A possible NAWALT! she is a single mother who gets it!

[BONEParticipant 448]

I’ll have a better chance of smoking a joint with bigfoot than finding a NAWALT, I’ve never stuck my dick in a pussy before and even I know a women can’t raise a boy to be a man, it just doesn’t even make sense. She should of known this BEFORE having a child and kicking the father to the curb.

[sidecarParticipant 35871]

LucidLeo wrote:

I recognize the faults on both sides.

Both sides? BOTH sides?

Again, you MUST be joking.

You find me one case of a man trapping a woman with false paternity.  Until then you can shut the f~~~ up about this “both sides” bulls~~~, because the only mistake men have made is letting women get away with it.

Anonymous wrote:

F~~~ yeah! I second that. We need a tradcon button.

I think a “completely full of s~~~” button would be more universal.  And accurate.

Keymaster wrote:

“A single mother who gets it!” is no better (or a greater catch) than a single mother who doesn’t get it.

EXACTLY!

Once you see “single mother”, stop.  Because after that NOTHING she has to say is worth anything.

If she really “got it”, SHE WOULDN’T BE A SINGLE MOTHER!

[Anonymous 11]

A single mother can do a great job of turning a young boy into a mangina. The only thing I miss from my last and final relations~~~ was that MILF’s 5 year old son. He latched onto me really hard. His real father is a total mangina though that woman is a total witch too.

@Soul Man: UFOs are actually real. I also believe I’m more likely to see a Sasquatch than meet a NAWALT.

Danger Will Robinson, Danger!!!!

[Smacktalk73Participant 296]

Forget her — she’s full of s~~~.  But the phenomenon she represents is very real.

Women are TAKING OVER FAMILIES at a level they didn’t even do when they were stay-at-home moms.

Women pretend they are entering the workforce, but f~~~ that.  They are TAKING OVER FAMILIES.  There’s no male/female combination for kids anymore in these families.  There’s only one role model- the female nurturer.

Manhood is f~~~ed at the moment.  It basically doesn’t exist.

And the real reason for all of this is GOVERNMENT SUPPORTING WOMEN.  Our country has created this, by making childrearing alone the easiest, most convenient and most profitable thing a woman can do.

And conversely, government makes child rearing impossible for males UNLESS they are either huge suck-ups to the mothers and stays married (good luck with that, since woman are the ones initiating divorce, knowing the system is stacked in their favor), get incredibly lucky and have a very generous mother for their children, or the mom is FLAT OUT CRAZY and somehow loses custody of the kids.

[sidecarParticipant 35871]

Anonymous wrote:

A single mother can do a great job of turning a young boy into a mangina.

Also criminals.  Single mothers do a really good job at producing criminals.

And as to single fathers being unable to raise daughters?  That’s just more bulls~~~.  The fact is single fathers have proven better than even two parent households at turning children of either sex into functional, productive adults.  Children raised by single fathers have higher rates of graduation, higher rates of getting degrees, higher rates of employment and at higher incomes, lower rates of incarceration, lower rates of teen pregnancy and so on than children of two parent families.  Single mothers don’t even rate.

[DeepInThoughtParticipant 2710]

Keymaster wrote:

I don’t even know how a single mother cannot s~~~ her pants on a daily basis worrying about what would happen to her child if she got killed, or harmed, or incapacitated or unemployed.

My ex did this with her ex husband. She left strict instruction to her family to use every possible resource and dollar to make sure he didn’t get his son if she should die. Disgusting! That was yet another red flag I ignored…

[hmskl’dParticipant 6440]

“unfortunately … there are no NAWALTs.”

 

[EnlightenedMGTOWParticipant 291]

The very nature of being a single mother makes you an AWALT

Marriage is the disease, divorce is the cure. MGTOW is the vaccine.

[DeepInThoughtParticipant 2710]

bigboy83 wrote:

Actions speak louder than words, I doubt she can back it up. Plus, single mommies are the least likely to get dates, so what she is really doing, is trying to drag some men back to the plantation. Women have been lying, so badly, so often, and so long, nothing they can say has any credibility.

True, but they have no problems getting dates from white knight, Mangina single dads who themselves are terrified of being lonely, haven’t learnt their lesson yet and know how to push single mum emotional hot buttons to get their end in. Seen it too many times! Men, most men are hopeless and will pretty much f~~~ anything I have noticed, MGTOW is completely different and we hold ourselves to a higher standard or what they call it in the old days…integrity!

[Anonymous 11]

sidecar wrote:

And as to single fathers being unable to raise daughters?  That’s just more bulls~~~.

I’m on the phone with my friend who raised his daughter as a single dad. She’s a junior in a Catholic High School. She does not date as it interferes with her studies, and she’s very pretty. She’s still a chick, of course, but she was brought up with middle aged men who actually gave a f~~~ about her and her future. She’s looking at which college to attend. We pumped her with MGTOW from age 4 to the present. We’re hoping to have created a NAWALT for some lucky guy as we tried to teach her to respect men as humans.

Contrast that to my other friend’s oldest daughter who was raised by her single mom after the divorce. She’s a very intelligent and attractive woman at 25, but her finance is currently in jail on meth and gun running charges so she won’t be seeing him for a while.

[AFTParticipant 2726]

When enough men go MGTOW, and society crumbles, I expect there will be NAWAT Unicorns all over the place, just like this one,

The fact that they admit to needing a man makes them a NAWALT?

Never trust what a woman says, they always have an ulterior motive.

My interpretation of what she’s saying:

OOOH ….. I’ve finished riding the carousel, now I have a kid (but even if I didn’t), I need provisioning, sounds more like she hit the wall and is in the second phase of the duplistic strategy namely Beta Bucks.

 

 

When the war cemeteries are half full of the corpses of dead conscripted women, only then will women have earned the right to speak of equality. Sidecar “A man is a success if he gets up in the morning and goes to bed at night and in between does what he wants to do.” - Bob Dylan

[Anonymous 11]

AFT wrote:

I expect there will be NAWAT Unicorns all over the place, just like this one,

Very true AFT, but women are lying manipulators par excellence as you know. I foresee the femisphere posting myriad articles on how to fake being a NAWALT so you can trick MGTOWs. It won’t work though as MGTOWs have burnt the bridges and salted the soil. We’re done.

My friend who raised his daughter solo has been a MGHOW since 2004 seven years before I learned. I’m going to introduce him to MGTOW formally. These are simply going to be NAWALT Unicorns in drag. Blue pillers, manginas, and White Knights will eat it up though.

I go out as a red pill MGHOW and observe men in action trying to score. They are pathetic. I laugh at them. I rebuff the sluts who quickly leave me be as they realize I can see right through them.

[Cap285Participant 6007]

NAWALT you say? May I interest you in searching for the following as well?

This is what she is:

Fuck this planet.

[IggyThundersParticipant 246]

Wow. So Tradcons are persona non grata worthy of an eject button? Then you better flush me. Believe it or not we Tradcons do have nuanced views. I think we are getting into dangerous territory here which lends itself to ideological purity. I’ve seen this happen before many times. And the only thing that does is create an echo chamber. I sincerely hope that doesn’t happen to this forum.

[Anonymous 5]

I think this should be a topic for a thread in itself because a lot of people don’t seem to get it.

Here’s the simple formula from Einstein’s observation:

NAWALT (+/-) OWNERSHIP = AWALT

His observation:
Men marry women hoping they’ll never change, they always do!
Women marry men hoping they can change them, they never do.

In very young, or emotionally or mentally challenged women, just emotional ownership will flick the switch. Just tell her you love her or profess exclusiveness or show excessive mangina activity,,,and then sit back and watch the real woman emerge.
For some, it’s just moving in together that implies ownership. It triggers the change
Bridezillas will trigger on an engagement ownership. All they’re thinking of is the wedding day. Many even admit afterwards it was all they were thinking of.
Most trigger on the wedding day ownership itself.
Some will NAWALT past the wedding day to the birth of the first child to trigger.
Really smart ones like Wendi Deng (Rupert Murdoch’s Ex) will hit the 10 year mark ownership for maximum alimony before triggering monkey branching.
Other variants of ownership triggers are as bizarre as the guy giving up drinking, finally. I’ve seen this one in real life and once here on the forums, both after many years and children. It’s a type of emotional ownership.

In all cases, once ownership is achieved, they no longer have any romantic interest in the male what so ever. Romantic interest in the male isn’t good after ownership is achieved for evolutionary survival reasons that may be a bit too much for this particular thread. Though, it’s still biologically beneficial for the woman and offspring if the male retains romantic interest.
This NAWALT stage is partly contrived but it’s mostly Darwinian biology. Because it’s universal I don’t think women have that much control over it.

NAWALTS are real. Their lil hearts really do go pitter patter at the sight of their love, even the thought of their love.
The chemicals in their body can now be measured empirically. Research is going into replicating those chemicals with a “Love Drug”
But it’s just a phase that human females have evolved to secure a resource, which was always necessary throughout evolution of Sapiens.
All they do after the NAWALT phase is sociopathic “improve” or exploit the resource (male) to the maximum. Hence always trying to “change” a guy for the better (in their eyes).
If they have an opportunity to gain a better resource, they’ll take it, hence hypergamy.

As Lawrence Shannon observed in “The Predatory Female” He describes it beautifully.
Download his free book and go to page 16. He calls it The Chameleon Syndrome,
Substitute NAWALT = Chameleon, and OWNERSHIP = Subdue male.
One thing no one seems to have noticed is that the change happens virtually overnight.

It might make a great thread to see if guys remember the exact time their NAWALTS turned to AWALTS.

P.S. I forgot to mention the minus sign in the equation (-). This is when the female finds out she isn’t going to own anyone or anything.
Sit back with popcorn (at a safe distance) and watch the NAWALT explode into an AWALT.

[Big Viking Chef BVCParticipant 1286]

I don’t want an echo chamber either Iggy.  None of us need to agree 100%.  There’s no freedom in that.  But anyone that tries to convert everyone else to their own views 100% deserves ejection.  Just my opinion.

When the open door policy is removed and I find myself being suppressed or programmed, I will eject myself…but that won’t happen here from what I have seen so far.  These guys are way too intelligent for that.

BVC

 

Swallow this RED PILL ===> Men will lay down their lives for their brothers, their women and their children. This makes Men useful as slaves. Women will lay down their lives for ONLY their children. To expect more from women is just a FANTASY created by society and reinforced by the unconditional love that we experienced from our Mothers. The key to freedom is the understanding that the woman you meet is not going to fantastically love you like your Mother did. If you buy into the fantasy, then she is your new master. If you do not buy into the fantasy, then she is nothing, and you retain your freedom.

[KeymasterKeymaster]

IggyThunders wrote:

Wow. So Tradcons are persona non grata worthy of an eject button? Then you better flush me. Believe it or not we Tradcons do have nuanced views. I think we are getting into dangerous territory here which lends itself to ideological purity. I’ve seen this happen before many times. And the only thing that does is create an echo chamber. I sincerely hope that doesn’t happen to this forum.

Iggy brought something interesting up here.

This is the Manosphere, and the last thing you will get is everyone agreeing on s~~~. No danger of an “echo chamber” when MGTOW are healthy, aware, awake and perfectly willing to call each other out and point out bulls~~~ when it’s warranted. LOVE that about the red pill and MGTOW. As like minded as we are, we don’t just nod and agree for the sake of it. If anything, we are more likely to throw flaming arrows at each other – even when we shouldn’t.

That’s why a MGTOW agreeing with another MGTOW actually has value.
And butting heads also has value.

My definition of “TRAD CON” was not say trad-con views are wrong and declare tradcons should be ejected. It was only to illustrate what people *MEAN* when MGTOW use the term in a sentence. Like “alpha” or “beta”. We don’t actually subscribe to those (female) definitions, but we use them to talk about certain behaviors and mentalities.

For example, when I talk about “that beta”, I am not implying I am a definitive “alpha” who is speaking negatively about him – because even the most “alpha” of us has been guilty of beta behavior on occasion. Both labels are bulls~~~. But it’s a good way to encapsulate certain behaviors with a couple of words and everyone knows what we are talking about.

It’s obvious that most MGTOW can’t abide single mothers….

sidecar wrote:

If she really “got it”, SHE WOULDN’T BE A SINGLE MOTHER!

Bingo. That’s a perfect example right there. (thank you @sidecar)

Shunning single moms and believing 2 parents is a much better way to raise kids is actually a “tradcon” view. I hold that view myself – despite my definition of “TRADCON” above. Frowning upon single moms shows a “traditionally conservative” point of view. So you could argue many of us are “tradcons” in that way. Would I have married once upon a time? Very possibly and almost did. THREE times. But I didn’t, because I was awake.

MY personal idea of “tradcon” is much different than the current/universal idea of “tradcon”.
The difference is clear.

My brother and his wife are a perfect example of my definition above. He is an unthinking fool who is perfectly content being a slave and kneeling before his queen, while she is perfectly content with that arrangement too. It makes me sick to witness. We are both “tradcons” in a sense and hold similar values (especially when it comes to child rearing), but my idea is MUCH different than his.

Check this out. A couple of weekends ago, I took part in a hangout on Google+ with other MGTOW who wanted to speak to MGTOW.COM and ask us some questions. There were 4 of them online- plus me. It was only supposed to last an hour or two, but we chatted for 7.5 hours. Want to know something AMAZING? Here we were – 4 random guys on the planet – separated by oceans and very different lives. But guess what. For the first time EVER IN MY LIFE, I found myself in the company of 4 others who all had parents who were married until death separated them.

How often does that happen? F~~~ing never.

Growing up, most of our friends ALL had divorced parents or were raised by single moms. I have never been in the company of 4 people where EVERYONE’S parents were married. And neither did they! We were all blown away by this. Four-out-of-four in a totally chance meeting all came from married 2-parent households. You will never find yourself in a group of 4 total strangers where 100% of them came from a traditional 2-parent household.

So don’t for a second think we are anti-tradcon.
We are just aware of the difference between “tradcon”…. and “TRAD CON”.

If you keep doing what you've always done... you're gonna keep getting what you always got.

[KeymasterKeymaster]

Anonymous wrote:

How do I find the glossary? Will it come up with the search function?

Oops. I just realized I lied when I answered “no”. YES if you use the site search at the very top (right), and you are looking for something mentioned in the glossary, the glossary page will show up in the results.

For example, I just tested it by searching for “SIMP”. The glossary was one of the results. So yes. But keep in mind the FORUM search is exclusive. The site search is kept separate from the forum search for obvious reasons. The content on the site is 100% regulated and generated by MGTOW.COM. The forum search returns results of user-generated content contained in the forums only.

So if you’re looking for “SIMP” in the forums, you will not happen on the glossary page. That’s separate from the forums.

I hope I didn’t just confuse the s~~~ out of you.

If you keep doing what you've always done... you're gonna keep getting what you always got.

[KahnParticipant 41]

 

@****

Wow, that makes a lot of sense, and explains things in my own life. I’m not a big fan of biological determinism, but it is sad that women seem to lack any control over this.

Maybe the early feminists were right when they said “marriage is a prison” because.. well it had to be, otherwise the woman would just go monkey branching from man to man.

Anyway, cats out of the bag now, no going back.

[Not a MG╠OWParticipant 17]

NAWALTs don’t exist. Get over it.

[Author]

Posts