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: The first time, or the second? I don’t recall if you made it to four.
But every time you said the studies I referenced were wrong, because men lied. When you said the statistical norming (which is a proven practice to deal with outliers… usually those data points which are more than 2 standard deviations from the mean), was invalid.
Then tried to justify that by saying the numbers didn’t match because lots of men lied about not being virgins.
That’s when you said it.
Why should I believe in Gd or gods? They’ve done a pretty piss poor job of things so far, which would sort of invalidate their godly status.
No one is saying that you have to believe in any sort of deity, my only point is that you’re being a hypocrite and arguing in bad faith.
@ Pecunium: I think I was the one who brought up Pope Urban II, as a counterpoint to MRAL’s assertion that Mohammed was the *most* violent religious leader. Then after I brought up Urban, MRAL changed the goalposts to say he meant ‘founders’. For what its worth, the early Mormons were a pretty bloodthirsty lot, especially Brigham Young (cf Mountain Meadows Massacre & the Danites).
Here Marc, have some delicious troll pellets. You want them, don’t you?
Yes you do. Yes you do! Good boy! He *is* a good boy!
Marc, you’ve been infected! It’s the Feminism talking! Run away while you still can!
Victoria, Yes, you did, but it was MRAL who dismissed him as a religious nutjob. I meant to make the elaborative point (that the Crusades were framed by two Pope (Urban in a speech, and Clement in an Encyclical which defined things Urban hadn’t made clear, and which Bernard spent months going around Europe preaching) in response to that, but I got a bit swamped with all I felt needed saying to MRAL, and ongoing piñata which is flounce-boy.
Going back, like, 100 posts… I occasionally worry that Conservatives are outbreeding us. But then I remember – Liberals are better at recruiting 🙂 And I feel better.
@ Pecunim:
Ah! Well, just because one is a religious nutjob doesn’t also mean that said nutjob doesn’t have a bunch of followers. There are a TON of Scientologists out there.
Thi is a stupid debate. If you don’t believe radical Muslims assfucks hav done any damage to the world, it’s not worth talking with you.
“radical Muslims assfucks” ≠ All the Muslims in the world.
“radical Muslims assfucks” ≠ One-hundredth of one percent of all the Muslims in the world.
Does this mean you’re leaving, MRAL? 😀
Thi is a stupid debate. If you don’t believe radical Muslims assfucks hav done any damage to the world, it’s not worth talking with you.
There’s a difference between “Muslim terrorists have done terrible things,” which is true, to “Islam is a violent religion,” which is untrue, and “Islam is so violent that we must use violence to eradicate it, and the human rights of Muslims be damned,” which is hypocritical.
And then there’s “Yeah, Christian terrorists have done bad things, too, but let’s ignore those and talk about how awful the Muslims are.”
Hi, my name’s Blee, and I’m a bad person.
HI BLEE!
It’s been 25 minutes since I’ve demonstrated a lack of even a basic level of decency.
*scattered applause*
This is quickly reminding me of some of the stuff that gets said about black ppl “I’m not saying all black people are criminals, but most criminals are black people” (and just leaving it hanging w/o finishing off what you think that means in our day to day interactions with black ppl, and what we should “do” about it or WHY you think this is so)
or “I’m not saying all gay people are pedophiles, but most pedophiles are gay people” (not even true as Kirby pointed out, but it’s even shown up here from NWO xD )
and etc…
and just it’s always said, left out there, as if the conclusions are obvious (also it allows the person saying it to act like it’s obvious so THEY don’t have to put out their beliefs, reasoning, prejudices, etc out there to be judged and criticized) xD
@Pecunium I think that he believes that just getting rid of Mecca and telling ppl it’s illegal to be a Muslim will just change everything and they’d stop believing in it… I dun think he actually realizes what he’s saying means military action, police action, people being locked up and jailed for thought crimes, and people fighting back, and etc etc :
Does this mean you’re leaving, MRAL?
Nah.
No fair! I’m as bad as any of you!
@MRAL, which is bigger 3,000 or 100,000? Because if you are looking at civilian deaths due to violent acts which are illegal under international law, the Christian dominated US and even more Christian dominated US military is winning the murder contest. There is religious violence in Cote d’Ivore, with Muslims as the primary victims. There is religious violence in the Congo with Catholics as the main victims and perpatrators. There is violence against Muslims in Iraq by a nation whose leaders spouted Christian rhetoric before launching an unprovoked invasion. There is violence against Muslims and Christians in some parts of India. There is a long history of genocides of Muslims by Christians in Eastern Europe (including severe actions in Kosovo). The government of Uganda routinely brutalizes non-Christians or those who do not tightly conform with their theocractic measures. Uganda had a fucking civil war over enforcing strict Christianity within the past decade and still executes people for not obeying Christianity based rules. American Christian conservatives travel to Uganda and outright encourage and aide the violence. Not to mention things like the fucking KKK.
I think my comments on the “prey” thread made it clear I am not a fan of religion, period. It exacerbates and creates trouble. But, ignoring the other factors here and using Muslims as some sort of boogeyman (and, only being able to do so by ignoring vast swaths of the globe) is asinine. Somehow, the same people who can get the nuances of how religion played into the troubles in Northern Ireland can’t apply the same concepts to Iraqi groups. Shit, I have had violence, actual physical violence, happen to Muslim acquaintances of mine in the US, based on their skin color or perceived religion, in recent years. A young law student I knew a few yearsr back had to take time off to run his brother’s business because his brother was literally shot by people yelling anti-muslim slurs. I had a friend accused of being a muslim terrorist to his face, in front of me, based on his skin color and the fact that some of his family wore turbans (this guy wasn’t actually even Muslim, he was an atheist with Sikh family members). In response to one rude suggestion at him that all people who had relatives who were terrorists should be jailed or at least deported, I stood up and said that I should probably leave then. After all, I have at least one relative who was briefly a confirmed member of a religiously fueled racist terrorist group in the 30s, and another who was accused but never convicted of harboring terrorists in the 70s, in a conflict that often did have religious dimensions. People’s assumptions about histories and connections to terrorism are highly racist and biased. There is a huge confirmation bias problem with the way we discuss religion and terrorism going on here.
The moral of this story is: Sometimes people really suck, and the solution is for everyone to just love each other harder. *nods*
*looooooooves*
MRAL, I fervently detest the basic tenets of most all religions, the Abrahamic ones especially.
So trust me when I tell you that there’s nothing particular about Islam that’s especially dangerous or toxic. They’re ALL dangerous and toxic. But not nearly as dangerous and toxic as thinking that eradicating those beliefs by force could possibly have anything but disastrous consequences. In fact, persecuting religious people that way would probably reinforce the strength of their delusion, at least up to a point.
You live in the USA, so Christian fundamentalists are a far greater threat to your rights than Muslim fundamentalists. I have friends who live in Pakistan, they know what it’s like to be threatened by Muslim extremists. They oppose those Muslim extremists even though people have been killed for doing so. But… THEY are Muslim themselves! So eradicating Islam would mean eradicating them too! That would be ungood.
Usually when people talk about how dangerous “Islam” is, they really mean how dangerous those scary brown-skinned be-turbanned guys they see in political cartoons are. It’s mostly racism talking. Also some xenophobia.
The fastest-growing religious category in the USA is “no religion.” In Europe, atheists are becoming a majority. Turns out that the more security and education you give people, the less religious they become. So if you want to wipe out Islam and Christianity and all the rest then a liberal program of generous social safety nets, universal education, and egalitarian economic opportunity is the way to go. I know, I know — BORING! At least compared to the idea of nuking Mecca. But let’s pretend we’re adults instead of churlish boys barely out of our teens for a minute.
Thi is a stupid debate. If you don’t believe radical Muslims assfucks hav done any damage to the world, it’s not worth talking with you.
Yes, it is a stupid debate, because the two things are not at all related.
The number of muslims who have committed terrorism, worldwide, is compared to muslims, miniscule (muslims = roughly 1 in 5 people).
In the US the number of muslims who have committed terrorist acts is really small.
So to blame all of Islam, to the point of wiping out their holiest of places because you are pissed off a a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of 1 percent of them… is asinine.
It’s worse than that, it’s counterproductive. And calls to “eliminate” Islam because of that, and eradicate it first, are foolish. One, you can’t. They are far to large, and disparate, a group, to be eliminated like that. (Some of them, i.e. Pakistan), have nukes. Good luck with that. They live all over the world. They are people.
Second… christians have been doing more terrorism. If you wipe out the muslims that does nothing to stop the christians (who are, you know, actually committing terrorism, some of them in an attempt to install a theocracy in the US).
So.. genocide, or police action?
I know where the smart money puts its bets.
Hinduism is peaceful
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7214053.stm
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/26/world/asia/26india.html
Buddhism is peaceful
http://www.sangam.org/articles/view/?id=118
http://www.religiondispatches.org/books/2158/monks_with_guns%3A_discovering_buddhist_violence/
http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/slrv.htm
Sorry MRAL.
Marc: What have I done that’s indecent? I’ve quoted you, corrected myself when I made a mistake. I’ve not insulted you (well, perhaps the last is now subject interpretaion. I’ve described you as a bigot, because you said a bigotted thing).
But where have I been intentionally unkind? Where have I engaged in personal attacks on people? What have I done which wasn’t “decent”
Jesus, you people take things too seriously. I’m not actually advocating flying over Mecca and nuking it right no. Obviously, for a host of reasons, we cn’t actually do that. But Islam- as an entity- in an ideal world, would be eradicated (NOT individual Muslims).
Oooh Ami – I have an idea for a card… you could have a MRA kitteh that mesmerises feminist opponents with its cuteness! 😉
I would also really like a card made about me…one of my other psudonyms is Little Red Riding Hood – I like that fairy tale rewrite where everyone thinks she is innocent and then she FUCKS YOU UP.
I’m not actually advocating flying over Mecca and nuking it right no. Obviously, for a host of reasons, we cn’t actually do that.
Except for when you actually were advocating for the violent destruction of Mecca.
But Islam- as an entity- in an ideal world, would be eradicated (NOT individual Muslims).
In an ideal world, all the oppressive, hegemonic religions would be eradicated and right-thinking people everywhere would look back on our religious past with the same degree of contempt as we currently do for peoples who practiced slavery, cannibalism and human sacrifice in the past. But Islam isn’t a special case, it’s right up there with Christianity, Judaism and any belief set which preaches restriction and sin.