Over on the A Voice for Men forums – yes, they have forums – one Man Going His Own Way spells out exactly what he means by His Own Way. Here’s misterbill:
For me, MGTOW has three major components:
1. Refusal to cohabitate with a woman
2. Avoidance of fatherhood like the plague
3. Avoidance of being alone in a room with a strange woman (for fear of false accusations)
These are the core elements, IMO.
I’m not celibate, I get sexual satisfaction from several call-girls that I’ve built good rapport with over a few years. I’ll visit one of these women whenever I feel like it, usually once a month or so.
I have what I would describe as a female companion who others would describe as my girlfriend. We don’t have sex, not because I’m not attracted to her, but because my fear of possibly getting her pregnant petrifies me beyond belief. So we hang out 2 days a week and have very nice times together, going on about 5 years. She understands my beliefs and that we will never live together and that I don’t believe in the myth of love.
So I’m MGHOW, but not without women.
I’m 41 and fairly wealthy. In my 20s and through to of my early 30s ( although I wasn’t a PUA) I studied game theory and in combination with other aspects of my life, I had no trouble getting laid. Then a woman made a false accusation against me (and was further slandered by another), and I began to wake up to the perils of having sex with (and interacting with) strange women. The risks outweighed the benefits, and I turned to going my own way.
I travel on business frequently and the one exception to my rule with being alone with strange women is the easy pickings while traveling. There is a rule amongst many women that if you’re 500 miles away from home, it’s not cheating. I see this a lot with many married women. Gents, her vows mean NOTHING once she gets on a plane without you. Although I wouldn’t allow any of these women into my home, I accept the risk when I’m traveling. And there is always a risk of running into a psycho who is ready to explode.
I don’t really have any jokes here. But I will note that his story doesn’t make a lick of sense; I find it literally unbelievable.
He’s so paranoid about women because of a “false accusation” leveled against him back when he pursued women using “game theory” that he literally refuses to be in the same room with “strange women” – or even interact with them. Yet when he’s traveling he suggests he routinely has sex with “strange” married women. Huh? These women could still get pregnant; these women could still make accusations, false or otherwise, against him. Does he feel safe because he can skip town in a hurry to avoid the possible consequences of his actions?
He’s (allegedly) been involved in a 2-day-a-week relationship, for five years, with a woman he’s sexually attracted to. But he refuses to have sex with her because he’s terrified of getting her pregnant. If he’s that worried about getting her pregnant, and generally wants to “avoid … fatherhood like the plague,” why doesn’t he get a vasectomy? If, after he sleeps with a married woman in a strange city, she gets pregnant with his child, does he simply assume she’ll never be able to track him down?
I’m going to assume that most if not all of what misterbill is saying here is bullshit. But if he does indeed live his life in way that even vaguely resembles how he says he does, it’s a rather sad and strange and paranoid way to live.
Nepenthe is the fastest comment in the West.
I know that when someone names their collective after the thing that people get dumped in if they lose a game while participating in children’s TV shows that always leads me to take them more seriously.
I didn’t realize that harassment campaigns were considered humanism now. Or are they science?
Excuse me? I’m not aware of any instances of harassment Myers and Watson; certainly, I know that there’s a bit of a friendly rivalry between the Pit and Freethought Blogs. Individual members may have acted poorly; I wouldn’t know as I don’t concern myself with pedantic squabbling. But I do believe the Pit to be an exemplary collective of individuals working toward admirable goals. And Ms. Smith deserves much credit for providing the impetus on her blog (the Slyme Pit began as a series of threads on ERV called the “Periodic Table of Swearing”).
Of course Otis wouldn’t be to blame for being on moderation, it’s always someone else’s fault. Stay classy, Otis.
In much better news, I do NOT have breast cancer.
Falconer, I got my hands on my holsters because I have a chemistry exam tomorrow and I really, really, really would rather do anything but study.
hellkell – I’m glad to hear that!
As to Otis et al, yeah, isn’t it something how the Super Powerful Men Who Do Pull Ups and are totally stronger and smarter than barely-human women …
… are at the same time never responsible for anything that happens?
She’s also the founder of the “Slyme Pit”, a loose collective of atheists working toward mutual goals of reason, science and humanism.
For those not familiar with the online atheist community, this is a hilarious in-joke, as the Slyme Pit is actually a loose collective of atheists working toward the mutual goal of stalking Rebecca Watson.
I’m joking, of course. They also stalk several other atheist bloggers, all of whom coincidentally happen to be women and/or feminists.
Good one, Steele!
Steele doesn’t squabble. That’s too pedantic for him. Steele, you come here non-stop just to squabble ad nauseum and always lose. WTF is wrong with you? Words have meaning. Do you ever proof read what you write?
Proofreading is MISANDRY!
I’m sorry? I am not aware of any egregious harassment; there is certainly a rivalry between the similar collective “Freethought Blogs”, where PZ Myers posts. Certainly, some members on both sides may have acted poorly; I freely grant that as I don’t follow inter-atheist squabbles. But this does not reflect on the larger institution and your transparent attempts to do so are laughable.
Abbie Smith, the founder, is herself a woman. Prominent atheist voices like Justin Vacula post there regularly. It is a noble enterprise.
@hellkell, So glad to hear that.
I’d like to point out that game theory is a field of mathematics: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory
I can verify that it cannot possibly get you laid. Because it’s math.
Thank you, Cloudiah and Kittehs.
Steele, you’re excused.
Steele, the post Watson JUST PUBLISHED is about the campaign of harassment she’s enduring right now. Jesus wept, can you read? Are you comments coming through Babelfish? That would explain a lot.
@hellkell – yay?
Whatever. All I know is Steele’s, um, writing style, hurts my ears. I think I’ll read a few pages from Neil Gaiman’s “Fragile Things” (that’s here on my desk) to regain my faith in wording and grammar.
“Excuse me? I’m not aware.” -Steele
I like how I ask Otis to do logic and he runs away.
Men are too superior for logic.
Steele said:
On a lark, I went over to the slymepit just to get a sample of what they do. Having already been aware of Abbie Smith’s “monument,” i.e. the founding thread of the slymepit in which such elevated nomenclature as “Rebecca Twatson” was first coined, I was not expecting great or noble things. I was not disappointed by the existence of their pet project, the “Phawrongula” wiki, and this article:
http://phawrongula.wikia.com/wiki/The_Hagiography_of_%22Amina_A.%22
According to the slymepit’s exacting standards, PZ is a “sham and a fraud” for not correcting the original post about Amina A., but apparently the wiki’s maintainers have no problem with assuming that you’ll find PZ’s later post.
To read just that article, you would believe that PZ promoted the “Amina A.” story as true before it broke, and afterwards completely ignored it. As the article says, “Myers is exposed as a sham and fraud from every perspective. Not one retraction or correction is to be found.” (By the way, the word “Myers” in that sentence links to this image: http://phawrongula.wikia.com/wiki/File:Myers-nixon.jpg . Very classy.) What the article doesn’t tell you is that PZ subsequently took the perpetrator of the deceptive Amina A. story to task on his blog, from what I can tell on the very day it broke:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/06/12/screw-you-tom-macmaster/
Their casual hypocrisy and petty nitpicking aside, I have a bigger problem with their treatment of the subject. Take this mangled pair of sentences referring to PZ:
Keep in mind what we’re talking about here: violence against lgbt people and the specter of corrective rape against lesbian women.
Personal agenda? How is that a personal agenda, slymepitters? Fuck you fucking fucksticks. We did not need the story of Amina A. to know this shit happens. This was not “Exhibit A,” as Josh Rosenau implied in his article on the topic, referring to Chris Mooney’s use of another fraudulent story as “Exhibit A” in his own campaigns. If the Amina A. story had been real, it would be fucking exhibit X, where X is a ridiculous fucking number.
Dismissing real social justice concerns, issues of life and death for many people, as simply personal agendas as “puritanism” is not an aberration, it is the modus operandi of the slymepitters. They are not noble, they are fucking scumbags.
Sigh, comment formatting. The second paragraph, beginning with “According to the slymepit’s exacting standards,” was supposed to go after the third paragraph, and only makes sense read after it.
Fuckers. Thanks for diving in, Tulgey. Do you need a firehose to cleanse? Here you go:
@Steele said: “Abbie Smith, the founder, is herself a woman. Prominent atheist voices like Justin Vacula post there regularly. It is a noble enterprise.”
Omigosh, Justin who resigned his position from the Secular Coalition for Pennsylvania only after a petition was started publicly illustrating his unsuitability for such a role. Gosh, I’m so sorry I choose to miss out on the welcoming crowd there. It certainly is noble!
LOL.
This guy sounds awful. I hate men who tell me that they are afraid of false allegations. I once JUST met a man and when I put out my hand for a handshake (professional setting) he said no. I took my hand back and was done. Then he went on a tirade about how he couldn’t touch me out of fear of sexual harassment suits. I just kinda stood there and smiled until he was done. Then fled.
What is wrong with these men? Do they really think women walk around planning their downfall?
That sounds about right – someone who pretends not to know (I find it hard to believe they really don’t) the difference between appropriate things like shaking hands – especially when a hand is offered! – and inappropriate touching. I mean, how difficult is it in a work situation to shake hands where required and for the rest of the time, keep your hands to yourself? Would he be all handsy with a man? Bet he wouldn’t.
Hope you didn’t have to have any further contact with that jackass.
I know I shouldn’t bother, but:
You can leave this out.
Egregious means especially bad. If you are trying to emphasise something it’s a handy word to use. If you are trying to downplay something, it makes you look weasily. The implication is that you are aware of harassment, but you think you can get around it by only looking at that subset of harassment that is ‘egregious’. I don’t think that’s what you were going for. Try “I am not aware of any harassment”.
(I can’t speak for everyone, I am prepared to believe any statement you make that begins with the phrase “I am not aware”. Literally any statement.)
My understanding is that Freethought Blogs is a website incorporating several blogs, and the slymepit is not. This means that they are dissimilar in an obvious and crucial way. Also, it might be better to mention both sides if you’re using the proposition ‘between’. Consider “I was between a hard place”. Try “..between the slyme pit and “Freethought Blogs””.
Is it certainly the case that people have acted poorly, or is it that they may have acted poorly? One or the other, please.
If you don’t follow a ‘squabble’, your opinions about either or both sides of said ‘squabble’ tend not to carry much weight, ‘freely granted’ or not.
The larger institution of what? Transparent attempts to do what? To ‘reflect’? How does a person transparently reflect?
Try: “This does not reflect on the larger institution of [name institution here] and your transparent attempts to imply that it does are laughable.”
In previous posts you already said that Abbie Smith founded the slyme pit, and explicitly mentioned that she’s a woman. It’s starting to look like you’re belabouring the point.
If you are a medieval knight – or possibly a Klingon – then this is excellent rhetoric. If you are a human being of the twenty-first century, may I suggest “It’s pretty good, you should check it out”? This serves the same rhetorical purpose, without making you look quite so much like a tool.
cloudiah, one word can describe fire hose soccer: WHARRGARBL–!