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.
Thanks finally, I just wanted to hear from you that you take your stuff so seriously that you even register at those forums. Strange obsession, huh?
Right, because registering at those forums requires a blood sample, extensive DNA profiling, three character references and five professional references, approval from a registered clergy member, a thirty-day waiting period, one’s Social Security number, a copy of one’s long-form birth certificate and a digital video of one walking across hot coals to be filmed no later than forty-five days before application for registration at the forum.
Or, maybe just half a minute and a valid e-mail address. Yeah. Total obsession.
I’m registered to look at the content on a Vin Diesel forum. Make of that what you will.
We’re addicted to fun, Marc.
1. You are easy to entertain
Or, maybe just half a minute and a valid e-mail address. Yeah. Total obsession.
In different boards!?
I bet he even posts there and mocks himself.
and 2. regarding the fun: then why all the moralizing? Why doesn’t David just post a quote from the MRAs here so that we can laugh and that’s it?
Here’s a question for Marc:
So we’re all dysfunctional and obsessives who should get over our fixation on the MRM, and you are here to show us the light and lead us to a more productive life.
Do you go onto the MRA/MRM sites and tell them that if they got over their dysfunctional obsession with the shortcomings of women and feminism, it would help them lead a more productive and fulfilling life? Maybe someone like MarkyMark’s Thoughts, whose blog seems entirely devoted to mocking feminism (and whose comments rarely even break 20).
David is actually Scott Adams now? I thought he was a group of women? >>
For someone accusing others of “obsession,” Marc, you sure do seem to come back to this blog day after day, for hours at a time…
You still haven’t shown us any decent MRA sites, Marc. Unless you think false rape is rampant in present society.
And yeah, David probably is serious about the blog that he writes and posts in every day. Now go away and go bother the people on some dog blog for “only talking about dogs all the time, like you’re obsessed with dogs or something, why don’t you get over dogs already.”
Bad example. If you blog about dogs (= real animals in the real world) you spend your time a thousand times better than blogging about delusional stuff somebody writes anonymously somewhere on the Internet.
I bet he even posts there and mocks himself.
I bet that sharks are far more intelligent than we give them credit for and have developed their own complex language. It’s only a matter of time before they develop rockets made from coral and lobster claws and start taking over the fishing industry.
I’ll prove my assertion when you prove yours.
then why all the moralizing? Why doesn’t David just post a quote from the MRAs here so that we can laugh and that’s it?
What moralizing? If you object to any of David’s moralizing, which tends towards the ‘women are people’ side of morality, then you have some pretty severe issues. Do you object to the moralizing of W.F. Price, Roissy or Omega Virgin Revolt?
“Bad example. If you blog about dogs (= real animals in the real world) you spend your time a thousand times better than blogging about delusional stuff somebody writes anonymously somewhere on the Internet.”
These guys are real, deluded douchebags. Though we think NWOSlave might be a really boring spambot sometimes.
“Do you go onto the MRA/MRM sites and tell them that if they got over their dysfunctional obsession with the shortcomings of women and feminism, it would help them lead a more productive and fulfilling life? Maybe someone like MarkyMark’s Thoughts, whose blog seems entirely devoted to mocking feminism (and whose comments rarely even break 20).”
As I said, I don’t think they can be cured, but I’m still optimistic with you.
“You still haven’t shown us any decent MRA sites, Marc. Unless you think false rape is rampant in present society.”
Decent? It was about not-misogynous.
For someone accusing others of “obsession,” Marc, you sure do seem to come back to this blog day after day, for hours at a time…
True, but it won’t last very much longer. As I see more and more that you all probably can’t be cured, I will just leave.
you spend your time a thousand times better than blogging about delusional stuff somebody writes anonymously somewhere on the Internet.
So at least you accept that the MRM is pretty delusional.
They’re not necessarily anonymous, though. At they very least, there are some fairly well developed e-identities behind some of the writers.
And anyway, who are you to judge the value of how someone spends their time, online or off? Are you the grand high arbiter of Acceptable Pastimes? I’m pretty invested in a community which is all about adults playing make-believe, and another community formed around spiritual pursuits. Are these pursuits acceptable to you? Or are they just an obsessive waste of time? Is it only wrong when it’s feminists criticizing MRAs, or are there other metrics you use for deciding what’s a valuable use of time and what’s not?
I mean, Hypberbole and a Half is a hilarious blog with no real point except entertaining the people who read it. Are you going to tell the writer, the readers and everyone who comments there that it’s all just a waste of time?
Decent? It was about not-misogynous.
Some people equate decency with Not Being a Misogynist.
MARC: We have proven some of the men and women lie, a priori we don’t know who lies.
That is the place you made the introduction of a priori thinking
That’s what you said. A priori we don’t know who lies. But the (otherwise valid) statistical models make it possible to figure out who is lying. You say we should discount that (because we don’t know who was lying), and then go on a different (and not testable) model that says, a priori, a large number of men happen to all lie in just the right way to make it so that the lies of women are hidden.
You didn’t say the study was unplausible, you said it was invalid. Here, I’ll quote you (again)
What’s the point in making a study if you magically know what the outcome should be?
We have proven some of the men and women lie, a priori we don’t know who lies.
Maybe the big percentage of men who say they had 1-3 sex partners in their life, lie (in a huge part of them didn’t have any), maybe the small number of men who say they had sex with many women lie. We don’t know!
That’s not a claim that guys who aren’t getting any won’t believe the studies. It’s an accusation the studies were false, either because it had a preconceived notion, which they forced the data to fit (which requires peer reviewer collusion) or because a more complex model (the one where all the lies have to balance out) was true.
Which you weasel with the words, “we don’t know.” You also insert a piece of unprovable hypothesis (that a huge part of them haven’t had any sex and are so ashamed they lie about it on an anonymous survey).
And what’s always with the “in different countries”, that’s something you also need for your alternative explanation, you need to assume that in all countries the “bragging” is the same
No. If it’s multi-cultural then all the more complicated lying has to be the same. The odds of a couple of people making shit up are still much greater than a much larger number making shit up. It’s even less likely that the same sorts of complicated cancelling errors will happen (repeatedly) when the simpler explanation (some guys lie about how many partners they have) both requires less to be controlled for (Occam’s Razor, i.e. the principle of parsimony), and tests out when standard tools to control for it (i.e. not tools created only for this one study, and no others) are used.
That’s something I’ll never understand. On the one hand you find it very funny that some people think that way, they are just deluded, not to be take seriously, and hey, we make a blog about them to mock them and have fun.
This is where you fail to understand. I do think they should be taken seriously. I think you didn’t understand the quotation I put up. They need to be taken seriously (and mocking them is serious), because they are capable of inflicting great(er) harm if no one stands up to the nonsense, and the hate, they spew.
Oohh… an ad hominem
Did you know that this trick was one of Lenin’s favorites?
So what… I’m (or Dave is) like Lenin now? Bent on usurping one revolution (and a tolerably peaceful one) and making a bloodbath in the streets (that whole thing Lenin is supposed to have said about omelletes and eggs?).
Or is it just that he was a convenient bogeyman? A nasty Communist Rabble Rouser who was against all that is good and holy.
Fine. I’m like Lenin; gifted in oratory and able to persuade people to my cause. Show me that the cause (suppressing misogyny, and promoting equality) is bad.
Because what one is promoting matters too. Ridicule isn’t a bad means, and those aren’t bad ends.
I bet that sharks are far more intelligent than we give them credit for and have developed their own complex language. It’s only a matter of time before they develop rockets made from coral and lobster claws and start taking over the fishing industry.
I’ll prove my assertion when you prove yours.
He already has an user account, that he also posts there is not so far fetched…
Meeting some other Man Boobers (?) IRL and having one of the best Prides ever is probably one of the reasons I keep coming back. Plus I get to re-examine what I believe about society, AND read clever one-liners.
What’s not to like?
As I see more and more that you all probably can’t be cured, I will just leave.
I hereby state, for the record, that I cannot be cured of whatever the hell you think I’m afflicted with.
Now get lost.
Some people equate decency with Not Being a Misogynist.
Then please tell me where the False Rape Society is misogynous. If they claim false rape is rampant but that’s not proven. They are just wrong or they’re not arguing well.
On “moralizing” – MRAs, at least the sort featured here (and we’re still looking for any other sort…) are evil. They believe that some humans are lesser than others and deserve worse treatment, and that is evil. It’s worth moralizing against.
However, because MRAs are so ineffective and their arguments are so silly, it’s also sort of a funny evil. So we laugh and moralize. The two are not incompatible.
Think of a tiny, tiny Ku Klux Klan member. He’s screaming horrible racist things and making death threats against other races, but the little sucker’s teensy!! And his voice is all squeaky! And even though you know the things he’s saying are horrible, and you feel almost a sense of duty to point out how horrible the are, but at the same time, there’s something half-cute half-hysterical about the way he made his little eeny white hood out of a handkerchief. And did he just say “the blacks own all the hamster cartels and have taken away the white man’s right to a hamster”?
That’s sort of how I feel about MRAs. Tiny little bigots ranting about hamsters.
Is it only wrong when it’s feminists criticizing MRAs, or are there other metrics you use for deciding what’s a valuable use of time and what’s not?
Because there are more reasonable MRAs and less reasonable. If you only take the worst of the worst of the worst that’s not a serious critique, that’s just a waste of time.
It would be a first step in the right direction if David would at least ignore article comments and forum posts.
“Then please tell me where the False Rape Society is misogynous. If they claim false rape is rampant but that’s not proven. They are just wrong or they’re not arguing well.”
I can say “white men are all dicks” or “all women are liars” and be wrong. These assertions are based in generalizations about people that have their roots in sexism.
Now, what kind of assumptions is the FRS making? What kind of starting point are they using in their arguments?
Actually, I did find one kind of reasonable fathers’ rights blog that at least one MRA blog linked to, the other day when I was searching for MRA blogs mentioning Flores-Vilar. I’ll try to retrace my steps and look deeper, to see if I was correct in my immediate reaction, or if it was just one article that was kinda reasonable.
I’ll be back with more info if I can find it.
Then please tell me where the False Rape Society is misogynous.
The False Rape Society largely exists as a way to silence and throw doubt upon actual rape victims–whose existence it is rather loath to acknowledge–and if that’s not misogyn*IST*, I don’t know what is.
Also, they post articles like this: http://manboobz.com/2011/06/16/are-false-rape-accusations-the-fault-of-feminism/
He already has an user account, that he also posts there is not so far fetched…
There’s an evil squirrel that lives outside my bedroom window. I’m pretty sure he sneaks into my bathroom when I’m not looking and steals my toothbrush.
See? I can make up stories, too! You’re going to have to do better than ‘well, it *could* happen, so it’s *probably* happening!’
Then please tell me where the False Rape Society is misogynous. If they claim false rape is rampant but that’s not proven. They are just wrong or they’re not arguing well.
First off, learn how to spell ‘misogyny’ and ‘misogynist’.
Secondly, it’s misogynist to claim that the reasonable reaction to any woman reporting or talking about being raped is to assume she’s lying. It’s misogynist to assume that women have an interest in destroying men by lying about rape or harassment.
Or, because David said it better last week:
http://manboobz.com/2011/06/16/are-false-rape-accusations-the-fault-of-feminism/