It’s always handy when one of the MGTOW brethren sums up one of the tribe’s beliefs in a handy little post. The following is what every single MRTOWer out there (not to mention many MRAs and PUAs and even some non-acronymified misogynists) seems to believe about how women live their lives today. When I say “every single MGTOWer” I’m not really exaggerating for impact – well, maybe a teensy bit. But I don’t think I’ve ever run across an MGTOWer who doesn’t take all of the following on faith.
Like many manosphere beliefs about women – like the whole “women only fuck the top 20% of men” thing – there is of course not a shred of evidence for any of this. It’s an essentially religious belief, accepted on faith. MGTOWers are like monks in the douchiest religion ever.
Anyway, fresh from a post by “Rogue” on NiceGuy’s MGTOW forum, here’s how all you ladies are living your lives:
The modern woman’s life plan goes like this:
Step 1) From first sexual awakening throughout her twenties, fuck as many Alpha Asshole men (hereafter referred to as AA) as she can in a quest of sheer narcissistic hedonism. May give birth to an AA spawn during this time; party lifestyle and general female educative path (elementary teacher, social worker) results in shaky finances.
[citation needed]
Step 2) Oops, getting close to or past age 30? Find a Nice Guy Beta (hereafter referred to as NGB), dupe him into marriage with sex (he’s generally grateful for the attention, having had less than stellar success with women throughout his twenties), use his money to stabilize shaky finances. Strong likelihood of having another child or two; may again be AA spawn due to affairs. Pack on 30 pounds of fat (at least!). Cut off sex with NGB since she now has him over a barrel and was never really attracted to him in the first place. Get steadily angrier and more dissatisfied.
[citation needed]
Step 3) Divorce at or slightly before age 40; attempt to remount AA cock carousel, this time as a cougar. Fail miserably because no AA wants an old, fat female body and a loose pussy that looks like a hunk of roast beef that’s been worked over with a dozen ball-peen hammers for a month. Said failure twists her mind until her only remaining pleasure in life is to fuck with ex-NGB in various ways such as taking him back to court to raise CS payments, or denying him visitation rights to his children.
[citation needed]
Step 4) Accept that she’s past her time for the AA cock carousel; become a companion to many cats.
[citation needed]
And what’s with all the cat-hatred, anyway? Cats are adorable, endlessly fascinating little monsters who do no harm to anyone, unless you count all the times my cat has attacked me without provocation and the fact that she just threw up her dinner and is now insistently demanding a second dinner. To paraphrase Samuel L. Jackson’s character in Jackie Brown, you can trust cats to be cats.
Anyway, back to the sermon:
The marriage strike is just an attempt to short-circuit steps 2 and 3, and force women to ride step 1 as long as they can, then transition directly to step 4. Will women like the result if, instead of rushing to save them at age 30, men just shake their heads and walk away? I think it’s an experiment worth trying.
Once again: please, please, please walk away. Walk far away. Become monks in your douchy religion. Just remember that most monks who take a vow of chastity don’t spend the rest of their lives whining about how women are a bunch of filthy bitches.
Oh, and before anyone pops in with a “why do you pick on the outliers, this guy doesn’t represent bla bla bla,” the post (which naturally got nothing but huzzahs on NiceGuy’s forum) was also highlighted on the MRA blog What Men Are Saying About Women as an example of “superb” discussion of the Woman Question. This bullshit is Manosphere-Approved bullshit.
Marc – You do know there’s 22 other chromosomes, right? And that not all genes present in a person’s genome are necessarily expressed as traits? And that homosexuality is not necessarily maladaptive because it can increase the fitness of someone’s other family members?
…oh, never mind, he flounced. Phooey.
I’ve tried figuring out what the fuck and “alpha” is from this and other blogs. As near as I can tell, an “alpha” is any man a woman you desire is having sex with instead of you.
That’s all I got.
Actually, forget whether the OP describes any real women; does it describe any real men? I don’t know any men my age who got married because it was the only way they could have sex.* I don’t personally know any men who have slept with hundreds of women, nor do I know any men who had no sex at all until some random floozy suddenly whisked them off to the altar. I don’t know any men who have seen a vagina and think it looks like “a hunk of roast beef that’s been worked over with a dozen ball-peen hammers for a month,” but maybe I’m just sheltered. I know a lot of nerdy “beta” guys who get laid like whoa, mainly by sleeping with nerdy “beta” girls. Right now a lot of my male friends are getting married, and they all seem pretty happy to have found someone they love and want to spend their lives with. Maybe they’re just really good actors.
Meanwhile, I’m still laughing at the elementary school teacher party lifestyle. Those fingerpainting instructors know how to get down!
*If you read the old Hite Report on Male Sexuality, which was done in the ’70s and thus deals mostly with men who came of age in the ’50s and ’60s, you do see a lot of men saying they got married because they were just so damn horny; when “good girls” didn’t have sex until marriage, men had limited options. Thank goodness for feminism and the sexual revolution, huh?
Didn’t you spend the entire first part of this thread arguing that women are irresistibly attracted to successful men?
I never ever said such a thing and I really don’t have any time for such games.
Marc: If there’s a “gay gene” on the X-chromosome and homosexuality is maladaptive, natural selection would have gotten rid of it.
I’m not sure what you are saying here? That homosexuality isn’t maladaptive? Maybe that there is no genetic component?
In either case, you seem to misunderstand both evolution, and what I was saying.
Is it possible that on the X chromosome there is an allele which has an effect on the likelihood of a person being homosexual? Yes.
Is it is sex-linked, like hemophilia? Obviously not. Is is possible that like Cystic Fibrosis, or color in snakes and horses, it’s a mulivariate expression which causes it’s manifestation? Almost certainly. Will a culture’s attitude will affect the ways in which it is expressed (take Rome and Greece, it was just fine for a man to penetrate another, that didn’t make him,”gay”, it made him virile. To be penetrated [contra Plato] was to be emasculated, less than a man. To enjoy being penetrated was even worse than that. Want to bet there were a whole lot o homosexual men who repressed aspects of their desires?)
Sigh… more innumeracy.
Beware, I studied math.
Then why did you bring this inane argument that the statistical tools to correct for outliers invalidated the studies?
The problem isn’t that the study suggests a shortage of male virgins. The study was about male virgins, it was about the ability of a small number of overreporters to skew the math in a survey. What I introduced it to show is that the converse (as posited by the MGTOW crowd) that the vast majority of men are getting barely any (if any) sex, requires a set of complex events
1: Alphas get the vast majority of sex.
2: women correctly report this amount.
3: Alphas correctly report this amount [and are lost as outliers]
4: The vast majority of men [getting either little, or no, sex] overreport the amount of sex they get.
5: That number is correspondent to the number provided by women.
6: This pattern is consistent in several countries, all of which have different attitudes toward sex).
Or… consistent with the use of statistical tools (for dealing with outliers), we can say, “some people brag. There are these really out of norm (by a couple of standard deviations) guys. If we remove them from the equation how do the numbers look…? Pretty good. Ok, how many men under-reporting by that ratio would it take to keep those in the equation? That many? So either there are more female sexual partners for men than there are male sexual partners for women, or someone is lying. If someone is lying, is it a few guys saying they had lots of partners, or a whole lot of guys saying they had a whole lot fewer partners?… which is more likely?
Care to explain to me how I (and the researchers) have failed to use the principle of “Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate” (Things should not be needlessly multiplied)? Or the rule Newton used, “We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.”
But the stripped down version is probably the best: If you have two theories that give the same results… the simpler one is the more likely.
How did I use that incorrectly? (see above the differences in the complexity of the respective theories which make the studies [which applies to more than just reports of sex… the sex report was illustrative of how one can correct for it, when the end-state balancing of the equation can be known… as a way to make a tool to correct for probably errors in calculations where such an answer can’t be verified because there is no correlative other side to the equation] comprehensible).
If you want to say I’ve used some tool incorrectly… show how I’ve done it. Don’t just say, “every internet know it all has heard of it, but most (implying; in this case I) don’t know what it means.
Marc – You do know there’s 22 other chromosomes, right? And that not all genes present in a person’s genome are necessarily expressed as traits? And that homosexuality is not necessarily maladaptive because it can increase the fitness of someone’s other family members?
…oh, never mind, he flounced. Phooey.
Again, I never ever would say such a stupid thing. I wasn’t me who came up with this stupid idea, it was Pecunium. A single gene that makes you gay is such a ridiculous idea. I just kept arguing because I find it very funny that Pecunium doesn’t even seem to know, that X-Chromosomes are also inherited by males (to their daughters).
And I never said that homosexuality is maladaptive, never said that, i said “if it were maladaptive”, you know the word “if”??
Marc: I really don’t have any time for such games. A real flounce. Since earlier you said we were posting to fast and you had to go.
Now… about the cherry picking canard.
Prove it. Show the posts which aren’t like the one’s Dave chooses. Show that the foolish things we are mocking are outliers.
It’s a simple thing, any one of you could do it. Why don’t you?
Prove us wrong. Wouldn’t it feel GOOD to stick it in our eye? To show us all up? To be the one dude who managed (finally) to show the world what pathetic little morons we actually are? That we are actually cheating to make the MRA community look bad?
Wouldn’t it?
Go ahead.
We’ll wait.
Marc: I what? I never said any such thing.
It was a response to someone upthread. If you look I was saying it was nonsense.
SoF What I got, when I went to take a college Russian class as refresher was about 9 days for that college semester. I wish reading Russian news was as useful as reading French (which I can still do). But the writing style for Russian is a lot different to the spoken. Moreso than English. A much higher use of passive structures and participles; in ways that sound really stilted and strange to speak.
In terms of genes and behavior (any behavior not just sexuality), there is little evidence to link any specific gene or interactions between genes to a specific behavior. There are a fair amount of studies that show correlations in human family lines to a behavior such as sexuality. That’s it, a small correlation typically from a small sample size. This is a start, but not definitive. At this time, it has been extremely difficult to link a single gene in Drosophila melanogaster (fruitflies) to a specific behavior. There are a few examples that are not that clear cut. You can inbreed D. melan lines to the point that you have more or less a population of genetic clones yet still get variation in behavioral and physiological responses. Most studies have a G x E (gene by environment) interaction component. I study life history, specifically metabolic rates and lipid storage in D.melanogster and am working on relating genes to physiological functions such as lipid storage patterns. Most of the research relating genes and behavior in any species (even those we can easily mutate) is correlative and quite frankly iffy. We are not at the technological stage to explain the link between genes and behavior. Someday, but right now any genetic explanation of behavior does not have a good scientific mechanism. There is a huge difference between a logical and plausible explanation and a demonstrated mechanism.
And correlation does not imply causation.
True. All this is making me dread going back to an academic setting >.<
Marc: The question is not if women value status and men don’t… the question is if they value it more
So you (and with other comments about how you equated status with power) you didn’t say was true, you just implied it.
You followed with The world certainly doesn’t look that way. And the argument that this is only because there are more “successful” (in the sense of rich) men than women is just to weak. Then only the proportions should be different, like there are more women chasing rich men than men chasing rich women.
So, yeah, you are arguing that women are hot for “status” as a class. You never said it was irresistable but you sure as hell said it was widespread.
I second Pecunium’s challenge to Marc. Where are the effing links to these wonderful, sensibly written articles?
This cherry-picking argument also amuses me in light of the fact that “mockery” is right in the stated purpose of this blog. This is like “Failbook” for misogyny. You can see less severe (though usually not MRA-affiliated) examples of crappy gender-related decisions linked on the more hardcore feminist blogs, but the comment sections don’t seem to be having nearly as much fun.
Marc: I never said that, and I admitted that I wasn’t looking back far enough. What more did you want? It sure wasn’t going to be that I don’t understand the basics of genetics. I bred mice, and snakes; for color. I can do a four allele punnet square in my sleep.
I made a depth of field error, based on the idea that someone who was having sex with women (and so not gay) wouldn’t be passing on this “gay gene” that auto-expresses as a sex-linked characteristic like hemophilia.
That is, if being gay were so strongly predispostive that one gene = gay 1: there would be no way for someone to get it, and the distribution would be less for women than men (since it would take a pair for them to express it).
But then again, you thought I had introduced it, so perhaps it was more about how you feel about me, than it was the actual content.
Nobinayamu: “As near as I can tell, an “alpha” is any man a woman you desire is having sex with instead of you.”
Although sometimes that’s called a “thug boy.” It depends what jeans he’s wearing, I guess.
Bee – I’m pretty sure “thug boy” is just code for “black.”
@Shaenon The Crumb story is kind of amazing to me. I haven’t read much about his life, but I always enjoyed looking at his work because there was a kind of body-positiveness to it that I haven’t seen a lot of places: he draws large footed, thick calved women like they were goddesses. I guess it was just wank material. 😛
If you want to say I’ve used some tool incorrectly… show how I’ve done it. Don’t just say, “every internet know it all has heard of it, but most (implying; in this case I) don’t know what it means.
Occam’s Razor isn’t a logical rule. It’s not always true, that the simpler explanation is the right one. Also, you can only apply it, if all other factors are accounted for.
Here you don’t have a finite numbers of options, that are all supported by the evidence and the only thing they differ is their complexity!
Instead you have infinite many possibilities, it could be a mix of a significant minority of virgin lying and a few braggers or any other possibility.
The evidence is very poor, you have a study where you know that people lie and you have to find out who the liars are.
And the possibilities differ in other details, you ignore: For example that there’s a strong stigma against male virgins.
This cherry-picking argument also amuses me in light of the fact that “mockery” is right in the stated purpose of this blog.
Come on people, I’m getting to old for this sh*t.
It’s not the cherry-picking itself, it’s the cherry-picking in combination with the generalizing.
So where are the worthwhile examples that we’re missing, Marc? You can link us.
“Marc: I really don’t have any time for such games. A real flounce. Since earlier you said we were posting to fast and you had to go.”
for some time!
Prove us wrong. Wouldn’t it feel GOOD to stick it in our eye? To show us all up? To be the one dude who managed (finally) to show the world what pathetic little morons we actually are? That we are actually cheating to make the MRA community look bad? David provides broken links, what more do I have to say.
Wouldn’t it?
Go ahead.
We’ll wait.
Why should I do that? That’s absolutely not my intention. I just wanted to HELP you, see that as a compliment, I still hope that you can be cured.
To help you doing something more productive with your life than bothering what some people somewhere on the Internet writes.
(all that on a site that prides itself to do be against sexism but who’s very name is sexist.)
@filetofswedishfish: Sorry. It can be fun to develop complex, logical, plausible arguments then completely undo them as you discover the mechanism.
“So where are the worthwhile examples that we’re missing, Marc? You can link us.”
Lol, just one questions: what would you do if all the MRAs would suddenly heavily moderate their forums and comment sections? Commit suicide because your life has no meaning anymore?