.

[conceptions]

This movement sounds awfully like 'I'm a strong, proud and independent woman and I don't need no man.'- statement but for males.
Also conceptions- modern feminism is not an egalitarian system. You can't be a feminist and an egalitarian.

Ah, yes you can. I'm afraid so many people are blinded by the connotations the title comes with that they don't look into it further (like the poster below). Feminists want equality for women. So yes, they operate from the assumption that women have not or don't have the same standing as men, which is why steps are taken to address that disparity. Feminism is generally friendly to many "other" types of people-- minorities, underrepresented socio-economic backgrounds-- because it tries to eliminate judgements based on essential categories like gender and race, so it doesn't benefit ONLY women.

I didn't take a gender studies class in college if that's what you're eluding to. It's amalgamated knowledge from my own experiences and connecting them to what I have understood as 1st / 2nd / 3rd wave.

I establish 3rd wave Feminism as current Feminism, and if I want to get a taste of it, all I have to do is look around:

If 3rd wave Feminism is "coming back more to equality" then why are 3rd waves still harping on Patriarchy or chivalry (read: not chivalry in name, but chivalrous activity) as if they still exist? If anything, the Matriarchy exists. Case in point: check the gender of the parent in the majority of single parent households. Those kids being raised by those parents are being raised during those critical formative years in a Matriarchy.

The only vestiges of Patriarchy left are a bunch of dying, old, wealthy white guys like Buffet / Soros / etc, and they're more in line with an Oligarchy. But they'd love to convince you that the guys sitting next to you are in it though so you play the willing idiot and vote for who they want at the polls and buy their products. The truth is the guys are in the same sinking economic ship that's being driven by the Oligarchs, not a non-existent Patriarchy.

Of course. Only a Man knows what it actually means to be a Man and have a Man's point of view. Just like people who have been to the Moon are the only people who know what it actually means to be standing on the Moon. People can describe these things to you, but you will never connect the ideas to the experiences in the same way, because the experiences are not there - they're approximated or abstracted.

I don't know what it feels like to menstruate. You don't know what it feels like to have a dick. Does this prevent me from understanding your POV, or from you understanding mine?

If it did, there wouldn't even be a need for a conversation to occur, because we wouldn't be able to share ideas. The point is to have the required empathy and insight in order to even try to comprehend the ideas and experiences that connect inside a person's mind in order to share their understanding. This isn't just POV, nor is it a matter of two people knowing the same thing - it's two people getting as close as possible to knowing the same thing in the same way.

Can you ever get synchronous? Probably not, but you can easily get close enough for it to matter.

I don't know what you're trying to say by making this a point. No, males and females will not think alike - if that's what you're getting at. Can we try? Sure. But keep in mind that there's usually reciprocation if it's going to work.

I don't see feminists stridently protesting that Men stop getting custody yanked away during divorce, or pay alimony / child support, or pay for dates, or sign selective service cards, or the rest of the laundry list of things that only Men do that benefits women.

As soon as they do, I'll believe that they don't want "benevolent sexism." Until then, they seem to be enjoying it.

I'm not sure how you can claim to know about the subject if your sources are ****ty youtube videos. I can find ****ty youtube videos of protesters to prove just about anything. brb using westboro baptist church videos as evidence that God hates homosexuals.

It sounds like you have a case of confirmation bias and probably search out bad examples of feminism to confirm your negative beliefs about it without looking any further. Why refer to 1/2/3rd wave feminism at all if you don't want to learn what they refer to? It only undermines your credibility.

The idea that feminism led to the destruction of the family and all the woes that MGTOW complain about isn't an opinion that only men can understand. Most knowledgeable men, I would wager, do not believe this because there is no proof for it.

I think you're confusing a version of oligarchy with patriarchy. It isn't just economic, though this is part of it. Patriarchy "operates through the disproportionate (sometimes exclusive) conferring of leadership status (and formal titles indicating that status) on men, a tradition characterized by casting all women as naturally unsuited to lead men, no matter what talents and expertise they might possess." Miscers seem to think that they're entitled to preside over their female significant others for no other reason than the fact that they're male, while many in discussions here don't fulfill the full financial leadership role that this distinction emerged from.

Also, child support is not chivalry. Egads. Feminism has no stake in chivalry. Chivalry is benevolent sexism.

Try reading this.

One issue that MRAs have taken as a pet issue is the concern over child custody. And it's true that, in most cases, men do not get custody of children in a divorce. There are, of course, exceptions (and a man with a lot of money and good lawyers stands a good chance of getting custody, I think), but the courts tend to favor women over men when granting custody.

Why?

Well, it goes back to hundreds of years (or more) of sexist attitudes regarding the raising of children. It's not that feminists are trying to keep interested fathers from having custody over their children; it's the result a patriarchal system that works really hard to tell women that their primary purpose in life is to have and raise children. When you've institutionalized the idea that this is women's primary function in life, it shouldn't be a surprise when the courts recognize this in practice. One follows from the other: if women are viewed as the main source of child care and are treated as though they have some biological advantage over men when it comes to the care and raising of children, it shouldn't come as a surprise when the courts, when deciding the best interests of a child, tend to lean towards giving women custody.

[CitizenVagrant]

Feminists want equality for women. It tries to eliminate judgements based on essential categories like gender and race, so it doesn't benefit ONLY women.

So how do you treat someone equal who always asks for special treatment?

I don't feel I need to cite the innumerable "sources" where this special treatment is present in everyday life.

sources

And here we go. I knew posting a video like that would immediately yield a response regarding cherry-picking. So how many Anita Sarkeesian or Phyllis Schlafly articles do I need to read and cite (in the correct edition!) before what I've written has any value in your eyes? At what point do the experiences of actual people have value in your eyes? How many stories of divorce do you need to hear before it is real to you and that's person's understanding has any value to you? Do you honestly think what people like Sarkeesian or her contemporaries write is more valid or objective than the random bitter divorcee on the corner because Anita got published?

Why do you think I wrote what I did about understanding? Someone's experiences are going to shade their understanding. And so will Anita's or anyone else, no matter how hard they try otherwise. If a feminist looks at a few MRA forums and labels them "a bunch of bitter divorcees" then how is that any more of an objective viewpoint than the MRA who looks at a bunch of stridently protesting feminists and labels them "a bunch of whiny bitches"?

Here's a better question: How many MRAs or MGTOWs are teaching Women's Studies classes? Do you think the male professors in these classes are Men just because they have a penis? Do you think they have addressed the Male Condition without female influence?

No, the poster above has it right,

you are at the point where you are so academic that it does not reflect reality

and oh boy as soon as we start whipping out jargon like "confirmation bias" this thing has gotten far too tall up the Ivory Tower for my Wizard ass to go back to college and start debating with someone taking a Gender Studies class. I spent my time (and a lot more money) and got two worthless pieces of paper. I have no need for a third with "Gender Studies" written on it, because it would be a meaningless to me as the experience of getting the degree itself.

A bunch of people sitting in a room (or forum, or blog, or anywhere), arguing about nothing. It's the cave all over again - chained to a wall, arguing over shadows and never knowing the breadth of reality.

If you read what I posted before, you'd know:

...how disgusted I got reading through pages and pages of MGTOW or PUA blogs that bemoan what the problem is ad infinitum.

...identifying and deconstructing the issue is a huge part of the process, but so is constructing and employing a solution.

If I could say one thing about the MGTOW community as a whole?

It largely falls into the same trap I mentioned above. Infinite blogs and infinite "members of the MGTOW community" doing nothing but crying in a circle. Very, VERY few ever offer solutions or practical ways forward.

I have deconstructed the issue Men face as far as it will go: The Male Condition.

How boys answer that male condition and become Men is up to them. I don't posit ANY answers, because the individual answers are going to be informed by so many individual factors that happening upon some "objective truth" would be a hilarious hubris. What I do posit is a single guideline based on an amalgam of my observations and experience: the answers you come up with cannot be informed by the feminine, because that is the source of some of the greatest dysfunction I have seen in people.

tl;dr

1. Most simply put: If you predicate answering your gender's essential questions on the other gender's answers, it's going to lead to nothing but a dissonant feedback loop.

2. Attempting to create an objective answer for either gender is a trap, and trying to might as well be running in a rat maze with no exit.

3. Credibility and objectivity are not synonymous in the Humanities. Life experiences vary infinitely from person to person, and those experiences (biased or not) do not cause a person's ideas to gain or lose value, because there is no objective value in those ideas / experiences - only relative value.

4. If anything the processes in the Humanities involve understanding how and why those relative values placed on ideas / experiences are created. This is done by being empathetic and insightful enough to deconstruct a person's mind. Credibility is just an individual, relative data point in this process and is not objective.

5. I'd say I've been trolled, but if I enjoy it, is it trolling? Philosoraptor.jpg

[drstrangepimp]

The bad news: I went over to the MGTOW forums for a bit.
The good news: I feel a LOT better about my life with my wife and 3 children.

I cannot imagine being so jaded and insecure.

Haha believe it or not we have a few still married (financially trapped) members handing out red pills.

I also have a friend who is divorced.

He said it was great for 22 years, then one day she went nuts.

Have fun.

[drstrangepimp]

mgtow isn't a group, or a support group

its a lifestyle plain and simple

We're talking about the web forum genius.

[LandyBoy]

Not sure if dis has been posted but

[drstrangepimp]

This movement sounds awfully like 'I'm a strong, proud and independent woman and I don't need no man.'- statement but for males.

Except in this case it happens to be true.

OTOH women depend on men for everything. (child support, alimony, modern cities, cars, plumbing, AA jobs, government handouts..). Their claims to independence are laughable, they will die without us. We could decide to put them all in bird cages tomorrow and that would be that.

Men do not need women except for reproduction or sex.

In the modern age reproduction is unnecessary and there is no tangible benefit to entering into an extended prostitution arrangement as short term or virtual arrangements are more beneficial.

The male female dynamic is an inherently parasitic relationship, we simply shed our parasites.

MGTOW is another word for "Going Galt", let it burn.

[Walahi]

The bad news: I went over to the MGTOW forums for a bit.
The good news: I feel a LOT better about my life with my wife and 3 children.

I cannot imagine being so jaded and insecure.

Yeah but for how long?

[GolfPants]

Not sure if dis has been posted but

Lmao.


I completely agree with their idea, but as others have said they really do come across as extremely butthurt and jaded. And no way in hell do I buy that some of them are living the lives they claim to be. Brb ever since I adopted this lifestyle everything is great, I have tons of money, drive a sports car, have fuk buddies, etc. Sure you do, guy.

The premise is excellent, live life how you want. I just don't see the need to sit around jerking each other off and complaining about women.

[conceptions]

So how do you treat someone equal who always asks for special treatment?

I don't feel I need to cite the innumerable "sources" where this special treatment is present in everyday life.

And here we go. I knew posting a video like that would immediately yield a response regarding cherry-picking. So how many Anita Sarkeesian or Phyllis Schlafly articles do I need to read and cite (in the correct edition!) before what I've written has any value in your eyes? At what point do the experiences of actual people have value in your eyes? How many stories of divorce do you need to hear before it is real to you and that's person's understanding has any value to you? Do you honestly think what people like Sarkeesian or her contemporaries write is more valid or objective than the random bitter divorcee on the corner because Anita got published?

Why do you think I wrote what I did about understanding? Someone's experiences are going to shade their understanding. And so will Anita's or anyone else, no matter how hard they try otherwise. If a feminist looks at a few MRA forums and labels them "a bunch of bitter divorcees" then how is that any more of an objective viewpoint than the MRA who looks at a bunch of stridently protesting feminists and labels them "a bunch of whiny bitches"?

Here's a better question: How many MRAs or MGTOWs are teaching Women's Studies classes? Do you think the male professors in these classes are Men just because they have a penis? Do you think they have addressed the Male Condition without female influence?

No, the poster above has it right,

and oh boy as soon as we start whipping out jargon like "confirmation bias" this thing has gotten far too tall up the Ivory Tower for my Wizard ass to go back to college and start debating with someone taking a Gender Studies class. I spent my time (and a lot more money) and got two worthless pieces of paper. I have no need for a third with "Gender Studies" written on it, because it would be a meaningless to me as the experience of getting the degree itself.

A bunch of people sitting in a room (or forum, or blog, or anywhere), arguing about nothing. It's the cave all over again - chained to a wall, arguing over shadows and never knowing the breadth of reality.

If you read what I posted before, you'd know:

I have deconstructed the issue Men face as far as it will go: The Male Condition.

How boys answer that male condition and become Men is up to them. I don't posit ANY answers, because the individual answers are going to be informed by so many individual factors that happening upon some "objective truth" would be a hilarious hubris. What I do posit is a single guideline based on an amalgam of my observations and experience: the answers you come up with cannot be informed by the feminine, because that is the source of some of the greatest dysfunction I have seen in people.

tl;dr

1. Most simply put: If you predicate answering your gender's essential questions on the other gender's answers, it's going to lead to nothing but a dissonant feedback loop.

2. Attempting to create an objective answer for either gender is a trap, and trying to might as well be running in a rat maze with no exit.

3. Credibility and objectivity are not synonymous in the Humanities. Life experiences vary infinitely from person to person, and those experiences (biased or not) do not cause a person's ideas to gain or lose value, because there is no objective value in those ideas / experiences - only relative value.

4. If anything the processes in the Humanities involve understanding how and why those relative values placed on ideas / experiences are created. This is done by being empathetic and insightful enough to deconstruct a person's mind. Credibility is just an individual, relative data point in this process and is not objective.

5. I'd say I've been trolled, but if I enjoy it, is it trolling? Philosoraptor.jpg

Nobody is asking you to get a gender studies degree. It isn't unreasonable for me to critique your view of feminism because it is based on flagrantly antifeminist youtube videos and vague gestures towards "experience" that isn't even anecdotally supported. It is laughable to claim knowledge from a source like that, and if you're not motivated to look into it any further, then you've made the decision to remain upset and wallow in your victim mentality. You never bothered to address the verifiable corrections I made to your misunderstandings about it, instead somewhat ironically trying to discredit me by alluding to the "ivory tower"-- the closest we come to Platonic ideals, if you want to make that allusion (you might need to reread about the cave allegory). You can do this in a thread full of other men who agree with you, but it wouldn't hold any weight on my side.

In my experience, marriage is not at all how you paint it from all the examples in my family and people I am familiar with. I know of exactly one messy divorce with child custody issues. However, there isn't anything valuable to be extrapolated from these personal details of mine, or yours, which I can only assume is littered with divorce. Your main issue is with feminism. I addressed your misconceptions. You deflected by projecting another complete barrier between our understanding by playing the essential "gender" card-- although I'm not sure why you do this, since you've said yourself that this restricts communication and makes debate impossible.

Is there a male condition without female influence at all? It might be an interesting thought experiment, but it doesn't exist and vice versa. Like it or not, men and women coexist in society. Feminism is simply the effort to make the playing field level for a disadvantage that isn't self-inflicted. I'm willing to bet that with your attitude that had you been born female you would be arguing in my position. We're not unalike in some respects: we want to maintain a sense of individual agency within a society that dictates that we engage with the opposite sex in a certain way, and, barring other options, have chosen (at least I have; I'm not a wizard for lack of opportunity) not to engage with them. On the other hand, feminism has more basis in recognized wholesale disadvantages throughout life than most of the things MRAs seem to be concerned with (you will only be disadvantaged in certain situations,; the custody battle, for example-- if you are 1. married, 2. have children, 3. divorce, 4. cannot reach an amicable agreement). The issue of sexism for a woman is more lifelong. I don't relish the idea that I'm in some way subordinate to other people because of the way I was born, and I don't let it dictate my life (feminism is something I only discuss on the misc because of the rampant sexism here and getting in a good debate). I'm high achieving and it has nothing to do with my gender and everything to do with the work I put in that would be laudable by any standard. It bothers me that what traditional people call "healthy" f/m relationships would require a concession of my autonomy for no reason other than that potential male partners once protected women when we all lived in caves, and would want that submission now, even though they don't provide either financially (in the breadwinner mold)-- both parents work in most families-- or otherwise in society today.

This is all in the realm of abstractions though. In reality, I do think there's someone for everyone, and I'd never settle with a partner who treated me that way, though it is a nagging concern (perhaps like your worry that you're going to be screwed over in a divorce). I do ironically fit almost all of the requirements the misc has for traditional female partners, but with this caveat: I ended up like this because I find that role irrelevant today. Want a loyal wife? Choose one who has built up a life and has something to add to the relationship, and something to lose by breaking it, rather than one who has considered her life as valuable only in relation to men and starting a family. Who is more likely to get bored and seek out more male attention? Who needs to wipe you clean in a divorce? And who has actually demonstrated commitment by giving something up to start a family with you? You're going to have better luck marrying in our society today by choosing women who don't need to be parasitically attached to you, but who choose to be with you because of real affection. Don't you all deserve that?

So, personally, I haven't and wouldn't date a guy with sexist attitudes, and you could vice versa say the same thing about a woman like me, but that doesn't mean I don't or you shouldn't still have a stake in avoiding sexism. For one, it doesn't promote the kind of woman that would simply care for you and not your money. And like the quote I used in my last post, for example: if men want to win custody cases, they should work on changing societal ideas about the suitability of single fathers. The sexism here isn't just that women have only reproductive value (as a poster above has reiterated, proving why courts do give custody to women), but the idea that men aren't equipped to handle raising children on their own. Everyone wins by trying to combat sexism, except perhaps the men who want sequestered unequal housewives, and those housewives who want to marry and then make money in a divorce.

[Chaoticia]

I'm not a member there, but learning about the Men's Rights Movement and and Men Going Their Own Way has given me a greater sense of self-esteem than romantic traditionalism, pick-up art, or society's female worship ever could. Here are some of my opinions on these topics. I've created my own cultural stance, I call it "Masculine Liberal".

Falling In Love Isn't Real

Growing Up Doesn’t Exist

Why I Am “Beta” and How I Define Alpha and Beta Males

Killing and Enslaving Boys: The Reality of Male Disposability

Lets All Die As A Nobody

[Ascension2016]

I Stared Into the Eyes of Tempation and Walked Away

It's a normal night like any other. I have worked myself silly at the gym, had my protein shake and vegetable juice, and go out for my reward of a pint of IPA.

I've been screwing around with card tricks with a buddy at a bar, and he got the idea to venture out to another place no one knows us and see what kind of game we can run.

It's been over a year since I did anything besides go to work, the grocery store, the gym and this one bar, save the occasional movie or restaurant alone.

So he and I wind up out and about unfamiliar territory for me, a place I haven't been before. I'm playing Garfunkel to his Simon, as he is damn better than me at playing card manipulation and what not.

When hark, what's this I see? A 24 year old knockout of a Persian bit of deliciousness. Alone. This is the white whale of any bar scene, as any hot young beauty such as this of even half the quality would usually be surrounded by beta orbiters, land whale friends, a boyfriend, SOME obstacle. She was a like a rabbit thrown into a tiger's pen, and I was the only tiger there.

She is most entertained by our shenanigans. He (my friend) is, I guess, not so much about this girl, so he moves on to doing his thing and leaves me alone with her, who asks me to show her how to do a trick.

I've said before that redheads are my ghosting kryptonite. Well, Greek, Israeli, and Persian girls fall into that category too (only the ones that know how to groom their eyebrows and shave their arms, which this one did).

I still have my old game, not even really trying. I'll spare the boring bits, but I could have asked her to tell me if I was a good kisser and just gone for it, easily. I know I know how to work people, so this isn't to brag. I don't know how I do it, but I even told her straight to her face that as far as I am concerned, women are poor excuses for animals, as even animals can display loyalty, which can imitate human speech. Not the least bit drunk or tipsy, she's still eating out of the palm of my hand at even this remark.

But I have a commitment I made to myself last year on my birthday. No unnecessary contact. Not. One. Twat. For at least one whole year. I'll admit that she touched me, but I didn't break my word to myself and touch her back.

In the back of my mind, I felt the nagging scratch of the comments on this forum about John Greer. Over her perfectly shaped almond eyes I superimposed the image of 10 years of aging worth of crows feet. In place of her 20 inch 110 pound waist I foresaw the inevitable expansion of her gunt as sure and as wide as the expansion of the universe.

With her stroke on my arm, what would have once been a titillating invitation to make a move, I only felt an immediate need to back away. Every inviting smile she had I only saw predatory teeth bared to come for my wallet, my dignity, my freedom, my sanity.

I hoped before that I could see through the mask. Tonight I went out and found a masquerader, and I could only see what was concealed by the mask.

With every retreat I made, she only pushed forward. With me playing defense, it put her on offense. I felt a new power, the power that only a man can wield and only when a woman can sense he is not hers to toy with.

I felt the pull of millions of years of biology, the pride that a soldier has to prosecute the objective, the shame of going home alone. I felt all these things only in the periphery of my mind, as at the forefront I held true the idea that I have bathed myself in to my very core, that not 10,000 lays with the top 10,000 of the world's most beautiful women is worth tolerating even one moment of the inevitable bull**** that is associated with even the best behaved of them.

She gave me the "Well, it's my bedtime," invitation, with an expectant look, and I damn near almost caved and "walked her to her car." I've "walked girls to their car" like this before. I know right where that goes: Squishy, sweaty mess time.

Admittedly, at that moment, I almost caved and offered to "walk her to her car," but I broke the steel cables pulling with the force of a thousand stallions that is my kept in check for almost a year now libido that were drawing me into that trap.

I said good night, and watched her leave, and I enjoyed the bewildered look on her face. She strikes me as the kind of girl who doesn't have to make many invitations, and if she does, has full faith that they will be most enthusiastically accepted.

Where have all the good men gone?

Thanks to this forum, this one went home alone. I'd rather impregnate my sweaty gym sock with some knuckle babies than jam my slim jim up a tuna tunnel.

fking lold. misc 2.0 of peace

[gtg]

later read.

[CitizenVagrant]

It bothers me that what traditional people call "healthy" f/m relationships would require a concession of my autonomy

Here, I quoted the one thing we can agree on.

I misc from work, so didn't read this till now. I could probably dissect the whole thing and post a diatribe in return, but go figure work is work. I got time to read it, but not to write worthy a reply that addresses everything. I will say though you should add cliffs if you ever want the hoi polloi to get your message. Most people just shut off as soon as they see a paragraph longer than a few sentences.

Yes, my experiences would be watching my mother and father get divorced after 30 years of marriage when I was 8. It was the costliest divorce in county history. Custody and court battle was as close as you can get to pure brutality in the legal sense on both sides. Watching this from the mind of an 8-10 year old (the whole process never seemed to end until I was maybe 12 or 13?) left a serious imprint.

Fast forward about ten years and my older brother had his divorce after 15 years of marriage. Thank God, no kids involved. Still merciless. Still took every possible thing she could get.

In both instances, it was two people who once "loved" one another making the most desperate efforts they've ever made in their lives to wholly and utterly destroy another person, short of using murder.

So many other points I'd love to address, but just don't have the time right now to go back through it - might later if the thread is still around.

[Purge]

Oh, it'll still be around.

What happened to a hard-working firefighter in my home state:



If that doesn't make you rage, check your pulse.