>
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.
>"Gentlemen, 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)""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." Oh, look! A catfight!Erl Daschund said… "it's a reductio ad absurdum""No, it's not. It's a tu quoque.Please, please do not use latin unless you know what it means."Ur so smort and edumacatid!Tricommunist"Even those who managed to find work would almost never, prior to the 20th century, make anywhere near as much as a man."That's because they either wouldn't or couldn't do as much work. You think men are/were paid more just because their men? Moron! NO amount of sexism or misogyny is going to make a businessman loose profit by paying a dude more than a wimminz for the SAME quantity/quality of work! What planet you from?(EVEN I WOULDN'T DO THIS!)Try using your brain just once.
>Whilst women were digging turnips, we hunted the mammoth to feed you.
>"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."Is this before or after you all go Galt and start living in your cars?
>Actually, Coryat, we earn more than you do. You are the ones who are more likely to leech off the welfare system and become homeless.I know you were trying to be snarky and cute, but try to be a little bit rational, hon.
>You are the ones who are more likely to leech off the welfare system and become homeless.We're dealing with 10% unemployment in the current economy. A lot of very diverse people are drawing welfare right now, and I guarantee you they don't conform to your stereotype of welfare leeches.NO amount of sexism or misogyny is going to make a businessman loose profit by paying a dude more than a wimminz for the SAME quantity/quality of work!You're right, prejudice and bias never, ever get in the way of rational economic thinking. Those great, rational, hyper-intelligent Galtian businessman are all calculating, profit-maximizing machines.Hang on, let me pull my head out of Ayn Rand's ass for a second. Wait, it turns out all that stuff I just said is horseshit.What planet you from?Earth, where cultures have values and customs beyond maximizing profit. I assume you're from the planet Randius Maximus or somesuch.
>You think men are/were paid more just because their men?Because their men what?
>A lot of very diverse people are drawing welfare right now, and I guarantee you they don't conform to your stereotype of welfare leeches.A lot of very diverse people are in the MRM right now, and I guarantee you they do not conform to your stereotype of misogynists.Do you see what I did there? Oh, wait, as a feminist you are incapable of admitting fault (as you did earlier with the whole engineering prejudice) so you'll just shoot off some bizarre long-winded horseshit rationalization about how taking other people's money is more noble than disagreeing with feminism.
>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.Ooh, I'm so offended… oh, wait, Im just acknowledging the fact that IQ is an imperialist social construct with little bearing on reality. Which you might have noticed, had you read that Wikipedia article in its entirety! For instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Criticism_and_viewsGood luck sterilizing immigrants though.
>Because their men what?I think that is supposed to be "they're," as in "they are men." I'm sorry you missed that, but then that's what we antifeminists are around for. That is also why we antifeminists earn more.Or were you trying to be cute and snarky?
>Or were you trying to be cute and snarky?Yes, yes I was. I think I succeeded, too. Wait, you antifeminists are around to make obvious grammatical errors? No wonder that whole movement doesn't make sense to me!
>Im just acknowledging the fact that IQ is an imperialist social construct with little bearing on reality.Then why test people for anything, really? Why test intelligence, why test workplace competence, why test general knowledge? Fuck those imperialist social constructs, I keep failing because of them and their numbers and words! If someone wants to be an engineer or a journalist, let 'em! Forget those patriarchal tomes and thoughts and computers, who needs that shit anyway?I think I've seen similar cases put forth by degree mills.
>No wonder that whole movement doesn't make sense to me!Nor does IQ or standardized testing. You just write them off as "imperialist constructs" without further thought, which is one of the reasons you earn less. You know what they say, you get what you pay for.
>I think I've seen similar cases put forth by degree mills.Right, I forgot, Serious Universities ™ never devote courses or entire degree programs to questioning the enduring effects that imperialism has had on academia. That would be silly!brb loling forever
>@String:A lot of very diverse people are in the MRM right now, and I guarantee you they do not conform to your stereotype of misogynists.I like how you tried to make it seem like one's willful choice of ideology is the same as one's socioeconomic status. My stereotype of misogynists is that they all look down on women. That's sort of the definition of the word.Oh, wait, as a feminist you are incapable of admitting fault (as you did earlier with the whole engineering prejudice)Oh look, turns out you stereotype feminists. And for a second I might have thought all your moaning about my stereotypes of the MRM were intellectually honest. Don't get me wrong, I'm not offended by your stereotypes of feminism. They're more goofy than anything. But like I said, stereotyping a self-selected ideological group is not really overly offensive to me.As far as the engineering thing goes, do you think I'm ashamed of that? Yeah, I have an opinion about that that turned out to be unpopular here on Manboobz. Doesn't mean I automatically have to recant it. As we have to remind you constantly, feminists are not one big monolithic hive mind. We have differences of opinion. I'm open to arguments against my opinion, obviously, and I do change my opinions. But "disagreeing with the feminist hive mind" is not some crime among feminists.
>@String:Then why test people for anything, really? Why test intelligence, why test workplace competence, why test general knowledge? Fuck those imperialist social constructs, I keep failing because of them and their numbers and words!You're really going for the low-hanging fruit here, String. Those of us who critique the concept of IQ do so because we don't like our IQ test results? That's laughable. You'll have to take my word for this, but my IQ is high enough that I could be one of those douches who parades it around in everyone's face. But I don't, because I don't think it means shit.Nor does IQ or standardized testing. You just write them off as "imperialist constructs" without further thought, which is one of the reasons you earn less. You know what they say, you get what you pay for.Gosh, it's almost adorable how convinced you are that we dismiss ideas just because they don't work out for us personally. You know, there's a whole body of sociological literature written over the preceding century that talks in great depth – and with a great deal of thought – about things like "imperialist constructs."Meanwhile you can't seem to get past this kneejerk reflex of measuring a person's value by how much money they make.
>My IQ is high enough that I could be one of those douches who parades it around in everyone's face.I was in an advanced placement program. The determined I would benefit there because of that "imperialistic construct." You see, you are thinking in absolutes, which is synonymous with a low intelligence. Of course, there are always anomalies, such as savants who cannot tie their own shoes. When you pan out the scores to a set demographic of people, however, the trends are unquestionable. White males of the same social background who have high IQ scores at age 10 are more likely to get into college at age 20 – longitudinal studies have proven this.
>Meanwhile you can't seem to get past this kneejerk reflex of measuring a person's value by how much money they make.You seem to have confused trends with absolutes again. Many great artists and writers lived in poverty most or all their lives, as did a number of great political and social leaders. I simply acknowledge that the most intelligent people tend to be richest in their population group, and tend to score the highest on tests of standardized intelligence.
>Standardized intelligence tests tend to have some of the same flaws as standardized achievement tests. Who, in general, tends to score higher on these tests? Why, those whose gender, race, culture, socio-economic background, etc., are most similar to those who design the tests.
>I was in an advanced placement program. The determined I would benefit there because of that "imperialistic construct."So was I. Was there a point to this non-sequitur or have you just been waiting all night for an opportunity to drop this fact?I simply acknowledge that the most intelligent people tend to be richest in their population group, and tend to score the highest on tests of standardized intelligence.Whether or not the people who score highest on standardized IQ tests are the most intelligent is arguable. The already privileged groups – white, male, upper-class – tend to do the best on IQ tests. Naturally defenders of privilege paint this as proof that the privileged are a superior breed and deserve their privilege. It's not like Stanford and Benet deliberately biased their design in favor of non-working-class white men, but unconsciously they certainly did.This comic sums it up. It's old as hell so you may have seen it.But I do find it endlessly amusing that you keep trying to imply that we're opposed to these constructs simply because we're on the losing end of them. You're thinking in absolutes there, buddy.
>I don't know if you have blind spots or something, but you missed the part where I said, "in a demographic" and "in a population."But hey, feminists aren't the most observant lot. They see or claim to see an organized conspiracy everywhere to either rationalize their flaws or get a sense of belonging, and yet they overlook three words.Oh, and one more thing – Asians do better on IQ tests than Whites do. This is why we get paid more, buddy.
>But hey, feminists aren't the most observant lot. They see or claim to see an organized conspiracy everywhere to either rationalize their flaws or get a sense of belonging, and yet they overlook three words.There you are thinking in absolutes again. Your IQ must be low as shit, dude.
>I have to concede, I tend to think in absolutes. For example, "e4919700-4d45-11e0-bbf3-000bcdcb8a73" is absolutely cretinous.
>@tri, yes we have known about cultural bias from the beginning of IQ tests. Many of the first IQ tests were developed for children in France. When only language translation was done, American children consistently tested extremely low. Why? Because the games, objects, etc. familiar to the French kids were unfamiliar to the American ones. A similar pattern occurs when you move across social and economic classes. I grew up rural poor and I was given an IQ test at twelve. There were objects on that test that I had never seen in my life. The man testing me actually responded in shock when I was asked the "what is wrong with this picture" question and responded with "I have no idea what that thing is." He was also surprised that, on the verbal section, there were many words that I knew the meaning of but had no real idea of how to pronounce. A large portion of my vocabulary came from my reading and so I had only seen them written, but never heard them spoken. I was also made to write down some or rephrase some of the things I was speaking naturally, because my dialect differed too much for him to understand at times (which I could do, because my father was not a local and talked with a midwestern accent). And I was born and raised in the US and spoke English alone as my first language. Poor people and other isolated communites have different survival habits, ways of living, possessions, skills, and sometimes even different dialects than privileged groups have."Asians do better on IQ tests than Whites do" Not when you control for income class. You see, many recent Asian immigrants to the US are economic immigrants, rather than refuges, and hence often have rather high economic class status. As each generation after you institute IQ testing improves its scores by an average of about ten points, we know very well that one can be trained, at least to some degree, to do better by the education system as well."White males of the same social background who have high IQ scores at age 10 are more likely to get into college at age 20 – longitudinal studies have proven this." Ever heard of "self fullfilling prophecy"? There actually were studies done in response to studies like the one you cite. They found that the children who were told themselves, or who had teachers or parents told, that they had the higher IQ tests did better than children who had the exact same IQ results in fact but were informed (or had teachers or parents informed) that they were lower. One study only told teachers and not parents or children and still found a significant difference where the children who were claimed to be high IQ did better than those claimed to be low IQ, though in fact, they had equivalent scores. How people perceive and respond to these results appears to matter far more than the results themselves.
>"I wisely foresaw such claims and hence invited you to visit the sources directly."You haven't yet pointed to where in The Bell Curve they say that men who have more conservative views about sex roles are smarter.You may think you're appropriately deriving that from adding together "men who make more money are smarter" and "men who have conservative views about sex roles make more money."This is not a valid conclusion. For example:Women who are taller tend to make more money. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15161403Women who are Black tend to be taller than women who are White. http://www.halls.md/chart/women-height-w.htmhttp://www.halls.md/on/women-height-b.htmIt does not follow that women who are Black tend to make more money than women who are White.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_inequity_US.png"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. "Dang, now you've made me think about Mad Magazine's "horrifying cliches."
>@rachel-swirsky:I'm not trying to blame anyone who gets abused by their partner. But if they get into an abusive relationship, it's because they're not aware of the warning signs that they're dealing with an abuser (like these) or they're vulnerable enough to ignore them. It's not their fault, and just because they're ignorant about the dangers of relationships doesn't mean they deserve to be abused, just like someone who has never been told anything about sexual consent doesn't deserve to be raped. The MWGTOW, however, assume that if they ever get into a relationship, it will be abusive because they believe that every woman is an abuser. They're utterly paranoid and they blame the whole world for the fact that they're making themselves miserable because they can't be bothered to look out for a few warning signs and get out before it's too late. In short, abuse victims and MWGTOW approach the problem of detecting potential abusers from completely different angles. If you know that you might get abused, it's easy to look up and apply some safety precautions. If you don't know that you might get abused or nobody has taken the time to teach you that you have boundaries and you have the right to enforce them, it's very difficult to figure out how to avoid abusers.I hope that this clarifies my position.And by the way, MWGTOW? Once you claim Donald Duck as one of your own, it's way past time to start thinking about what you're doing wrong with your life. Are you so desperate to get rid of David Futrelle that you've started mocking yourself?