Category Archives: MGTOW

MGTOW: Rejecting the 4P’s

Men are providers, protectors, predators and perverts: REJECTED! MGTOW

MGTOW reject the social stereotypes assigned to men: that we are providers, protectors, predators and perverts.

Advertisements

Cleaning up after Sandman: MGTOW without the BS

As a MGTOW, I disagree with +Sandman, and I believe that this video mocking Sandman’s is well-deserved.

Sandman, whose job it is to produce one video per day, regardless of the quality has long-ago fallen over the cliff of wild-eyed conspiracy theory. I have deep disagreements with him for a number reasons. 1. He’s an all-or-nothing thinker, 2. He is an Us vs. Them thinker, 3. He’s a crappy thinker.

Allow me to set the record straight.

MGTOW is a label applied to the observation that fewer and fewer men are choosing to engage in marriage or long-term sexual relationships with women, to avoid the potential negative repercussions of a legal and cultural system that often creates deleterious consequences to us.

Culturally, men are treated as providers, protectors and predators. This may lead to legal issues where, too often, the tendency is to accept women’s accusations on the mere basis of instinct, socialization and now, policy.

On the legal front are the effects of police policies, divorce court and family court, which can have the potential consequences of man to losing his current and future wealth, his home and his family, all with the commensurate effects to his health and well-being.

MGTOW is the observation that an increasing number of men are choosing the risk management strategy of steering clear of a potential minefield, and not attempting navigating it with his fingers crossed.

On a more personal level, many men have learned that we can be quite happy when not adhering to the common social convention of serial monogamy, and often better when we assign the meaning and value of our life based on our choices, rather than those so commonly accepted by society.

That having been said, there are people who unthinkingly argue about “What MGTOW is” and wantonly attach all kind of pseudo-philosophies, observations, facts, falsehoods and batshit-insanies as those presented by Sandman, then incorrectly attach this body of notions to the observation as if these were the same.

Those who are observant and sound thinkers will recognize that MGTOW, one aspect of the general men’s movement, involves the revision of socially expected sex roles and the acceptance or rejection thereof, à la carte as meets each man’s individual needs and from his perspective.

Tagged

The conspiracy of “MGTOW’s subversion”

To those who think that MGTOW can be “inflitrated” or “coopted” or “subverted” I ask the following question: since when did the observation that fewer and fewer men are engaging in relationships with women for the purpose of reducing a vector of risk from state interference become some organization or club that can be attacked?  And for what purpose? To induce men into becoming vulnerable to State attack by getting them to marry?

Think about it.

The following is an extract that I think might shed a bit of light on the issue.

In “Subversion of Social Movements by Adversarial Agents”  Eric L. Nelson outlines “thirteen suppressive or subversive methods” to bring about “social movement failure.” Failures are classified as either “petit” or “complete,” depending on whether the targeted movement or organization is merely demoralized and shaken up, or completely “brought down.”

The methods, each of them explained and illustrated, are:

1) Suppress Information Flow;

2) Suppress Recruiting Efforts;

3) Reduce Recruiting Opportunities

4) Develop Attractive Alternatives;

5) Tempt Members to Leave;

6) Reverse Recruiting Using Demoralizing Information;

7) Operationalize Secure/Faux Concessions;

8) Expertly Directed, Incessant Proactive Manipulation of Media;

9) Resource Depletion;

10) Stigmatization;

11) Divisive Disruption;

12) Intimidation; and

13) Intrapsychic Wounding.

The article ends with the following (abbreviated for this post) conclusion.

“Thirteen tested and theoretical methods of subversion reviewed here were designed to induce petit or grand failure into targeted social movements. History demonstrates that in the laboratory of real life multiple methods of subversion are generally deployed sequentially and concurrently, in accordance with the tactical strategy developed by adversarial agents specific to a targeted social movement.”

Too many people are conflating simple disagreement and very sloppy thinking of a very sloppy term with some sort of social conspiracy.

C’mon guys. Focus on what is important: your control over your life, and helping other men effectively deal with the currently hostile legal and cultural environment so that we can live the best life that we can, regardless of the current state of the world.

Tagged ,

My God! That Obstinate Woman!

MGTOW actually stands for “My God! That Obstinate Woman!”

MGTOW: My God! That Obstinate Woman!

A little Sunday humour.

Tagged ,

It’s a Ma’am’s world

Two excellent analogies for how men and women currently interact relative to the Feminist hypothesis of Patriarchy, the alleged one-sided “oppression” of women. Men call it being treated like a disposable utility, in the case of these analogies, a hireling, someone who gets the job done then is told to take a hike.

Feminism purports “oppression” without acknowledging the benefits (“the privileges”) that come with the contract, and so uses this as a moral justification to demonize men. Many men see this set up as being taken advantage of.

Either both engage in the contract, or not. When men choose not to, because they see the contract as being inequitable, it’s called “MGTOW.” When men try to bring awareness of this, and change the laws that have taken this cultural norm of a contract into law, it’s called Men’s Rights Activism. When people simply discuss this issue free of the Feminist framework, it’s called Men’s Issues Advocacy.

Dear Feminists: want to smash the patriarchy? Be completely self-reliant, and make any exchange a mutually agreeable contract: do your own work, fend for yourself. We men certainly do. Feminists have spent years demonizing men, pointing to only to men’s advantages, and ignoring their obligations and disadvantages, while focusing exclusively on women’s inconveniences and ignoring the advantages that the contract brings them.

I especially appreciate the author’s conclusion: men have to stop offering, and women have to stop expecting. Women only expect the incessant freebies because men so undervalue what they have to offer, and so overvalue what women have to offer that they pay to give it away. “Oh! You want to go to Montana? Let me take you there, and while we’re at it, I’ll pay you for the trip! Can I throw in some extra free lunches for you? Would that incite you to ride my bus?”

We men are half the problem.

Tagged , , , ,

This is the real basis of Feminism

Woman High On Drugs Finds Out She is Fat.

Admittedly, there’s something that’s quite funny about the video. But at the same time, what this drug induced person, whose inhibitions and self-awareness are obviously shut right down, is showing us the uncensored contents of her psyche.

There is not a single woman that I know that doesn’t feel this way, or fear it, despite their great pains to hide it.

And this, my friends, is the true root of Feminism: the inner turmoil that comes from our primal urge to belong. There was once a time when what people struggled for were women’s freedoms as granted by rights. Those goals having been accomplished, today’s identity politics Radical Feminism is based on assuaging that which gives the urge to howl.

Men are rapists! Why? Because men find some women so sexy that they can’t help themselves, is the unspoken narrative. This is the inverse of the video, it is being so sexually attractive that belonging is beyond inevitable, to the point that others are crazed beyond self-restraint.

Women are oppressed by The Patriachy. Why? Because we care for victims. The greater the victim a woman is, the more she will be cared for, even if they have to alienate everyone to get it.

Feminism is nothing more than the wounded. I would suggest that we teach them that men in general have our equivalents and to the degree that they stop behaving abusively, and increase basic human courtesy and respect, they’re chances of getting what they want will improve.

Dear Feminist women. You’ve got every single right in law that men have, and some that we don’t. That’s covered. We instinctively love you, despite our better judgment at times. That’s covered. Your final step is to abandon your means-goal driven ideology and to focus on what you really want: the best life that you can have, including genuine, deep and rich relationships based on respect.

Failure to do so will only continue to drive more and more men away.

Tagged

Men discuss MGTOW

This is copy of a comment discussion prompted by a Barbrossa video. A commenter made a request.

Eric Schiedler 10:03 PM

If practical to do so, please transfer a summary of this excellent discussion to another venue or platform. It will otherwise be lost in the depths of the archives.

Consider it done, Eric.

Francis Roy's YouTube avatar iconFrancis Roy

commented on a video on YouTube.

I don’t understand, Babrrossa. From my point of view, you seem to intentionally misunderstand the arguments that are being made. Both Elam and Clary have taken great pains to distinguish between two clearly identifiable groups of men who refer to themselves as MGTOW.The first is the average guy who has been harmed, and since he cannot move to another country, or live on a desert island to protect himself against harmful legal, cultural and biologically influenced conditions, chooses to withdraw from certain behaviours, namely that of making women central, or even important, to his life.

The second are those men who exhibit the following traits: a fear-based avoidance of women as sexual beings, being highly vocal about their resentment toward women, and a clannish mentality with those who exhibit the same traits.

An illustration: there is a clear distinction between the man who hires the best attorneys and accountants to pay the least amount of tax possible, and those who scurrilously evades taxes out of political resentment and convince themselves to believe that they are being spied on by the CIA and make a public display of being hypervigilant for black helicopters.

Can you not see that there is a clearly defined distinction between the two? Both previously mentioned authors have made this distinction clearly. There is a set of behaviours that transcends MGTOW that is being pointed to. These behaviours can be found in Feminists, the religious and those involved in any group whose identity is based on being in opposition to another group; it is an us vs. them mentality imbued with fear and resentment, and a very vocal justification thereof.

The point that I haven’t seen Elam and Clary make word for word, is that the reason why this should be addressed is that it is an unhealthy attitude for men to hold. Men, I believe, in an ideal world should be at peace, internally. The negative attitude that both point out counters this.

MGTOW is not about women, it is about men, and we focus on what we need, to live well. This does require that we consider the conditions that we have to work around, but there is the difference between the man that just wants to live well, and those who see themselves surrounded by enemies.

From my point of view, you seem to be intentionally ignoring a distinction that two people have taken great pains to specify as the qualifier to their comments.

If you like, please respond in what way you find most suitable. I’d be interested in talking about it, live and privately, if you prefer. I’d really like to better understand your position on the matter in light of my above comments.

Mgtow Misogyny

 

MultiShadow1979 Feb 19, 2015

So what?

 

Francis Roy Feb 19, 2015

+MultiShadow1979 Are you addressing me, MultiShadow1979? If so, the answer to “so what” is that Barbrossa’s reply to both Elam and Clary is to address a strawman, rather than the argument being made. I’m both MGTOW and MRA, the latter stems from the former. I choose to protect myself, and I also choose to encourage and support other men, to the best of my ability. It’s not an either-or.

 

MultiShadow1979 Feb 19, 2015

+Francis Roy “The second are those men who exhibit the following traits: a fear-based avoidance of women as sexual beings, being highly vocal about their resentment toward women, and a clannish mentality with those who exhibit the same traits.”

So what to this? So what if these guys are afraid to approach women sexually. So what if they resent women. Most of us here aren’t like this, so why should we care?If you, Clarey, and Elam are the ones with the problem, then why don’t you guys open some red pill dating site, or coach them PUA style on how to meet the right woman.. rather than just telling them to shut up or lumping them in with us.

 

Francis Roy Feb 19, 2015

“So what if these guys are afraid to approach women sexually. So what if they resent women. Most of us here aren’t like this, so why should we care”There are two distinctions built into this that could be put as questions:

“What’s wrong with conflating resentful incels, involuntary celibates (read: the emotionally/socially unskilled) for MGTOW?”

and the second is:

“Why should anyone care enough to speak on the matter?”

To answer the first: because these are two separate groups of men, with different motivations, assumptions, behaviours and expressed goals who use the same label. One might go so far as to over-simplify the distinction as those who view MGTOW as a justification for victim-mentality and those who view MGTOW as a simple practical description of self-respecting behaviour.

This leads us to answer the second question: why should we care? Public perception for one, but more importantly, I’d like to believe that we’d prefer to promote a man’s own inner well-being and positive attitude, which of course directly impacts the quality of his life and that of those around him.

That these two groups may have certain elements in common does not make them identical in both respects. The uninitiated man might overlook the laudable change of attitude of self-respecting MGTOW because what he first encounters are simply bitter, solutionless men who promote the assumption that men are oppressed.

To the degree that the two are conflated, so are the issues, attitudes and potential solutions.

 

Daniel Bowlin Feb 19, 2015

+Francis Roy I think the point here is why do elam and clarey and others even feel it necessary to point out things like this in the first place? why do they focus their attention on mgtow at all? it can only be to cause drama, nothing more.

 

MultiShadow1979 Feb 19, 2015

+Francis Roy The first distinction you are trying to make is based solely on a man’s ability to move on. This is not going to be the same for every man, and who are you to judge the actions of others within MGTOW?If you care about public perception, you’re missing the concept of MGTOW. It is simply a gathering of knowledge which all falls under the same category, and then the autonomy to do what one wants.. even if that is complaining about women.

 

 

 

Francis Roy

+Daniel Bowlin said ” I think the point here is why do elam and clarey and others even feel it necessary to point out things like this in the first place?”Are you actually asking the question “What is their motivation?” or are you suggesting that they have no right to do so? If the former, I’d have to refer you to them. If the latter, I’d wonder why one might think that someone should seek permission to discuss anything.

“why do they focus their attention on mgtow at all?”

Why do you? I’m going to guess for the same reasons. It touches our lives, it is a set of ideas that circulates in our spheres of influence. Then again, you’d have to ask them to know. Guessing at another’s motives and intentions is not quite the same as hearing their answer.

 

Francis Roy Feb 19, 2015

+MultiShadow1979 said “The first distinction you are trying to make is based solely on a man’s ability to move on.” To move on from what? I’m not quite clear on what you’re saying. Can you rephrase that, please?“If you care about public perception, you’re missing the concept of MGTOW.”

That’s just one part of it, and not the strongest, but on that point, MGTOW is a social phenomenon. Some people promote the notion of MGTOW as A and another group present it as B. Group A behaves one way, group B behaves another. There are those who care about whether people adopt the MGTOW label (I don’t) because they care about men in general (I do.)

To the degree that one manage to dissuade a new man from learning about MGTOW, and it’s potentially useful ideas, I would claim that they are doing that man a disservice. I speak to the men who are more of the resentful types, not to officiously inform them as to the True Meaning of MGTOW, but to remind them to see past their current stage. My personal goal in discussing with men is two-fold: the first, to learn how I can better improve my life, much as I would speak to other wood-workers, and to present them with ideas with how they can move past whatever gets in their way.

When I see the guys exclaim “All women are bitches!” I feel frustrated for a number of reasons. The first, is that the statement is patently false. No all anything is X. There are those who actively distinguish between a simple convenient generalized speech form, and there are those who buy into it. I also feel frustrated in that I recognize that such a statement is made by one who is giving his power away. This does not help men or women, or children, at the individual or social level. Another frustration that I have is that the AWAB group mutually reinforce each other’s point of view, and unfortunately influence newcomers and the less mentally and emotionally discriminating.

I don’t know, but I guess that Elam and Clary feel the same way. The point is not to shit on one lump group, or even on the AWAB group, but to get them to see past that. I for one, tend to approach these guys with compassion, in large part, because I was once of that kind of mindset myself. I think that Clary made his point with far more tact than Elam did. While I agree with the general thrust of PGTOW video as far as content and my perception of his intent, I think that his delivery drove a lot of men away.

 

Daniel Bowlin Feb 19, 2015

+Francis Roy fine then, I’m going to speculate that both elam and clarey have at least once in their lives wanted to approach a certain female and didn’t have the fucking guts to do it, since everything is on the table for discussion. the difference is: why would I give a shit?

Francis Roy Feb 19, 2015

+Daniel Bowlin asked “why would I give a shit?”That would be for you to answer, wouldn’t it? If anyone says anything “why would I give a shit?”

Does your ability and right to speak freely depend on my approval? Does anyone else’s on yours?

 

MultiShadow1979 Feb 19, 2015

+Francis Roy To move on from wanting something you cannot have.We only respond when someone brings a legitimate argument. Fear-mongering us that there is some sub-group of misogynists or Incels, or whatever.. is not a valid argument. So what if they ascribe to MGTOW. That is not a central tenet to MGTOW. People have a right to say what they want, that does not make what they say central to MGTOW. Elam should follow his own advice, and let other people “go their own way”.. and Clarey has no knowledge of the situation in the first place, he is making guesses as to hidden motives for people he does not know.

 

Francis Roy Feb 19, 2015

+MultiShadow1979 Going back to your original comment then following up here.“The first distinction you are trying to make is based solely on a man’s ability to move on. This is not going to be the same for every man, and who are you to judge the actions of others within MGTOW?”

It’s true, not every man will move on at the same pace. This does not mean that we should not speak out to their ideas or behaviour. As someone who was once the lowest common denominator representative of such a movement, it took me years to move on, and I did because the same idea was presented in a hundred different ways. As to the question of who am I to judge? I am myself, of course, and that is enough.

“Fear-mongering us that there is some sub-group of misogynists or Incels, or whatever.”

I don’t see it as fear mongering. There are those who legitimately behave in a misogynistic manner, and there is nothing wrong with speaking to that. We speak out when women behave in misandric ways, don’t we? And for the same reason: the ideas aren’t sound, the gullible accept, propagate and act upon the ideas which, in my opinion can be harmful to men in general.

“People have a right to say what they want, that does not make what they say central to MGTOW.”

Agreed and now we return once again to the crux of the issue. Group A says MGTOW is X, and Group B says MGTOW is Y. Both behave in a different manner yet vociferously claim to be authoritative and representative.

How is the newcomer to know? How is the media commentator doing the least bit of research possible before doing a piece on it to know? Even the well-spoken and articulate don’t seem to agree.

I for one, have no problem with addressing the obnoxious and telling them that they don’t represent me, or my ideas because we share a label of convenience–and there’s nothing wrong with that.

Barbrossa and Stardusk, it seems, have both declared that MRAs are somehow separate and distinct from MGTOW. In more than one video Barbrossa has exclaimed that MRAs are this or that. They have the right to say so, but it doesn’t make it any truer than anyone else making a counter-claim.

The problem, I think, is that people are trying to reduce proponents of one idea or another to members of exclusive groups that are unified around hard and fast ideas and tenets, ideas that not even the group members of any side agree to 100%. What frustrates me is a lack of nuance on everyone’s part, of hard divisions and exclamations as though that which is social and intangible and complex were reducible to black and white points. In this video (and maybe a couple more) I find that Barbrossa seems to ignore or fail to acknowledge a bit of essential nuance, once incidentally, that to your credit, you took up immediately.

 

MultiShadow1979 Feb 20, 2015

+Francis Roy Group A says MGTOW is X, and Group B says MGTOW is Y. Both behave in a different manner yet vociferously claim to be authoritative and representative. – This is likely the only true concern here, and something that is currently being worked out within MGTOW.. providing a distinct definition to MGTOW.. but this is also at the crux of the problem.I touched on this in another comment I made here, but one of the reasons why MGTOW is so hard to define, is because some have a desire to place male autonomy as the central theme to MGTOW, when realistically it is the 2nd tenet, leaving the gathering of knowledge as to men’s current situation as the first tenet.

The second problem is that this pool of knowledge is ever-expanding.. meaning if you want to add or subtract something from this pool, you must address it directly. You must go out and actually argue your points to these men who are making these claims. If you have some sinking feeling that there are men out there who are obsessed with women, and using MGTOW as a way to hide from this fact.. then the onus is on you to solve this problem. You must either seek them out and address their commentary directly, or send out messages identifying and providing a solution to the problem.

The onus is not on us as some collective, as most of us do not have a problem. The only message I have to the TFL/Incel type guys is to make sure you are truly doing what you want to do, and to be honest with one’s self. If you truly have some desire that you can’t get over.. then maybe go seek out some experience with women. If that is not an option, the cost/benefit is not in your favor.. then simply move on.

Of course, there will always be men who are unable to move in any direction. They are unable to approach women, either because the wall to dating is actually too high for them or because they suffer from some sort of psychosis due to their traumatic experiences at the hands of women. There is nothing anyone can do about this. Realistically, they likely need some form of therapy.. but because the field of psychology is so riddled with gynocentrism, it is a crap shoot as to whether therapy will make them better or worse.

As to your the other concern, the misogynists.. again, so what? If you have a problem with these men, the onus is on you to call them out individually and to attack their arguments point by point. That is how concepts are either added to or subtracted from the general pool of knowledge.

Also, to address your point at the end.. MGTOW and MRA are two separate entities, otherwise we would just be calling ourselves MRAs going our own way. There is always going to be some differing of opinions between the two groups, and even within those groups. The solution again is to argue against them on a point by point basis.. rather than throwing them into a group that throws others into a group. Bar Bar admited here that he was only speaking about the MRAs that consider MGTOWs as misogynist.

 

John Halt Feb 22, 2015

+Francis Roy

Your post seems to simply be saying:1. Elam and Clary said only some MGTOW are pathetic and doing harm. They were not referring to all MGTOW. Barbarossa is intentionally characterizing Elam and Clary as painting all MGTOW as such. Elam and Clary were very careful to say only some MGTOW are like that.2. This sub-group of some MGTOW need to be addressed because “it is an unhealthy attitude for men to hold.

c.f. the argument:

MRM is a dangerous movement because it has dangerous elements in it. These dangerous elements caused Elliot Rogers to murder people. This is the kind of thing that kills women, like those that died in the École Polytechnique massacre. Of course not all MRM men are like that, but this is a flawed, hate-filled movement that must be dealt with because it is unhealthy for men. These are simply “unhealthy attitudes for men to hold.”

No. At best Elam and Clary are concern trolling, and I doubt that. This is a standard familiar political attack on perceived political or ideological competition.

It is Poisoning The Well and selling their margarine over the

competition: THIS MGTOW group has bad apples in it that make it unhealthy for men. Stick with MRM’s version of MGTOW. We are the healthier choice for men.

 

Francis Roy Feb 22, 2015

+John Halt Points 1 and 2 are correct with one small exception. I’m not sure if Barbrossa is intentionally making this error or if he’s just not catching that he is. That’s my question. As for the rest, I don’t agree your assessment.

Can we acknowledge that there are humans who claim to be part of either group who are merely over-caffeinated and bad-mannered emotional and ideological parrots on overdrive? And there’s nothing wrong on speaking to, or about them, and doing so does not imply a critique of the entirety of either group?

Sometimes one just has to tell the obnoxious drunk at the party that they’re being an obnoxious drunk. Doing so doesn’t mean that you’re telling everyone at the party that they’ve being obnoxious.

And it doesn’t have to be about about some internecine squabbling.

It is unhealthy for these (presumably) kids to bundle themselves up in anti-female paranoia and to run around like panicked sheep baaa’ing “Pussy beggar!” “Simp!” or any term that allows them to feel like they’re elite members of some club.

It’s also annoying.

 

John Carlos Feb 22, 2015

You sound like the virgin police. You have an issue with incels going mgtow, why even care?Why don’t you apply your virgin policing to other movements, philosophies or religions.

You should have an issue with incels avoiding women and the real world and worshipping Jesus right? There are many more christians who are single or “misogynist “Surely you can’t be contradictory? Now let me pull up the top youtube videos about christians and nope no virgin policing there. Well lets hear what you have to say about christian incels?

 

Francis Roy Feb 22, 2015

+John Carlos You appear to have completely missed the point. Some people are assholes, some people are fakers and there’s nothing wrong, when they get obnoxious and in-yer-face about to call them out for what they are. To do so does not imply that all MGTOW are this way, nor all MRAs, nor all [insert your favourite group here].This is the point that Elam and Clary were making, one that I agree with, but my question to Barbrossa is why he seems to not acknowledge that this is the distinction that both men were making. That’s all.

 

John Carlos Feb 22, 2015

Your assertion is still not valid. If what your saying is true then your issue is not a mgtow issue but a incel issue. You have nominated yourself as a potential mangina general shaming men who checkout of the dating market to get back in and jump through hoops.Prescribing people to different types of mgtow is ridiculous. Every single mgtow on the face of this earth is different and may even prescribe to other philosophies. Should we add subsection for christian mgtow, incel mgtow, atheist mgtow, misogynist mgtow?

Think of the ugliest man you ever met. In order for this man to get an ugly women he has to put extreme effort and drag his balls through glass, and what does he get in the end? Is it okay for this ugly man to go his own way? Or will your female over lords disapprove?

 

Francis Roy Feb 22, 2015

+John Carlos “Your assertion is still not valid. If what your saying is true then your issue is not a mgtow issue but a incel issue.”No. Stay on topic.

 

John Carlos Feb 22, 2015

“Stay on topic”

“You missed the point”

“fear based avoidance”All these are obvious deflection tactics. Thank you for your honesty.

 

Francis Roy Feb 23, 2015

+John Carlos Sigh… I’ll answer this one last time.The topic is this: Elam and Clary have both made criticisms of certain kinds of people who interact in the MGTOW community. Barbrossa, it seems to me, is not acknowledging the distinction that both have made.

That is the topic.

Now, off-topic: some context.

I happen to agree with certain parts of what both say.

There are men among us who claim to be men going their own way, when in fact they were simply men who were told to go away. These are not men who have checked out, or opted-out, but have been either excluded or kicked out. One can only go one’s way when one makes the choice to do so.

This is a truth for some among us. It must be recognized and acknowledged.

There are also those who are obnoxious name-callers, ideological dead-eyes, and lock-step rote repeaters who find it quite acceptable to accuse others of being manginas, pussy-beggars, simps, faggots, etc., etc., etc. and do so vociferously, the “Manhood Academys of MGTOW,” if you will.

Aside from merely being obnoxious, these guys poison our water, but they can be instrumental in driving perfectly reasonable people away.

Give me one good reason why we shouldn’t tell these guys to take a hike. I no more need to be “nice” to men because they are men that I do to women because they are women.

All groups have their share of assholes. Clary and Elam pointed some out. As far as I can tell, Barbrossa seems to, at least rhetorically, extend the criticism of this one part for the whole when both have made an effort, and have said, that they did not intend the whole.

This was the subject, it’s basis and is the entirety of the matter. I hope that this last repetition of what can be found above answers your question.

 

John Halt Feb 23, 2015

+Francis Roy OK, I just spent two hours going over Clarey’s 25 minute video

Here is the deal. There are various schools of MGTOW but there is a giant chasm that splits those schools in two. Just for something to call them, we will call the two sides of that chasm

1. “MRM MGTOW” (which is politically correct among the anti-feminist crowd) and

2. “Barbarossian MGTOW” (which is radically not politically correct).

There is a perceived crisis in the Mens Right Community. The MGTOW identity is fast displacing the MRM identity, so MRM has created its own MGTOW label that will sell to a larger audience of men (like Aaron Clarey and his Trad-Con clientele) and women, than the Barbarossian version will – thus keeping themselves relevant and in business.

MRM MGTOW is a PUA or Trad-Con compatible MGTOW that promotes male individuality and self-esteem under the MGTOW label, while “Barbarossian MGTOW” promotes the Red-Pill awakening to the true nature of male/female relations, as represented by Barbarossa, Stardusk, Sandman, JtO etc. The Red-Pill world view is condemned as “misogynist” by most who have not seen its reality, and had the socially constructed and evolutionary induced lie that is male-female relations, exposed to them.

This is NOT an internecine squabble. It is a clash of world-views.

Going to the purely political side, here is how the slight-of-hand propaganda works:

The fast growing, opposition MGTOW (“Barbarossian MGTOW”) is painted as a pathetic, hyper-vocal, subset (20%) of the label, which includes the truly-cool, sane ideology (80%) of the label.

The much larger truly-cool sane ideology is, of course, represented by AVfM, and Trad-Con advice guru’s like Clarey, and ostensibly any man that realizes he needs to be more independent (i.e. be a MGTOW), and not be needy when approaching women (i.e. be a MGTOW) – IF HE IS GOING TO GET WOMEN. You see, becoming MGTOW is how you get women – per Clarey. Wow, how is that for a selling point?!

They destroy their opposition by smearing it, while at the same time assimilating it.

Clarey was not calling out a few paranoid (of females) posters on Bar Bar’s forum -here. He was calling out everyone here that supports Bar Bar’s exposure of the false reality of male-female relations – aka the Matrix – and especially Bar Bar himself. That coward that will not show his face – per Clarey. We here are the “Misogynist MGTOWs” in the title of Clarey’s video.

You see, per Clarey and AVfM, Bar Bar and his subscribers and most of this forum, which supports him, are those vocal drunks at the party that does not represent the whole party (the whole party including MRM MGTOW, AVfM MGTOW, Clary MGTOW, confident men MGTOW, etc). Go back to Clarey’s video. He is talking about Bar Bar and his supporters.

That you would say that Clarey’s treatment of MGTOW was even handed indicates that your world view is totally MRM MGTOW and you may not even be fully aware of the full scope of what Barbarossa/Sandman/Stardusk/JtO/Davidson MGTOW has to say about women – which is always attacked (characterized) as misogynist, because it cannot be refuted with argumentation, so it must simply be discredited ad hominem. “Misogynist !!!” is not an argument, it is an ad hominem.

To think that the meteoric rise of MGTOW, which Clarey twice mentions will become a force to be reckoned with in the future, was brought about by the seriously anemic MRM movement and not Bar Bar, Stardusk, Sandman and a few others – again all of which would be classed as misogynist – is seriously missing the larger picture.

Bar Bar/Sandman/Stardusk/RBK/JtO/Diana Davidson and the myriad of sites inspired by them is the well-spring of the explosion of MGTOW. Not MRM, AVfM, and the odd site that tosses off their own definition of MGTOW followed by a criticism of those bad noisy woman-hating MGTOW, which they do just before they go back to whatever content maintains their subscribers.

And get this. If MRM/Clarey/Woman-Friendly MGTOW does not prevail, MGTOW will be destroyed by the Southern Poverty Law Center! -Per Clarey.

Also: everyone here who supports Bar Bar, Star Dusk, etc, is also supposedly elitist, because we will not adopt the MRM world-view and the MRM version of MGTOW and are thus supremacist elitists. Some choice we are given, “You Bar Bar/Stardusk/JtO/Sandman MGTOW must adopt our version of MGTOW or be damned as exclusive, elitist, snobs, that won’t let our married MGTOW/WGTOW/PGTOW into your special little club.”

Clarey has done what every other ideologue – and especially feminists – on the Internet are now doing, because it is so easy to do. They scan comment sections to cherry pick the most negative and obnoxious comments they can find and then use those comments to completely mischaracterize the majority of the constituency.

Commenter 1 said X,commenter 2 said Y,& commenter 3 said Z = typical Clarey “Mysogynist MGTOW” = 20% of users of the label = typical of Bar Bar/Sandman/Stardusk/RBK/JtO/Diana Davidson MGTOW).

 

Divided Line Feb 23, 2015

+Francis Roy“”What’s wrong with conflating resentful incels, involuntary celibates (read: the emotionally/socially unskilled) for MGTOW?””

Unskilled in what? Pandering to women’s expectations? Did you ever bother to ask what those expectations are and if they are even reasonable? You’re essentially arguing that it is women who get to decide what successful male identities and behaviors are. I thought MGTOW was about male sovereignty?

You keep acting like being acceptable to women is a worthwhile accomplishment, as if it’s something we should be ashamed of for failing to achieve. In other words, women decide what successful masculinity is. Is there some other conclusion I’m supposed to draw from this?

 

Francis Roy Feb 23, 2015

+Divided Line “Unskilled in what?”At achieving what they want to achieve.

“Pandering to women’s expectations?”

No.

“Did you ever bother to ask what those expectations are and if they are even reasonable?”

Total tangent, and irrelevant to the matter at hand.

“You’re essentially arguing that it is women who get to decide what successful male identities and behaviors are.”

No.

“I thought MGTOW was about male sovereignty?”

No.

“You keep acting like being acceptable to women is a worthwhile accomplishment, as if it’s something we should be ashamed of for failing to achieve.”

No.

“Is there some other conclusion I’m supposed to draw from this?”

That you are really really bad at paying attention to what another is saying, and most excellent at inserting whatever you want to insert and treat it as though that’s what was said.

 

Divided Line Feb 23, 2015

+Francis Roy Did you just say that MGTOW isn’t about male sovereignty? What is it about then?

 

Francis Roy Feb 23, 2015

+Divided Line “Did you just say that MGTOW isn’t about male sovereignty? What is it about then? ?”

MGTOW isn’t about anything.

MGTOW are words used to describe an observation: that of men, en masse, dropping out of long-term relationships with women.

That’s it.

It is the observation that counts, not the words used to describe it.

You can stop right here. This was your tl;dr.

=======

But people aren’t satisfied with mere observation. Our motivation and reasons has become subject to exploration and an large-ish body of fact, half-fact, conjecture, and speculation combined with a mixture of hypotheses of varying levels quality.

We’ve got some excellent thinking and some junky thinking in the mix which leads a bunch of men to waste their time arguing about “What the definition of MGTOW is,” or “What MGTOW means,” or “What MGTOW is about.”

In reality it serves only as a Rorschach Test for whomever to insert a vision of their own particular needs being met.

Even those rare few who hand-wave a general agreement of some items can’t agree on the specifics other than the specifics fall on a case-per-case basis, that is, that there are none to be agreed to as a hard-and-fast rule.

I use the term MGTOW only as a term of convenience to indicate a man’s decision to value himself as a human, to put himself first and to eschew socio-sexual roles and expectations.

That decision is the MGTOW moment.

After that moment, he is not a Man Going His Own Way, but a Man Who Has Gone His Own Way. Sorry to mess up the acronym.

MGTOW lasts exactly the time it takes to make a decision. MGTOW is not an identity, a philosophy, a way of life or a set of beliefs. Those are merely what they are, post-decision.

In a world that is legally and culturally hostile to men there is a pursuit that I find worthwhile: my well-being as a man; I don’t claim this to be MGTOW, it is merely a pursuit that stems from and follows my decision to have gone my own way.

 

Francis Roy Feb 23, 2015

+John Halt “OK, I just spent two hours going over Clarey’s 25 minute video.”Well, I’ll tell you right now, that you’re far more invested in it than I am, and I notice that it’s a rather large comment. I may or may not respond to it all. Don’t take offence if I don’t. At first glance and at the end of my day, it strikes me as daunting. Sleep and morning coffee may change my mind on the matter.

 

Francis Roy Feb 23, 2015

+John Halt Your post wasn’t as arduous to read as I’d expected.

1. You’ve changed my mind about Clary’s point of view, at least on his last one. The main selling point being a reminder of a few things that he’s said. I admit to not having returned to the video.

2. I don’t buy into the artificial divisions that I see draw about this or that type of MGTOW. One thing in particular that I do find annoying on everyone’s part is the “partisan politics of MGTOW.” I do not find them useful, worthwhile or productive.

3. Another reason I don’t really buy into any one version of MGTOW, is that I think that the concept is generally misunderstood. What people discuss are philosophy and sexual politics. It is a combination of philosophy and politics. How much more speculative can one get? Yet people forget it, and act as though popularly held beliefs were actual truths.

4. “you may not even be fully aware of the full scope of what Barbarossa/Sandman/Stardusk/JtO/Davidson MGTOW has to say about women” Having probably listened to at least 95-99% of it over the years, save Davidson, I probably am.

I may not agree with all that you’ve said, but I commend you for a) having done your homework, b) having kept to the point and c) having remained civil. Well done. I’m quite tired now, so I’ll review or ask questions after I’ve had some sleep.

 

MultiShadow1979 Feb 23, 2015

+Francis Roy “MGTOW are words used to describe an observation: that of men, en masse, dropping out of long-term relationships with women.” – I guess my first question to you would be, why do you need a word to define this act then? Isn’t this just bachelorhood, if there is no fundamental reasons why men are dropping out of long-term relationships?

 

Francis Roy Feb 23, 2015

+MultiShadow1979 “I guess my first question to you would be, why do you need a word to define this act then?”You don’t really need to define the act, merely refer to it, using at term of convenience to facilitate conversations.

“Isn’t this just bachelorhood, if there is no fundamental reasons why men are dropping out of long-term relationships?”

That’d do just fine, I think. Long before I’d heard of MGTOW, I referred to myself as either “a bachelor” or “single, not looking”

I didn’t say that there was no fundamental reason why men weren’t dropping out.

One valuable distinction that MGTOW has over the more generic term “bachelor,” is the precision of self-protection from a legal and cultural environment that is hostile to men.

 

MultiShadow1979 Feb 23, 2015

+Francis Roy So basically MGTOW is just bachelorhood to you.If a man out there refuted everything negative said about women, believed that they all were angels capable of doing no wrong, that men screwed in divorce probably deserved it, that men do not need reproductive rights because they can just refuse sex, that men should be conscripted for war and women should stay in the home, all of these things.. if a man placed all of the ills in society on men, staunchly supported Feminism, but was simply a bachelor and wanted to remain one.. you would call this man a MGTOW?

If you claim that MGTOW contains the precision of self-protection from a legal and cultural environment which is hostile to men, you are claiming a lot more than simple bachelorhood. If a man out there refused to acknowledge that we live in an environment that is hostile toward men, or that he even went so far as to promote that men to take on such dangerous acts as marriage while he himself did not do the same.. this man would be a MGTOW if he simply lived a life of bachelorhood?

 

John Carlos Feb 23, 2015

Your jumping around all over the place. You have several different arguments, but I think your only valid one is that some parts of mgtow are becoming clannish. Even this argument falls on many levels.Clannish-tending to associate closely within a limited group to the exclusion of outsiders.

Do you realize the internet is open to everyone with an internet connection? outsiders are welcome to every mgtow video that isn’t unlisted.

 

Francis Roy Feb 23, 2015

+MultiShadow1979 “If you claim that MGTOW contains the precision of self-protection from a legal and cultural environment which is hostile to men, you are claiming a lot more than simple bachelorhood.”Maybe, but there’s something that’s not quite kosher in that, but I can’t put my finger on it at this moment. Give me until tomorrow to think on that, I’ve been up now for about 30 hours working, so I can’t give you my “A” game at the moment. Let me sleep, and percolate, and I’ll get back to you on the matter.

 

John Halt Feb 23, 2015

+Francis Roy

Your willingness to adjust your opinions on receiving new information and to not selectively interpret that information to protect your ego is impressive. Your respect for on-point rational discourse is a pleasure to engage.listened to at least 95-99%I often get into an exchange only to find the other party knows the topic little beyond a dozen videos and their own high flown fantasies triggered by that magic phrase “Men Going Their Own Way.” Kudos, for “having done YOUR homework”, Sir. OK, this puts your points in a different context.

I don’t buy into the artificial divisions that I see draw about this or that type of MGTOW. One thing in particular that I do find annoying on everyone’s part is the “partisan politics of MGTOW.”

I cannot tell if this is a statement saying that partisan politics create artificial divisions or types of MGTOW or if you are commenting on MGTOW as a phenomenon that cannot be defined, divided, or analyzed?

Another reason I don’t really buy into any one version of MGTOW, is that I think that the concept is generally misunderstood.

Are you saying that the misunderstanding has created unnecessary artificial divisions, versions, or types? So, such divisions should be ignored or even discouraged?

The “buy into” language adds an additional level of interpretation to sort through. Buy into =

• approve of I don’t buy into that free love stuff in the 60s

• existence of I don’t buy into that UFO stuff.

• utilization of I don’t buy into making my own beer, it is just too cheap and easy to buy it.

What is your position on the Defining-of-MGTOW problem? e.g. A video breaches the topic of defining MGTOW and the comment section erupts in a storm of indigent posts that “No one can claim to define MGTOW !!!”, then in the very next breath proceeds to define MGTOW in their post.

 

MultiShadow1979 Feb 23, 2015

+Francis Roy I think you will see, when you attempt to falsify MGTOW by what would or wouldn’t be considered MGTOW.. there is a clear context that it fits into, that is more specific than bachelorhood, or simple male autonomy.. although it is easy to confuse male autonomy alone as the defining feature of MGTOW.

 

Francis Roy Feb 24, 2015

+MultiShadow1979 “I think you will see, when you attempt to falsify MGTOW by what would or wouldn’t be considered MGTOW”I don’t try to falsify MGTOW.

I am a MGTOW, a bachelor, a free-thinker, one who lives on his own terms, and dare I co-opt a term “a strong and independent man.”

My issue is that something very simple has been turned into an ideology by some people.

Most of us recognize that the phrase MGTOW is just a description of guys live their lives as though the social norms that many would impose on us don’t exist.

“Will you pay my bills?” No. Will you pay mine?

“Will you risk your life for me?” No. Will you risk yours for me?

“Will give me special treatment because of my sex?” No, will you?

“Will you make special sacrifices for me?” Unless you are a family member or a close friend, no.

“But I expect that of you!” That’s nice. And irrelevant.

You’re a human, I’m a human, let’s treat each other that way. You have flaws, I have flaws. Let’s acknowledge that and treat each other well.

Women have certain tendencies that have both cultural and biological roots. So do men. So do short people. So do tall people. So do left-handed people.

None of this is a reason to spew anger, venom or vitriol on another group of people. Dogs can be friendly or vicious. So can humans.

As far as I’m concerned, MGTOW, bachelorhood, call it what you will, is nothing more than refusing to associate with sexist people who would impose their sexist attitudes on us.

The anthropological exploration, the exploration of sexual politics and so forth are interesting but have nothing to do with our choice. We just want to be treated well, and if we aren’t, we dismiss those who don’t.

There’s nothing more to it, as far as I’m concerned.

Somewhat back to the topic, there are those who would blame other groups of people for their personal unhappiness. The All Women Are Bitches club are such people. I don’t endorse that attitude anymore than I endorse All Men Are Assholes.

“But these people are promoting Traditionally Sexist roles!” So what? Some promote racism. Dismiss them.

“But if affects us!” So does gravity, and language. Change it.No? Then don’t let it influence your life.

“But they’re getting up in our faces!” Then move your face. Life is not perfect.

“But it’s hard!” So is learning math, managing one’s money, and building one’s body.

“But it’s unpleasant.” Maybe. That’s up to you.

Some women are perfectly good and decent human beings, some are jerks. Same with men.

My issue in this context is not that men want to go their own way. My issue is that many use it as an excuse to not live well. There’s a body of thought and many people repeating it. It’s a built in excuse for those who seek one. For too many, MGTOW is an us vs them movement. So is Feminism.

To me, MGTOW is merely a convenient term to express the notion that my life is my own and I live it on my own terms, and other’s expectations do not apply. It’s about me, not them. This does not mean that MGTOW means this, or MGTOW is about that, or that the definition of MGTOW is this or that.

The focus should not be on the words, or some philosophy, or some outlook on life. The focus, for me, is on me and my sense of life. MGTOW is only a vague hand-waving description, a tool to short-hand some generalized attitude.

This, I believe is what Elam and Clary have been trying to get at. Maybe I’m wrong about what they think and are saying. Maybe I’ve been misinterpreting what they mean, and that what they really mean is “I hereby, from a sense of superiority and self-serving intentions blanket shame all MGTOW without exception.”

I don’t believe that, but I could be wrong.

You now know what I personally think. I hope I’ve expressed myself more clearly than before.

 

MultiShadow1979 Feb 24, 2015

+Francis Roy Well then answer my previous question.

 

Francis Roy Feb 24, 2015

+MultiShadow1979 Notice: This comment is merely me thinking out loud.“If you claim that MGTOW contains the precision of self-protection from a legal and cultural environment which is hostile to men, you are claiming a lot more than simple bachelorhood.”

I don’t think so, unless one claims that bachelorhood and MGTOW are two different, because of the reasons one chooses to eschew longer term relationships with women.

I do note that them men who now call themselves MGTOW have those two elements in common. Should we argue that this is the definition or the meaning of MGTOW, that this is what MGTOW is about?

I honestly don’t know, and this just highlights my problem with the adherence to a vague and undefined label.

If one man drive his car to Detroit to visit a friend and another drive to Detroit to avoid the cops, is one a driver and the other not? One might argue that they should be re-labelled as a visitor and an evader and ignore the driving altogether. This metaphor might suck, work with me. :)

“If a man out there refused to acknowledge that we live in an environment that is hostile toward men, or that he even went so far as to promote that men to take on such dangerous acts as marriage while he himself did not do the same.. this man would be a MGTOW if he simply lived a life of bachelorhood?”

Are we pinning the meaning of MGTOW on a political stance? If so, in that context, then I think that the answer would be no.

I’ve been eschewing longer-term relationships with women since my mid-thirties or so. I gave up in frustration because of the lies and the hoops I had to jump though, and being treated as a second class citizen. I did not have the awareness to think of legal consequences, and certainly did not think about culture, even though I responded to it.

Did that make me MGTOW?

If someone would have asked me “Should men get married?” I would have answered “Sure, why not?”

Did that revoke my MGTOW membership card?

Now that I am aware of such things, and thanks to a new awareness would not offer such advice, am I obliged to call myself MGTOW?

I honestly don’t know how to answer your question.

From what I can tell of the direction you are going in (that I prompted, I think), you seem to be attaching the label MGTOW to one who is aware of legal and cultural circumstance, who can articulate it, and who advocates against longer term relationships with women based on those reasons.

If that is the criteria, then I guess the label MGTOW applies to me now, but didn’t until the term was coined or until the distinction was first articulated by a stranger I’ve never met.

Does that label then apply to those who are aware, and can articulate it, and vociferously advocate against marriage, but given a willing woman would instantly jump into it?

Is MGTOW defined by one’s intentions, or one’s behaviour, or something else altogether?

I claim that the term MGTOW is loose, and sloppy to the point that it is little more than a hand-wave in a general direction.Should we stick with the definition used by the coiners of the term? If so, MGTOW is traditionalism.

The term, some hard-core definition isn’t as important to me as are the men. What I care about is men qua men living as well as we can despite the current circumstances that I can now articulate.

There is no precise definition for “dog.” There is a very precise definition for “canine.” I suspect that this is the nature of what we’re dealing with.

 

Francis Roy Feb 24, 2015

+John Carlos “Your jumping around all over the place.”Probably.

“You have several different arguments, but I think your only valid one is that some parts of mgtow are becoming clannish.”

Sure.

“Even this argument falls on many levels.”

That is the nature of “some.”

“Clannish-tending to associate closely within a limited group to the exclusion of outsiders.”

OK.

“Do you realize the internet is open to everyone with an internet connection? outsiders are welcome to every mgtow video that isn’t unlisted.”

Doesn’t stop people from wanting to define the conditions of belonging to what they perceive as being the in-group, though, does it?

 

Francis Roy Feb 24, 2015

+John Halt Warning. This is long and ranty.

Francis said “I don’t buy into the artificial divisions that I see draw about this or that type of MGTOW. One thing in particular that I do find annoying on everyone’s part is the “partisan politics of MGTOW.” “

John replied “I cannot tell if this is a statement saying that partisan politics create artificial divisions or types of MGTOW or if you are commenting on MGTOW as a phenomenon that cannot be defined, divided, or analyzed?”

What I’m still having difficulty in expressing is the divisiveness found among men who discuss the issue. There are those who are hard-fisted that MGTOW must mean or be defined as such and such, yet, years later, few agree, and demonstrate a strong emotional impetus to have people agree with their own position.

If MGTOW were a clear, solid concept, there’d be very little debate on the matter. The best that we can do at the moment seems to find some general agreements on some core matters: anti sexism-against-men, that men as men deserve basic human respect, men deserve equal treatment under just law, and in the face of the lack thereof, men withdraw from women to avoid female-triggered state-attack (among many things.)

Most politically aware men, MRAs, MGTOW, [insert other groups] generally agree. MGTOW’s chief distinction between these groups is the notion of withdrawal, or at most some form of work-to-rule.

The issue that I see is that people want to take these elements and attach additional (personally held) attitudes and prescribe behaviours on the penalty of being socially ostracized by the prescribers. This is where the monkeys start flinging poo.

“Are you saying that the misunderstanding has created unnecessary artificial divisions, versions, or types? So, such divisions should be ignored or even discouraged?”

See above.

“The “buy into” language adds an additional level of interpretation to sort through. Buy into =

I neither approve of nor make use of unnecessary artificial divisions that are based on a vagary.

“What is your position on the Defining-of-MGTOW problem? e.g. A video breaches the topic of defining MGTOW and the comment section erupts in a storm of indigent posts that “No one can claim to define MGTOW !!!”, then in the very next breath proceeds to define MGTOW in their post.”

I don’t see that “MGTOW” can be defined as anything other than as a platform of positions. But this could only be done if there were an authority. If I were to invent the Francis Party, I could define my positions, and none could argue. Since MGTOW is a phenomena, the observation that many men are doing Thing X, and it often performed in the absence of any particular socio-political awareness of men’s issues, there can be no one authority over the term. This is where we get the “You can’t tell people how to do MGTOW, it’s personal.”

They are half-right. They are wrong in that they believe that MGTOW is a verb. One does not do MGTOW. One has either opted-out, or not. Once that’s done, it’s done. Anything after that is just a man living his life.

I claim, repetitiously, that the problem is that MGTOW are words that point to a phenomena, that of straight men dropping out of the marriage/relationship racket. There is a “behavioural thing.” That thing, is what that thing is. MGTOW are just words used to point to that thing. The problem is that people are wanting to then take those words and wrap them around all kind of stuff that is not that thing. They want to add attitudes, beliefs, behavioural prescriptions. We’re just short of having ideological purity tests, were some to have their way.

For too many people, it looks this way: [Observation; men opting-out] -> utilitarian label -> delve into personal psychological make up -> find issues -> attach to label -> covert label into description of idealized solution for personal issues.

On the other hand, we have the “You can’t tell people how to do MGTOW!” “MGTOW is personal.” What they are really acknowledging is that there is no meaning to MGTOW, but then argue that there is.

One does not do MGTOW. One observes that men are dropping out of the marriage/relationship racket. MGTOW is not even a description. It is the label for an observation. MGTOW is not position, or even a doing. Men (noun) Going (verb) Their (adjective) Own (adjective) Way (noun). It is a sloppy, meaningless mish-mash of a term that was off-handedly coined to describe guys who weren’t showing up at men’s meetings and were just doing whatever it is they wanted to do.

(I know the above is repetitious, I’m too lazy to edit at the moment.)

And people are arguing about it to the point where we have a zoo full of angry chimps fighting for turf.

Sometime later, we have guys like Barbrossa and Stardusk who delve into and popularise the sociological, anthropological and biological roots of men and women’s behaviour. They provide interesting and often useful ideas that lend support for many men’s decision to simply opt-out of the relationship racket. And that’s great. I love listening to them. Often I agree. Sometimes not.

There are those, however, who turn it into an ideology, a religion. They seem to overlook the many, many times that Stardusk and Barbrossa and others have said “You know, of course, that I’m generalizing, right? There are exceptions to everything.” There are people who just need their Black and White. There are those who have never opted-out, because they were never able to opt-in. These are the All Women Are Bitches type.

So, I agree that there is no One True MGTOW, mainly because there is no true “A stone rolling down the hill.” MGTOW is not an ideology, a way of life, a prescription. Once the man makes the decision to opt-out, he’s done. The rest is just his life. He may pursue the kind of thinking that many do, but that thinking isn’t MGTOW. It’s thinking about anthropology, sociology, politics, etc., around the topic of men and relationships. All of which are worthy pursuits, by the way, and very interesting, but that’s all they are.

That’s all I’ve got for now. Must work.

 

MultiShadow1979 Feb 24, 201

+Francis Roy You’re dancing around the questions, it is futile to continue discussion if you keep doing so.If MGTOW simply means avoiding long term relationships without any reason as to why, then it is simply bachelorhood and the name MGTOW is meaningless beyond that.

If MGTOW is Male Autonomy, then it is non-existent, as almost every act within society imposes on man’s autonomy on some level.. from the laws he is forced to follow, to the currency he is forced to earn in order to gain access to resources.

However, even if you do define MGTOW as retaining some specific level of Autonomy, then it becomes equally meaningless in that it once again becomes too broad a term (as with the label of just being bachelorhood).. as almost every man on the planet can be seen as MGTOW if he simply retains this specific level of Autonomy.. whether he is a man-hating feminist, or a man-blaming traditionalist.

So MGTOW must refer to some specific context, an overall awareness of the things that are taking away from man’s sovereignty.. and a reason why bachelorhood is a better alternative than long term relationships, in order for it to have any sort of real meaning.

Men who remain bachelors don’t need an extra label, and men who retain their own autonomy don’t want one.

MGTOW itself refers to the awareness of why being a bachelor is a better life choice, and an understanding of how society and women impose on a man’s sovereignty. It is a collection of knowledge that attempts to explain to men the world around him, so that he may better make choices for himself. Bachelorhood and Autonomy are simply by-products of this information.

By definition, the label MGTOW only applies to men who retain Autonomy within a specific context pertaining to women/society.. in order for the label of MGTOW to even hold any meaning at all. Bachelorhood is just a personal choice based on the information of MGTOW. There is no rule to avoid LTRs.

Once a man has gained awareness of information central to MGTOW, and as long as he retains his autonomy within the given specific context.. he is considered MGTOW.

The distinction between MGTOWs and other men who may be bachelors or simply desiring to retain their autonomy.. are in the reasons why they are bachelors/autonomous.

And while there is an MGTOW-Trend or Phenomenon taking place.. where men deciding to opt out based on experiencing many of the concepts that MGTOW are talking about.. they are not specifically MGTOW unless the reasons why they are opting out are based on the central information that encompasses MGTOW.

 

Francis Roy Yesterday 3:31 AM

+MultiShadow1979 So what you’ve just done is to specifically tie the meaning of MGTOW to intention driven by political awareness.If this is the case, you’ve agreed with me: there are those who are MGTOW, and there are those who simply use the name MGTOW, but aren’t.

/me shrugs.

 

MultiShadow1979 Yesterday 3:43 AM

+Francis Roy Lol, where did mention politics? How did I agree with you that there are men using the name MGTOW that aren’t without any context?

 

Francis Roy Yesterday 4:01 AM

+MultiShadow1979 I was trying to spare you the long version. This is the medium one (yes, there’s a significantly larger version.)“You’re dancing around the questions, it is futile to continue discussion if you keep doing so.”

I’m not trying to be obtuse, if there’s a question that I haven’t answered, I’m simply not seeing it. Hopefully your comment will clarify it for me.

“MGTOW itself refers to the awareness of why being a bachelor is a better life choice,

So, you’re saying then, that MGTOW is an awareness of the benefits of remaining unmarried?

“and an understanding of how society and women impose on a man’s sovereignty.”

So it is also a second thing. An understanding of how society in general, and women specifically impose on men’s complete independence and self-government.

“It is a collection of knowledge that attempts to explain to men the world around him, so that he may better make choices for himself.”

Now it’s also third thing.

“the label MGTOW only applies to men who retain Autonomy within a specific context pertaining to women/society.. in order for the label of MGTOW to even hold any meaning at all.”

So now it is a fourth thing: the choice to remain “Autonomous” based on political (how state and women collaborate) awareness.

You then, very specifically, attach the label MGTOW to political awareness and intent. If so, if intent is the central component, as you have noted a number of times, then this excludes the guys who claim to be MGTOW because they were never able to opt-out because they were never opted-in.

If this is the case, you’ve been agreeing with me all the while, not that it was ever required.

 

MultiShadow1979 Yesterday 4:08 AM

+Francis Roy You would have to be aware in order to be an MGTOW. A man who doesn’t marry just because he likes being a bachelor does not make him an MGTOW. He would have to be aware how marriage impedes on his autonomy.It is two things, Francis Roy.. a desire to keep one’s autonomy, and an awareness of how others impede on that autonomy.

It has nothing to do with political awareness alone, just how some policies may take away your autonomy. I absolutely do not agree with your distinction between men who were never “opted-in”. You are basing your judgment on them on the basis of women, which is the antithesis of MGTOW.. letting a female judge you.

 

Francis Roy Yesterday 11:08 AM

+MultiShadow1979 That last comment is an equivocation, but it can easily be dealt with (see end of comment.)I’m basing my evaluation on two things. The first is simply experience. You have met people who make excuses to save face, haven’t you? If so, you can identify them; so can I.

“You are basing your judgment on them on the basis of women, which is the antithesis of MGTOW.. letting a female judge you.”

No, the second basis is my judgment on their intent of not being judged by whomever, including women. There are men who do this, and announce themselves as MGTOW. This was my point from the start.

So now onto housekeeping.

I don’t recall if I’ve said so or not, but I’ve formally abandoned use the word “bachelor” to be interchangeable with whatever MGTOW is supposed to mean, simply because it already has the precise meaning of unmarried man. When I used it in my youth, I had no better word. Now I tend to try to be more precise in my speech.

So this brings us to the other thread of thought to close this all off. The definition that you offer, for as deeply as you’ve thought it through is not agreed-to universally. Check out the original definition, and you’ll see the source that is the cause of much of the debate as to what MGTOW is, to this day.

I think the easiest way to work around the whole rigamarole is to simply point out that at one point, a man makes a decision to be free of women. If you want to say that it is to be mentally free of them, to allow them no sway in one’s mind, I would buy that in a minute. Then, you simply take all of the other definitions that you’ve offered, and chalk them up as related interests that men pursue after he’s made the decision, and that pretty much cleans things up, don’t you think? It allows for a cleaner “definition,” it clearly separates out that which is debated and that which is not, and allows for all the debate on the picayune stuff to be treated as such.

I think that if we could do something like this, we’d see a lessening of tensions among the various group of men, which, in the end, was the purpose of my starting this thread to begin with.

 

MultiShadow1979 Yesterday 12:23 PM

+Francis Roy You are still judging other men based on their experience with women. It’s up to each man as an individual to decide when he has had enough in dealing with women, when the cost has outweighed the rewards.As for the rest, it is up for debate as to what MGTOW, hence the entire discussion in the first place.

 

Francis Roy Yesterday 12:40 PM

+MultiShadow1979 You are still judging other men based on their experience with women.”You may have missed this in my previous comment.

“No, the second basis is my judgment on their intent of not being judged by whomever, including women. There are men who do this, and announce themselves as MGTOW. This was my point from the start.”

 

MultiShadow1979 Yesterday 12:44 PM

+Francis Roy “my judgment on their intent of not being judged by whomever” – I don’t understand how you think this refutes what I’ve said. You’re judging them based on female judgment.MGTOW is based around not letting others control you with their judgments of you, and retaining your autonomy. People who are judging you are impeding on your autonomy, as they are trying to get you to act a certain way in line with their judgment of you.

 

Francis Roy Yesterday 12:50 PM

+MultiShadow1979 “You’re judging them based on female judgment.”No. I am judging the men by their intentions. The intentions of the men. The men who intend to avoid other’s judgments.The judgment avoiding men who use the label MGTOW.

 

MultiShadow1979 Yesterday 12:52 PM

+Francis Roy Lol. Why would avoiding other people’s judgments be a problem. That is the basis of MGTOW, avoiding others who impede on your autonomy.

 

Francis Roy Yesterday 1:03 PM

+MultiShadow1979 I am judging men. The men whose intention is to avoid women’s judgement. The men who use the label MGTOW as a cover to pretend that women’s judgement does not matter to them, when in fact it does. The men, who use the label MGTOW as a cover up of their own personal sense of inadequacy vis a vis women. The men who put on a face of not caring, and whose behaviour demonstrates otherwise.I’m not sure if I can put it more simply.

 

Francis Roy Yesterday 1:08 PM

* precision: I am judging the negative public behaviour of some men who use the term MGTOW to cover up their actual intention, that of avoiding women’s judgment (not their moral worth.)

 

John Halt Yesterday 11:56 PM

TL;DR = An Internet meme. Stands for “Too Long;Didn’t Read” Yes, I am probably guilty of Teal Deer writing.I see that the thread has advanced many posts since I started writing my reply here to Mr. Roy. Apologies if I am covering what has already been hashed out, further ahead. This is a reply to Mr. Roy’s post that starts out: “Notice: This comment is merely me thinking out loud.” tagged to MultiShadow

Mr. Roy, I have copied just about your entire post (I know, groan…) and responded point by point. I think you made a couple very good points on the definition issue, and I, rather repetitiously, have emphasized them as you built your case. So yes the post is long but maybe not as long as it looks, as it is as much your words as mine. But the definition issue I think is very important to the future of MGTOW and how many men it will reach and whether it will be in a form that will do them any real good.

This is commentary on your commentary. Please do not feel obliged to respond unless you wish to.

MutliShadow says: “If you claim that MGTOW contains the precision of self-protection from a legal and cultural environment which is hostile to men, you are claiming a lot more than simple bachelorhood.”

Roy says: I don’t think so, unless one claims that bachelorhood and MGTOW are two different, because of the reasons one chooses to eschew longer term relationships with women.

MY INTERPRETATION of your statement:

Bachelorhood is what a man does (he may have any number of reasons). If MGTOW is also what a man does – then the two are pretty much the same. But if the knowledge and awareness that MGTOW grants, “the reasons one chooses to …” do what he does, if that is why a MGTOW man behaves as a bachelor, then the two are different. But since the actions (conduct) of the two groups of men are roughly the same, why make the distinction – and be unnecessarily exclusive?

MY COMMENTARY:

Should the definition be by a) behavior or by b) accepting the unique knowledge concerning woman offered by MGTOW – with different behaviors being possible and acceptable?

Soluchi has a great line in one of his recent videos: “Hello, I am Soluchi, and I am MGTOW.”. Is Soluchi MGTOW ultimately because of what he does or what he knows?

Can he know and not do, and be MGTOW? Can he do and not know (or believe) and be MGTOW?

I do note that them men who now call themselves MGTOW have those two elements in common. Should we argue that this is the definition or the meaning of MGTOW, that this is what MGTOW is about?

MY INTERPRETATION: Both MGTOW and Bachelors eschew long-term relationships with women. Do we make this necessary to the definition of MGTOW or do we simply say, “This is a common characteristic found in men going MGTOW, but they need not necessarily ‘eschew longer term relationships with women’. MGTOW need not be bachelors.”

I honestly don’t know, and this just highlights my problem with the adherence to a vague and undefined label.

But your problem has a causal problem. No one will allow the existence of a clear definition.

If one man drives his car to Detroit to visit a friend and another drives to Detroit to avoid the cops, is one a driver and the other not? One might argue that they should be re-labelled as a visitor and an evader and ignore the driving altogether. This metaphor might suck, work with me. :)

Actually an interesting analytical effort. Kind of a Venn diagram with three overlapping rings in a row with the middle ring being “drivers”, with “visitors” and “evaders” at either end. The problem is that the definition of all three classes are independent. So there is no definition or inclusion problem. You can be any of the three things without being any of the others. A driver that visits or evades – or not. A visitor that drives or evades – or not. Etc.

Sticking with the physical world, the definition of “traveler” completely subsumes within it the class of “driver” and “visitor”. (All drivers are travelers, but not all travelers are drivers.) But there is no definition problem with all drivers being travelers, because of the clear definition of “traveler”. But if one “travels” to Detroit via Google Street View, or astral-projection, or memory, is he a “traveler”? Now we have a definition problem.

Also we are back to definition by what’s going on inside the skull vs what is going on outside the skull, the knowledge/intent vs observable behavior problem. B.F Skinner Behaviorism might or might not be useful, here.

Multishadow said:

“If a man out there refused to acknowledge that we live in an environment that is hostile toward men, or that he even went so far as to promote that men to take on such dangerous acts as marriage while he himself did not do the same.. this man would be a MGTOW if he simply lived a life of bachelorhood?”

Roy said:

Are we pinning the meaning of MGTOW on a political stance? If so, in that context, then I think that the answer would be no.

We are back to the {Knowledge/belief} vs {behavior/action} question.

I’ve been eschewing [action/behavior] longer-term relationships with women since my mid-thirties or so. I gave up in frustration because of the lies and the hoops I had to jump though, and being treated as a second class citizen. I did not have the awareness [knowledge/belief] to think of legal consequences, and certainly did not think about culture [knowledge/belief], even though I responded [action/behavior] to it.

Did that make me MGTOW?

{Knowledge/belief} vs {behavior/action}

If someone would have asked me “Should men get married?” I would have answered “Sure, why not?”

Did that revoke my MGTOW membership card?

{Knowledge/belief} vs {behavior/action}

Now that I am aware of such things, and thanks to a new awareness would not offer such advice, am I obliged to call myself MGTOW?

{Knowledge/belief} vs {behavior/action}

… you seem to be attaching the label MGTOW to one who is aware of legal and cultural circumstance, who can articulate it, and who advocates against longer term relationships with women based on those reasons.

If that is the criteria, then I guess the label MGTOW applies to me now, but didn’t until the term was coined or until the distinction was first articulated by a stranger I’ve never met.

{Knowledge/belief} vs {behavior/action}

MGTOW is different, in that it is phenomenon based. The shock of the Red Pill is when a man suddenly sees right in front of him what was there all along, but he could not see before. In your and Vention’s case you saw that something was not right though you could not say exactly where it was coming from {Knowledge/belief} but your course of action {behavior/action} was clear.

I think this might be a breakthrough on why there are at least two types of men, who see two different definitions of MGTOW and don’t feel, that much, the importance or correctness of the other’s. Those like you and Vention that saw the course of action but not the larger cause necessitating it, then encountered MGTOW vocabulary and female psychology later which sewed the whole thing up and cinched it. Then there are those like me who’s entire reality was founded on clueless Blue Pill lies. For those like you, the actions you took (and other men should take) are the whole of MGTOW, while for me, and Blue-Pillers like me, there could be no actions without the Red-Pill Epiphany – which for me was intense. That is why the knowledge base [and definitions] are so important to us. MGTOW for us is saving more dumb Plue-Pillers, like we once were. The {Knowledge/belief} side is the only thing that is going to do that. Men that worked out the single solution for their individual situation and could act on it, aren’t going to see that as anything but academic.

If those MGTOW engaged in debate would just track whether KNOWLEDGE/BELIEF MGTOW is being discussed or whether BEHAVIORAL MGTOW is the issue, so much savings of time and clarity would be added to the debate.

Does that label then apply to those who are aware, and can articulate it, and vociferously advocate against marriage, but given a willing woman would instantly jump into it?

{Knowledge/belief} vs {behavior/action}. This would be Bar-Bar’s “One Blowjob Away” Man-Going-His-Own-Way. He knows but he does not do – or no longer does.

Maybe it is enough to say, “He KNOWS The Way but does not GO it.”

I think this would be a great MGTOW meme. Sounds very Yoda.

Then Obi-Wan can respond to Yoda concerning Mr. Roy those years ago,

“He WENT The Way, but in that time he KNEW it not.”

Is MGTOW defined by one’s intentions, or one’s behaviour, or something else altogether?

Exactly – {Knowledge/belief} vs {behavior/action}. You were leading up to this sentence all along weren’t you?

I claim that the term MGTOW is loose, and sloppy to the point that it is little more than a hand-wave in a general direction.

Zen’s “a finger pointing to the moon”?

Should we stick with the definition used by the coiners of the term? If so, MGTOW is traditionalism.

“Definition used by the coiners of the term.” This is Fidelbogen’s argument, as I recall. I think we are way beyond the understanding of things at the genesis of the term. MGTOW did not become explosively relevant to the world of men until Bar Bar, Stardusk, Girl Writes What, and Man Woman Myth, added the oxidizer to the rocket fuel – that being the true nature of woman – right before man’s eyes, yet he cannot see.

The term, some hard-core definition isn’t as important to me as are the men. What I care about is men qua men living as well as we can despite the current circumstances that I can now articulate.

Contained in the definition is the knowledge base or “pool of knowledge” as MultiShadow has put it. You can’t just go up to men and advise them to radically – and I mean radically – change their life and not have one hell of a presentation to back that up.

ALSO; Just using the behavior/action definition, allows the usurpers and antis to define MGTOW by pure emotional motive = sour grapes, weakness, fear of women, hated of women, immaturity, lack of achievement, making excuses, lazy, pathetic, withdrawn, etc. Is that the definition we want for MGTOW? If we don’t define MGTOW, the opposition will; and is now in the process. If we don’t have arguments against other definitions – arguments which cannot be crafted without our own thoroughly hammered out definitions and knowledge base to back them up – the Mass Media will define us as a “marriage strike” or “Sexodus”. How is that going to help men? And then men who need us will never find us, we will be buried by AUTHORITATIVE articles by Forbes, the Wall Street Journal and Fox.

There is no precise definition for “dog.” There is a very precise definition for “canine.” I suspect that this is the nature of what we’re dealing with.

Again a nice analytical gesture. Here we have a real definition situation. All breeds of dogs are subsumed in the class canine. A veterinarian need only study anatomy of the canine to generally be able operate on a wolf, Labrador, or Pekingese. But wolves and Pekingese don’t get the hip-dysplasia the larger breeds do. There are vets who specialize in small dogs. The taxonomy has to start with the canine, most actions by the vet will be directed by that. Different schools of canine veterinary can develop, but not without first understanding canine physiology. The anatomy of the situation.

We have to clearly know what we are teaching other men, before they can specialize their actions to their own breed of man that they are. MGTOW levels are options of ACTION, that are natural after the knowledge/belief are acquired.

First the knowledge of the anatomy, THEN the procedures to conduct the operation on one’s own.

Even though you learned to conduct an emergency operation out of necessity, then found the anatomy book with the cool title, later on.

 

Francis Roy 4:13 AM

+John Halt The length: I understand, and ask the same forgiveness.If you don’t mind, I won’t respond point by point, but in a more compact form following the order of your reply.

1. I note that men are struggling for a “definition” of MGTOW. The phrase has since its inception been vague and without “a proper definition.” Too many men seem to be fighting for an almost obsessively-compulsive precise definition. I think it’s unnecessary and a waste of time and due to people’s emotional nature, and is also a point of unnecessary divisiveness.

I don’t think that we need a perfect definition, I think that we need only find enough agreement on the essentials to be able to have a conversation on the matter.

Allow me an example. A number of Feminists and I have argued over the notions of sexism and racism. Both have precise meanings, none of which the Feminists care to use, because it would render their talking points moot. They would use multiple paragraphs where the intuitive dotting of every i, the jotting of every t, the delicate sensibility of the sequencing and ethereal quality of the words were of paramount importance to them. I simply responded with “I behave impartially.” They instantly knew what I meant, it left them no wiggle room, the conversations came to an abrupt silence.

I see the same sort of talk going on amongst we men. They want definitions, rules, regulations, sections, paragraphs and sub-paragraphs with Roman numerals, check-lists, bureaucracy. So much of it is mental and emotional masturbation, I suspect by those looking for a quasi-religious certainty and clarity of The One True Way.

I say: agree to the essentials and fuck the label. The label, it seems, is more of a hindrance than a help. We don’t need a technical manual, we need the good outline of a sales-script, adaptable to new prospects.

2. Shuffling the order of your comments around…

“If we don’t have arguments against other definitions – arguments which cannot be crafted without our own thoroughly hammered out definitions and knowledge base to back them up – the Mass Media will define us as a “marriage strike” or “Sexodus”. How is that going to help men?”

Communicating en masse is very important, now more than ever. Some might say that “MGTOW shouldn’t care.” On the level of a man’s journey, maybe no, but on the level of mass persuasion, it’s important. I respond with “See above.”

3. I have accepted to abandon the term “bachelor.” It was a term of convenience, it no longer suits me. To me, the very essence of this concept that we men are speaking of is a moment where a man decides to let fall the sway of feminine and social influence as being subtle yet powerful and semi-conscious imperatives that guide his sense of self and his life. It’s a decision.

Once you’ve made this decision, questions such as “Can MGTOW be married?” simply fall to the wayside, because they are the wrong questions. Better question for our hypothetical man are “What do I want?” “Does this serve me?” “Would this or that choice lead me to living as I best see fit?” We are no longer arguing about whether “a” MGTOW can do this or that, or meet this or that definition” We authentically have a man figuring out how to best embrace his life.

4. “Also we are back to definition by what’s going on inside the skull vs what is going on outside the skull, the knowledge/intent vs observable behavior problem.”

“{Knowledge/belief} vs {behavior/action}”

This cuts though a lot of bullshit and quickly. Nicely done. I’d completely missed that and you’ve summed my objection up very nicely. I don’t believe that MGTOW is a set of beliefs that must be religiously adhered to or imposed or as a measuring stick for membership to a group. Many would say they agree, but only as lip service. I could be happy to replace the term MGTOW with “Freeing one’s self from the social influences regarding the sex roles of a man.” But that’s far more wordy than an acronym, thus a very minor quandary.

5. “That is why the knowledge base [and definitions] are so important to us.”

I can see that. When you find yourself doubting your reality, you want to go over it with a fine-toothed comb to make sure that you don’t get fooled again.

6. “If those MGTOW engaged in debate would just track whether KNOWLEDGE/BELIEF MGTOW is being discussed or whether BEHAVIORAL MGTOW is the issue, so much savings of time and clarity would be added to the debate.”

/me nods. Good job.

 

John Halt 5:30 PM

+Francis RoyTo wrap up some points here:

Fact: Many MGTOW men are struggling for a precise definition of MGTOW.

Point: Such a definition is unnecessary. It has always been vague. Emotions are driving it. The effort is destructively divisive. A loose agreement on the basics will be fine.

Counter Point: Without clear definitions MGTOW could become unintelligible and collapse back into the Matrix or become just simple anti-feminism.

<<the label>>

The label is MGTOWs greatest asset and greatest curse.

<<where a man decides to let fall the sway of feminine and social

influence … and semi-conscious imperatives that guide his sense of self and his life. It’s a decision.>>

Uuhmm, sounds a bit like a definition to me. ;)

FROM YOUR OTHER POST TAGGED TO ME

<<For too many people, it looks this way: [Observation; men opting-out] -> utilitarian label -> delve into personal psychological make up -> find issues -> attach to label -> covert label into description of idealized solution for personal issues.>>

Yes, I do see this happen, and complicates the definition discussions further. Nicely expressed.

I have way over extended my time budget on MGTOW forums, and now face some deadlines in the real world that I have put off. I must finish off some other threads and then withdraw from comments for a while.

Our interlocution has served to clarify points I have been wrestling with, concerning MGTOW definitions, and has been a pleasure, Sir.

 

Francis Roy 5:42 PM

+John Halt “Uuhmm, sounds a bit like a definition to me. ;)”

Great. Now get everyone to agree with it! :)

“a pleasure, Sir.”

/me tips his hat.

And mine.

 

Eric Schiedler 10:03 PM

If practical to do so, please transfer a summary of this excellent discussion to another venue or platform. It will otherwise be lost in the depths of the archives.

Tagged ,

Reasons to go MGTOW: Ms. Entitled

You make a number of errors. The first is that we care about what you think of our genitals. The second is that we somehow have some moral duty to inform you about the shape of our genitals. The third is that we have some duty to “do whatever you want.”  “My main goal is to make you happy.” One has must be a sick person to either say it, or expect it a potential partner to say so. “She is the most important thing.” Entitled much? You aren’t “the most important thing.” You may or may not be important to him, but he is the most important person in his life. You either agree to walk your paths side-by-side, or you expect abject servility.

If I were generous, I could stretch and say that what you’re hoping for is open and honest communication. But that would be overly generous. You come across as a narcissistic child with a sense of entitlement. The attitude that you express is a great part of why men are abandoning relationships with women. Your entire video was Me! Me! Me! You give to me!

I will save your video as an example to young men as an example of the to the type of woman to avoid if he has interest a legitimate relationship.

Tagged ,

MGTOW vs MRA: Abandon all hopelessness

Another conversation I’ve had with a MGTOW.

tl;dr? Your comments are reflective of a very broad swath of men, whom I’d like to address indirectly as I speak with you. Much of your argument is typical of the kind that many MGTOW make: “I don’t know how it can be done, therefore it cannot.” This is an argument from lack of knowledge, and of hopelessness.

They then follow up with ” I will focus on what I can control: my life.” I do encourage men to take charge of their lives and to put themselves first.

At some point, however, one must measure when one’s life is stable and steady enough, to be willing to venture out of the comfort zones, even only if by small increments. My intent is not to convert you to an MRA, but to encourage you to replace hopelessness and helplessness with what MGTOW is really about: men living full rich lives as valuable and self-respecting men.

Forgive the length, the conversation is worth it. Wish we could do this via Hangouts. Interested? Contact me, and we’ll set it up.

“Having men speaking out doesn´t mean that laws will change. I have a hard time to see where things are getting better.”

You are right that discussion does not guarantee results, but no discussion certainly guarantees no results. Having women speak out didn’t mean that laws would change. But they have, haven’t they? I can provide you examples of where people speaking out has created change. I refer you to the Canadian Association for Equality, who have for the first time, since Earl Silverman, have create a shelter for abused men. That isn’t a law, but it’s a change. I could provide you with names of lawyers who actively specialize in men’s issues. That’s a next step. I can refer you Mike Buchanan who has started a political party in the UK based on men’s issues and is running for political positions. Step by step, all starting with talk. Give it time, we’ve only just begun, don’t write things off before we step off of the blocks.

“Instead we have the Yes-means-yes-law and some countries are introducing new laws where men can now get in trouble for flirting with a woman in public. Or airlines who require single traveling men not to sit next to young children.”

Yes, we have two groups, one, being a very-well funded massive power, and another simultaneously operating fledgling movement. Put one drop of red dye in a glass of water. The water is no longer 100% transparent. Add another drop. How long until we recognize that the water has a reddish hue? Remember that we are changing societies–plural. This is a generational task. We are doing this for our grand-children (and hopefully we’ll get to enjoy some of the results.)

“And what is that critical mass? 25%, 50%, 90%?”

That is excellent question–and one should be researched. How does one measure “critical mass?” That we do not know, at the time of this conversation, does not imply that it cannot be done. That would be an argument from lack of knowledge. I’m going to do some research on this for two reasons. 1. I want to know. 2. Knowing and being able to measure would allow us a concrete goal to strive for.

“I think there is more to it then rational thoughts. Biology and the urge of most men to care for women and to protect them at any cost is a huge factor as well.”

Oh yes. We are trying to change hearts and minds–in that order.

“I remember Cenk saying something like “Even if a woman hits you first, you don´t hit her back! That is just different!” And many men feel the same way.”

Yes, he’s entitled to hold very ignorant and thoughtless beliefs. Now, put him in a context with 1000 people who vociferously disagree and see how long he holds to that belief. Hearts and minds… Social pressure, psychology, emotion. It is all part of the equation.

Francis said: “This is very dense with assumptions.”

“I have talked to a large number of women about equality and feminism and while some of them might agree that feminism has taken things much too far, they often refuse to acknowledge that certain “facts” that are propagated by feminists are in fact just myths or flat out lies. Like the “gender wage gap” for example. You can produce statistics from official sources and those women will still claim that there is a gender wage gap and that women are “oppressed”. Again, this is not something rational in my opinion. It seems to be that those women instictively know that being the “victim” will benefit them and they won´t let go of it, no matter how many facts you present. They will constantly change the subject or end the discussion with the usual attacks: “You hate women! You have a problem with women! You are a sexist!” etc…”

Yes. And gravity exists. We do two things: use it, and find work-arounds. Ever ponder on how amazing suspended bridges are?

Francis said: “Cenk is not an enemy, he’s someone who doesn’t accept the argument…”

“Men like him will never change their behavior unless they have been burned badly themself. Sometimes not even then. At least that is my experience. There are some exceptions though…”

But we don’t know that for a fact. If we assume that this is so, as an irrefutable given, we aren’t likely to act on it, are we? Cenk is only one–and notice how many disagree with him. We don’t need 100% acceptance, we need critical mass. I can’t measure it yet, but I can see that it is growing.

Francis said: “MGTOW is not “the” solution, it is part of the solution.”

“I agree with you that MGTOW doesn´t provide a universal solution. But many MGTOW men probably don´t believe in a political solution (like myself). They just try to improve their life and stay safe. And that is a more practical approach then hoping or fighting for a political change, at least in my opinion. It is a solution for ME because it works for ME.”

Full disclosure, here: I am both an MRA and MGTOW. I was MGTOW before the term existed and only became MRA when I saw others doing it, and had an example to go by. MGTOW don’t believe in direct action. I get that, I didn’t for years either. You say “a more practical approach then hoping or fighting for a political change.”

Hoping and fighting for are two different things. The only reason that I was MGTOW and not MRA was because I thought “If I don’t know how it can be done, it can’t be.”

“I have nothing against the MRM, I just think it will not work.”

Two observations. The first is that you are looking at the MRM as though it is a singular static tool. It isn’t. The MRM is comprised of men and women, of all walks of life, of all psychological bents, of all skill, drive, talent and passion levels. The second is that you are again repeating “I can’t see it, so I don’t think it will work, therefore I will not invest in it.” That’s fair enough, and you are entitled to think that way–but it isn’t sound thinking, it is an argument from ignorance. You may not be one of those naturally proactive people, a mover-and-shaker by nature, neither am I, but I do not accept “I don’t know the solution, so I won’t try.” I’m not judging you for it, nor am I asking you to take action. I am asking you to think more deeply about your reasoning, even if it is only to stop thinking as someone who is oppressed.

“And one reason is because women have more leverage in our society. You can´t bargain with someone who is in a superior position. That´s the way I see it.”

Of course you can–if you have the right leverage. It might be financial, psychological, physical, etc. Sun Tzu is quoted as saying “Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win” and “To fight and conquer in all our battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting.” You have already lost in your mind, and so retreat. Our “war” is not won though violence, but influence. Take one person, and help them change one idea. That’s your drop of dye in the water. The first battle, however, is against our sense of weakness, powerlessness and hopelessness.

“Thanks anyway for your comment. Even if we don´t agree with each other, I always enjoy having a civil and respectful discussion like that. And that is the reason I gave your comment a thumbs up, not because I agree with you.”

Imagine that: people having civil discourse and enjoying it! I encourage you to continue doing do. It makes us more effective and more fun to be listened to.

Tagged , , ,

MGTOW vs MRAs: Open your eyes.


A commenter in a thread said _”I sympathize with the MRM insofar as they fight for mens rights. I just think that they will not get very far.”_

Yet, all evidence is to the contrary. We have more men speaking out now than we ever have had before. The result is that we have more people acting on it.

_”And the reason are people like Cenk.”_

Not at all. People like Cenk are merely what the marketing industry would call “a late adopter.” Given critical mass, he, and those who hold his points of view will also change. This is how ideas get propagated in a very large mass of ideas. Changing public consciousness takes time, first because humans need time to change their ideas and second, because there are so many humans.

_”Most women are not willing to give men equal rights. (And this includes especially reproductive rights!)”_

This is very dense with assumptions. First, rights are not “given,” they are accepted then respected, then acted upon.  When we speak of rights, such as reproductive rights, for example, what we’re speaking of is legislation that leads to the enactment and enforcement of policy. There is a process to these things. The order is such: academic introduction and debate, public acceptance, political acceptance, legislation and encoding into policy, followed up the encoding and enforcement of policy at the local level (in the bureaucracy, then down to cops and social workers, for example.)

Once all of this is in play, there’s a number of years where the specifics have to be worked out in court to refine the issues via challenges and decisions.

_”And a large number of men are mens worst enemy. Cenk is the best example for that.”_

Cenk is not an enemy, he’s someone who doesn’t accept the argument, whether his arguments are good or bad (I think they’re atrocious.) That he is male or female has no bearing on the matter.

Where men _are_ “enemies” to each other is in day-by-day activities where men piss on each other, or fail to stand up for each other in a context. In a conversation at a party, at a job interview, by the cop who just goes with the flow or in a comment thread where people scream out “pussy beggar!”

MGTOW is not “the” solution, it is part of the solution. MGTOW simply remove support from the current system: they don’t feed the enemy, they deny the enemy resources. MRAs are the warriors on the field, sword and shield in hand against those who would harm us. MGTOW is more passive, but is valuable. A hungry, unsheltered opponent is a weaker opponent which makes the job easier for the warriors in the field.

It is time to stop thinking of each other as opposing armies and to think of ourselves as mutually supporting specialists.

Tagged , ,