>
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: "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."OOOOH, he called you GAY! What a zinger! Now watch as David, flustered by this deeply wounding insult, struggles to defend the image of traditional wood-cutting steak-eating sex-is-a-conquest manliness he so values from the suggesting that he likes sex with men, which is inexplicably incompatible with aforementioned manly image.In all seriousness, though, Mr. Bean has the sexiest set of eyebrows I've ever seen.In even more seriousness, rachel-swirsky is right. Abusers are predatory people who often have an instinct for deceit and manipulation. Suggesting it's easy to scope them all out and avoid them is offensive and ignorant.
>In even more seriousness, rachel-swirsky is right. Abusers are predatory people who often have an instinct for deceit and manipulation. Suggesting it's easy to scope them all out and avoid them is offensive and ignorant.Agreed. Girlscientist was headed in the right direction but took a wrong turn somewhere.Because the real point as far as MGTOWs whining about marriage is this: If you're sexist, you're only going to attract women who are deceiving you or who are accustomed to being dependent. To be sexist and then moan that all the women you date are deceiving you or leeching off of you is hilarious. If you want to attract interesting, empowered, independent women, you're going to have to do something about your naked contempt for women, doodz. Sorry, but your cock isn't worth your asshole attitude.The issue of abusers is completely different, of course.
>Donald apparently lives in San Francisco — dig those crazy hills.I noticed that too, and was very excited because I live there. You can see what appears to be the Golden Gate Bridge in one background. Go figure.Also, Donald's nightmare is remarkably similar to his nightmare of living under the Nazi regime in the famous wartime cartoon "Der Fuehrer's Face." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iumEGAUceDgWomen: AS BAD AS HITLER.
>Usually I don't cite sources when I claim, for example, that most people have two thumbs.If you seriously think your claims are as self-evident as the claim that most people have two thumbs then you are seriously bordering on fanaticism.how much the MRM is steeped in class privilege as much as gender privilege. When MRAs talk about people in the past, you can be pretty certain that they're actually only talking about upper-class people.Ironic considering that second-wave feminism began with women looking at the small elite of men who lived lives of power and comfort and saying "I want some of that" while completely overlooking the lives of danger, drudgery, and/or hardship that were the reality for most men.When we talk about people in the past we are talking about all people. Life was hard for the vast majority of the population back then, but it was harder for men in almost every case. While women were digging turnips their husbands were doing even harder work or were getting their heads chopped/blown off on the battlefield. The amount of bias it takes to overlook that is breathtaking.
>"If you're sexist, you're only going to attract women who are deceiving you or who are accustomed to being dependent."If you're a misandrist, you're only going to draw the attention of men who want to harass or rape you. To be feminist and then moan that all the men you meet are making unwanted sexual advances or trying to rape you is hilarious.Note that I don't actually believe what I wrote in the above paragraph; it's a reductio ad absurdum.
>It's also February 29 in the cartoon, the one day when women are "allowed" to propose to men.http://www.snopes.com/oldwives/february29.asp
>For some reason every time I try to post a comment longer than some vague limit, the site says it cannot accept it. Hence, I'll just link to the post.
>Cold: "Ironic considering that second-wave feminism began with women looking at the small elite of men who lived lives of power and comfort and saying "I want some of that" while completely overlooking the lives of danger, drudgery, and/or hardship that were the reality for most men."No, actually, they looked at the privilege that men of the middle and even lower classes are granted. The privilege to avoid most sexual harassment, to have one's work treated as valuable and worthy, to be compensated fairly for it, to have your opinions and interests and preferences treated as normal and mainstream, not silly or incidental.To be a leader in your peer organizations. To have someone to be expected to defer to your authority (wife). To have books and movies and TV shows about you or written from your perspective. To wear comfortable clothes while those of the other sex wear clothes that enhance their sexual attractiveness to you.To judge those of the other sex by their physical sexual attractiveness while they must judge you on your actual achievements.
>That's awesome when I make a point about feminists and then a feminist comes along in short order to illustrate the point. This is almost too easy.
>e4919700-4d45-11e0-bbf3-000bcdcb8a73"By the same token, men who reject feminism tend to have higher IQ scores than those who embrace it. You can check the citations provided by The Bell Curve to see what other correlations are tied in with higher IQ."I used to have a copy of The Bell Curve next to my computer to look up and check on such claims, but I put it away a couple of years ago. What page?
>"it's a reductio ad absurdum"No, it's not. It's a tu quoque. A reductio ad absurdum is when you show that ridiculous conclusions follow from stated premises. You simply replaced the wording. Now, that might be an argument if you've carefully established the parallels, but you didn't. Instead, you replaced key words to render it an indictment of the speaker. Given that there doesn't seem to be a substantive argument in that post, save your rhetorical trick, I'm willing to accuse it of being a fallacy.Please, please do not use latin unless you know what it means.
>I know exactly what the words mean and it is a fair description of what I was doing, even if it differs from the textbook example since I was illustrating the absurdity of the logical structure rather than the premise or conclusion.I most certainly did not make a tu quoque, so perhaps you should take your own advice on the use of Latin to heart.
>Please, please do not use latin unless you know what it means.Now, Erl. It's just been explained to us that misogynists have amazingly high IQs. Obviously Cold is right, and it's the Latin language that's wrong. (This is also true if the misogynists here appear ignorant of history, science, or observable reality.)In all seriousness, the salary advantage enjoyed by men in non-egalitarian marriages reflects the fact that, contrary to the MRA idea of homemakers as bon-bon-eating leeches, having an unpaid housekeeper, nanny, and personal secretary at home tends to be a significant career advantage. Feminists have known this since, well, always.
>I wonder what the Latin phrase for this little theory on what women will do to get legal abortions.
>Ho! Ho! It looks like e-String is doing some quote mining of his own. You wouldn't be so kind as to mention in your little journal that I corrected my arithmetic error nearly as soon as I posted it, would you?As for women rejecting feminism, it's already been explained to you, in previous threads, that women generally favor the policy aims of feminism, even as they tend to reject using the actual term to describe themselves. And, please, The Bell Curve? I have a friend who is heavily into statistical methodology, and he's thinks The Bell Curve is crap.
>Life was hard for the vast majority of the population back then, but it was harder for men in almost every case. […] The amount of bias it takes to overlook that is breathtaking.Actually, the amount of bias it takes to reduce women's labor throughout history to "digging turnips" is what's breathtaking.In a moneyed society, most people view paid work as a privilege which allows them the opportunity to make money to feed themselves and their family. Men have had access to that privilege far more often throughout history than women did. And women wanted it, and needed it, just as much as men. Most of them would have been out working if society had allowed them to.
>(sorry for the double post, Blogger seems to have issues with long comments)Because when those men went out and got their heads blown off on the battlefield (at the orders of and to the advantage of more powerful men, I might add), women often found themselves starving. Even those who managed to find work would almost never, prior to the 20th century, make anywhere near as much as a man. In Victorian England, some women who needed income would work as clerks in shops. When the shops were out of season, the women were out of a job until next year. But they need the money! Too bad, not the shop owner's problem. Many of those women turned to prostitution until the shops opened again.And you really think those women wouldn't rather be doing "man's work" and making a good salary?
>Yes, trip, and that's not even taking into account the mortality rate for women in childbirth before advent of modern medicine and the widespread availability and birth control. A woman's lot in pre-industrial societies was typically to give birth as many times as they could until they were worn out or died. Although there may have been sound reasons for having lots of kids in the past (high infant mortality rate, the need for farm labor, lack of social security in old age), those reasons largely evaporated with the advent of modern, industrialized societies, modern medicine, and social welfare systems (especially national old age pensions). In a sense, feminism was the logical response to changing economic conditions: there was no longer the same compelling reason for the same old division of labor.
>In all seriousness, the salary advantage enjoyed by men in non-egalitarian marriages reflects the fact that, contrary to the MRA idea of homemakers as bon-bon-eating leeches, having an unpaid housekeeper, nanny, and personal secretary at home tends to be a significant career advantage. Feminists have known this since, well, always. That seems a likely explanation for at least some of the variance, even though the study supposedly accounts for number of hours worked as a variable. If it is agreed in a standard hetero relationship that the man's career will be prioritized, then it stands to reason that the man will be able to take better advantage of good career opportunities as they present themselves. If both careers are valued equally, then there has to be some give and take in terms of career/family balance. Even if two men work the same hours on average, the man who can prioritize his career over family concerns–for example, by staying late occasionally or by being willing to relocate at the behest of the company–is likely to come out ahead in terms of salary in the long run.I would be curious what the effect is for gay and lesbian couples.
>And, please, The Bell Curve? I have a friend who is heavily into statistical methodology, and he's thinks The Bell Curve is crap.This just in – your BFF Jill who associates with feminists and is "into statistical methodology" thinks "The Bell Curve is crap." Of course, I wisely foresaw such claims and hence invited you to visit the sources directly. If you're too busy doing whatever ("too busy mocking me to read an article" or whatever excuse you have not to think), you could read a little bit of the book and get a feel for the veracity of its claims before you jump to conclusions. Hell, read the wikipedia article if you're too busy to learn for a change, despite the fact that society places a third less value on your work it does on mine.
>It's just been explained to us that misogynists have amazingly high IQs.Well, we supposed misogynists are smart enough not bitch to about prejudice, or any form of trend-analysis for that matter, while stereotyping anyone who disagrees with us. That is why we are worth more to society.
>Well, we supposed misogynists are smart enough not bitch to about prejudice, or any form of trend-analysis for that matter, while stereotyping anyone who disagrees with us. Yep, none of the misogynists on this blog have every simultaneously gone on about how disgusting and stupid feminists are while claiming men have been the slaves of women throughout history and never get custody of their children EVER. None of this has ever been said on this blog. Ever. At all. Not once. … why are you all looking at me like that??
>People who earn more tend to be more intelligent.Wow. The classism in that statement is fucking staggering. Sweatshop workers, minimum-wage service industry labourers, and unpaid caretakers rejoice: you aren't being exploited! You're just stupid!Thanks, e-string, for proving triplanetary's point about the MRM being steeped in class privilege.
>Wow. The classism in that statement is fucking staggering.Here, you can see for yourself when you're done being outraged. Also, "tends to" does not equate to "always." China, for example, has a lower average income but higher IQ average. Africa has a lower IQ average than most of the world. Tends to is no the same as "always is without exception." You might want to practice thinking rationally and logically, you can't bitchfest and "oooohhh, I'm so offended!" your way out of everything in life.
>Now, in a given population there is a definite correlation between scores on intelligence tests and performance on the job. I know you tend to fixate on the extremes, but many jobs will allow some degree of upward mobility. Hence, the most industrious and intelligent individuals tend to gravitate to the top.Did I say they always do? No, and only a feminist would be so stupid as to assume such a thing. I know that sometimes people get a bum deal and cannot advance economically and socially no matter how hard they work or how smart they are.However, the tendency is that smarter people pay more. I am smart enough to acknowledge that, you are not. That is probably why you have embraced your little pet theory while I have considered and rejected it.