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.
My “violent fantasies” (not really) and bombing Mecca are two completely different things. If you people are too dumb to see hyperbole, well, that’s not my problem.
Oh, and how do I have violent fantasies anyway? Joking about punching people in the face? Lol.
@MRAL:
If both are just fantasies, then they are the same thing. 😐
I get angry when other people use “USian”, because that is clearly not what Americans want to be called, since they call themselves, well, Americans. USian is almost like spitting in their face. It’s rude. If Brazilians, somehow, collectively made it known they wanted to be called Americans I’d refer to them as Americans.
You know, I didn’t even know that USian vs American was such a controversial topic until some twit on the Internet had a fit about it.
Fuck you.
Fuck who?
I think me, for calling him a tantrum-throwing twit.
Possibly, so hard to tell sometimes. I did use the phrase USian after him threatening to punch his mental image of me… Perhaps I dodged?
MRAL: First… I am not talking about Mecca. Second, ACTUALLY THINK I would ACTUALLY CONDONE bombing Mecca at this point and time, even suspending the logistics and morality of the situation? is not a repudiation of the initial statement.
It’s a qualified repetition of the idea that there is a point in time when the question of the logistics and morality of the initial statement could be (perhaps should be) revisited.
If you want people to think you don’t condone it, you can’t allow that there are circumstances when it might be acceptable.
But I wasn’t talking about that. I was talking about your, repeated, assertions that Islam is worse than other religions (insofar as you seem to think all religion should be banned; but Islam needs to be the first one gone).
So, how would you go about eradicating Islam?
MRAL: If you don’t want to talk specifics, you could, perhaps, explain what it is which makes Islam so important in your list of religions to wipe from the face of the earth.
Because, in terms of having direct effect on you, Christianity (and Christians) are the greater threat to your personal well being/lifestyle.
I don’t know.
But I do maintain Islam is qualitatively “worse” than other religions, in the sense that its texts are more violent, Muhammad is a violent prophet, and it is thus easier to justify violence in the name of Islam.
@ Kirby:
It’s likely. I’ve found that ‘fuck you’ is his most common response to direct insults, and your line about lemons was pretty good.
I doubt we’ll get him to tell us which one of us gets the credit, though. Maybe we can share it?
@MRAL:
Have you read the old testament? Have you seen the amount of killing that goes on in their at God’s direct order? It really is a matter of how much modernity has intervened. With Christianity, a lot. With Islam, not as much.
@Victoria von Syrus:
Sure, I could share a Fuck You with you.
…
wait…
But I do maintain Islam is qualitatively “worse” than other religions, in the sense that its texts are more violent, Muhammad is a violent prophet, and it is thus easier to justify violence in the name of Islam
You read the Bible any time recently? The Old Testament is pretty much all war, all the time. The Book of Mormon isn’t much better. War, flee, war, war, Jesus, peace, war, war.
Or how about them Greek myths? I’m flipping through my mental roster of Greek mythology, and I think the only one that wasn’t overtly person-on-person violent was Orpheus and Eurydice.
Of course, I haven’t actually read the Koran (I understand that reputable English translations are hard to come by). So, I mean, if you want to say you’ve read it, and enough holy texts to make a valid comparison, I’m very interested in what you have to say.
It’s not privilege to think that you have the right to define yourself
If you have never been part of a group who has been legally, institutionally, or systematically defined by another group who are dominint (legally, economically, socially, culturally, or all of the abovey), then yes, it is privilege. White women and all people of color were defined as “not legally citizens of this country” for a long time. African Americans were designated a racialized term that was embedded in the “one drop” rule to support the economic system of chattel slavery for a long time. And don’t give me “that’s history”–attitudes and systems operating today were shaped by those decades of a small group of white men definining everybody else.
Straight cis elite white men (and by elite, I don’t mean Trump style) have defined legally and systematcally other groups through a variety of systems–look at the variety of terminologies that have been applied to ethnic minority groups in this country.
Look at the very name of the continent–it was named by Europeans who colonized it, and their name is what has been used, not the names given by the indigenous peoples who had lived here for 40,000 years (more or less, the archeology keeps pushing the time back).
Look at how the Amerikan government system changed European immigrants’ names on entry to this country (http://www.forward.com/articles/12907/).
Lots of other stuff out there about these issues, but I doubt you care or will read them, but yes, it’s a privilege to believe that you have the RIGHT to (exclusively) name yourself and to reject all other terminologies are wrong, juvenile, or “politically correct.”
@ Kirby:
Yeah, that might be awkward… Really, I was kind of thinking of a blue ribbon cut up the middle, or a turkey wishbone.
MRAL: Have you read the Qu’ran?
Have you pondered what Jesus meant when he said, “Let him without a sword sell his garment and buy one,”?
Or that he had come to bring strife, to separate the fathers from the sons?
Have you looked at the relative differences in how the religions dealt with outsiders in their midst when they weren’t being threatened with people invading them, subjegating them (even demonising them and saying they are the worst religion in the world?).
That is, when they were in power, how did they compare to say Christians, or Hindus, etc.
Because you have confessed you don’t know much about them. If one asserts a “truism” without actually have facts, that’s prejudice. Prejudice isn’t, per se, bad; everyone has them.
What is bad is to act as if ignorant prejudice were fact, and try to make arguments about, “how things are” or worse, actual social policies, based on those prejudices.
The word for that is bigotry.
So, since we have you admitting you don’t know what you are talking about… the choice is clear, admit you made a mistake (everyone does it), or confess to being a bigot; Q.E.D.
It is that simple.
Religion and violence: I don’t know, ever since I hit that part in the Old Testament about God sending bears out to eat children who mocked a prophet (his beard?), I’ve wondered about the violence quotient. Plus, you know, Crusades, Holy Wars, Spanish Inquisition, witch burnings (I’m a witch, so watch out if you start showing any newtlike qualities–just kidding, actually, I’m an animistic pagan after a goddess vision I had on a beach in Washington State in 1976, or maybe 1977, goddess, I suck at dates). Plus for a while I was a Job’s Daughter, and you know, that story fucking sucks–sure Job gets a new family, but wtf? what did his family ever do to deserve getting whacked in some TEST?
Plus, you know, who did Adam and Eve’s kids MARRY? And what about that canon incest (Noah and daughters)? I mean, wow. As I told students in my mythology class, if you want sex, drugs, and violence not to mention incest and cannibalism, you gotta go to the classics.
Oh, and I use the terms USian a lot in my fandom spaces because of the international nature of the fandom and the critiques of the default assumption that everybody is an “American” (especially when I’m around Canadians!) In other communication situations, I use different terminology–because context matters.
Ilithiana: Oh yeah, the OT is chock full of some serious violence. For the most part only Israelites count, and when God tries to include outsiders (Jonah and the mission to Ninevah) his prophets try to refuse, and then get pissed when God doesn’t wipe the infidels off the face of the map.
And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did[it not.
But it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he was very angry.
And he prayed unto the LORD, and said, I pray thee, O LORD, was not this my saying, when I was yet in my country? Therefore I fled before unto Tarshish: for I knew that thou art a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of the evil.
Therefore now, O LORD, take, I beseech thee, my life from me; for it is better for me to die than to live.
There’s Jonah… God compels him to preach to Ninevah, warning them of what will happen if they don’t repent, and when they do repent, he’s pissed that God kept his word and forgave them.
Classy.
And in Deuteronomy… Ch. 18 is full of things in which massive collective punishment is to be meted out for minor infractions.
It’s enough to make one think Judaism is inherently violent.
Pecunium: Just a quick question before I force myelf to sign off and go to bed Have you seen Lewis Black’s incredibly hilarious fantastic rant about how Christians took and misread HIS people’s holy book? It was in one of his specials…may have to see if I can find and link to it.
Trufact: our parents pulled my brother and me out of the church choir when the Presbyterian Church came out in support of Angela Davis (omg, church, politics, communism). The main reason I was pissed off is because I had a crush on the minister’s wife who led the choir and looked just like Julie Andrews (whom I have a crush on to this day.) I didn’t read the Bible much after that, until my sophomore year in high school when I had a major but short-lived religious revival….I remembered that when I was reading Angela Davis’ essays for my dissertation!
Oh just FYI, the backstory for Magyc: The Gendering is up on the latest (Scott Adams) thread :3
Lol, ithiliana, what are you even saying? That African-Americans were behaving in a privileged manner when they asked to define themselves? MLK was a spoiled brat? Because following the your logic, that’s what I’ve got. All this shit about “cis white men”, what does that have to do ith anything except to get in more fymynyst man bashing?
That’s FUCKING what fumynuysm really is FUCK FEMINISM AND FUCK YOU YOU FUCK.
@MRAL:
What ithiliana was saying was this. If you are not part of a group that was denied the ability to define themselves, and go on and on about how its so obvious that of course you have that right, it’s privilage.
It’s a privilage that you can say such things, and not actually have to fight for it, and to not suffer real consequences if you are denied that “right.” What does having this privilage actually mean? It means if you say you have a right to define yourself, then go on and on about how others don’t have that right, you are being hypocritical and bigoted.
@MRAL:
Also you’re being an asshole to everyone who has had to fight for that right. Its basically like arguing in front of a bunch of women that “of course I have the right to vote, and no one will take that away!”