Who knew that deep down, Men Going Their Own Way were really secret romantics?
In the midst of a tirade against the “childish, immature, cruel and narcissist[ic]” women of today, one Redditor Going His Own Way posits that it is men, not women, who are the truly romantic ones.
In a post on the MGTOW subreddit, FloydMayweatherGOAT declares
Men have superior intellect, Men work harder,Men are stronger, Men are more moral and kind, Men are more romantic,
As for the ladies:
Women only have wet holes to offer and that isnt even that grand.
Huh. That doesn’t really sound very, well, romantic.
They’re all just illusions , take away the make up, perfume, done up hair and fancy clothes and ask yourself what is she really offering me? Women are worthless in my opinion … I will ignore every Woman and view her as beneath me from this day forth. Men stop being intimidated by Women, You are better than Women in Every Single way. Destroy the illusion.
Not sure any of this is really helping your “men are more romantic” argument, dude, but I am definitely in favor of your plan to personally ignore all women from this day forth. Perhaps while sitting in a hut on one of these lovely islands?
Go forth, young MGTOW, and go your own damn way already!
In the meantime, I have made some more lovely greeting cards inspired by FloydMayweatherGOAT’s romantic philosophy.
Hm who created that illusion in the first, place, and demanded pretty by whatever societal pressures? Was it people with dicks? Nah that couldn’t be it. It’s not even Valentine’s Day and they can’t even get their wax poetic right. MGTOW we’re going away, after we finish our 500k epic on how much we don’t care about women. On another note, those quotes, ew.
http://e97f7d10b0a403e208e5-9fbee7de8d51db511b5de86d75069107.r75.cf1.rackcdn.com/4523952050_34e002804b_b.jpg
thank you, David.
your cards made me lol.
For someone so important and intelligent and superior in every way, he sure has bad grammar.
Take a deep breath and lay off on the capitals there, tiger.
Nothing says more moral and kind than reducing half the planet to wet holes.
A lot of similar sentiments being expressed on that thread, for example “Ignore them & prosper, if you want/need to fuck.. fuck a prostitute, at least they are sluts who admit what they are” Hopeless romantic.
Clearly they are the masters of all things romantic. /s
And he wonders why nobody wants him…and why nobody is fooled by his “rejection”.
And then he slinks off to cry out of those two (or three?) wet face-holes.
Why do I get the impression that the entirety of these losers’ experience with women is derived from half-literate scribblings on mens room walls?
I’m wondering if some MRA-ish types are actually heterosexual but homoromantic. Wouldn’t it be tragic if that were true.
More likely they’re just the type who demand that women be as not-masculine as possible, because to be otherwise violates their sense of order in the world. And then are disappointed, because that’s not the kind of personality that they’re attracted to. And aren’t self-aware enough to notice the source of their conflict.
Awww…so romantic! They deserve a nice long walk upon an endless path paved with legos!
They sure yap on about how much wet holes don’t matter to them whatsoever. You’d almost believe them! (Provided that you read nothing they write, and never are so as unfortunate to encounter a MGTOW in the wild.)
“Someone tell Women that I am not talking to them ever forever because they’re all stupid doody heads!”
All I can think of is that old quote, sometimes attributed to the Pashtuns but most likely pure fiction: “A woman for duty, a boy for pleasure, a melon for ecstasy.”
The tragedy is, of course, any self-respecting human would want nothing to do with them, and even the melon would roll away if it could.
Isn’t that rich, coming from somebody unlikely to ever experience an aroused woman.
Remember to take the ‘1001 Easy Ways With Leftover Seagull’ cookbook when you leave, sweetheart.
But not to you, I take it?
Bruh, who you tryna convince? Is the MGTOW sub the only community that still buys the ‘I don’t even want it anyway’ routine? Cos that shit is transparent af…
Slightly OT, but, the feminist Dorothy Sayers would agree that men are more romantic than women–in that men are the ones who invented and defined what we think of romance as even being (especially with how heavily it relies on the ideas of feminine mystery and capriciousness).
She wrote in her introduction to Dante’s Purgatory:
(The bigger context is well worth a read; I found a good excerpt at http://talkingpiffle.tumblr.com/post/124767099159/dorothy-l-sayers-on-courtly-love )
Basically, she argues, women understand that men are individual people, and therefore work to build connection with the individual men she deals with. Men often don’t recognize women as individual people, and therefore they construct this whole notion of “romance” as a baffling maelstrom of ritual and performance to try and crack the code of the feminine mystique. The romantic demands that men complain about are in fact part of a framework that men, not women, dreamed up in the first place.
…But needless to say, I don’t think that’s quite what that MGHOW is alleging.
OK, the rain one made me laugh…
Oh my giddy aunt (or, perhaps, my digressive Dowager Duchess), Sayers blogs. Thank you very much, Kootiepatra – that’s my evening sorted.
@Snowberry
“I’m wondering if some MRA-ish types are actually heterosexual but homoromantic. Wouldn’t it be tragic if that were true”
Please no, no. This is an old , old homophobic thrope. Gay people are gay, bc they hate the opposite sex. These sentiments come from misogny , not from supressed feelings for other men.
It’s pretty grand.
FloydMayweatherGOAT
http://previews.123rf.com/images/dclipart/dclipart1101/dclipart110101277/8682800-Defending-goat-with-a-boxing-gloves-Sport-mascot-animals-illustration-color-b-w-versions–Stock-Vector.jpg
Did anyone read far enough into the thread to where a guy admitted to raping a woman? Not that he or anyone else could use the word rape.
You’re living proof of that, FloydMayweatherGOAT!
Mister GOAT, I’m crushed that no member of my sex has been able to satisfy you.
Bravely stated, Floyd.
But you know that, as a Man Going His Own Way, you cannot ignore women. No, it turns out that to “go your own way” actually means to “go our way.” So you will follow close behind us, stepping on our heels and yelling at us about how useless we are.
@snowberry
Woah, that’s treading way too close to closet-shaming and armchair psychoanalysis for comfort.
On a tangentially related note, we have this delightful opinion piece on Peter Thiel that’s being shared on social media, entitled “Peter Thiel Shows Us There’s a Difference Between Gay Sex and Gay”, though it might as well have been entitled “I Skipped the Lecture on Intersectionality in My Intro to Sociology Module In Sophomore Year, and Somehow Still Managed to Become an Associate Professor of History”.
Link: http://www.advocate.com/commentary/2016/10/14/peter-thiel-shows-us-theres-difference-between-gay-sex-and-gay
@antisocialite
Ick.
And I’ll bet that it was bragging.
I’m sorry that you came across that. Take good care of yourself.
@ Maximilán: People who are heterosexual but homoromantic are most definitely *not* gay. They’re not even bisexual in the normal sense. It’s also questionable if they count as purely straight. It’s kind of a category all on it’s own. And it’s a very difficult and uncomfortable place to be.
I would imagine that some men who had such conflicted natures and *also* bought into patriarchal heteronormativity… would most likely resent women for not being both women and men simultaneously. That would explain both a strong attraction to and rejection of them.
There might be other reasons to condemn what I said that I’m not aware of. I realized that I might be walking into a landmine here when I posted it. But I’m not seeing how it’s homophobic unless it’s also simultaneously heterophobic, or else one considers sex to be the end-all and be-all of romantic relationships. I did say that I considered it unlikely speculation, if that helps (Though I suspect it wouldn’t).