>
Donald Duck was evidently a Duck Going His Own Way. This Disney cartoon from 1954 pretty much sums up, in 7 short minutes, every single discussion on every MGTOW message board ever, right down to the little jokes about Daisy riding what we might call the “bad boy duck cock carousel.”
This is quite literally how MGTOWer’s see the world, except for the part about everyone being a duck. (Oh, and that Donald doesn’t blame modern feminism for Daisy’s behavior, as it didn’t actually exist in 1954.)
Thanks, I guess, to the fellows on MGTOWforums.com for finding this.
—
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.
>Scarecrow said:"This is the kind of intellectual philosophy I would expect from somebody who gets all their information from trash talk shows like Dr. Phil and Oprah."This is coming from someone who according to his profile follows such intellectual sounding blogs as:"Western Women are to be used ONLY for sex""Objectify Chicks""Stupid Chick Tricks"Perhaps it's because you're such a profoundly damaged individual that you associate yourself with a scarecrow, an empty simulacra of a man.
>I want to see a version from Daisy's POV. Being cooped up in the house all day, her only catharsis through consumerist impulses and spending time with her family. The former which she depends on Donald for, having no income of her own. She's COMPROMISING HER IDENTITY!
>SimulacrUM. Singular. That is I mean, "going its own way."
>Sam:Slightly pedantic, but yes. The singular of simulacra is simulacrum.
>Cold said:"[…]you would see that we don't just blame feminism and also regard pre-feminist society as also being a raw deal for men, except for the tiny elite. Feminism took what was already a lopsided deal for women and just made it even better for women and even worse for men."As has already been pointed out, you are making a(profoundly zany) claim; the burden of proof is on you. If you feel up to it this should be amusing!P.S Sorry for the slightly intemperate tone of my last comment Scott!
>"P.S Sorry for the slightly intemperate tone of my last comment Scott!"Err, replace Scott with Sam. I'm not having a good day!
>Augh! Blogger ate another brilliant post of mine! When will this indignity end? I tell you, it's worse than dying in childbirth in a pre-industrial society–which isn't saying much, since our MRA friends will tell you, with unimpeachable authority, that pregnancy and childbirth are no big thang.
>Donald apparently lives in San Francisco — dig those crazy hills.
>Perhaps it's because you're such a profoundly damaged individual that you associate yourself with a scarecrow, an empty simulacra of a man. Yeah, but no one can make a diarrhea joke like Scarecrow.Did I say "can?" I meant "would."
>Indeed, the idea that women have historically had a better life than men does reveal a class bias. But surely MRA's recognize that in pre-industrial times (which are virtually synonymous with pre-feminist times), 99% of women lived lives that were filled with unending drudgery. For that matter, most women in the world today are performing arduous, grinding labor day after day (the "affluent north" doesn't include the majority of human -beings).And for anyone who's tempted to think that upper-class women had it so great in pre-industrial times, I recommend a viewing of The Other Boleyn Girl to set 'em straight (the MRA's should like it because it's about hypergamy). Among other things, that movie makes it pretty clear that hypergamy is a poor substitute for having power of one's own.
>However, feminism has been a very negative influence on the current state of western women.I'll decide what is or isn't a negative influence on my current state, thanks.
>"That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud-puddles, or gives me any best place! And ain't I a woman? Look at me! Look at my arm! I have ploughed and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And ain't I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man – when I could get it – and bear the lash as well! And ain't I a woman? I have borne thirteen children, and seen most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother's grief, none but Jesus heard me! And ain't I a woman? "-Sojouner Truth's response to an argument similar to cold's (that women were weak and given special consideration) in 1851 at the Akron Women's ConventionPoor women worked in fields, factories, and mines and then came home to birth and raise babies and do all of the housework. Even the pathetic "chivalry" displays of meaningless drivel in return for being an obedient dog to the patriarchy are contingent on being wealthy, white, cis, hetero, able bodied, etc.
>More proof that the MRM is still early in its "2nd wave." Perhaps they need a "meninist" faction to lead them to intersectionality.
>"I am most anxious to enlist everyone who can speak or write to join in checking this mad, wicked folly of 'Women's Rights', with all its attendant horrors, on which her poor feeble sex is bent, forgetting every sense of womanly feelings and propriety. Feminists ought to get a good whipping. Were woman to 'unsex' themselves by claiming equality with men, they would become the most hateful, heathen and disgusting of beings, and would surely perish without male protection."– Queen Victoria, 1870Hmmm, looks like this feminism stuff has been around since 1870.You are clearly ignorant about feminism David.And, that seems to be a topic you talk about quite a bit too.You sir are an ignorant moron.In addition to this, women were employed to help aid the war effort in WWI. Once it was realized that productivity could be increased by employing women, the government forced that down their throats.Way before 1950 David.Why don't you blog about things you are not ignorant about – like masturbating in porta-potties to pictures of Mr. Bean.
>David: "… Donald doesn’t blame modern feminism for Daisy’s behavior, as it didn’t actually exist in 1954."Scarecrow: "looks like this feminism stuff has been around since 1870. You are clearly ignorant about feminism David."Someone missed the word "modern".
>As Jon helpfully explained to us in the last post's comments: "ALL the words count."
>Hmmm, looks like this feminism stuff has been around since 1870.Quit harping on this point as if you're scoring some kind of victory dude. David pretty clearly said "modern feminism," not "feminism." Don't pretend there's no difference or that I'm splitting hairs. Feminism looked pretty different in 1954 than it does today.
>Uh, MODERN MODERN MODERN MODERN MODERN. I was referring to second and third wave feminism. That's why I didnt' say "feminism," because obviously there were feminists before the 1960s, though very few of them used that term. (Given that I have actually referred to pre-second-wave feminism numerous times on this blog, Scarecrow, I suspect you're being willfully obtuse here. Either that or you're an even bigger idiot than I think.) If you were to go back to 1954, though, and use the term "feminism" people would look at you funny. No one used the term then, and there was essentially no movement for women's rights at that time. (People would know what you were talking about if you used the term Suffragette.) Here you go:"Feminism is commonly split into three “waves.” During the First Wave—the women’s suffrage movement pioneered by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and a host of other sidebars in American history textbooks—the term “feminism” wasn’t used at all. Once it entered the American lexicon, “[The word] then disappeared after the 1920s. Nobody wanted to call themselves a feminist,” says 300th Anniversary University Professor Laurel T. Ulrich. “Then it came back again in the 60s and 70s, after people realized there were a few problems to be solved.” "http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2007/3/7/a-brief-history-of-feminism-at/ Scarecrow, even by your standards you've being an idiot here.
>Just to make myself completely clear, the 3rd sentence in the above should read:That's why I said "modern feminism," instead of simply "feminism," because obviously there were feminists before the 1960s, though very few of them used that term.
>This is quite literally how MGTOWer’s see the world, except for the part about everyone being a duck.And he complains when we state the darker trends of feminism. Stay classy, Dave.
>"even by your standards you've being an idiot here"Yes, I agree, I've being an idiot.I've going to do moor resurch, and I've will get back too yoo.While I am doing more research, you can go back to jacking off in that porta-potty to that picture of Mr. Bean you are so fond of.
>"entlemen, if you don't want the nightmare scenarios that you're always talking about to come true, there's a very simple solution: don't be an idiot. There are hundreds of websites and books dedicated to the signs that the person you're dating is abusive and will do you wrong. Just learn to be a good judge of character (it's not that hard) and if you don't want to marry someone, just don't propose (or say no if she does)."This is victim blaming. Men and women both end up with abusive people. It is not the fault of the victim. It is the fault of the abuser.It's not that hard? Really? That's some smug shit. Abusers can be extremely charismatic. Really, saying "that's not hard" is as bad as saying that it's not that hard for women to tell who the rapists are and avoid them.I'll raise my hand as someone who knows a man who was married to a woman who abused him. Fuck her. It was not, in any way, his fault or his responsibility to prevent.
>e4919700-4d45-11e0-bbf3-000bcdcb8a73 said… This is quite literally how MGTOWer’s see the world, except for the part about everyone being a duck. And he complains when we state the darker trends of feminism. You mean the article that says this:"These results show that changes in gender role attitudes have substantial effects on pay equity," Judge said. "When workers' attitudes become more traditional, women's earnings relative to men suffer greatly. When attitudes become more egalitarian, the pay gap nearly disappears."And this:"These results cannot be explained by the fact that, in traditional couples, women are less likely to work outside the home," Judge said. "Though this plays some role in our findings, our results suggest that even if you control for time worked and labor force participation, traditional women are paid less than traditional men for comparable work."That's some dark trend there. And, yes, before you predictably accuse me of poor reading comprehension, etc., I realize that men with egalitarian views tend to make less than men with traditional views. I'd like to see some studies that look at the reasons for this before jumping to any conclusions. Sexism may pay, but it hardly seems worth it for a lousy $6000 a year more per couple (figuring the $8500/year advantage for traditional men minus the $1500/year advantage for feminist women).
>Correction: $7000 a year. (8500-1500).
>And he complains when we state the darker trends of feminism.…? The fact that non-sexist men make less money on average is "dark"? First of all, making less money isn't the worst thing in the world. I know this is hard for MRAs to grasp, but given how much they whine about issues of money, it's pretty clear to me that many MRAs value a human being's worth by his or her income.Second, you're automatically assuming, because you want to believe it, that the causation works in a particular direction. There's no guarantee that being feminist causes you to make less money. Arguably, making more money makes a person likelier to hold traditional values. Class privilege and all that.