Home › Forums › Philosophy › Exploring and Criticizing the MGTOW Philosophy
This topic contains 68 replies, has 17 voices, and was last updated by 
Theronius 3 years, 11 months ago.
- AuthorPosts
From what I read so far on this forum the facts spoken of about disparities in media, the law and the general attitude of most people concerning men and women is accurate. What I find questionable is the the coarse of action that is often suggested to counter those disparities and the MGTOW philosophy in general. But, I don’t want stereotype the philosophy so I’d appreciate it if someone would explain what his philosophy is and allow me to ask follow up questions.
Thank you.
I am honest and up front too, I tell a woman fairly soon that there will be no marriage. I will not be paying for her s~~~ or her kids needs.
Has the inequalities in the law concerning men and women contributed to your decision to not have children?
Perhaps this will shed some light on the questions:
"It seems like there's times a body gets struck down so low, there ain't a power on earth that can ever bring him up again. Seems like something inside dies so he don't even want to get up again. But he does."
I am honest and up front too, I tell a woman fairly soon that there will be no marriage. I will not be paying for her s~~~ or her kids needs.
Has the inequalities in the law concerning men and women contributed to your decision to not have children?
For sure. having kids with a psycho could really f~~~ up your life.
I hope I’m not being presumptuous again, but you seem to imply that the difficulties one would face in having children are an obvious reason for not having them. In general, it seems one would avoid difficulties in one area only to allow more resources in other areas that one values more. So I’d appreciate if you explain what it is that you value more than having children.
Experience, I’d appreciate it if you’d alter the video link so that it’s only text.
I believe there should be actual equality before the law, not like this highly women centered version of law that’s so popular now.
I understand why one would want such a change, but I don’t understand why there should be such a change. Or did you only mean that you, personally, want such a change?
I am honest and up front too, I tell a woman fairly soon that there will be no marriage. I will not be paying for her s~~~ or her kids needs.
Has the inequalities in the law concerning men and women contributed to your decision to not have children?
For sure. having kids with a psycho could really f~~~ up your life.
I hope I’m not being presumptuous again, but you seem to imply that the difficulties one would face in having children are an obvious reason for not having them. In general, it seems one would avoid difficulties in one area only to allow more resources in other areas that one values more. So I’d appreciate if you explain what it is that you value more than having children.
Yes, the difficulties would be the reason for not…..
My point was that one may take it for granted that having children would be difficult.
And it’s not really as much about shifting funds from project to project, it’s about being able to have enough money AT ALL, for any projects. Perhaps if I was a billionaire i might put more irons in the fire, and be willing to live on half of my stuff with alimony and child support, but I have enough trouble as is.
From an evolutionary perspective, the difficulty is irrelevant so long as one successfully raised them to have children themselves. From that perspective having children in somewhere like modern America is relatively not difficult. But, there’s more to it than that simplification. Even though it’s relatively less difficult to keep one’s children safe, it may be relatively far more difficult to raise them to be the type of people one wants them to be.
I think this compulsion about kids is often socially induced by pro-establishment goons, who wish to load people up with stress and “responsibility” so they are more slave-like and fearful in their outlook.
I’m not entirely certain that I agree about there being an over-all compulsion to have children in society. It’s clear that a high majority of media and Americans speak to an ideology that emasculates men, and most likely a majority speak to an ideology suggesting one have children, but I don’t know if the majority is anywhere near as high.
From what I read so far on this forum the facts spoken of about disparities in media, the law and the general attitude of most people concerning men and women is accurate. What I find questionable is the the coarse of action that is often suggested to counter those disparities and the MGTOW philosophy in general. But, I don’t want stereotype the philosophy so I’d appreciate it if someone would explain what his philosophy is and allow me to ask follow up questions.
Thank you.
Stuart. If you find the MGTOW philosophy questionable, why did you join the website? Reading this back and forth with a member, it looks like you are a reporter. Not a big deal if you are, but if so, please identify yourself as one.
If you have read the website for even a few minutes, you will see a few things:
1. People will give you much more respect if you start with an intro on that forum.
2. The advice most men here will give someone is to be VERY careful in a relationship, or to not be in one. In fact, about a week ago someone new came on the website asking for ways to get revenge on a woman, and every one of us told him (her) to just walk away. The reasons varied from karma to risk of retaliation, but the answer was the same from all of us. They did NOT get a list of great ideas on how to screw over a woman. And that mentality is what keeps me coming back to see what my brothers have to say. If they were a bunch of dicks I never would have joined.
3. Given #2, I’m not sure why you think that course of action is questionable. To steal from the women, NO MEANS NO. It doesn’t matter why I don’t want to date, NO MEANS NO. I don’t need a reason, and you (not you specifically) aren’t entitled to know why.
4. I’ll go one further, I would expect a woman to THANK me for not dating them. Call me broken, call me butthurt, call me gay, whatever. I am helping them shrink the dating pool down to men who actually want to date them. You’re Welcome.Sorry, but I don’t really understand what is questionable about that. My MGTOW senses would tell me straight out that you are a chick, but you are too logical in your questions and responses. My apologies if I am wrong, but my guess is a reporter looking for some quotes.
Order the good wine
Stuart, 1) what do you understand as the course of action that mgtows suggest and b) what is your critique of that suggestion?
Excepting the first two sentences, the website’s statement seems to mostly make sense, but I’m don’t know that I’ve noticed many here stand by it, but I don’t see the purpose in criticizing based on a general perspective that I have when it’d be better to speak directly to what people say. I prefer to do so in my own thread so that I’m not bothering anyone.
Concerning the first two sentences, which seem to be basically an explanation of the name of the website:
M.G.T.O.W – Men Going Their Own Way is a statement of self-ownership, where the modern man preserves and protects his own sovereignty above all else. It is the manifestation of one word: “No”.
I have noticed people here standing by it. But, I don’t entirely understand, nor necessarily agree with the idea seemingly implied that men ought to place themselves in diametric opposition to women. Men, women, animals, the weather, among other things one simply deals with as one sees best.
Concerning other men, and women, one may think of them in terms of simply a means; someone one uses, or must avoid, or someone one can establish a mutually positive relationship with. For one to place himself in diametric opposition to anyone person or thing one needs think of that person or thing as not simply as obstacle but something for which one sees in himself. Two boxers in a ring see themselves as near equals, and neither one would wish the other away, but would prefer fighting in direct manner for which they both agree upon. A man confronted by a wild animal, would wish it away, and failing that simply deals with it as best he can.
Edit: I want to clarify, the above two paragraphs are my criticism of the website statement, which I would only expect to by answered by its author or those who stand by it completely. I’m not speaking to members in general, for which, as I said, I’d like to speak directly to their own words.
Anonymous0I’m smell tuna. Be careful Survivor. Stuart has not said one pro male thing yet.
Stuart, you come on this site and are full of questions and want us to change things to suit you.
What does that smell like, guys?“Two boxers in a ring see themselves as near equals, and neither one would wish the other away”
Boxers also eventually get tired of getting punched in the face over and over and walk away from the ring. Some get brain damage from getting the f~~~ing s~~~ beat out of them too many times.
And, what if the ref is cheating for the other boxer? Am I just supposed to stand there and get the f~~~ beat out of me, or do I throw in the towel and go home?
With the current laws and societal bulls~~~, it’s not a fair fight. Plus, they are standing there telling everyone that the ref is cheating for us, while they are hitting us in the nuts over and over.
I suggest you watch the movie War Games. The only way to win at Globalthermalnuclearwar was to not play. It’s always the third option.
Order the good wine
yes. pretty much everyone agrees having children is difficult. That is the general human concensus. Do you know any?
I don’t wish to be irritatingly obvious, if that’s how I seem, but if difficulty is not your reason, or more like, only the foundation of your reason, then I remain as unsure why you don’t wish to have children as I did from the begging of this conversation.
And I don’t really care about the evolutionary perpspective.
Ok.
And as far as your belief that pressure to have kids is high but not as high as my unspecified quantity….. ummm… ok….. whatever.
It seems like a legitimate comparison. I go from my own personal experience in these matters, and while I’m bombarded with ideology meant to emasculate I’m not concerning pressure to have children. My understanding is that those who suffer the most from such pressure are those whose parents pressure them, not society in general.
I’m smell tuna. Be careful Survivor. Stuart has not said one pro male thing yet.
I’m male and I’m obviously in favor of my own well being, and try to avoid indirectly working against it. As for men in general, I’m not even entirely sure what it would mean to be pro or con them. But, I did say from the start for what it’s worth:
“From what I read so far on this forum the facts spoken of about disparities in media, the law and the general attitude of most people concerning men and women is accurate.”
For your benefit I’ll follow it up by saying that while I’d keep my own experiences to myself, I have seen other men I know very well and respect very much degraded by such laws in ways that left me aghast.
Stuart, you come on this site and are full of questions and want us to change things to suit you.
I haven’t asked anyone to change anything. Please, quote me where you got the impression I did.
[/quote]
Stuart it says “self owners ship” and “self sovereignty”..
YOU said diametrically opposed to women, just for the record.
The idea of men going their own way implies, going their own way from something. A person, man or woman, can go his own way from common societal norms, but to specify that one is speaking of men, not women, could simply mean that they’re simply not including women in the discussion for the sake of it not being too broad, just as one usually speaks of medical terms concerning humans, leaving animals out of the subject, to avoid over complicating things. Or, as I’m assuming, they’re using the word “men” specifically, as the opposing term to “women”, so that it may be clear that more than anything what they’re going away from is women.
Are women opposed to male self-soveregnty? to the degree that they are, I would expect mgtow to be opposed to them to that same degree.
By male sovereignty do you mean the sovereignty of a man over himself, meaning separating his values and goals from those in society not in line with them and controlling his actions using reason over emotion/instinct. Or do you mean men being sovereign over women?
“Two boxers in a ring see themselves as near equals, and neither one would wish the other away”
Boxers also eventually get tired of getting punched in the face over and over and walk away from the ring. Some get brain damage from getting the f~~~ing s~~~ beat out of them too many times.
My analogy stands. When a boxer no longer finds opponents who’re his equals in the ring, he either finds them in other ways or interacts with people using the other method, simply as people do use, avoid, or cooperate with.
And, what if the ref is cheating for the other boxer? Am I just supposed to stand there and get the f~~~ beat out of me, or do I throw in the towel and go home?
An honest boxer doesn’t see a dishonest one as his equal, so rather than the fight being about conflict for conflict’s sake, it becomes a completely pragmatic thing for which he simply must deal with such as an animal attack, which of course could include avoiding altogether.
With the current laws and societal bulls~~~, it’s not a fair fight. Plus, they are standing there telling everyone that the ref is cheating for us, while they are hitting us in the nuts over and over.
I suggest you watch the movie War Games. The only way to win at Globalthermalnuclearwar was to not play. It’s always the third option.
Right there you make it clear to em that you see yourself as in a fight against women. Which does seem to me to be very related at all to fighting against a system which allows women to treat men the way they do.
From what I read so far on this forum the facts spoken of about disparities in media, the law and the general attitude of most people concerning men and women is accurate. What I find questionable is the the coarse of action that is often suggested to counter those disparities and the MGTOW philosophy in general. But, I don’t want stereotype the philosophy so I’d appreciate it if someone would explain what his philosophy is and allow me to ask follow up questions.
Thank you.
Stuart. If you find the MGTOW philosophy questionable, why did you join the website?
To discuss it with those who don’t. I should have made this clear from the start; I don’t plan on contributing to other people’s threads except if there’s ones where the opening poster specifically states he wants a critical view on his fundamental philosophy.
Reading this back and forth with a member, it looks like you are a reporter. Not a big deal if you are, but if so, please identify yourself as one.
If you have read the website for even a few minutes, you will see a few things:
1. People will give you much more respect if you start with an intro on that forum.There’s nothing I wish to say about myself more than that I’m here entirely on my own behalf, as a part of my goal of better understanding society.
Edit: Maybe I will take your advice and introduce myself to expand upon that more.
2. The advice most men here will give someone is to be VERY careful in a relationship, or to not be in one. In fact, about a week ago someone new came on the website asking for ways to get revenge on a woman, and every one of us told him (her) to just walk away. The reasons varied from karma to risk of retaliation, but the answer was the same from all of us. They did NOT get a list of great ideas on how to screw over a woman. And that mentality is what keeps me coming back to see what my brothers have to say. If they were a bunch of dicks I never would have joined.
I never placed the morality of the majority of members here in question, if that’s what you were implying.
3. Given #2, I’m not sure why you think that course of action is questionable.
I was speaking to my general impression, for which as I said I don’t wish to go by for the sake of avoiding stereotyping. You wrote this reply before having told me what courses of action you advocate.
To steal from the women, NO MEANS NO. It doesn’t matter why I don’t want to date, NO MEANS NO. I don’t need a reason, and you (not you specifically) aren’t entitled to know why.
4. I’ll go one further, I would expect a woman to THANK me for not dating them. Call me broken, call me butthurt, call me gay, whatever. I am helping them shrink the dating pool down to men who actually want to date them. You’re Welcome.
Sorry, but I don’t really understand what is questionable about that. My MGTOW senses would tell me straight out that you are a chick, but you are too logical in your questions and responses. My apologies if I am wrong, but my guess is a reporter looking for some quotes.
I haven’t commented on my views on dating in any regard, so you’re assumption that I find your views questionable don’t make sense to me. But, now that you’ve have explained some of your views to me I can comment, if you’d like me to.
At it’s core MGTOW philosophy is about rejecting the expectations of society and living according to each individual man’s desires and goals.
The manifestation is a rejection of women to varying degrees. Some reject any form of contact with women, some think its OK to get married and be MGTOW.
To me it’s purely an economic thing. The ROI on women is just horrible. A woman is a depreciating asset, a man is an appreciating asset. This is commonly phrased “Men age like wine, women age like milk.”
Then there is the risk of divorce, which has a 50% downside.
Then there is child support and risks of a custody battle, that has an even higher downside.
Then there is the alimony risk, which is like a reversed bond.
In short, women need to make themselves more attractive investments.
Stuart in your analogy world, think of a boxer who doesn’t want to fight anymore, becasue his head hurts and he wants to do something else. That’s mgtow.
In my analogy fighting in the ring is at least one of the ways a boxer fights those who he considers worthy opponents. Outside of the ring, by fighting I mean it in the broadest sense possible. To live is to fight, concerning the boxing analogy I was just referring to cases in life where the fight isn’t simply on a pragmatic level like with a wild animal, but is on a personal level, because the opponent is worthy of one taking him personally.
May I ask, who or what do you find worthy of taking personally?
Stuart, everything is “questionable”. Why don’t you come up with an actual question.
You spoke too soon. See my above post please.
"It seems like there's times a body gets struck down so low, there ain't a power on earth that can ever bring him up again. Seems like something inside dies so he don't even want to get up again. But he does."
- AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
921526
921524
919244
916783
915526
915524
915354
915129
914037
909862
908811
908810
908500
908465
908464
908300
907963
907895
907477
902002
901301
901106
901105
901104
901024
901017
900393
900392
900391
900390
899038
898980
896844
896798
896797
895983
895850
895848
893740
893036
891671
891670
891336
891017
890865
889894
889741
889058
888157
887960
887768
886321
886306
885519
884948
883951
881340
881339
880491
878671
878351
877678
