can married men be mgtow????

[Anonymous 12]

here is an intro from a married fella who might have a base understanding of men going their own way

My intro

but ultimately he is tied down with 99 ropes.

In theory, as a 1-in-100.000 exception, i would say it can work.
married Mgtow is like Nawalt.

[OldBillParticipant]

Anonymous wrote:

here is an intro from a married fella who might have a base understanding of men going their own way

usairman? He has no real conception of MGTOW. His posts are all full of blue pill statements like how his wife “puts up with him”.

That member aside and I’m most likely in the minority here, but I believe a married man can be a MGTOW IF he’s actively working towards and planning for his divorce. Stealthy was a prime example of this and there are other members in similar situations.

Do not date. Do not impregnate. Do not co-habitate. Above all, do not marry. Reclaim and never again surrender your personal sovereignty.

[Eric LauderParticipant 12043]

A married man has the same chances of a woman to be a MGHOW: ZERO.
Married men are manginas as default, with few exceptions.
A SEPARATED/DIVORCED man is very different, it’s the opposite of the above: MGHOW is the natural state of a separated/divorced man, and a man have to be an HUGE idiot to not GHOW after a separation/divorce.

SUPREME LEADER KIM JONG-UN'S FASHION STYLIST - if you want a new look or if you're a very beautiful trans you can call me, phone number +85079255312 / mobile 01921421211. The worth of a man isn't the usefulness that women get from him. Avoiding living with a woman, a man isn't rejecting a lot of sex: he's rejecting sexual starvation. MGTOW IS TACKLING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN COMPLIANCE WITH CONVENTION OF ISTANBUL: http://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/rms/090000168008482e --- Article 4, Section 4 "Special measures that are necessary to prevent and protect women from gender-based violence shall not be considered discrimination under the terms of this Convention". WHAT I LEARNT FROM A GENDER STUDIES CLASS IN LUND, SWEDEN: every time feminists accuses men of doing something, odds are likely either them or persons associated with them are doing the exact same thing but a lot worse. WHO I'M RIGHT NOW https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1okpAj7Fhw Basically my former life have been a conflict between this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yz_RQVkvke4 and this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFIMeyTK-sU That's, more or less, all about me.

[Anonymous 6]

The vast majority of men choose to be with women.
That is their choice, clearly that is their way.
Therefore they are going their own way.
That is not my way.
Red pill is not blue pill but a man going his own way is a man going his own way.
This MGTOW is the red pill way.
Argue all you like?

[Anonymous 42]

No more than a bachelor can be considered a married man.

Only when the chains that bind a man to the state through the lawfully molested contract of governmental matrimony are broken can a man be considered Going His Own Way.

A dog being walked on a leash is not going his own way just because his master isn’t jerking the leash at the moment…

[OldBillParticipant]

Anonymous wrote:

Red pill is not blue pill but a man going his own way is a man going his own way.

No, that is nothing more than some semantic trick worthy of an SJW or other cultural Marxist.

MGTOW cannot be as all inclusive as you claim it to be. If MGTOW includes everything done by everyone, than it mean nothing. The label MGTOW has to mean something if it is to have any worthwhile meaning at all.

A married man not planning for or working towards his divorce and subsequent freedom from women is not a man going his own way.

Do not date. Do not impregnate. Do not co-habitate. Above all, do not marry. Reclaim and never again surrender your personal sovereignty.

[narwhalParticipant]

I don’t like the idea of mgtow being some sort of merit badge where you tick off all the right boxes to get your medal. I see a collection of truths that a man can either chose to except or deny. He can chose to live his life logically based on those truths, or not.

Along with that, I do not think a married man should refer to himself as mgtow. There is no need or benefit to him for using the label, and he can do nothing but confuse people regarding what mgtow is. I personally don’t want to refer to myself as mgtow. Other people can decide whether the label fits me or not, I don’t care.

I don’t think this place needs to be only for single men or married men who are working towards divorce. This place is for truth and logical debate. Yes, that does pretty much exclude a married man, but I prefer to leave room for exceptions rather that blanket exclusion.

Ok. Then do it.

[OldBillParticipant]

narwhal wrote:

don’t like the idea of mgtow being some sort of merit badge where you tick off all the right boxes to get your medal.

I’m not suggesting there’s a check list either and I routinely caution against the idea of there being MGTOW “levels”.

That being said, MGTOW has to mean something, has to stand for something, if it is to have any meaning at all.

I see a collection of truths that a man can either chose to except or deny. He can chose to live his life logically based on those truths, or not.

Exactly. Accept those truths, follow the logical consequences of them, and you’re a MGHOW. Deny those truths, ignore the consequences, and you’re not.

This mealy mouthed contention that all men are going their own way so all men are somehow MGTOWs is nonsense.

Do not date. Do not impregnate. Do not co-habitate. Above all, do not marry. Reclaim and never again surrender your personal sovereignty.

[narwhalParticipant]

OldBill wrote:

That being said, MGTOW has to mean something, has to stand for something, if it is to have any meaning at all.

Agreed, which is part of the reason I don’t refer to myself as MGTOW. I do not want my actions to be MGTOWs actions to avoid the risk of misrepresentation or tarnishing what mgtow is..

Ok. Then do it.

[Anonymous 42]

You’re either on the inside looking out, or on the outside looking in, you can’t be on both sides of a cage at the same time.

Life is binary gentlemen, there’s no such thing as a truth blender, feminism has proven over and over again. The truth cannot be mixed and blended with a lie, like oil and water they always separate.

Feminism has put oil and water in a butter churn and expected to get ice cream! Wonder why they’re such miserable little things?

[OldBillParticipant]

narwhal wrote:

Agreed, which is part of the reason I don’t refer to myself as MGTOW. I do not want my actions to be MGTOWs actions to avoid the risk of misrepresentation or tarnishing what mgtow is..

You shouldn’t sell yourself short, brother. Like Stealthy, you’re one of the men I point to when I suggest that a married MGTOW is a possibility.

Do not date. Do not impregnate. Do not co-habitate. Above all, do not marry. Reclaim and never again surrender your personal sovereignty.

[Cú ChulainnParticipant 3910]

+
= MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE

[Puffin StuffParticipant 24979]

I read a definition of men going their own way.

It said that men going their own way see women for who they really are and act accordingly.

I didn’t want to get married. I’d been there done that but at 34 got the baby rabies and just had to have a kid.

So I got married to a career girl adding a second income to the mix and a nice life ahead. She quickly retired.

But all that time I had been divorced and took the red pill after the first divorce. It helped that Lykis was on the radio every day showing how women really are.

I accepted living under the yolk as being the cost of a child. At the time I did think that although I didn’t realize that children belong to their mothers.

I really do think kids deserve two parents and know married men have more custody rights.

So I changed exactly half the diapers etc. When we got to court I won 50/50 physical and kept winning in court although I lost financially in life.

The long and short of it is that I was red pill and still got married. I saw all the signs she was about to monkey branch and prepared for it. When she left I had my 12 month old son back full time in my house within 3 days. Exparte.

My ever loving son I fought so hard to be in his life f~~~ed me over at 13 years by making a false accusation so he could move to his mom’s house in Hawaii.

The most the philosophy of going your own way can do is point to the path that leads to your happiness. You have to take the steps. It is a personal journey.

But: Don’t have children. They belong to the mother. If you do, go your own way and start preparing for the eventual divorce.

And don’t forget, a guy going his own way never stays in a toxic marriage. You go your away out of that abusive s~~~.

A blue pill guy of any marriage condition cannot be going their own way.

#icethemout; Remember Thomas Ball. He died for your children.

[Anonymous 6]

OldBill wrote:

No, that is nothing more than some semantic trick worthy of an SJW or other cultural Marxist.
MGTOW cannot be as all inclusive as you claim it to be. If MGTOW includes everything done by everyone, than it mean nothing. The label MGTOW has to mean something if it is to have any worthwhile meaning at all.

There is obviously some truth to this.
However using language dishonestly is exactly what women do to confound men?
You define a red pill MGHOW as MGTOW.
That however is not the literal interpretation of the actual words it is a biased and therefore dishonest representation of those words.
Semantics yes but if words do not have a definable meaning then what use are they?

The need to create arbitrary distinctions is a product of the instinctive urge to compete.
This limits a persons perception of reality to an unrealistically simple format that will generate errors.

I read a book on alchemy written by a French professor of semantics many years ago.
He had some remarkable insights into the nature of the English language.
I enjoy being able to accommodate a variety of points of view without feeling my own is compromised buy the truth of theirs.
I understand not everyone is able to do that.
I also understand that ignorance is a choice.

I enjoy a lot of your posts OldBill but I fear you undermine yourself.

[Puffin StuffParticipant 24979]

It’s interesting that any consensus on issues exist here. Those out side the community of men going their own way are really afraid of that.

I have have read that the men going their own way community is developing it’s own ideas and that these are removed from some of the things the men’s activist groups are trying to achieve.

Like not getting marriage. For me, it’s not about hating being married to a woman, which I would be, but being married to anyone, even gays, is a bad deal from the perspective of the one who earns more.

Conveniently and almost exclusively, it is the ones feminists hate, men.

#icethemout; Remember Thomas Ball. He died for your children.

[Anonymous 42]

OldBill wrote:

you’re one of the men I point to when I suggest that a married MGTOW is a possibility.

What is a married man other than a blue cloud sleeper or a caged red-pill eater?

In that aspect there are two types of MGTOW; caged quietly filing the bars, or free and no need to throw the whole toolbox at their escape, they get to use the tools in a more productive way and that’s BUILDING and not REPAIRING!

[OldBillParticipant]

Anonymous wrote:

However using language dishonestly is exactly what women do to confound men?

Which is why men shouldn’t play language tricks with each other.

You define a red pill MGHOW as MGTOW.

Yes. That is what I do.

That however is not the literal interpretation of the actual words it is a biased and therefore dishonest representation of those words.

No. There is being literal and then there is being overly literal. You deliberately ignoring the fact that the phrase MGTOW is just that; a phrase. A phrase’s meaning is more than the sum of the words making it up. Thus the phrase “Men Going Their Own Way” means something as in and of itself, something not limited to the words making it up.

You’re deliberately choosing to deconstruct the phrase and instead focus on the meaning of the individual words so you can play a semantic trick and “debate” the meaning of the phrase. Rather than examining the phrase as a whole, you’re examining each of the words making up the phrase individually, choosing different meanings for each, and then suggesting the phrase “means” something which you know to be totally at odds with the actual meaning. This shell game is then supposed to grant us a deeper understanding of the phrase itself.

Putting it another way, deconstructionism is a pernicious fad which ignores context and is used to deliberately damage language and meaning for political ends. Derrida, it’s creator, was a world class douche.

Deconstructionism is exactly what Orwell warned against in his novel 1984 and other essays. When men as different as Chomsky and Searle both denounce Derrida’s work as nonsense, you know something must be wrong. It’s also telling that Derrida’s work has been either attacked and ignored by philosophers and instead is mostly embraced by those working in the “social sciences”

You can and should do better.

Semantics yes but if words do not have a definable meaning then what use are they?

Words have a definable meaning. Actually, words have several definable meanings. What you’re failing to comprehend thanks to your overly literal deconstructionism is that phrases have meanings too. Because phrases have meanings, that overarching meaning constrains the possible meanings of the words making up the phrase.

You know what the phrase “Men Going Their Own Way” means and the meaning of that phrase constrains the meanings of the words comprising it. Because the words “men”, “going”, “their”, “own”, and “way” have different meanings depending on their use, you’re just pretending the phrase means something else in order to make some sort of pseudo-intellectual point.

Putting it another way, your deconstructionist tricks aren’t going to work this time because I’m here to call you on your s~~~.

I read a book on alchemy written by a French professor of semantics many years ago. He had some remarkable insights into the nature of the English language.

What, he didn’t write one about astrology too? Alchemy texts were deliberately written to obscure the topics being discussed and confuse anyone who wasn’t “initiated” or otherwise “hip” to the deliberately allegorical “jargon”. That professor might was well have studied secret languages and codes for all the “insight’ he would have gained.

I enjoy being able to accommodate a variety of points of view without feeling my own is compromised buy the truth of theirs.

I also enjoy playing the Devil’s Advocate. I don’t pretend that being a contrarian or deconstructionist actually adds to any understanding however.

I understand not everyone is able to do that. I also understand that ignorance is a choice.

And f~~~ you too.

I enjoy a lot of your posts OldBill but I fear you undermine yourself.

Be careful or someone just might deconstruct your argument. After all, the words you used have meanings other than the ones you used.

Do not date. Do not impregnate. Do not co-habitate. Above all, do not marry. Reclaim and never again surrender your personal sovereignty.

[Anonymous 6]

OldBill wrote:

You’re deliberately choosing to deconstruct the phrase and instead focus on the meaning of the individual words so you can play a semantic trick and “debate” the meaning of the phrase. Rather than examining the phrase as a whole, you’re examining each of the words making up the phrase individually, choosing different meanings for each, and then suggesting the phrase “means” something which you know to be totally at odds with the actual meaning. This shell game is then supposed to grant us a deeper understanding of the phrase itself.

That is simply dishonest.
You do not own these words.
Men going their own way means men going their own way.
You do not get to decide what that is.
Each man defines that for himself.
You write like a conformist.
It’s just different definition of what a man must be.

[Anonymous 12]

OldBill wrote:

I understand not everyone is able to do that. I also understand that ignorance is a choice.
And f~~~ you too.

Old Buster!
Remember your resolution regarding your choice of words.
Stay rational. Stay cold.

[OldBillParticipant]

Thanks for the reminder g-mow.

As you can tell, I loathe deconstructionists and their word games. They’ll twists meanings until black is white, up is down, or one is zero and all just for some philosophical “kicks”.

Do not date. Do not impregnate. Do not co-habitate. Above all, do not marry. Reclaim and never again surrender your personal sovereignty.

[Author]

Posts