Ah, the good old days, when me were men and women were c**ts!
You know, just regular c**ts, not the pampered, stuck-up, fat c**ts of today.
Such is the argument of an unusually spirited, if sometimes incoherent, mini-manifesto winning plaudits from the regulars in the Men Going Their Own Way subreddit today.
In a post titled “Women/society made us think we were losers,” a proud MGTOW warrior calling himself shogunronin looks back with nostalgia on what he sees as the golden age of the nineties.
As a man who was gifted with growing up in the nineties, I experienced a time when women were c**ts but not as egotistical, a time where political correctness only was conjured in parliamentary buildings.
Ah, the nineties, “a time where SJWs were too busy listening to Korn or Marliyn Manson” to cause much trouble and when “fat women [weren’t] trying so hard to raise their sexual market value above men.” (Or at least above the sort of men who post angry manifestos on the MGTOW subreddit.)
How far we have fallen! In the nightmare world of today, some of these fatties actually have the gall to think of themselves as valuable human beings who deserve respect from others.
Now, we live in the times of self-made female celebrities, single mother culture, the media who language shames anyone who speaks the truth, down to the gagging of conservative thinkers on popular social media platforms, fat shaming and it’s reactionaries,
Er, in case you had trouble diagramming that last sentence, I think that bit at the end means he’s mad anyone complains about fat-shaming.
He continues, making up words as he goes:
And lastly, the detasteful rise of Feminism and their eternal hatred for anything with a dick. As a result of the army of manginas, white knights, beta-facebook pleasers, man-begging on dating platforms, women now are in control of the dating market and are free to act how they wish.
Imagine, women — some of them fatties! — actually having the gall to reject good and decent, if maybe just a teensy bit misogynistic, men like shogunronin!
They are free to treat a man like crap because 50 others are queing up on her social media account. Some women are even calling themselves celebrities as 5,000 manginas cheerlead her on Twitter in the hopes of one day bagging those golden vagina lips that could never do anything wrong.
You may wonder what exactly shogunronin thinks vagina lips are doing wrong. Robbing banks? Writing bad checks? Going to see Lady Ghostbusters?
Shogunronin does not specify. He is apparently more angry at the owners of these “golden vagina lips” for refusing him and other perfectly decent woman-hating men access to said lips.
I believe MGTOW is a reaction to the woman uprising. Men who are sick and tired of female priviledge in both society and the court room. If you noticed, MGTOW on the internet had risen just about the same time that online dating went mainstream. It is a F**K YOU to all women who think they’re above men. We are going our own way, bye hunny.
But shogunronin isn’t just angry at women and the manginas who love them too much. He’s also mad at pickup artists for suggesting that the value of men is determined in large part by the hotness of the hot babes they date (or date rape).
Yes, that’s right. There’s actually a portion of his manifesto that sort of has a point.
As a man in my early twenties, I was indoctrinated into the PUA cult. I was led to believe that if i couldn’t attract a woman than I was a failure with women which equaled a failure at life. It was only after reaching my later twenties that I began to realise how dangerous this mindset can be.
Alas, after this brief moment of clarity, shogunronin is once against swallowed up by the ideological fog of MGTOWism.
Women were the only ones who benefitted from the PUA movement.
Because nothing benefits women more than having an army of aggressively creepy dudes using every psychological trick in the book to overcome “last-minute resistance” and get them into bed. (Or just plain date raping them if that don’t work)
It turned awesome men into tools. It provided women with a stream of unappreciated attention. It was full of men who went out building their entire confidence around women. I know this because we would discuss how shitty we felt when being rejected multiple times in one day and successful when we got laid. Women were constantly pressuring men to impress them, and now with the rise of social media dating, women have a eternal pool of meatheads and manginas who are thirsty.
Sorry, MGTOW dudes. Your self-esteem problems are not the fault of women who don’t want to have sex with you.
We now live in a culture that demonises men and rewards women for their shitty behaviour.
Apparently he’s very angry that women are “rewarded” for saying no to sex with men they don’t like by, er, not actually having to have sex with men they don’t like?
THE HORROR.
A fat whale now has access to the more attractive men while the average joe has to ‘brand’ himself both metaphorically and physically just to meet the outlandish standards of modern women.
How dare these “fat whales” only sleep with men they’re attracted to and who want to have sex with them!
The truth is none of us were losers because of these women,
TRUE. Your loserdom has nothing to do with these women.
the truth is women priced themselves out of the dating market.
NOT TRUE. They just said “no” to you when you came at them with your PUA bag of tricks.
Upon being MGTOW, I have been financially better off, I have been happier, I have more time to follow my passions in life other than chasing some egotistical self-made celebrity c**t.
Apparently one of these passions is posting bitter, woman-hating manifestos on the MGTOW subreddit.
Life is good for me now.
I don’t … actually believe you. This manifesto is pretty obviously not the work of a man enjoying the good life.
Not surprisingly, the regulars in the MGTOW subreddit disagree with me on this point, applauding shogunronin’s mini-manifesto and responding with mini-manifestos of their own.
2045_revolution laments how exploitative the current sexual marketplace is. Exploitative of men, that is. Sure, he admits,
Men may use women as wet holes attached to a uterus, but women use men as wallets and sources of high quality genetic material. It gets demoralizing. As a man, the best you can hope for is to be a strong and healthy host for a female parasite to latch onto. When you think of guys in their expensive clothes, expensive cars, etc just advertising how filled with resources they are to parasites, it loses its appeal.
Meanwhile, 2045_revolution complains, some women he thinks aren’t so hot are trying to date men he thinks are hotter!
Internet dating and the rise of PUA culture have created a generation of crap women who think they are amazing catches. It used to be that a woman who as a 6 knew she was a 6. Now the 4s and 5s think they are 8s because of all the validation they get from thirsty men.
How dare women have the gall to try to date men they find attractive!
People can ridicule MGTOW all they want, but the exodus is really just starting. I think there will be sociological consequences. In ten years there will be tons of angry MGTOW men and bitter, used up women who got kicked off the CC. A society full of angry, bitter women (many of whom will be single mothers) who chased a hypergamous fantasy and ended up feeling used and empty handed, and lots of angry, bitter MGTOW men who felt ignored and devalued is what we are looking at. Nobody will win.
And if single mothers think they can have 2045_revolution’s “beta bucks,” well, NUH-UH!
Just as there is not an infinite supply of male 9s and 10s willing to enter committed, monogamous relationships with female 5s, 6s and 7s, there is not an infinite suppply of gainfully employed male 6s and 7s willing to clean up these women’s messes as they push 40. I say this as a BB who has had a half dozen single mothers try to use him in the last few years.
A fellow calling himself cheaperautoinsurance puts the blame on “smartphones and social media” for “basically destroy[ing] american women,” presumably because so many dudes who want to have sex with them say nice things about their selfies and sometimes send them lovely photos of their penises.
For blackierobinsun2, though, the roots of our current situation are rather more basic:
Women f**ked up America when they wanted jobs
Most of these btches going to college only work for a couple of years to end up getting pregnant and not wanting to work again, stupid whore just wasted a college degree and stole a job opportunity from a man feeding his family
Such a tragedy that blackierobinsun2 is taking himself out of the marriage market. What a lovely husband and father he could be!
Let me say it again: If you’re going your own way, fellas, just freaking GO. Lead your own life however the hell you want, as long as you’re not hurting anyone else in the process. Just stop cluttering up the internet with your ridiculous rants.
He came back!
Magic IS real!
(Though i guess he’s migrating down the page. Aw, come on little guy, come on back up here, it’s okay)
No discussion about awesome women with beards can be complete without a mention of the only person whom Judge Dredd was intimidated by; Chief Judge Evelyne Mcgruder…
http://www.tenerdo.org/img.php?img=cards/megacity/mcgruder.jpg&height=0
Oh, you. Nobody is emotionally upset. We’re mocking you. That’s what the blog is for! Mocking misogyny. It says so right up there at the header. Nobody is even trying to hide it.
How was Cassie Jaye punished exactly? Some people criticized her based on what she said about the movie because it appears that she’s brushing the misogyny inherent to red pill ideology aside. Some of us worried about her safety because they’re very quick to turn on the women they let in the clubhouse and they do it in a very nasty way. As soon as a woman steps out of line, she’s treated as the enemy and subject to the same threats, harassment and misogyny as the rest of us.
Compare to this to the treatment that women such as Anita Sarkeesian, Brianna Wu or Zoe Quinn get for incurring the wrath of anti-feminists. They get a whole faux social movement formed for the express purpose of harassing them!
@Mick, if you’re worried about triggering someone, that’s great! Showing concern for others is important. Read Paradoxical Intention’s lovely comment on the concept of triggering, and especially the part that says that this is not a safe space, so it’s okay to be a bit on-the-nose if you must! Then go ahead and reply to Brony, who makes great points.
As for the “rights” question, it’s an interesting enough question but sort of a distraction. It’s certainly not a religious belief, though – you misunderstand both rights and religion if you hold to that tack. If you believe that human rights are a religion, you also would have to believe that, like, all social interactions are religious, too! Rights are a convenient and useful way to refer to the ways in which we interact with one another, that’s all. They’re our social expectations.
So, with all that being said – go ahead and reply to Brony and Paradoxy! I’m sure everyone is eager to read your reply.
PS: How was your exam? What was it about?
Dumbass, you’ve been told this before but don’t seem to have absorbed it: “rights” are defined by philosophy, not feminism. This is as stupid as saying you don’t think a = a, and demanding that feminists explain that to you.
Where is your intelligence? In your safe? Under your mattress? Because there is certainly none of it on display here.
And it’s misandry!
http://media.tumblr.com/1f6029dcfe31cf0ee89fad58b84753ba/tumblr_inline_mrcnvzUiVe1qz4rgp.gif
@ mick dash
You’re not the first person to question the existence of rights. Bentham for example regarded the whole concept as “nonsense on stilts”, but he was scared of pubic hair so I’m not sure we can trust him.
Most people now understand the concept of rights, even if they don’t agree on what they should be.
Generally they’re a set of expectations that society agrees are desirable and that the authorities should protect, or at least not interfere with.
The European Convention on Human Rights is one example but there are others. Regulars here may have guessed from my obsession with composting toilets that I think access to clean water is or at least should be a universal human right.
And that ‘universal’ is the key term. However we define rights and then decide what actual rights are desirable, they’re meant to apply to everyone. Or at least to all competent adult members of the same society.
So feminism is a simple concept. It’s just saying that whatever rights are in place, they should be equally applicable to both men and women.
May i join you in saying that this is suuuper important (Universal access to clean water and sanitation), and that the commodification of water and sanitation is one of the single most disgusting travesties of civilization I can think of. There are a thousand examples of the evil that this does.
I find myself wondering if Mick reserves his skepticism only for rights.
Where is your language right now? Can you hold language in your hand? Put it in a safe? When a language dies, does it leave a body that can be buried? How do we know language exists if you can’t put it under your mattress?
I’ve never been able to touch or smell the number one. We need to be skeptical about math.
But if we want to be rigorous about this, we need to question whether our senses are real. You know, can you touch your sense of touch? Can you put it in a safe? Can you put vision under your mattress? If not, where is your vision right now? Seems to me that by your standards, we need to be super-skeptical that our senses exist, since we can’t hold them in our hands.
And since our senses are really questionable, those things that you think you can hold in your hand? How can you know those exist, since your sense of touch is itself is probably imaginary?
I can’t believe that this is something that someone somewhere is saying right now.
Faux-nihilists are my favorite kind of idiots though. That subtle mix of mental masturbation, and utter lack of self-awareness. Artful stupid. I love it.
@ scildfreja
I would be honoured. I won’t derail this thread but at some stage I’d love to chat about this further. I can also share some amusing/tragic tales from a friend who used to work for the UN on water security.
@Mick Dash
What proof do you have for your claim that rights are a myth? Are all social constructs myths, or just this one? Is money a myth? Sure, you can hold a dollar in your hand, but that is only a symbol for the value behind it, so do you consider that value to also be a myth? Accepting that rights are a social construct, why does it matter when they came about? If you don’t believe in rights does that mean it’s okay with you if someone comes along and puts shackles on you and forces you to perform labor for them?
@Nickleback
From bell hooks’ definition of feminism:
This is predicated on the existence of rights. Oppression literally means:
How can anything be considered unjust without a standard by which to judge? How can authority be exercised except by being somehow entrusted with that power? That’s rights. Not all rights are good, and not all good rights are good all the time. Rights constantly conflict with each other. When they do, we strive to find the best resolution to the conflict. See, bell hooks understands rights (Feminism is for Everybody even takes shots at dudes who think feminism isn’t about rights), so why don’t you?
Ooooh. Good, a reply! A singular reply that doesn’t address anything else I said, but a reply!
How is Cassie Jay being “punished”? Which feminist(s)/organizations are “punishing” her? How did she “challenge the dogma” of feminism? What specific “dogma” did she question?
Here’s my answer: She’s not being “punished”. She’s introduced a dialogue. Disagreement, no matter how vocal, is not a “punishment”.
She said she wanted to make a ‘balanced’ documentary about the Red Pill, and quite frankly, no one here, or any feminist I’m aware of, wants to stop her. She can do what she likes. It’s one of the great things about feminism! Choice for women! She can choose to do this if she wants, and while I can’t speak for everyone here, I for one am interested to see what she comes up with.
We don’t oust someone for being a feminist solely for reporting on the manosphere, even if they wish to do so in a “balanced” or even “favorable” light. The manosphere actually does bring up a lot of good points that need to be addressed when it comes to men and how we treat men in society. (We feminists just think that the manosphere’s approach of “it’s always a woman’s fault!”, and the “solutions” of “make women suffer to make me feel better!” are bullshit.)
There are concerns though. Her movie is being pretty much exclusively funded by the MRM and those who are part of it. She’s only shown footage of interviews with people who are part of the MRM for her “balanced” documentary. No where does she seem to speak to people who have been harmed by the manosphere’s ideals, or by people who have left it, or even by feminists, who are their main ideological opponents.
She doesn’t seem to be giving a “balanced” view of the MRM, as she promised. She seems to be pandering to the people who funded her.
It’s all well and good to want to show their good points, and I expected (and welcomed) that, but the manosphere’s done a lot of damage as well. They harass, dox, threaten, and attack people (of all genders) quite frequently. To ignore that wouldn’t be fair (or “balanced”) to anyone.
We are also all worried for her safety.
The people of the Red Pill, and the Manosphere in general, have not been kind to women who they feel have rebuffed them. Wooly Bumblebee is a great example, and so is this article about Christina Hoff Summers, the go-to feminist for the manosphere and people like GamerGate and Neo-Nazis.
The manosphere has been known to eat its own at the drop of a hat, doubly so if their target is a woman. The moment their “favored” women toe the line, that’s it. They’re fair game.
We have shown this concern about many women who consort with the manosphere. We don’t agree with them, or their ideals, but we don’t want harm to come to them from it.
In response to David’s coverage, she accused David of “bullying” her by sending her two emails in an interview with Sargon of Akkad.
Then there’s the fact that we haven’t heard anything from her since the movie was announced and the hub-bub that occurred afterwards.
I don’t think you know what “triggered” is bruh. Please refer to my previous comment to you on that one. You need a refresher.
And yes, respond to Brony’s points. Then respond to mine.
And, as a feminist, I don’t think you actually know the meaning of the word, definitions or no. It’s one thing to know the definition of a word, but it’s another thing entirely to actually know the meaning of it. Certain words carry a lot of weight, history, and expectations. “Feminist” is one of them.
I daresay you should at least finish your gender studies class before you consider yourself a “feminist”.
On top of that, I’m assuming you’re a man?
No offense, but I personally believe that men need to work doubly hard to prove themselves to be “feminists”. There have been too many instances of men using the label to hit on or harss women or to shove their way into spaces that don’t belong to them so they can speak over women.
Actions over words, dude. And your actions have been found wanting.
Several other people already addressed this nonsense, so I’ll just let you defer to them for the most part.
However, I would like to ask you a question: If you were to be murdered tomorrow, would you want your murderer to be put on trial?
Because how do we know laws exist? Because they’re on a piece of paper? Because people made them and spread awareness of them? If there are no laws, then why do we prosecute murderers?
@Mick Dash
Deja vu
I’ve just been in this place before
Higher on the street
And I know it’s my time to go
Calling you, and the search is a mystery
Standing on my feet
It’s so hard when I try to be me, woah
@Mick Dash
You got triggered. Then you projected it onto us.
With regard to rights, many of them are written into law. That means, for example, that a person who is arrested in the USA cannot be forced to talk without a lawyer present. A confession cannot be beaten out of a person. Lynching cannot occur.
That’s because that person has rights. No, you can’t see them or smell them or taste them or touch them or hear them.
Does the fact that these rights are sometimes not honored mean that they aren’t real? No. They’re still very real. And sometimes the person who doesn’t honor rights is put on trial and sent to prison for not respecting other people’s rights (in other words, for breaking the law).
Some wished-for rights are not written into law — or at least, not yet. If enough people agree that these wished-for rights should become law, they will be.
Take the Declaration of Independence:
Some colonists believed in these wished-for rights so much that they boldly declared them to be real and then fought a war over them. Had they lost, they could have been hung as traitors. But they won, and those rights are now part of USA law. The laws are enforced in an imperfect way, but they are still laws.
Of course, you learned all this in grade school.
@Alan, @Scildfreja
Thirding both of you!
You got triggered. Then you projected it onto us.
Short-short story?
“No where does she seem to speak to people who have been harmed by the manosphere’s ideals, or by people who have left it, or even by feminists, who are their main ideological opponents.”
I think she did get some interviews with some feminists to kind of give some counter point to the MRAs from what I saw in the movie trailer
As to the whole am I a feminist? No, not in the mainstream definition you usually find; some words have more than one definition. What I mean is I’m against sexism and sexist exploitation – that’s how Bell Hooks defined it in her book.
“1) Solid reasons for why “…theories like hypergamy theory are falsifiable and testable, and quantifiable in terms of data…” with respect to women and why you don’t think this would apply to men. Those are not just words…”
ok, trying to address your points below
“, you need to give us the scientific testable questions”
1. Do women initiate most divorces?
2. Do women benefit disproportionately from the marriage/divorce game (alimony, child support etc)
3. Do men pay more on dates?
4. Do women financially benefit from the dating game?
5. Do women reject men because of them not having enough income, job or credit score?
6. Do women tend to cheat on their husband with a better looking guy?
7. Do women have non-committal sex in their early twenties before settling into committed relationships and marriages in their late twenties and early thirties?
8. Do they mostly have sex in their twenties with much better than average looking guys (mostly)
9. and then “settle” later for financially well-off guys
,” the null hypotheses”,
1. No, women are equally loyal in terms of intitiating divorce
2. No, women do not make money off divorce raping guys, that totally never happens (or it is an abberation anyway)
3. No, there is no “dating pay gap”
4. No, women don’t just jump from guy to guy so the guys can buy them stuff (or at least it’s an abberration)
5. No, women don’t care about a guy’s job or income in evaluating him as a v̶i̶c̶t̶i̶m̶ boyfriend
6. No, women never cheat
7. No, women are equally likely to commit or not at any age
8. No, women don’t really care about looks in whom they have sex with
9. no, they might marry a guy who is richer or poorer, there is no statistical significance
“and demonstrate falsifiability.”
Data which proves women don’t cheat, don’t financially exploit men through the dating game and marriage/divorce game
Example: alimony stats showing 50/50 alimony,
2) Solid reasons for why “…esoteric faith-based dogmas like “patriarchy theory” and “male privilege”…” is an accurate description. Why is it faith-based? Why is it dogmatic? Where is the unjustified belief and unreasonably unquestionable features?
The real question is: where is the evidence for “male privilege”? If it’s not evidence -based, it’s faith based.
What would be the null hypothesis and falsifiability?
3) Why is feminism a religion? What do you mean by religion? I only see you using a negative context, why are you doing that?
I don’t mean it to be negative. I simply mean that it has a faith – based organized belief system with supernatural elements
4) Why do you believe “… alpha f.cks beta bucks…” deserves recognition the same as in #1?
Well, it’s basically part of the hypergamy theory – it suggests women have casual sex with very good looking guys but settle down a little later in life with a well to do guy to get $$$
I think that’s pretty common across all people. Most people don’t find the perfect relationship for them on the first try.
Edit: Also, not everyone is interested in a committed relationship or marriage. My statement is regarding those who are.
@Mick Dork
There is a limit.
You swap your viewpoints more than
A flea marketeer.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4DyauAgit0E
Well shit. I got something to do after work tomorrow. Interesting so far. Given a scientifically testable question is supposed to be based upon patterns that are agreed to exist now I look forward to considering Mick Dash’s links that demonstrate such patterns. If the lazy ass gets around to posting them. Because we do need to know where they got this stuff to assess if it is scientific and not just assumptions based on one person’s experience of reality.
Seriously. How many early 20 something men want to get married? Why is it bad for women to want to test the waters a bit and not men.
Also, both men and women tend to have more money in their thirties than they do in their twenties. So obviously a couple who gets married at 21 are going to have less money than a couple getting married at 31.
Hypergamy is marrying up in social status. That’s it. I’m too lazy to look it up, but from what I’ve read in the past, most people marry within their own socioeconomic status.
“Why is it bad for women to want to test the waters a bit and not men.”
Why is anything to be presumed “good” or “bad” for that matter?