So-called Men Going Their Own Way need to really GO. This video shows them how.
So I get periodic visits here from hostile and uninformed visitors demanding to know just what I have against those Men’s Rights activist-adjacent fellows who have declared themselves to be Men Going Their Own Way. Surely, they sniff, I can’t be really opposed to men living the lives they choose to live, independent of women? Don’t feminists encourage women to be similarly independent? You go, girls, and all that?
As a fellow calling himself Praetorian wrote:
Why are women so bitter towards men going their own way, without them
“John,” meanwhile, thought he detected some hypocrisy:
So, if a woman says she does not need a man in her life, she is seen as a strong independent woman. If a man says he does not need a woman in his life, he is seen as someone who has a deep hostility towards and/or profound distrust of women.
How convenient and how logical…………….
Happpily, the commenters here always put these misguided souls straight: we don’t object , in principle, to men “going their own way,” if that’s what they want to do.
But in practice, the men who classify themselves as Men Going Their Own Way don’t go anywhere; they stick around and stink the place up with their raging misogyny.
If you go to MGTOWforums or any other popular MGTOW hangout, you’ll discover that the regulars there don’t spend much time talking about the fabulous lives they’re leading on their own — the things they’re learning, the hobbies they’re pursuing, the experiences they’re having.
Nope. They spend virtually all their time and energy taking about women, and how awful they are. The typical MGTOWer spends more time thinking about women on any given day than the president of Planned Parenthood does. And what they think about women is awful. Just go through my MGTOW posts here for example after example.
You want to see some men who are really going their own way? Watch the video at the top of this post. These are guys enjoying themselves and not giving a shit what anyone thinks. They are AWESOME.
That’s what Men Going Their Own Way should look like. And I’m not even joking.
NOTE: I think I’ve posted this video before. I don’t care. Some people might not have seen it. EVERYONE MUST SEE IT.
Posted on February 3, 2014, in awesome, hypocrisy, irony alert, men who should not ever be with women ever, MGTOW, misogyny, YouTube and tagged mgtow, misogyny. Bookmark the permalink. 566 Comments.
I can’t remember this right, but wasn’t there a scene where one train stopped in the middle of a tunnel and everyone died? I can’t remember it exactly, but I remember how she described the train passengers in a really condescending way. Like “they died, but whatever, they were dumb and fat anyways”. Even when I was super into Rand that disturbed me.
(Correct me if I got that wrong, it’s been a while since I read that book, and it’s not a exactly memorable book anyways).
@theladyzombie
Wow. That seems rather…childish.
Wow, I had forgotten that from my teenage reading. It sounds awfully similar to those MRA fantasies about stupid/frail women falling to pieces if a couple of misogynists decide not to marry us or something. Boys, I think we’ll survive.
Whoever published Ayn L Gland’s* books should have to walk on legos forever … unleashing that unspeakable tripe on the world.
*I haz a childish
It’s funny, I’d forgotten about the location of Galt’s Gulch. Now I’m wondering if the author of Hunger Games didn’t forget and that’s why the Capital is up in the mountains.
Remember all that noise about short hair?
auggziliary – I know the scene you’re talking about. Rand described each of the passengers and what they did for a living. One I believe was a social scientists. Anyway, each of the people on the train were what she considered evil, liberal, and progressive people who were in favor of laws and regulations that would take from the producers of society. The whole scene was gross because it was like ‘these people deserve to die’ because of their ideals.
“O_o How does the disconnect work, between those ideas? I am confused.”
That’s what happens when you turn ‘Everything for me, and nothing for thee’ into a moral principle.
@Kittehserf
I think it’s an acquired taste. I have a lot of Very Political Friends, who can’t seem to understand that they won’t win me over to the cause. I had to make a game out of it (The game is: Present scenarios that they tend have to explain in terms of their overarching philosophy.)
@Thread
It is a little childish, yeah. Marie is right.
But it’s also the point. Rand posits a world where there’s only two kinds of people – Righteous Producers or Cowardly Parasites, and any person that is a Righteous Producers shares an overarching philosphy with every other Righteous person.
So everyone’s fine with everyone who isn’t them dying off terribly, because everyone else are just bad people. In Atlas Shrugged, there’s a (kind of cool) side story where this mega super genius operates mines in South American country, and has built a bunch of housing and so on for the workers who will be working in the mine as part of the government contract.
Because this is a Rand book, the Evil Government immediately nationalizes the mine. Because this is a Rand book, the Supercool Righteous Objectist saw that coming, and the mines are actually all empty, and the workers housing made of cheap, useless materials, and the entire thing is a mess that continues to tank the economy of the country.
There’s a bit where he mentions that the only building that isn’t really shoddily made was the church because: “in the coming years, I have a feeling they will need it“.
The implication there is that the workers housing, and the mines, are not only badly constructed, they’re lethal. They will kill the people living and working there. Anyone in those housing complexes will be breathing in asbetos, living with faulty electrical wirings and suffering possible gas malfunctions from the stoves. The odds of them dying, or getting horribly hurt, is not a question of “If”, it’s a “When” and to “What extent”.
It’s the greatest example of Lawful Evil I’ve ever been able to that can be summed up in three paragraphs – it wasn’t enough for this Righteous Objectivist to con the government with false mines, he had to go the extra mile and make sure anyone who thought to profit or work for him died. Even the innocent workers, who, I fucking bet, didn’t have a hand in the nationalization but were expecting jobs at a decent pay. No, no, they deserve to die too.
The rank evil and baseless righteous need for not only winning, but eradicating the perceived opponent that modus operandi emphasizes turns my fucking stomach.
It’s the same mentality that drives high school shooters, Rand just wanted to take revenge on the masses economically rather than more directly, with guns.
I never read Atlas Shrugged. My first contact with their ‘phylosophy’ was from an Objectivist organization site and their essays. They sounded, at first, evil – like the arguments of a video game villain – and then puerile as I noticed the fallacies creeping in.
I did read a part of the A = A text, and started to wonder why didn’t Rand write a treatise instead of a fiction book.
The real concern here, though, isn’t Rand. She’s dead. It’s that Greenspan is still around and actively implementing her philosophies.
The more I read about her, the clearer it is that she was an utterly reprehensible, disgusting human being.
I hope she’s been hit with total self awareness in recent decades.
Also, it’s amusing that I’ve seen multiple feminists call out the way she treated her husband as appalling, but no Randroid men do so. But we’re the ones who supposedly don’t care about men.
I find the Galt’s Gulch idea hilarious.
These “thinkers and doers” run away with their toys to get back at the world that scorned them – but they can’t exist without that same world, as they forgot to bring people willing to till the fucking soil or build their toys.
The Randroid utopia is self-contradictory because, if everyone deserves to be a CEO, who’s going to clean the damn toilets? The übermensch might decry the parasites, but their ideal society NEEDS them to function.
Not to mention that the Randroid misogynists are taking these notions from a woman’s books in the first place.
(Or do they think Galt was real? It wouldn’t surprise me.)
Yeah, everyone one the train was at fault for the train wreck because they were all altruistic evil commies or something. I read Ayn Rand because my bf at the time was really, really into her. I was biased against her before I met him but I wanted to give her a chance because he was such a big fan.
After I was some way into it I was like, “I don’t like this book. I want to stop reading it.” And then he was all “well, at least get to the train accident” like it was some amazing feat of literature. So I got to the train accident and I was all “Dude seriously?” and then he was all, “well, at least get to John Galt’s speech.” So I got to John Galt’s speech and then I threw the damn thing across the room.
vaiyt – turns out often enough the so-called ubermensch are the parasites, doesn’t it?
@vaiyt
I’d really like to see them answer that one.
It’s not exactly a stretch to read Rand’s work as the bitter cry of someone who lost their privilege, so no surprise that it’s so appealing to white male adolescents who feel like they’re losing theirs.
vaiyt – Her treatise was Atlas Shrugged (and to a lesser extent The Fountainhead). She even said so several times. Something to the effect of “if you want to understand my philosophy, read Atlas Shrugged.” She did write ‘Principles of Obectivism’ later. I tried reading it but after reading Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, I had developed such a loathing for her philosophy, I couldn’t stomach it.
For kittehs, who doesn’t know the back story. Not only did Rand cheat on her husband for years, she made him leave their shared apartment whenever she wanted to fuck the boytoy, like someone putting the cat out because it’s getting underfoot.
I’d forgotten that she approved the boytoy being his own wife’s therapist, though. Professionalism, what’s that?
I knew she treated her husband like shit and cheated on him, but not the specifics.
What a lovely, lovely person.
Didn’t she and the boytoy call a meeting between them and their respective spouses so they could ‘splain to the spouses why it was “logical” that they should have the affair and how the spouses should be okay with it because they were pursuing their own happiness?
Yep! That’s the kind of thing that starts to make sense if you embrace the idea that kindness and empathy are signs of weakness that should be eliminated.
And I think the reason the affair was not only “logical,” but a moral imperative, is that they were the two most intelligent people in the world. Or so I’ve heard the story go. Which is just charming.
I bet they wouldn’t have been so happy if the spouses had had their own affairs. Suddenly there’d be a logical reason why it was all wrong for them to do so.
Pfffffffft oh right, they knew every single person out of the however many billion it was at the time, to make that call.
Damn, my eyes are somewhere under the desk again.
kitteh – if I remember correctly, Rand flipped out and excommunicated the boytoy when he no longer wanted to continue to affair (or start it up again). So yeah, you’re spot on there.
Nothing like being a super genius and Most Intelligent Person In The World for being totally predictable, eh?
@Fibinachi
This is the why I can’t stand Rand and why my half-elf Ranger was Chaotic Good in high school. Old-school D&D alignments FTW.
Heheh. They aren’t normally so useful for things in the world, but then there are the few cases where they just fit to a perfect t.
“vaiyt – Her treatise was Atlas Shrugged (and to a lesser extent The Fountainhead). She even said so several times.”
Atlas Shrugged is a fiction book. THAT IS MY POINT.
Proving Rand couldn’t be concise, either. Write a treatise or essay? Not possible! Write the same thing, repetitively and at great length, in the form of a fuckawful tedious saga? Way to go!
Lawful Evil is right, and part of what makes Randians so offputting. Not only are they vicious, selfish, unkind assholes, but the philosophy is also too restrictive to even be fun for assholes of the less regimented variety. They can’t even play the hell is where all the good bands and all the great parties will end up angle.
The thing about Ayn Rand that those who adore her don’t understand is that she suffered, life-long, a sort of PTSD created by terrible experiences. It’s not hard to read her as someone who lost privilege – but in her case losing privilege meant losing somewhere to live at all, with her entire family. At several points, her family nearly starved to death – quite literally. She was in Russia at a time, at a university she’d fought to get into, when she was purged from university shortly before graduating for being ‘bourgeois’.
So yeah. Her life was shit. She took those assumptions with her to the United States, and constructed an elaborate revenge fantasy over her whole lifetime. She was able to use her force of personality to create a cult-like group around her, and partly because her views were very much supported by experience of suffering – which she had, and those around her did not.
Liberatrians basing themselves economically off her are people taking the work of someone who had completely warped views about life due to horrific experiences, and believing that those views are generally applicable to life. People who are like myself, comfortable (enough), middle class, and white, who use Ayn Rands views as a valid series of ethical rules, are doing it with no context.
She was horribly treated, at an awful time, and processed it by writing those terrible, badly written works of fiction. And yes, it really does remind me of lawful evil – Ayn Rand really is a cartoon villain who had This Bad Thing Happen so She’s devoted her entire life to DESTROYING THOSE PEOPLE AND RULING WITH AN IRON FIST BECAUSE I’M OWED IT NOW.
And then Libertarians tell me it’s all so rational…it’s not. It’s someone who’s response to real, intense, suffering was to hope everyone else had it too.
RE: theladyzombie
I knew some pagan/Wiccan men who would have an all men camping retreat where yeah, they’d go off in the woods to commune with what they saw as the masculine part of nature.
I’ve heard of that, and I guess that’s why that rhetoric never worked for me. Masculinity always seemed like some elite club that I was barred from, and if I were accepted, I’d still feel like I was sneaking in or something. (I don’t really feel feminine either, but I don’t seem to really feel comfortable in any of the categories.)
RE: Sam
So in other words, MGTOW behave like feminists.
ZING! Only no. Try again, newbie.
RE: Ayn Rand
Uuuuurgh. Never read any of her books (even for me, that length was daunting, and I hated the dense mummery I associated with philosophy) but I kinda believed a bunch of that shit. The worst part is, I didn’t see myself as the top. I saw myself as the bottom, the whining cowardly parasite, and that I deserved whatever happened to me, because if I couldn’t protect myself, what use was I? It was a pretty dark period of my life. Objectivism is hell when you’re mentally ill.
Also, true fact: Ayn Rand needed public assistance near the end of her life! She was actually willing to die rather than take the public healthcare, but her medical team pretty much said, “Fuck your morals, just LIVE.” This, of course, did not change her mind about the evils of public healthcare, only seemed to boomerang into self-loathing. What a sad piece of work.
@ steampunked
There’s also the fact that she was raped, by a peasant, and how that plays into both her philosophy and her messed up ideas about sex. I agree that my comment about loss of privilege was a bit flippant – her early life wasn’t easy. The idea of her as a person from a good family who lost her rightful place in society is a big part of the reason people responded to her the way they did, though, given the whole Red Menace thing that was floating around in American society at the time she started writing.
Rand treated her husband awfully. He was an artist, but she didn’t really have much respect for that – she centered her interests first every time. As she centered her needs, her suffering, and her interpretation. She could justify taking land from the American indigenous population, because PROGRESS. She hated homosexuality because IMMORAL. Anything she believed was perfect, because she was ‘objective’. So she could justify anything to herself.
When her husband developed dementia, Rand seemed to think she’d developed it AT her somehow – she’d force him through lessons to try to ‘fix’ him. She didn’t expect his death, even when it occurred, though it would be obvious to most people that his pronounced illness was going to inevitably go there. She just couldn’t project enough even to realise someone was ill and dying.
” She was actually willing to die rather than take the public healthcare”
Posturing. Nothing more.
“There’s also the fact that she was raped, by a peasant, and how that plays into both her philosophy and her messed up ideas about sex.”
What were ideas about sex, dare I ask? I’ve not read her books. Just a few articles online by her, a few about her, and saw some pretty damning video footage. She never looked happy. Not once.
Scroll up, people were talking about it upthread.
@cassandrakitty – Yeah. I admit a lot of my: WHAT THE?! reaction to objectivist thought is this whole…you guys are basing EVERYTHING YOU KNOW off someone who had extremely specific experiences of the worst extremes of a group during war. Experiences that clearly led to personal coping behaviours that were amazingly destructive to the person herself. I mean…I can’t see Rand often talking about feeling happy.
And people want to use this as a basis for modern economic and political thought? For what point? Like, even if it could possibly function, why on earth would it be worth doing even assuming you were on top? Does make it easy to see why some MGTOWers love it though.
I daresay happiness is just for weaklings and parasites (before they’re culled by her mass-murderer heroes, of course).
“This FAQ sheet gives it a bit more credit than it deserves, in my opinion, but it does at least give a flavour of what it’s about: an ‘anti-democratic, racially charged, anti-modern, authoritarian political movement’ that nevertheless somehow claims to be ‘anti-fascist’.”
I clicked on that “Dark Enlightenment” link;
http://www.vocativ.com/12-2013/dark-enlightenment-creepy-internet-movement-youd-better-take-seriously/
…. and its basically a cluster diagram of some Manosphere blogs. I don’t think there’s an actual “movement”.
Several of those bloggers disagree with just about everything of some of the other bloggers. For instance, Roosh, who appeas on the diagram, is ot anti-modern nor pro-authoritarian politics. He and his beta blog orbiters just want to be free to come and go from the US as much as they want, when and how they want, and not be constrained by laws in any way.
Yeah, the hypocrisy is rank with her. I suppose I should feel lucky that I DIDN’T end up going her way, with my history. *shudder*
He’s mainly anti soap and shampoo.
“Also, it’s amusing that I’ve seen multiple feminists call out the way she treated her husband as appalling, but no Randroid men do so. But we’re the ones who supposedly don’t care about men.”
Bingo!
Manospherians say she was just acting according to her feminine nature (hypergamy) and it was her hubby’s fault for being such a beta chump in the first place.
He’s also anti women enjoying sex.
To top it all off, the utopia that the “heroes” of Atlas Shrugged build is powered by a super engine that Galt invented. It’s pretty much a magical engine that provides free limitless energy.
And yet this book is supposed to be a basis for how the world should be run, and some people take it seriously.
vaiyt
Funny that you mention that:
http://bioshock.wikia.com/wiki/Andrew_Ryan
LBT
I didn’t know they forced her to take it. I knew she took public assitance for her lung cancer (The irony is that she believed studies in the 50’s about smoking and cancer were to destroy capitalism or something, since they were from the government. She continued smoking).
Whenever you bring this up to an objectivist, they usually just say something like “Well she was just getting back all the taxes she paid her whole life. There’s nothing wrong with *that*!”
Steverino, yay! My very first:http://artistryforfeminismandkittens.wordpress.com/the-official-man-boobz-complimentary-welcome-package/. The penguins and scented candles are my personal favorites.
As to Rand, since there was a discussion of the categorical imperative the other day, I’ve always kind of thought of her as the inverse of that. Basically, she believed in treating everyone as a means to an end. This seems to fit the manosphere really well; “I am the actor/one with agency, you are the object to be acted on.” (Also, didn’t she have a fit when her lover started cheating on her and his wife with a different woman?)
RE: auggziliary
Yeah, sorry, ‘forced’ is the wrong word. They CONVINCED her, rather. (And since, whatever you think of Ayn Rand, you cannot deny she had a very strong sense of her own importance and self-preservation.) And everyone pretended that it wasn’t hypocritical at all.
Even without all the other horrible things about him, he’d have that covered with the anti-personal-hygiene bit.
But, you see, if women have sex with men who aren’t him, or men who aren’t PUAs, or women, then they might have fun, which is why they should be manipulated into only having sex with men like him and his followers.
Yet somehow that argument never applies to anyone else needing assistance …
Calvin and Hobbes
Roosh has such a lose-lose attitude. He doesn’t seem to enjoy sex, but goes through it (or tries to) to make the woman feel worse than he does.
Now if only he and zombie Rand were stuck in a room together.
RE: Kittehserf
*laughs* Basically. Ah, a humble comic strip is such a nice takedown, really.
Randian cat?
1. “I am the actor/one with agency, you are the OBJECT to be acted on.”
– Hence OBJECTivism. ;)
2. “Also, didn’t she have a fit when her lover started cheating on her and his wife with a different woman?”
– Yes, I’ve read as much.
3. “What were her ideas about sex, dare I ask?”
“Scroll up, people were talking about it upthread.”
– Couldn’t find anything. Unless you are referring to her extra-marital affair?
4. “He’s also anti women enjoying sex.” (regarding Roosh)
– He said “it doesn’t matter” whether a woman orgasms or not. The only men who say that are those who have never experienced a woman orgasming from having sex with them. They also claim, “you are responsible for your own orgasm”. If that’s the case then what is the point in having sex with someone else at all?
Roosh wrote an entire book about a one night stand he had in the US in which after sex the woman got up and prepared to leave. He was shocked and asked her “don’t you want to cuddle?” She said she had to go. He said, “in Eastern Europe women fall in love with a man after having sex with him.”
That proves that woman didn’t orgasm with Roosh otherwise the cocktail of endorphins and bonding chemicals like oxytocin that are produced during and after orgasm would have inspired her to want to hang around and cuddle.
Roosh seems to be oblivious to the fact that almost everything he writes about his sexual encounters paints him as a skill-less, lousy lover in the sack. Not exactly the thing you want to announce on the world wide web if you fancy yourself a jet-setting, international playboy.
“Roosh wrote an entire book about a one night stand he had in the US in which after sex the woman got up and prepared to leave.”
Here’s Fat Forney’s review of the book, entitled “Why Can’t I Use a Smiley Face?”
Available on Amazon.
http://mattforney.com/2013/03/29/why-cant-i-use-a-smiley-face-stories-from-one-month-in-america-by-roosh-v/
Cuddling Roosh is almost as repellent a notion as sex with Roosh.
If I want to cuddle something covered in black hair, I’ll get another black cat.
Cats are generally self-cleaning, too.
Which reminds me, when Roosh and stains on seats were mentioned in the last RoK post, this came to mind. (SFW, just gross.)
@ Oldreader, that’s why I chose that word. :) To be honest, I always thought she used “objectivist” to lend the philosophy a vaguely scientific feel a la being objective & logical. Hmm, now it fits with those who shout “biotruth” to explain why everyone should act how they say.
To whoever linked to Cunningham’s work, thanks. Just finished. Must buy
Skye – I thought the same thing about what Objectivist was meant to suggest.
Now I know it’s even skeevier.
Ugh.
They should be called Objectionablists or Obnoxiousivists. Truth in advertising and all that.
“What a lovely, lovely person.”
Yeah, not only did Rand demand complete worship from those in her inner circle and treat her husband like dirt, but she also admired a brutal serial killer:
http://atheism.about.com/b/2011/05/11/ayn-rand-sociopath-who-admired-a-serial-killer.htm
Having an extremely difficult early life doesn’t excuse her behavior.
Yeah, I knew about that one.
Rand makes Al Capone look like a moral exemplar.