So it’s another day ending in “y” and our old MRA sparring buddy Dean Esmay has gotten himself worked up about something again. This time, he’s pig-biting mad at “paranoid … YouTube MGTOW Sectarians” who have had the audacity to tell him, a married man, that real MGTOWs can’t get married.
Given that MGTOW stands for “Men Going Their Own Way,” and that the main thing these guys want to get away from is women, you might wonder why anyone calling himself a MGTOW would get married to one of those awful lady things.
But it turns out that some self-described MGTOWs “go their own way” by marching to the chapel to get married to the women they are afraid will ruin their lives.
And this has caused a rift in the MGTOW movement, such as it is, with a small number of “married MGTOWs” like Esmay facing off against those in the MGTOW world who think that men should totally separate from women … except if they want to date them, or live with them, but definitely not marry them!
Blimey, this “going your own way” thing is trickier than I thought!
Now Esmay has decided to throw himself into the thick of it by posting a rambling, furious 4100-word screed on A Voice for Men accusing those who think MGTOWs shouldn’t get married of spreading an “indefensible false allegation leveled at innocent men” that “just might get you imprisoned or killed.” (Emphasis in original.)
Yes, that’s right. Esmay thinks that those who disagree with him on just who can call themselves MGTOWs … ARE GOING TO GET SOMEONE KILLED.
Let’s try to unpack his, er, logic, shall we?
Esmay starts off by offering his own take on the little rift that has formed between the handful of self-described MGTOWs, like him, who have aligned themselves with A Voice for Men, and pretty much everyone else who calls themselves MGTOWs. As Esmay sees it, these other MGTOWs are indulging in
a conspiracy theory that goes like this: scheming MRAs somehow discovered that “men’s rights” was going down in popularity but “Men Going Their Own Way” was growing, so Paul Elam suddenly decided he cared about MGTOW and got busy writing about it, but in an attempt to make it more mainstream and palatable, Paul Elam tried to tell MGTOW they can be married. But thankfully, alert and vigilant True MGTOW On YouTube exposed the dastardly plot and now all know the truth: Marriage and MGTOW never! Can’t be done! Un-possible! Only that lying monster Paul Elam and his cult followers say different!
As someone who’s been watching all this on the outside for several years now, this doesn’t seem like a conspiracy theory in the slightest. If you set aside some of its hyperbole, it seems like a fairly accurate description of what has gone down. You may recall, for example, the outcry amongst MGTOWs when Elam and his pal Peter Wright self-published their own little guide on the subject this past March.
But to Esmay it’s all a pack of lies. Correction: a pack of WOMANISH lies.
To be blunt, all that is an incredibly womanish lie; it’s dense, multilayered, and carefully crafted so that every reasonable discussion of it can be torpedoed by changing the subject, shifting the goalposts, and other Rationalization Hamster moves. Those who defend this lie, this indefensible false allegation leveled at innocent men, are also guilty of marginalizing the work of other Men Going Their Own Way who are certainly not named Paul Elam, and some of whom can’t even stand Paul Elam.
Did I say “womanish?” I meant “girlish.”
I honestly suspect that most of those promulgating this conspiracy narrative are the products of single mother homes, because they’re such girlish brats so much of the time, and their narrative is such pathetic gossipy schoolgirl drama and backstabby lies.
As Esmay sees it, no furshlugginer YouTube MGTOWs are going to tell him and his pals what MGTOW is or isn’t! Instead, he’s going to tell them:
The goal of movement MGTOW was to help individual men find themselves and find what they wanted, and help that individual man craft the best way to get it—for himself, in his own way.
Really? That’s what MGTOW is all about? By this expansive definition, I’m a MGTOW, and so are my cats. (Well, they would be, if they were dudes.)
But never mind, because Esmay is working towards his crescendo. Take it away, Mr. Married MGTOW:
This idea—that a married man may not be MGTOW—is a lie. It is an abusive lie that is sometimes harmful to the men who hear and believe it.
Apparently, any time anyone expresses an opinion contrary to his own it is not only a “lie” but is actually a form of abuse.
It is also spitting straight into the face of those who first founded the Men Going Their Own Way movement on the internet, some of whom remain active to this day. It is a betrayal of MGTOW. It is a subversion and hijacking of it. It is a redefinition, and a toxic one. And it should not be allowed to stand.
Dean then turns his invective-o-meter up to 11:
Why should it not be allowed to stand? Why should we not just accept that the popular YouTube set have helped MGTOW “evolve” to its current state? First because the original MGTOW have yet to leave the stage. Second, because the YouTube Sectarians are misleading people, including themselves in some cases. And their advice is dangerous.
Yes dangerous. Not to society, but to themselves and their followers. They’re a bunch of damned fools who are going to get themselves or their friends killed. And yes, I do mean that literally.
I would repeat that last bit about people getting killed, and put it in bold. But I don’t need to, since Esmay has already done so himself:
Repeat: if you say that there is no benefit to marriage to men, you are a dangerously ill-informed fool who is likely to get yourself or others killed.
Repeat again: the man who tells you that there is no benefit or protection to the marriage license just might get you imprisoned or killed.
It’s rare to see an MRA actually acknowledge that there are certain benefits to marriage; they’re much more likely to be railing against it at the top of their lungs.
But how the hell could suggesting that “MGTOWs can’t be married” possibly lead to anyone getting “imprisoned or killed?” Esmay explains that even though
marriage is generally a bad deal for men, cohabiting with a woman without a marriage license frequently, and indisputably, reduces your rights and renders you more vulnerable than if you got the state-approved piece of paper.
Esmay tells the story of a friend of his who committed suicide after being denied access to the children he’d had with a woman he’d been living with.
It’s a sad story, to be sure, but how exactly Esmay figures that his friend’s suicide is somehow the responsibility of “YouTube MGTOW Sectarians” railing against the idea of married MGTOWs and not, for example, the result of MRAs railing against marriage in general, I could not tell you.
Esmay thinks that “if you are telling men there is never any benefit to a marriage license, you are lying to those men and may get those men killed with your lie.”
But the fact is that MRAs and others in their general vicinity make exactly this argument all the time. Consider, for example, the thrice-divorced Men’s Rights blogger who, several years ago, wrote an angry post titled “Gay Marriage? How About NO Marriage!”
Modern marriage, in case these Einsteins haven’t noticed, has all the sanctity of a ten dollar hooker. Matrimony has devolved into just another throwaway institution in a throwaway culture … an institution that is currently the most prolific source of oppressive discrimination against them? …
What remains of marriage is not salvageable. It’s water that can’t be decontaminated; a cripple that can’t be healed. And the best thing to do is to put it out of its misery and start the whole shebang over from scratch. …
MRA’s should do the decent thing with marriage and pull the plug.
And who wrote that? A blogger by the name of Paul Elam, on a little blogspot blog that he later turned into the A Voice for Men that we know and loathe today. (And he was proud enough of this post that he reposted it on the new and allegedly improved AVFM.)
Dean, I hate to tell you this, but your former boss at AVFM seems to be one of the “abusive,” potential death-causing “MGTOW sectarians” you’ve just devoted more than 4000 words to railing against.
@EJ
Aside from the virulent misogyny that pervades (and is the primary characteristic of) the manosphere, that is. He’s definitely losing the respect of his compatriots in the war against anyone not a white cis het male asshole, but he doesn’t seem to be loosening his grip on the same set of toxic beliefs and aggrieved sense of entitlement that they all see to share.
@Fruitloopsie:
Men are better at fixing cars. Evopsych says so. It goes back to when we lived on the savannah, right? Women were mostly gatherers of nuts and berries while men had to do the hunting. This means women got better social skills and better at seeing colours, while men evolved to be better at repairing the hunting party’s land rover and their shotguns. You can see this even today among primitive tribes. It’s science!
@Catalpa:
I hope you’re wrong but I fear you may not be.
Well, I’d certainly like to hope that Esmay’s squabbling with the rest of the seething sea of asshats is an indication of him becoming less saturated with misogyny, but given that he seems to think that ‘womanish lies’ and ‘schoolgirl drama’ are among the worst insults he can sling at his opponents, I’m not holding my breath.
@anisky
Well said.
His writing style is becoming quite incoherent, isn’t it? Could he be the next Timecube-guy now that the original Timecube is down? Will he soon start gibbering completely unintelligibly about Nature’s Four-Hormone Man and claiming his detractors are Educated Stupid?
I was thinking Esmay would focus on spamming Twitter with nonsensical mini-rants, thus becoming the new Fidelbogen. (Old-timers here might remember this guy David sometimes reported on. I don’t care to know what happened to him.)
Ye gods, but they’re pathetic with their little groups and acronyms and such.
“How dare you suggest that I’m a member of the Woman-Hating Manbaby Loser Club! I’m in the Club for Loser Manbabies Who Hate Women! It’s completely different!”
@Freemage
The post from AVFM just had a link to a video from a YouTube user called tl;dr who is apparently part of the antifeminist crowd. I haven’t watched the video, though, but I am familiar with tl;dr. 🙂
“Oh, any time a supposedly anti-marriage “MGTOW” tells me that men are eschewing marriage, I ask him why it is that all supposedly “MGTOW” websites have links to buy books showing how to get away with human trafficking, aka spending a year’s salary buying a wife from a poor country, and how to intimidate her into not divorcing you once you’ve paid all of the tariffs.”
which MGTOW websites? I don’t believe you at all. I bet you cant name one MGTOW website that promotes these books even though you just said all of them do it.
MGTOW is about NOT giving power over your life to a woman. The #1 way women ruin men’s lives is through marriage -> divorce rape -> parental alienation -> false accusations; hence most MGTOW don’t’ believe in marriage. Rather than get married and devote your life to someone that has the high likelihood of ruining your life, MGTOW focus their efforts on making a dream life for themselves – while giving women as little power as possible in their lives. Many let women into their lives – but they keep the power that woman has over their lives to an absolute minimum – which is why many countries are now forcing defacto marriage after X number of months of cohabitation. That’s how the majority of MGTOW think and what the MGTOW mindset is really about.
Also, most MGTOW don’t consider it a movement nor do MGTOW have leaders. Why? Leaders become targets of the enemy (feminists). As we all know, feminists will show up and ruin any meeting “the movement” might have; hence the vast online presence of MGTOW. Feminists try their best to associate the MGTOW mindset with Elliot Rogers – but the real truth is that MGTOW is passive resistance against the gynocracy.
I personally don’t consider married men MGTOW. If anything, if they’re married and agree with the MGTOW mindset, then they’re Wanna-Be-MGTOW. In other words, these men admire the MGTOW mindset and choose to fool themselves into believing that they’re living this mindset. Why? It makes them feel more independent and less trapped by the threat-point of divorce.
The statistics that show that most men are better off by getting married are as cherry picked and manipulated as the debunked, 1 in 5, feminist-made-up rape statistics. Men that never get married and never suffer a divorce live the longest of all men. Yes – the small subset of men that don’t suffer horrifically entitled/narcissistic wives in marriage live long as well.
The hypocrisy of women hating on MGTOW is a very telling aspect of feminism. Considering a big part of the women’s movement was to free women from the ‘slavery’ of marriage – you’d think feminists would respect men who too choose to free themselves of this most gynocentric of institutions. The reason feminists rail against MGTOW is because deep down they know only women benefit from marriage – which is something they hope to hide through false statistics. That in turn helps the MGTOW mindset grow – because it’s child’s play to see through this hypocrisy and false statistics. 99.9% of men’s problems go away by simply not giving women power over their lives.
NoMorePc: I admire you. Not many folks are limber enough to stick their heads so far up their ass that they can lick their own tonsils, but you, you special snowflake, you managed it, yes you did. And you must be pretty determined, too, to perform that maneuver when you’re so full of shit.
@kirby – That’s probably because it was first tested as an antidepressant (it’s an NDDI and requires daily use*):
http://consumerist.com/2015/08/19/fda-approves-addyi-which-is-absolutely-not-viagra-for-women/
It sucked at that, but did provide a minority of women with slightly increased libido.
So, the German pharmaceutical company that developed it sold it and its new owners changed its name, turned it pink, and began lobbying for it to be approved to treat pre-menopausal women (who are not also not on hormonal birth control and don’t drink).
It was truly, truly a “cure” in search of a disease.
—-
* From Wikipedia:
Flibanserin acts as a full agonist of the 5-HT1A receptor (Ki = 1 nM) and, with lower affinity, as an antagonist of the 5-HT2A receptor (Ki = 49 nM) and antagonist or very weak partial agonist of the D4 receptor (Ki = 4–24 nM).[12][13][14][15] Despite the much greater affinity of flibanserin for the 5-HT1A receptor, and for reasons that are unknown, flibanserin occupies the 5-HT1A and 5-HT2A receptors in vivo with similar percentages.[16][17] Flibanserin also has low affinity for the 5-HT2B receptor (Ki = 89.3 nM) and the 5-HT2C receptor (Ki = 88.3 nM), both of which it behaves as an antagonist of.[15] Flibanserin preferentially activates 5-HT1A receptors in the prefrontal cortex, demonstrating regional selectivity, and has been found to increase dopamine and norepinephrine levels and decrease serotonin levels in the rat prefrontal cortex, actions that were determined to be mediated by activation of the 5-HT1A receptor.[12] As such, flibanserin has been described as a norepinephrine-dopamine disinhibitor (NDDI).[15][18]
^ I include the note because I know that some here will understand the contents.
I scan and look for the sentences with the least actual terminology (like the last one).
The rest is just “Der, lookit the science!” to me…it could be Klingon for all that I understand it.
re: the MGTOW poster a few up:
Dude, do it.
Live the dream.
If relationships with women are that awful for you, by all means disengage.
You’ll be better off for it.
They’ll be better off for it.
Spend your money and your time however you’d like and be just as happy as you can be (obviously, without hurting others).
Really.
Really-really.
Rick agrees:
I should have known that this was inbound. It always happens.
Considering that’s all a paranoid fantasy that MGTOWs have that you have yet to back up with any evidence whatsoever beyond “I know a guy who knows a guy” or “it happened to meeee”, which is all purely anecdotal and really doesn’t prove shit (and don’t even get me started on your use of “divorce rape”, because as someone who was actually raped, fuck you), I think the best thing for all y’all is to just stay away from women period.
Citation needed.
Oh, and why would you marry someone you obviously think is out to destroy you, or even let them in your lives in the first place? I mean, really, that doesn’t seem very smart.
That’s fine, no one here cares about you doing this. If you don’t want to interact with women, or get married to them, and you want to go out and have your “dream life”, that’s cool.
The part we take issue with is your view of women as all hate-mongering harpies out to lure you to your deaths with our tits or something. And the way you treat women in general.
And the fact you never seem to actually go your own fucking way.
I will never understand why the manosphere keeps treating this like a war. And, again, I don’t understand why you seem to think we care so fucking much about you not wanting to get married, and we want to “ruin any meeting ‘the movement’ might have”.
We. Don’t. Care. If. You. Don’t. Want. To. Get. Married. To. A. Woman.
We only care if you treat women with misogyny.
Hell, I don’t think I want to get married. And I know I don’t want to have kids.
If that’s your life choice, I’ll support you in that.
Actually, if you pay attention, we associated Elliot Rodgers with PUAs, not MGTOW. He was active in a lot of PUA hate forums because he’s tried PUA tactics and they never worked for him.
So, no, “feminists” don’t associate Elliot Rodgers with MGTOW.
K.
Of course they are. Care to provide statistics of your own to debunk them, or are we just supposed to take your word as gospel?
Because people have provided facts that show that married men live longer, and, in fact, I’ll provide some myself:
From Harvard Medical School:
(Obviously Harvard is full of feminists, amirite?)
On the 1-in-5 thing: You’re right. It’s not technically accurate. It lumps together rape and sexual assault (which can be things like groping, kissing without consent, etc.) which are both still crimes, but it’s not “1-in-5 women will be raped”, and it only covered two college campuses.
From Time Magazine (the article was written by the people who conducted the study):
However, with all that said, I’d also like to present these statistics from RAINN (the Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network).
I highly reccomend you look over those. They do also talk about men and children, and are generally more inclusive.
However, they are a little dated.
One, we don’t hate on MGTOWs, we hate on their misogynistic behavior. We really don’t give a shit if you guys don’t want to get married. I’m sure many feminists would join with you on that, and that’s a personal choice we can stand behind. In theory, we like the idea of MGTOW. We think it’s a good idea, in theory.
Of course, I think that we would support it more if you guys actually went your own way, and not stand in feminist spaces declaring you hate us and you’re running away because we’re so mean for telling you to be nice to women and stop treating us like we’re out to destroy your lives with our vaginas (because you’re obviously only referring to cis women here. Misogyny and transphobia go hand-in-hand, after all).
Two, I think you’re confusing your waves of feminism. We’re third wave: We respect women who make the choice to hold traditional feminine gender roles. As long as it’s their choice, and they don’t try to force other women to do the same thing.
We don’t hate wives, we don’t hate mothers, we don’t feel like they need to be “freed” from the “slavery” of marriage.
We may have been influenced by first and second wave, but those waves dealt with issues in the past, and we’re dealing with some of the same issues, but there are some things that have already been dealt with, like the pressure for women to get married (for the most part).
Citation needed. (Oh, and please see above, where I linked to data that states that men live longer if they have someone to live with/a spouse/etc.)
But, if you have any statistics that can debunk Harvard Medical School, please do link me to them. I’d love to see them.
Actually, a majority of men’s problems would go away if they stopped trying to define masculine as “not feminine”, and just let men do what they feel comfortable doing and let men be who they feel comfortable being, without insisting that you have to act a certain way or do certain things or else they’ll revoke your “man card”.
Of course, this also requires you to not be a bigot, something I see plenty of your fellow MGTOWs have trouble with.
As for the idea that feminism is helping MGTOW “grow”, well, I’m personally of the mindset that if a man refuses to marry a woman because she’s a feminist, chances are he was already misogynistic in the first place.
But, if you think that women are a problem, feel free to finally go your own way and not hang around feminist forums anymore. Seriously, we want you to leave.
@NoMorePc We do understand the underlying ideology – it not an incredibly dense or profound idea. My problem with it is the inherent paranoia built into it – that women specifically gain from abusing ‘power’ over men and there is in inclination to do so.
This is demonization that is poorly supported by any evidence even if you want to disregard/dispute statistics from feminists.
Your last paragraph is incredibly speculative on how feminists think. If you can get annoyed by how feminists misrepresent your point/ideas I would strongly suggest that you refrain from doing the very same thing yourself. Does not give your argument any more credence in the slightest.
Also forgive me if I don’t take your definition of MGTOW to be completely sound. Clearly as you have just pointed out that people within your own movement don’t agree with it. As far as I know, movements have varying definitions within themselves united behind a more general theme or idea. I think you do a dis-service to your own movement the moment you decide to be the de-facto spokesperson for it and openly chop out parts of your own group and don’t consider the idea of expanding your definition or the validity of their ideas.
Luckily I don’t see it catching on as long as they market it under the extremely un-catchy name “Addyi.”
Women abandon their traditional roles = Empowered
Men abandons their traditional roles = Misogynists
Women discussing feminism = Empowerment
Men discussing MGTOW = Misogyny
“Ever since the acronym MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) began to circulate online, there have been those who have sought to deride it. This is perhaps true of most communities attached to a label, but with MGTOW it seems, the reception has been distinctly polarising right from the outset.
Recently, this reached a point of significance. According to Google Trends, interest in the term MGTOW has spiked within the last couple of months, and a new flurry of critics have begun to come out of the woodwork.
Now it should be noted, as biased as my perception may be, that the ‘criticism’ MGTOW has received so far has been universally flimsy. I don’t say this because I don’t want to concede it. I say this quite simply because the negative responses have invariably failed to delve beyond amateur psychoanalysis, shaming language, and false comparisons. We’ve been accused of being a cult, been labelled Marxists for allegedly promoting a narrative of class struggle, and been dismissed as a group of nihilists. The comparison has even been made to the lesbian separatists of the radical feminist movement, although more recently, the backlash has been reduced to simply: ‘you guys can’t get laid’.
What unites all of these responses is that none of them dare to focus on whether or not ‘going your own way’ is a good idea to begin with. The derision almost without exception focuses on the potential motivations behind the decision, and consistently neglects to consider whether these motivations make any difference to the merits of the inevitable outcome. The question one must then ask, is why? Why would the merits of the MGTOW lifestyle itself not be the main focus of the attention, especially when it is what has the most effect both on the individual who adopts it, as well as on the society around them?
I think this is where we have to delve into psychoanalysis on some level ourselves, since the critics can arguably be broken into 2 camps: increasingly politically correct MRAs who see MGTOW as a threat to their image, and those who wish to promote a particular vision of masculinity which is centred around the way men interact with women.
Both of these groups have 2 crucial things in common with MGTOW: 1) an opposition to feminism, and 2) the recognition that ‘male privilege’ is a delusion, both as it is applied today, as well as applied throughout history. Where these groups differ, both with MGTOW, as well as with themselves, is to be found in how they interpret this information and move forward with it.
MRAs want to change things at the legal level, and in doing so have to become involved in the political process. This means playing the political game; being ready to compromise with the mainstream while also acting as a counterpoint to it, knowing that their success is contingent upon going down well during the latest news cycle, and making sure to police the tone of contrarians within their ranks in an effort to appease the much more powerful opposition. Begrudgingly I will admit that all of this may be necessary in order to secure victories in the legal sphere, at least to begin with, but without the social capital being there to motivate people to want change, one has to wonder if this whole thing is just a fool’s errand. The vast majority of people, due to a mixture of apathy, ignorance, and purposeful misinformation; buy into the feminist narrative. Perhaps not in it’s totality, but definitely to a degree great enough to pose a serious problem for a ‘men’s rights movement’ wishing to be taken seriously.
This brings me to the inevitable conclusion that the MRAs who wish to police the tone of other anti-feminists, are little more than time wasting concern trolls, who rather than acting as a dissenting voice to mainstream thought, will end up instead slowly conforming to it.
This is something I want no part of.
With that out of the way though, I’ll move on to the second group of MGTOW detractors; the upholders of the allegedly quintessential bond between men and women, who think of those who reject it as lesser men. This group can arguably be split into 2 even smaller groups. The first would be social conservatives who wish for a return of the traditional nuclear family. The second would be the PUA/game theorist types who simply like to muddy the waters with unimpressive try-hard rhetoric, and sanctimonious denigrations.
The latter group are a waste of time, and are generally not taken seriously by anyone outside of their swaggering echo-chamber. The former group however, make a semi-reasonable case for the days when men and women lived together in matrimony. The fundamental flaw of their case however, is their failure to recognize what brought about an end to that way of life. Was it simply some abstraction such as leftism, feminism, or Cultural Marxism; acting independent of female agency? Or, was it simply female agency itself, acting in accordance with those things when benefit was perceived in them?
We’ve talked about this ad nauseam within the MGTOW community, but to summarize what I consider to be the most grounded answer to these questions; I’d posit simply that feminism and government largesse can best be understood as being a direct result of industrialization. Without the technological infrastructure set in place by the industrial revolution, neither the large welfare state seen in western countries, nor female independence from father and husband, could have been facilitated. Today, we’re simply living in an era of evolutionary maladaptation, where female hypergamy is focused on government hand-outs rather than eligible bachelors, and where the male instinct to protect and provide for women is enabling female entitlement rather than improving their survival rate. The instincts themselves though, have not changed; not by rapid biological evolution, nor by nefarious political ideologies.
I suppose this leaves us with MGTOW, which to my mind is more productive than anything it’s critics have so far managed to offer. We don’t need to compromise or kowtow to overly sensitive opponents, nor do we need to police each other’s speech. Instead, we can advocate the taking of simple lifestyle decisions, which not only maximize personal freedom in our own lives, but that also have an indirect effect on the political system that MRAs want so badly to change. By not getting married, we’re effectively walking out the prison gates of the corrupt family court system without even begging for the key. By living frugally, working flexibly, and not having to support a family, we’re thus minimizing the taxes we pay, and as a result reducing the funding for what many of us see as unnecessary government programs.
Of course, the lifestyle that MGTOW generally describes is not for everyone, and this is where I think a lot of the negativity towards it comes from; a fear of one’s own self, and the realization that without women, for many men there is no sense of hope or purpose. ”
I don’t know who wrote the above. They didn’t give their identity. You don’t have to accept anything I write. I don’t expect you to. My only point in posting is so that you understand the death of marriage from both the male and female perspective. When I say male, I’m not talking about the white knights that support gynocentric agendas no matter how badly those agendas hurt men. I don’t consider those men, but rather people who have been brainwashed by media and religion to support gynocentrism no matter the harm to men.
Brevity is the soul of wit.
Well, this is fun. In the US, common-law marriages seem to be on the way out rather than on the way in. And even in some states that recognize common-law marriages, they do so only for marriages that form before particular dates.
Source
And in those states, you don’t get a common-law marriage simply by cohabitation. It’s actually specifically mentioned under the common misunderstandings of the law. Neat!
Dude, we’re on your side on this one. We want you to abandon traditional roles. Dean is the raving loon who thinks he can go his own way while still in a traditional marriage.
Not to mention that calling MGTOWs misogynists has nothing to do with their stated goal of “going their own way.” At all. We call MGTOWs misogynists because of their misogyny.
It’s like how when we criticize PUAs for treating women as fuck dolls that need to be manipulated first, they claim that PUA is about self-improvement and improved social interaction. That’s not what we’re criticizing, and that’s not even what they’re doing.
Women abandon their traditional roles = Empowered
Men abandon their traditional roles = Empowered
Women discussing feminism = Empowerment
Men discussing MGTOW (without being misogynistic) = Empowerment
Men discussing how women are all out to ruin men with their vaginas = Misogyny
Men equating rape with divorce = Insensitive assholes to rape victims (yes, even male rape victims)
Men saying they hate women directly or indirectly = Misogyny
Women sneering at women who don’t hold traditional gender roles = Misogyny
Women who choose to be mothers/wives and hold other traditional gender roles = Not misogyny
MGTOW lumping all feminists together and saying that we all hate them because we’re not going to benefit from them not getting married = Misogynistic and really misinformed.
Fixed that for you, and made some additions.
Nice job “othering” men who think marriage is just peachy keen. And yes, they are still male. Even if you don’t think they are. Because they consider themselves men.
See, this is what I meant in my last post. Men are trying to define men by “not feminine”, and going “well, you’re not a MAYUN” if they do anything that steps out of line.
Can’t you see how harmful that is? Can’t you see that you’re enforcing toxic bullshit?
And it’s all well and good that you don’t want to get married. We don’t care if you never get hitched, but you’re sitting here and blaming women and other men who do and saying that it hurts men and yadda yadda yadda, but you have no evidence to back it up, and then turn around and go “Oh, I don’t expect you to accept any of this whatsoever”.
THEN WHY ARE YOU WRITING IT?!
Holy shit, you MGTOW guys just love reading what you type, don’t you?
MGTOW-guy: Go back and read my earlier reply (with Rick).
That’s how we all feel about MGTOW if you leave out the raging asshole bits.
Personally, I think unattached people would do well to live semi-communally (as in, not necessarily in a commune – unless, hey, that’s what they want – but in shared living spaces). This would allow them to either save huuuge amounts of money or work less / engage in more fulfilling activities more, or both.
I mean, imagine it, man: You could be in a group of men who are GENUINELY going their own way. They work when they want or need to, all either saving money for adventures, future pursuits, investment, or just the latest toy that they want or using their free time to engage in vigorous study, self-improvement, meditation…whatever their hearts desire.
You all work to live your ideal lives, to become your ideal selves by going your own fucking way.
That would be admirable.
If you could step away from hating women, could step away from deriding men who don’t fit your ideal, could stop spewing venom, you could become beacons…
…if you could make your life really, truly about you rather than about what you think others have done or might do to you…shit, that’d be something beautiful and worthy.
It’s times like these where I almost have to remind myself that I am, in fact, a man, and people like NoMorePC are talking about people like me when they go off on how “men” are this, that, and the other. “Men” might as well be “Martians” for how familiar their supposed actions are to me and my personal life.
As requested – The more brief version of my previous post:
People hate MGTOW because, in a gynocentric society, women are given priority in all things. Because of our heavily gynocentric system, women walking away from their traditional roles is equated with empowerment, while men walking away from their traditional roles is equated with misogyny. Likewise, women speaking of their freedom from the slavery of marriage is considered empowerment, while men freeing themselves from women’s destructive power is considered misogyny.
Much of media and religion is setup to brainwash men into gynocentric robots that can’t be happy unless they’ve been validated by women. MGTOW is a direct threat to this power over men; hence MGTOW will be hated by most women and a sizable portion of men.
The MGTOW mindset reverses the gynocentric brainwashing of men and introduces men to a lifestyle not dependent on female validation, freeing men from the all to frequent life destruction that accompanies giving women power over their lives – particularly through the most gynocentric of institutions – marriage.
@NoMorePc
Surely though the need for external validation, whether from women or men, is something you grow out of?
That’s the whole rationale behind Maslow’s Pyramid.
Hey NoMorePC. I’m not a MGTOW in the slightest, I’m a feminist (or ally, whatever you want to call it).
I’m 25 and unmarried. I live alone in a rented apartment, doing a job I enjoy. I have female friends that I hang out with (and talk to online), and some day I want to have kids, but I’m not in a rush. I’m pretty content with my life, though of course I’m still trying to work some things out. Hey, I’m young.
What aspects this are due to ‘gynocentric brainwashing?’ What aspects of my life are the result of me being dependent on female validation? Or am I living a relatively MGTOW-approved lifestyle (although I doubt it, since I actually do want to get married some day).
I just want to figure out exactly what power this gynocentric world has over me, and where I’ve gone so wrong that I see MGTOWs as self-proclaimed refugees of an imaginary dystopia, hating women for having a power that doesn’t exist and lashing out at them as a result.
@Alan:
Eh, to be fair, external validation is something everyone needs to some extent. Everyone wants to know that their thoughts and feelings make sense to others, which is why something like gaslighting is so effective and terrible.
@ Kirby
That’s certainly not the case for everyone. In my circle of intimate friends we might bounce ideas of each other but ultimately we have to be true to ourselves.
If you make choices based on what other people think then you just end up all in some lowest common denominator group think rather than living by your own beliefs.
My friends and I can have radically different viewpoints but we know that doesn’t mean we can’t be friends.
If someone had a view that was beyond the pale then we’d have to stop being friends. Going down the validation route is how people end up adopting unpleasant positions just to fit in. History shows us the dangers of that.
@Alan:
Yeah, there is such a thing as a dependence on validation from others, but at the other extreme is social isolation.
I might be using “validation” in a different sense; it’s not about having other people say “I agree,” it’s about other people saying “that makes sense.” It’s not about thinking in lockstep with others, but rather the feeling that you have something valid to say and to contribute.
Reading things over again, it looks like NoMorePC was using the word to mean “approved of” as well, so maybe my comment was out of place. Oh well.
Nothing says going your own way from women like going to a feminist site and leaving thundering herds of teal deer.
@NoMorePc I think you have failed to grasp everyone is trying to tell you so I will make it simple.
We are not calling saying that your movement is misogynistic because they want to talk about separating yourself from your ‘traditional’ role.
We call you misogynistic when you express ideas displaying your clear hatred/dislike of females. It is really that simple. If all you did was isolate yourself from females and stay unmarried we would just call you a ‘bachelor’. That term existed way before MGTOW came along.
When you start stating that you do what you do because of a ‘nefarious female agenda that actively seeks to harm males for personal gain’ – and the restatement of this in various ways – that we are then correct in labeling you as misogynistic.
For example, if a woman chooses to remain single because she wants to focus on her career = empowerment.
If she then decides to seek out a public forum and start voicing the opinion that all men are trying to oppress her, that men and their institutions are actively seeking ways to harm her and destroy her, and all of this is happening for explicit purposes, then guess out? We would call her a misandrist (and yes, feminists know how to use that term too, just that we do it more appropriately).
The catch is whenever MGTOWs talk about females and their male supporters there is a clear tone of derision and hatred in everything you say. I may not be speaking for everyone here, but personally speaking I don’t hate or despise your movement in the slightest. At worst I simply violently disagree with your worldview and ideas since your movement has provided a very poorly supported case that is made up of bigoted assertions with no real world evidence.
Even in your comments on this board so far you have only served to reinforce this interpretation. You have not refuted other points that people have brought up with citations – other than waving the ‘conspiracy’ or ‘cherry-picked’ flag. You have not supported your own claims in any credible sense. You have made clearly deriding statements like:
“When I say male, I’m not talking about the white knights that support gynocentric agendas no matter how badly those agendas hurt men. I don’t consider those men, but rather people who have been brainwashed by media and religion to support gynocentrism no matter the harm to men.”
With no claim to support it other than your own opinion. You have literally ‘othered’ a group of people out of your sex even though you really can’t (our sex is not defined by another person – clearly that is a problem you can grasp).
I doubt feminists dislike your ideas because it ‘shakes the system’. I’m pretty sure they dislike it because it colors the world in an unrealistic fantasy, harms the individuals who believe it and in turn go out to harm others (not you necessarily), generates unwarranted hatred/dislike of a specific group (females) and adds no real benefit to society.
And trust me, what you are doing is not helping us by paying less taxes. That is just… bizarre. You do realize that just because you pay lower taxes does not mean the government will slash the ‘unnecessary’ government programs. You can do that better by, guess what? Getting involved in politics! Which by your own words, seem to be something the MGTOW movement does not want to participate in since it is so ‘gynocentric’.
Please come back with a more intelligent discussion and then we can have a real conversation.
Seconding this. If you could stop begging the question, that would be helpful as well. Perhaps you could begin by demonstrating that your premises are in fact true?
I wouldn’t call her a misandrist. I might call her a jackass or a drama llama (depending on whether she actually was being persecuted), but “misandrist” is a nonsense word because there’s no systemic bias against dudes. A person who’s strongly biased against men may be a big jerkface, but they’re also a fluke.
I’m glad you ignored everything else I’ve said solely to repeat your point. [/sarcasm]
@NoMorePc
Well, you’re using the term ‘white knight’ incorrectly, but that’s besides the point. You wanna know something?
I use to be brainwashed by the media.
I use to buy into the idea that ‘masculinity’ is something that can be taken from you. That men have these metaphorical “man cards” that could be revoked if that man did something ‘unmanly’. I use to push myself to do all sorts of dangerous irresponsible things because I thought it would make me more manly (and thus more desirable). I’ve had peers think less of me because I hadn’t had sex at the age of 21.
This is called toxic masculinity.
This is the very force that hurts men in our society and you just contributed to it right here:
You see, based on your posts, I would consider you immature, inconsiderate, perpetually annoying to be around, obnoxiously stubborn*, and VERY sexist. But I would NEVER consider you “not a man” and I would NEVER tell you to “man up” because unlike you, I do not buy into this culture that says that masculinity is something that can be revoked.
You complain about an institution hurting men. Yet you are contributing to that VERY institution because you believe that masculinity is something that can be taken from you. And the sad thing is? Hopefully someday you’ll realize that toxic masculinity is the very reason you Went Your Own Way in the first place.
*seriously, do you not fucking see the sheer number of commenters telling you that THEY SUPPORT your decision to Go Your Own Way?
@katz Hmm, I agree that my example may not be strong enough to qualify an individual as a misandrist. It will also depend on the context of her situation and the beliefs that underlie her reasoning.
I also second the fact that there is misogyny is widely institutionalized creating multiple levels of discrimination on a mind-boggling number of topics, ideas and behaviors. Misandry definitely is no comparable counterpart to misogyny in this sense – there is no overarching systemic discrimination against males. The word misandry has also been used in a very nonsensical and flippant manner especially by anti-feminists.
However, I disagree with you on the idea that the word “misandrist” is a nonsense word because I believe it is possible to label individuals with it if there is clear evidence of their personal hatred/prejudice of men in general. If we drop the word altogether declaring it as non-existent or non-applicable, this will actually support the anti-feminist narrative that we practice an unfair bias when it comes to sexual discrimination.
A simple example of an individual I would label as “misandrist” is Valerie Solanas, who wrote the infamous SCUM Manifesto – which is really a gigantic work of crap. The ideas expressed inside however clearly demonstrate her utter despise and hatred for males and she would be glad if we could be removed from the human race. It is chillingly similar to stuff that you can read off of anti-feminist or misogynistic sites.
“If she then decides to seek out a public forum and start voicing the opinion that all men are trying to oppress her, that men and their institutions are actively seeking ways to harm her and destroy her, and all of this is happening for explicit purposes, then guess out? We would call her a misandrist (and yes, feminists know how to use that term too, just that we do it more appropriately).”
That’s a joke, right? You can’t be serious. If you are serious, it just solidifies my points ad infinitum. No one could possibly be that dense. The women’s movement was based on the destruction of the patriarchy, the sexual liberation of women and the freeing of women from the slavery of marriage. Women invented demonizing gender.
BTW – the debate over the Safe Campus Act is going down. Thoughts? Cause you know – I don’t want my right to unceremoniously rape various women on campus blocked.
@ Kirby
I must confess that I’m not even sure about the ‘that makes sense’ example. Again I find it too limiting.
Obviously sometimes friends may understand an idea or point. That’s probably the most common scenario even if we disagree. But as Orwell put it ‘sanity is not statistical’.
You have to be true to thine own self even if it’s just you who thinks like that.
If you’re relying on the validation of others then you’re not you, you’re just someone else’s puppet.
@NoMorePc Oh boy, you are a live one. As far as I can tell, we are both serious here. You have also just clearly demonstrated your ignorance about feminism in that one statement:
“The women’s movement was based on the destruction of the patriarchy, the sexual liberation of women and the freeing of women from the slavery of marriage.”
It is not my duty, or the duty of feminists on this website to educate you on this. Please do more research into the movement before making such statements. Once you come back with an actual good understanding of the women’s movement will I be able to take your criticism of it more seriously.
You also came surprisingly close to a revelation when you said this:
“That’s a joke, right? You can’t be serious. If you are serious, it just solidifies my points ad infinitum. No one could possibly be that dense.”
My example is outlandish and I would be the first to say it. But there is also a reason why I wrote it as such. I think you do get it, but if not just say so and I will spell it out for you.
In my honest opinion, I do not think that you really want to rape various women. Your attempt at humor falls flat.
And we did it without being able to vote!
Reallyfriendly: I’d like to talk more about the word “misandry” but I think I’ll wait until we’re done playing whackamole.
“In my honest opinion, I do not think that you really want to rape various women. Your attempt at humor falls flat.”
The best part of feminism is the ease with which you can toy with men’s brainwashing to provide and protect while simultaneously encouraging a sense of guilt. In this way, one can simultaneously attack men’s biological drives and psychological well being with both positive and negative psychological feedback.
Sugar britches – my sense of humor is 100% A-OK. The fact that you disapprove makes me that much more certain. Rape jokes are my fav:
A sensitive man, an insensitive man and Michael Jackson are on a cruise ship. The ship hits an iceberg and starts to sink. The sensitive man says, “Children first!” The insensitive man says “Fuck the children!” Michael Jackson says , “I don’t think we have time for that.”
A man is hauling a woman through the dark woods on a stormy night. There’s ear splitting thunder, lightening striking trees and a deluge of rain pouring down upon them. The woman, shivering and quaking says , “I’m so scared! Please don’t do this!” – To which the man replies , “You’re scared? I have to walk back alone.”
I did a poll of several women to see if they found rape jokes funny. They said no, but I knew they meant yes.
I decided to have a legal name change from NoMorePc to help. I wanted women to be able to scream my name while I’m raping them.
The problem with rape jokes is that they sound so “forced”.
Really? I think he does. Otherwise he wouldn’t have said it apropos of jack shit.
Change that to “I think he has already.”