You know those guys over on MGTOWforums.com, who spend so much of their time complaining about women and talking about how glad they are to not have anything to do with icky lady stuff? Well, it turns out they don’t hate women at all! They just think that women are all money-hungry narcissists who deserve to be punished for abusing their “rights.”
That may seem like a rather subtle distinction there, or possibly a giant heaping load of steaming bullshit. So I’ll let the eminently rational Spocksdisciple explain it all to you.
A Misogynist hates women because they’re women…
An MGHOW distrusts women for the powers they abuse…
Go on.
An MGHOW isn’t a misogynist and should never be, he’s a person who doesn’t allow women to impact his life and doesn’t care what women think about him.
Evidently he means “a person who doesn’t allow women to impact his life except for the hours he spends every day complaining about them online.”
He’s also a person who doesn’t actively hate women, but hate the things women do with their gov’t granted powers. The abuses and legal atrocities women commit is the fault of the gov’t and judicial system allowing these abuses.
Yes, those evil feminazi judges that run the country, headed up by that evil Chief Justice Judy on the Supreme Court.
Women will be women just as men will be men, their ingrained nature is no more different then how other animals behave.
Well, perhaps a bit different than how some animals behave. I mean, flatworms have swordfights with their penises in order to determine who gets to be the dude flatworm when they have sex, and I don’t know many people who do that.
I personally think women are hardwired to be hypergamous and self centered, they have to be in order to survive.
We don’t hate women! It’s just that they’re HARDWIRED to be selfish moneygrubbing bitches. It’s SCIENCE!!!
Just as men are hardwired to be analytical problem solvers as well as highly aggressive creatures when the need arises.
Don’t hate us because we’re so smart, ladies!
The trouble is that society today lets women get away with anything and everything, from getting harassed by random dudes on streetcorners to getting paid less than men for the same work.
Sorry, those were bad examples. Back to Spocksdisciple:
Today’s women may not be worthy of trust as has been proven over and over again in the news but in the past women were granted privileges their predecessors earned for them in blood and pain, privileges which were then turned in “inalienable” rights without the ability to suffer the consequences of abusing these “rights”.
Exactly! Now that women have the right to (for example) own property, they should be roundly punished each and every time they abuse these rights! Like, if they buy too much shit, they should have to pay money to rent storage units to keep it in.
NO MORE FREE STORAGE UNITS FOR LADIES!!! We’re on to you!
I’m not sure Spockdisciple has thought of that example. I’ll have to mention it at the next meeting.
But anyway, even though Spocksdisciple thinks women should suffer some sort of consequences for “abusing” their rights –oddly, he doesn’t actually mention what rights women are abusing or how they should be punished – he wants to make it clear that this doesn’t mean he hates the ladies.
Hating women for their innate nature is like them hating men for ours, nothing will come of it, men and women won’t change their innermost nature so why bother wasting the energy in the first place.
A true MGHOW doesn’t hate women, he hates the system which enables such bad behavior in women without them suffering the consequences of such behavior, if women suffered the consequences of their misbehavior you can bet many of them wouldn’t be so eager to abuse their “rights” with impunity.
So, again, MGTOWers don’t hate women. They just think women are inherently a bunch of greedy hoebags who are completely untrustworthy and deserve to be punished.
What on earth is hateful about that?
Naturally, most of the totally non-woman-hating dudes over on MGTOWforums.com found Spocksdisciple’s argument to be logical as shit. As cdub noted:
I don’t hate women. I hate that they are not held accountable for their actions. There are too many blue pillers out there to ever see thru this shit. I think the only thing that will change any of this is if there is complete collapse of the Western world and all those strong, independent women will have to rely on men just like nature intended.
AussieSteve, though, thought Spocksdisciple was being a bit too lenient on the ladies.
I hate the system and I hate what women are. I can hate both because both have earned my hatred. The system hasn’t made women loathsome it has merely created an environment that has exposed their true natures. If somebody lets a poisonous snake out of its cage am I not allowed to kill that snake because it isn’t its fault that it got out? The person that opened the cage should be held accountable as well, sure – but a snake is still a snake and if I have to kill it to protect myself then that snake is going to die.
All the system has done is allow women to do abhorrent things, it hasn’t made them do it. It just removed the restraints that our forefathers, in their wisdom, put in place to keep them under control. Women are poisonous snakes and we have stupidly let them out of their cages.
Huh. Women represented by evil snakes. Haven’t ever heard that one before.
@CassandraSays
The kicking and screaming against “Western influence” in South Asia from traditionalists is deafening. Especially when it comes to clothing (women only, of course), dating and sex.
Maybe it was a snake that someone put poison onto — you know, that Hamlet-style curtain poison. And he wants to eat the tasty snake, which means it’s the SNAKE’S FAULT for FORCING him to have those snake-eating urges which he couldn’t possibly be asked to control.
Steph – makes more sense, indeed
Dear commenters,
What is hate? According to Webster’s dictionary hate is defined as:
intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury b : extreme dislike or antipathy : loathing
These comments that Mister Futrelle have quoted certainly do speak of an extreme dislike, and there is obvious fear and anger in them, both stemming from a sense of injury, so perhaps “hate” is the correct terminology, but it is not to be dismissed as lightly as you have. One can hate without being irrational, and one can hate without being incorrect. These men clearly have substantial grievances with feminism and the illegal state that supports its being and motives, therefore, the reasonable course of action would be to listen to their complaints and judge them each by their merits rather than dismissing them out of hand simply because Mister Futrelle has categorized them as hate. After all, did the Israelites not hate their Egyptian masters? Did Indians not hate their European conquerors? And did not the white farmers hate their black masters when they were forced by the burgeoning feminist state to give housing, sustenance and women to them for simple labor? And yet, none of you would consider any of this to be out of bounds or unfair despite the presence of that pernicious emotion that you scorn as “hate”. Can these poor, wounded, flesh-covered men then not have a true grievance? Could it not be possible that they too are oppressed individuals who hate only because of that oppression? Can any of you, honestly, dismiss them without nary a thought to their plight, or their arguments? If your hearts have been so hardened by feminism, and you truly cannot, then I pity you. Perhaps my David is correct, and modern flesh-covered women have nothing more to offer their brethren. I hope it is not so, but I fear that my beloved, as he so often is, is correct.
<3 Irene
What actions? Oh being strong, independent and female?
How is that bad? Oh because of nature…Well! If nature says we have to be all weak and stuff (and yet not only put in a full day of working in the field but also cooking enough food for the entire family/farm hands, often while heavily pregnant with kid number 5, 6, or 7…wait, we will ignore that because it does not fit the narrative) then I guess we better be all weak!
/sarcasm
I think these men are cranky because they have the mistaken idea that once upon a time life was easy for men when it came to women ignoring the vast amount of effort it took even then to have a decent home life.
sorry I had to
So if it’s women’s “nature” to be greedy, soul-sucking bitches and you don’t hate them for it, how can you hate the system that upholds that greedy, soul-sucking bitchiness? isn’t the system just following nature then? since we can’t change nature and you don’t hate women’s nature, aren’t you also wasting your energy hating the system too?
Yep. Keep going far, far away MGTOWs, and shove that naturalistic fallacy far up your asses while you’re at it too.
My frustration and the hilarity of that video are clashing at extreme velocity.
“Women are poisonous snakes and we have stupidly let them out of their cages.”
I’ve caught this contradiction many times when reading MRA garbage. They claim women were never oppressed, then say things like this, that it was a mistake giving women rights and freedom.
“And did not the white farmers hate their black masters when they were forced by the burgeoning feminist state to give housing, sustenance and women to them for simple labor? ”
Keep the laughs coming, Irene.
It is kind of funny how they keep alluding to how women had no freedom in the past, and then claiming that women were never oppressed. Could be that they don’t consider women having no freedom to be oppression, since like Meller they consider women to be a special category of person that’s naturally designed to be controlled by others (people who supported slavery used to make similar arguments). Could be that they’re consciously lying about the women were never oppressed thing and they hope no one will notice and call them on it. Could be that they’re actually too stupid to even realize that they’re contradicting themselves because when they talk about women and free will their brains go into HULKSMASH mode.
@ersatzmoons
Lol! it popped into my head the moment that ass mentioned poisonous snakes.
@Cassandra:
“Could be that they don’t consider women having no freedom to be oppression, since like Meller they consider women to be a special category of person that’s naturally designed to be controlled by others ”
That’s definitely the sense I’m getting.
WATCH OUT FOR SNAKES!
AussieSteve isn’t allowed to kill the snake because it is a protected species. He should call the local snake catcher.
“Snake catcher” is an actual job?
Once again, I am never going to Australia. I don’t care if my cousin wants to see me – she can come here, or we can meet someplace that doesn’t have tons of snakes and giant aggressive spiders.
Australia doesn’t want you either.
Cassandra: I’d honestly be worried about being attacked by a kangaroo. My friends lives in the suburbs there and he’s told stories of how they, like deer here, just hang around the neighbor outskirts and parks.
Chilling.
Being kangaroo-like.
Male kangaroos having their testicles in front of their penises and such.
aMiRA : NO U!
They’re like the moose of Australia! They look all cute and harmless, but they can hurt you.
Oh yeah. Snake catchers go around to schools and fetes and things, set up a tarp (a bit like an above-ground pool), fill it with dangerous snakes (in bags) and let the snakes out one at a time while giving a talk about how to identify them, and what to do if you are bitten. At the end they bring out a friendly snake and a couple of lizards and let the kids pat them. Unfortunately sometimes the kids remember the patting and forget the “snakes are biteys” part.
Yeah, I can see that being a problem. Lizards can be pretty nasty too, not necessarily a good idea to train kids to pet them.
So, they’re women, except that the moose will just hurt you, maybe break a few bones, and a woman will take your dignity, money and freedom.
“After all, did the Israelites not hate their Egyptian masters? Did Indians not hate their European conquerors? And did not the white farmers hate their black masters when they were forced by the burgeoning feminist state to give housing, sustenance and women to them for simple labor?”
I had to read that four times before coming to the conclusion that, yes, it does actually say what I thought it said and no, other than the obvious racism, it still makes no sense. To put this into perspective, I wrote one of my dissertations on the linguistic style of Henry James’ late novels.
Oh David, you’re so sheltered.
You know, I’ve kinda been wondering when aMIRa or IAM would offend someone. I usually skip over the posts, but that… yeah not sure I’d do that even as a joke.