So I get periodic visits here from hostile and uninformed visitors demanding to know just what I have against those Men’s Rights activist-adjacent fellows who have declared themselves to be Men Going Their Own Way. Surely, they sniff, I can’t be really opposed to men living the lives they choose to live, independent of women? Don’t feminists encourage women to be similarly independent? You go, girls, and all that?
As a fellow calling himself Praetorian wrote:
Why are women so bitter towards men going their own way, without them
“John,” meanwhile, thought he detected some hypocrisy:
So, if a woman says she does not need a man in her life, she is seen as a strong independent woman. If a man says he does not need a woman in his life, he is seen as someone who has a deep hostility towards and/or profound distrust of women.
How convenient and how logical…………….
Happpily, the commenters here always put these misguided souls straight: we don’t object , in principle, to men “going their own way,” if that’s what they want to do.
But in practice, the men who classify themselves as Men Going Their Own Way don’t go anywhere; they stick around and stink the place up with their raging misogyny.
If you go to MGTOWforums or any other popular MGTOW hangout, you’ll discover that the regulars there don’t spend much time talking about the fabulous lives they’re leading on their own — the things they’re learning, the hobbies they’re pursuing, the experiences they’re having.
Nope. They spend virtually all their time and energy taking about women, and how awful they are. The typical MGTOWer spends more time thinking about women on any given day than the president of Planned Parenthood does. And what they think about women is awful. Just go through my MGTOW posts here for example after example.
You want to see some men who are really going their own way? Watch the video at the top of this post. These are guys enjoying themselves and not giving a shit what anyone thinks. They are AWESOME.
That’s what Men Going Their Own Way should look like. And I’m not even joking.
NOTE: I think I’ve posted this video before. I don’t care. Some people might not have seen it. EVERYONE MUST SEE IT.
The turn this conversation reminds me of something that just happened to my boyfriend. He was sexually harassed by a woman while he was at work. While the people he contracts for took it seriously, and sent him and the woman to give police statements, the first thing the goons he works with had to say was “What did she look like?”
The site was having a hiccup for me just now. I was entirely confused to see the video that Old Reader had embedded showing up in neuroticbeagle’s comment, and the video in Old Reader’s comment being the one that weirdwoodtreehugger had embedded. Has this sort of phenomenon ever happened to anyone else?
Kim:
That kind of stuff is the worst. Scumbags like that entirely miss the mark. Attractive or not, if the advance/remark/action/whatever is unwanted, it’s unwanted.
The old Debra Lafave defense….too pretty to be held morally accountable.
Our culture really sucks, it is ingrained in many that if a person is good looking that they get a free pass, we treat them more favorably.
Kim, that sucks. Working with morons always does, but in that sort of situation … ugh.
Glad the people he’s contracting with are taking it seriously, though. Let’s just hope the police do (not that I’m holding my breath).
Hah, there are so few, if any at all, famous prominent female philosophers, and most popular one is still a sociopathic nutjob wacko hahaha so much for female moral superiority, eh?
Yes true… I am one of those theists, and for sure the fight to make people recognize that a personal religious belief shouldn’t be made law or forced on others is important, and can be everyone’s fight not just an atheist one.
I just, cringe so hard at angry-style internet atheism because it is so intent on superiority, above women, above racial minorities, and belittling any theist they can. There’s such a level of petty childishness: the people who mocked “my sky fairy,” told me I must be a murderer at heart because being religious proves religion is my only reason to care about people, holding me to bizarre Christian fundamentalist standards and calling me a cafeteria Christian for not being Bible literalist (why do you even care…), letting me know in detail the deficiencies in intelligence they think I have — what in the world is that meant to accomplish but feeling superior?
I know too that theists can be awful and organized religion has left scars on so many people, and it breaks my heart. But there’s being atheist (perfectly fine position to hold) and there’s being the MGTOW of the belief sphere. I think the modern movement can be so attractive to sexists because it poses atheism as being logical and rational (I don’t technically disagree) and sexists believe logic and rationality are male things. My biggest wish is for people on both sides to stop widening the atheist/theist animosity gap and work together on common goals. I work so hard to break the iron grip the Republican party took of Christianity, and reduce people’s feeling that they’d have to abandon their religion to be progressive, and by being so aggressively us vs. them these types just sabotage my work at every turn.
Erm, you know what conventions are, right? While some are run by non-profit organizations, they are basically commercial events that all types of people pay money to attend and the organizers of said events are expected to keep paying attendees safe, happy, entertained and unharrassed.
Elevatorgate, which is genuinely painful to discuss at this point, was set off by one women’s offhand criticism of a creeper and many men’s need to be wildly outraged and over-defensive about meanie-pants creep-shaming. FY fucking I.
Is that some mutated, kind of non-sensical spin on “limousine liberal”? What does that even mean?
“some people huff in frustration, “why can’t you just accept men and women are different!” when what they’re actually wanting you to accept is that the differences are significant, we should base strict roles and prejudices off them, and that women “just happen” to be worse in most aspects.”
THIS so much! Thank you Shayla that about sums up every argument ever had about gender equality. I’m so tired of hearing about how men and women are sooooo different. Bullshit.
@Brooked, it’s a phrase they’re gleefully lifting from fundamentalists which is supposed to refer (disdainfully) to people who reject some parts of Christianity while accepting others (as in, a person going through a cafeteria line picking and choosing which food they want on their plate). Never mind that basically everyone picks what makes sense to them, and fundamentalists reject some parts of Christianity themselves.
oh and thanks marci! 🙂
There is a huge difference between religious misogyny and misogyny in atheist circles. Atheism in itself as an idea does not propagate misogyny, so if anyone is sexist that’s a problem with individual people and it’s a problem that can be corrected. Religions on the other hand have misogyny at their very core, you practically can’t read religious texts without noticing the misogyny because its everywhere from start to end. And if you decide to follow those writings you will have to accept misogyny as not only your philosophy, but as something divinely legitimized, there is no other way around it.
Someone who “picks and chooses” what pieces of the creeds they believe, like food in a cafeteria. Used as a term of abuse by fundamentalists, for obvious reasons. 🙂
Crap, should have reloaded the page before posting…
When I was about 11 years old, I discovered the series by Jean M. Auel. I think it explains a lot about my development into adulthood. I feel really bad for the people who read Ayn Rand’s horrible shit at the same age. I am thanking my lucky stars that I didn’t have to go through that.
So tell us, O superior manzbrain, who’s claiming women are morally superior to men? Hint: it isn’t feminists.
4/10, weaksauce trolling.
shayla – I’m not sure whether to offer internet hugs or an internet high-five or both (in sequence, simultaneously would be awkward).
I love your comment above so. much.
(On a frivolous level, ‘the MGTOW of the belief sphere’ cracked me up.)
I say we make it Christians (and, y’know, anyone who’s not a hater) who get together in cafes and have coffee and cake and a good time generally.
Arriving by limo is optional.
The idiocy of the cherry-picking argument is that you can’t not cherry-pick, simply because the Bible is so contradictory. Pretty stupid to attack the people cherry-picking the good bits and trying to live by those.
Except you don’t have to. People can and do make conscious decisions not to accept those parts. Saying it’s the only way to interpret one’s faith is saying that literalism or fundamentalism are the only legitimate expressions of a particular faith.
Also saying “religions” is a pretty sweeping statement – d’you know about every religion around the world? If you mean the Abrahamic religions, or even all those with written traditions, say so. They’re not the same as religion, period.
Problem is there aren’t just some parts you can ignore or interpret in some other way, because male-centrism and misogyny are everywhere, from start to end, they are not a minor thing, they are central. The best way to ignore the bad parts is to ignore the whole thing altogether.
Do we really have to do this again? Does anyone have a link to the last big argument about religion so people can just read that and we don’t have to have another round of acrimony and subsequent exodus?
I meant the main religions of social importance. Religions that have had a significant impact.
Congratulations on missing the whole point. People can and do choose what they find acceptable in their beliefs and practices. Who are you to say what’s best for someone else’s faith? You’re this close to telling manboobzers what their faith should be (or that they shouldn’t have any). This isn’t an atheist board, you know. There’s all sorts of beliefs here and about all that’s not welcome is asshattery.
So you’re saying all the indigenous religions haven’t had a significant impact? Nice erasure of entire peoples there.
All the religions that have been and gone, unknown to modern times, didn’t have a significant impact?
I am so done with this damn topic, but will point out one thing. I am an atheist, but I’m not stupid enough to think that the majority of the world is going to go down that path any time soon. Given that the demise of religion doesn’t seem to be imminent, the fact that lots of religious people are taking a cafeteria, pick-your-own-options approach to the texts is a GOOD thing. Do we really want them taking a literalist approach and following all the most misogynistic parts of those books to the letter? If not, what purpose does it serve to harangue them about how they have to do that?
Well said.
Also, cafeteria! Coffee! Croissant! Cakes!
Did “don’t be an asshat about other manboobzers’ faith/lack of” get included in the welcome package? Maybe it should be.
Back at you kittehserf!