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.
I daresay happiness is just for weaklings and parasites (before they’re culled by her mass-murderer heroes, of course).
“This FAQ sheet gives it a bit more credit than it deserves, in my opinion, but it does at least give a flavour of what it’s about: an ‘anti-democratic, racially charged, anti-modern, authoritarian political movement’ that nevertheless somehow claims to be ‘anti-fascist’.”
I clicked on that “Dark Enlightenment” link;
http://www.vocativ.com/12-2013/dark-enlightenment-creepy-internet-movement-youd-better-take-seriously/
…. and its basically a cluster diagram of some Manosphere blogs. I don’t think there’s an actual “movement”.
Several of those bloggers disagree with just about everything of some of the other bloggers. For instance, Roosh, who appeas on the diagram, is ot anti-modern nor pro-authoritarian politics. He and his beta blog orbiters just want to be free to come and go from the US as much as they want, when and how they want, and not be constrained by laws in any way.
Yeah, the hypocrisy is rank with her. I suppose I should feel lucky that I DIDN’T end up going her way, with my history. *shudder*
He’s mainly anti soap and shampoo.
“Also, it’s amusing that I’ve seen multiple feminists call out the way she treated her husband as appalling, but no Randroid men do so. But we’re the ones who supposedly don’t care about men.”
Bingo!
Manospherians say she was just acting according to her feminine nature (hypergamy) and it was her hubby’s fault for being such a beta chump in the first place.
He’s also anti women enjoying sex.
To top it all off, the utopia that the “heroes” of Atlas Shrugged build is powered by a super engine that Galt invented. It’s pretty much a magical engine that provides free limitless energy.
And yet this book is supposed to be a basis for how the world should be run, and some people take it seriously.
Steverino, yay! My very first:http://artistryforfeminismandkittens.wordpress.com/the-official-man-boobz-complimentary-welcome-package/. The penguins and scented candles are my personal favorites.
As to Rand, since there was a discussion of the categorical imperative the other day, I’ve always kind of thought of her as the inverse of that. Basically, she believed in treating everyone as a means to an end. This seems to fit the manosphere really well; “I am the actor/one with agency, you are the object to be acted on.” (Also, didn’t she have a fit when her lover started cheating on her and his wife with a different woman?)
RE: auggziliary
Yeah, sorry, ‘forced’ is the wrong word. They CONVINCED her, rather. (And since, whatever you think of Ayn Rand, you cannot deny she had a very strong sense of her own importance and self-preservation.) And everyone pretended that it wasn’t hypocritical at all.
Even without all the other horrible things about him, he’d have that covered with the anti-personal-hygiene bit.
But, you see, if women have sex with men who aren’t him, or men who aren’t PUAs, or women, then they might have fun, which is why they should be manipulated into only having sex with men like him and his followers.
Yet somehow that argument never applies to anyone else needing assistance …
Calvin and Hobbes
Roosh has such a lose-lose attitude. He doesn’t seem to enjoy sex, but goes through it (or tries to) to make the woman feel worse than he does.
Now if only he and zombie Rand were stuck in a room together.
RE: Kittehserf
*laughs* Basically. Ah, a humble comic strip is such a nice takedown, really.
Randian cat?
1. “I am the actor/one with agency, you are the OBJECT to be acted on.”
– Hence OBJECTivism. 😉
2. “Also, didn’t she have a fit when her lover started cheating on her and his wife with a different woman?”
– Yes, I’ve read as much.
3. “What were her ideas about sex, dare I ask?”
“Scroll up, people were talking about it upthread.”
– Couldn’t find anything. Unless you are referring to her extra-marital affair?
4. “He’s also anti women enjoying sex.” (regarding Roosh)
– He said “it doesn’t matter” whether a woman orgasms or not. The only men who say that are those who have never experienced a woman orgasming from having sex with them. They also claim, “you are responsible for your own orgasm”. If that’s the case then what is the point in having sex with someone else at all?
Roosh wrote an entire book about a one night stand he had in the US in which after sex the woman got up and prepared to leave. He was shocked and asked her “don’t you want to cuddle?” She said she had to go. He said, “in Eastern Europe women fall in love with a man after having sex with him.”
That proves that woman didn’t orgasm with Roosh otherwise the cocktail of endorphins and bonding chemicals like oxytocin that are produced during and after orgasm would have inspired her to want to hang around and cuddle.
Roosh seems to be oblivious to the fact that almost everything he writes about his sexual encounters paints him as a skill-less, lousy lover in the sack. Not exactly the thing you want to announce on the world wide web if you fancy yourself a jet-setting, international playboy.
“Roosh wrote an entire book about a one night stand he had in the US in which after sex the woman got up and prepared to leave.”
Here’s Fat Forney’s review of the book, entitled “Why Can’t I Use a Smiley Face?”
Available on Amazon.
http://mattforney.com/2013/03/29/why-cant-i-use-a-smiley-face-stories-from-one-month-in-america-by-roosh-v/
Cuddling Roosh is almost as repellent a notion as sex with Roosh.
If I want to cuddle something covered in black hair, I’ll get another black cat.
Cats are generally self-cleaning, too.
Which reminds me, when Roosh and stains on seats were mentioned in the last RoK post, this came to mind. (SFW, just gross.)
@ Oldreader, that’s why I chose that word. 🙂 To be honest, I always thought she used “objectivist” to lend the philosophy a vaguely scientific feel a la being objective & logical. Hmm, now it fits with those who shout “biotruth” to explain why everyone should act how they say.
To whoever linked to Cunningham’s work, thanks. Just finished. Must buy
Skye – I thought the same thing about what Objectivist was meant to suggest.
Now I know it’s even skeevier.
Ugh.
They should be called Objectionablists or Obnoxiousivists. Truth in advertising and all that.
“What a lovely, lovely person.”
Yeah, not only did Rand demand complete worship from those in her inner circle and treat her husband like dirt, but she also admired a brutal serial killer:
http://atheism.about.com/b/2011/05/11/ayn-rand-sociopath-who-admired-a-serial-killer.htm
Having an extremely difficult early life doesn’t excuse her behavior.
Yeah, I knew about that one.
Rand makes Al Capone look like a moral exemplar.