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
Anonymous5But, 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.
You don’t want to stereotype the philosophy,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yet all you’ve done is stereotype it according to feminist philosophy.
So I’d appreciate if you explain what it is that you value more than having children.
Any idiot can do it.
Look at the masses of dysfunctional welfare single mothers.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?
This is another thing you’ve invented out of thin air.
He said he didn’t like the laws, he didn’t say he wanted them changed,,,you just made that up yourself and started talking about it like it was fact!
If you want to argue law changing, go over to the MRM/MRA sites, there’s loads of them.My point was that one may take it for granted that having children would be difficult.
This makes no sense at all. Who on here said raising children was easy??
You invented this from nothing and start arguing it as a MGTOW fact,,,lolFrom 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.
Then you start ranting with yourself, advocating that raising children is difficult everywhere, all the time ???????????????????????????????
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.
Where does it say MGTOW are diametrically opposed to women,,,or anything else??
You just made this up.
You’re putting words in our mouths and arguing against them as if they’re facts.
Feminists spout this logic! If anyone disagrees with them, then they’re considered to be diametrically opposed to them,,,and treated accordingly.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.
This is just more ranting, advocating something you just made up and already consider to be a fact
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. for which, as I said, I’d like to speak directly to their own words.
WOW,,,,THE ENTITLEMENT!!!!!!!!!!!,,,,,IT’S OFF THE CHARTS!!!,,,HAHAHAHA
You won’t even do an introduction,,,,,,first day on the forums
AND YOU EXPECT,,,,DEMAND,,,,that the owner of the site give you some special attention
hahahahahahahahahahahahaAt it’s core MGTOW philosophy is about rejecting the expectations of society and living according to each individual man’s desires and goals.
Just for the sake of argument, not to imply you’re saying this, but if it was only that then it’s basically just a website for obtaining self-actualization, aimed specifically at men, — not because women are unwanted but because they have different needs in order to obtain self-actualization.
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.
There’s little I can say about the idea of any given man rejecting women, unless I hear a particular man’s reasoning, then I can criticize it. I can think of many reasons why certain men would reject all contact with women for his own advantage and many reasons.
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.
As long as the risks outweigh the potential gains. You make a good argument for a man easily charmed (made to take elave of his senses) by women to avoid certain women, but only assuming you factor away the reproductive issue.
In short, women need to make themselves more attractive investments.
If enough men avoided women, then many women would need to do that in order to get a man. The fact is that they don’t need a particular man to have children because they can go to a sperm bank. While men don’t have a similar option. For the sake of simplicity let’s say that men and women both have equal emotional needs on average concerning intimate relationships with one another, so still, should hypothetically be a union among men, they still would have no negotiating power.
Of course that hypothetical forgets three things. Firstly, that if there was a unity among men, then women would have no power whatsoever, because in the vast majority of cases, women simply bother power over one man/men from another man or men.
Secondly, it forgets the nature of men to compete basically eliminating any chance of such a unity and finally, it forgets that all causes need martyrs, look at the history of workplace unions.
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.
You don’t want to stereotype the philosophy,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yet all you’ve done is stereotype it according to feminist philosophy.
If you’d give a link to a feminist forum that doesn’t automatically ban anyone with ideas in opposition to them, I’d join and keep you updated on my discussions with them.
At it’s core MGTOW philosophy is about rejecting the expectations of society and living according to each individual man’s desires and goals.
Just for the sake of argument, not to imply you’re saying this, but if it was only that then it’s basically just a website for obtaining self-actualization, aimed specifically at men, — not because women are unwanted but because they have different needs in order to obtain self-actualization.
Think about it in these terms. When women took control of the feminine through feminism, and took it upon themselves to redefine both the feminine and the masculine, the effect on men and the perspective of men was largely unwanted.
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.
There’s little I can say about the idea of any given man rejecting women, unless I hear a particular man’s reasoning, then I can criticize it. I can think of many reasons why certain men would reject all contact with women for his own advantage and many reasons.
[/Quote]Why are you interested in criticizing another man’s reasoning. Your reasoning seems to have very little in the form of fact or solid logic.
For instance, in your first argument to me, the reasoning for women not being wanted is unimportant.
[quote]
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.
As long as the risks outweigh the potential gains. You make a good argument for a man easily charmed (made to take elave of his senses) by women to avoid certain women, but only assuming you factor away the reproductive issue.
No, that holds even if you include the reproductive issue. There are other options, such as surrogacy. Or if you want to make sure your genes survive, but do not give a s~~~ about raising a child, or paying child support, you could donate to a sperm bank.
[Quote]
In short, women need to make themselves more attractive investments.
If enough men avoided women, then many women would need to do that in order to get a man. The fact is that they don’t need a particular man to have children because they can go to a sperm bank. While men don’t have a similar option. For the sake of simplicity let’s say that men and women both have equal emotional needs on average concerning intimate relationships with one another, so still, should hypothetically be a union among men, they still would have no negotiating power.
Of course that hypothetical forgets three things. Firstly, that if there was a unity among men, then women would have no power whatsoever, because in the vast majority of cases, women simply bother power over one man/men from another man or men.
Secondly, it forgets the nature of men to compete basically eliminating any chance of such a unity and finally, it forgets that all causes need martyrs, look at the history of workplace unions.
[/quote]
I believe your premise to be flawed, I don’t think men and women have equal emotional needs for intimate relationships with each other. This is supported by men having access to a second reproductive strategy, and is also reflected in the animal kingdom.
I think the core premise of this argument about unity is flawed. You do not need to completely control supply of men in a monopoly way in order to gain control. All you need is to limit supply a little bit, and it drastically alters the state of the negotiation.
Women tend to want children with high value men, not just any man.
Anonymous5Just for the sake of argument, not to imply you’re saying this,
Again, this is just an intro to excuse twisting, then stating as fact
There’s little I can say about the idea of any given man rejecting women, unless I hear a particular man’s reasoning, then I can criticize it
You won’t contribute anything but keep demanding men contribute their opinions and then you criticize them.
Sounds like a typical woman to me.As long as the risks outweigh the potential gains. You make a good argument for a man easily charmed (made to take elave of his senses) by women to avoid certain women, but only assuming you factor away the reproductive issue.
oh, you’re saying it’s the man’s fault because he’s “easily charmed”,,,lost his senses,,,,BUT ONLY WITH “CERTAIN” WOMEN, haha
This is the philosophy of AVFM. That it’s the man’s fault for choosing.
Seems more than 50% of men are DIAMETRICALLY wrong in their charm when they get financially disemboweled and deprived of their children in divorce,,,and another 20% of men live on in marriages of mutual contempt because of social, economic or religious reasons where they can’t or won’t divorce.
So,,,,,this 70% of men who marry are too easily charmed, so it seems.The fact is that they don’t need a particular man to have children because they can go to a sperm bank.
Exactly,,,this is the first valid point you’ve made all by yourself.
If women want to have kids and a man isn’t attracted to them to partner them,,,or they can’t “Charm” a man into it,,,,they can go to a sperm bank. Problem solved.Avoidance and or limited involvement to ones own comfort level is what we advocate. If you like embracing conflict which is avoidable, that’s your choice.
I also find it makes more sense to avoid conflict when possible. It’s a matter of what is an what isn’t avoidable conflict for each person.
If you want to call us cowards who have stopped living, that’s fine too. we’re used to that.
I have yet to call “you all” anything. I’ve been careful from the start to refer specifically to the author of words which I quoted. I have no argument against any decision you made personally. So as I was saying, one avoids conflict as one must, and each person’s tolerance level is different and varies. (Some people have called me a coward for my failure to advocate social change.)
What do i find worthy of taking personally? Not much. People are mostly involved with themselves, and are generally projecting onto and manipulating you according to their own emotional upbringing and tendencies. You can call me every name in the book, or insult my mother, I won’t really care that much.
I understand, but I was also referring to taking personally to mean taking the actions of a person as the actions from a sentient being whose wills his actions intentionally with either malice or generosity, unlike as the actions as from the environment, or an animal, for which one sees simply in terms of cause and effect.
Anonymous50rdinaryguy wrote:
Stuart- wrote:
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.
You don’t want to stereotype the philosophy,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yet all you’ve done is stereotype it according to feminist philosophy.
If you’d give a link to a feminist forum that doesn’t automatically ban anyone with ideas in opposition to them, I’d join and keep you updated on my discussions with them.Nice sleight of hand! A typical marriage tactic.
I point out you’re arguing with feminist ideologies, so you reply that feminists ban anyone opposing their fallacies, yes, invented fallacies,,,,just the same as the inventing and twisting you’ve been doing on here.
By the way, you must have been on quite a few feminist forums to know that,,,, unless you’re just making up that fact and presenting it as truth.
I suppose we’ll be just as bad, according to your response, if you get shut down. Nice shaming tactic!
It doesn’t answer the fact you’ve been arguing along feminist invented fallacies.“I’m male, so obviously” – no man can utter these words. This is where my c~~~dar overloaded
c’mon guys, I think it’s pretty clear what we’re dealing with here
this is a waste of time
women are not welcome here, f~~~ off
this is a safe space for menproud carrier of the 'why?' chromosome
and yeah, it’s like boxing, only one boxer has his hands tied behind his back
proud carrier of the 'why?' chromosome
Here’s my philosophy:
I don’t have kids because I don’t f~~~ing want kids. I am not married because I don’t want to be married. I don’t want to be married because most woman are f~~~ing crazy-ass bitches who will ruin a man’s life if they can. Simple enough to understand.
If you are looking for deeper, more manageable answers, perhaps you’d like to talk to many of the man here who have had their lives torn apart by making the mistake of marrying these psychotic witches. Just don’t be surprised if they tell you to go f~~~ yourself."I am is reportedly the shortest sentence in the English language. Could it be that I do is the longest sentence?" - George Carlin
What does that smell like, guys?
Yeah. If it’s not a woman it’s someone who gargles with Massengil and Clamato.
"I am is reportedly the shortest sentence in the English language. Could it be that I do is the longest sentence?" - George Carlin
Anonymous5Get thee to a n̶u̶n̶n̶e̶r̶y̶ spermbank, go. Farewell. Or, if thou wilt needs marry, marry a fool, for wise men know well enough what monsters you make of them. To a n̶u̶n̶n̶e̶r̶y̶ spermbank go, and quickly too. Farewell. ~William Shakespeare~
Hamlet. Act 3, Scene 1.
Has the inequalities in the law concerning men and women contributed to your decision to not have children?
@stuart. Men do not “DECIDE” to have children – or not have children – and you would know this if you were a Man. Im not saying you’re not… it just reads like a woman wrote it. So does the opening question. We will provide an answer to it in short order, but in the mean time, your posting privileges are paused for the moment. We’re busy.
Until then you may also peruse the archives where there are weeks and months of reading materials and media items which you can educate yourself on, before expecting other people to spoon-feed it to you.
Thank you. More later when we have time enough to waste on you, because you apparently have never formulated this simple thought on your own — or even bothered to educate yourself.
If you keep doing what you've always done... you're gonna keep getting what you always got.Have any of you reported “Stuart” yet? One of you must have already let the mods know about “him”.
“His” posts outed “him” from almost the first, but the comment which settled it for me occurred one the first page of the thread:
“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.”
Despite the site’s abundantly clear mission statement, despite repeated explanations that MGTOW is about men saying “NO” to expectations and demands imposed by society and culture, “Stuart” immediately focused on MGTOW’s effects on women because, apparently, MGTOW is nothing but a diametric opposition to women.
“He” just as quickly raised MGTOW’s effects on children, echoing the refrain which has been used to inflict so many legislative horrors on men; “It’s in the best interests of the children”.
If nothing else, both of those mistaken opinions show “Stuart’s” true colors.
When you’re punted from here “Stuart”, I hope you leave understanding this simple and basic truth:
MGTOW is not about women
MGTOW is about men. MGTOW is about men reclaiming the right to say NO. MGTOW is about restoring as much personal sovereignty as possible in a society and culture which sees men, at best, as sheep to be shorn, and, at worst, permanently dysfunctional criminals.
While the MGTOW attitude towards women is as varied as the men who espouse MGTOW beliefs, those attitudes are only one aspect of MGTOW thinking. MGTOW beliefs impact the entirety of one’s life and women, despite their fervent prayers, are not and never have been the entirety of a man’s life.
That’s the simple truth which feminists and other detractors continually fail to understand. They focus solely and selfishly on how MGTOW effect women while never stopping to understand that MGTOW beliefs also effect every other aspect of a man’s life such as work, career, education, or citizenship. Like you, they can’t stop bleating “Won’t someone think of the women and children? long enough to understand that MGTOW is asking “Why isn’t someone thinking of the men?”
I don’t expect to even attempt to understand what I’ve written but, when you slither back to your blog, clickbait site, Youtube channel, webzine, or media outlet, you aren’t going to be able to truthfully claim that no one here tried to explain MGTOW to you.
Now, “get thee gone” before Key drops the hammer.
Do not date. Do not impregnate. Do not co-habitate. Above all, do not marry. Reclaim and never again surrender your personal sovereignty.
FYI to others … new members who join generally must upload an avatar and wait 24 hours to be made a participant. Martha “Stuart” here wrote to us almost immediately to request it, and we granted it immediately explaining this, and asked the member to at least upload an avatar – which “Stuart” was too lazy (or unwilling) to do.
After deactivating the member temporarily, we just received another message (within 2 minutes of my last posting) from “Stuart” telling (not asking) us that it wants it’s membership reactivated.
We explained: You didn’t say the magic word. Posting is not your “right”. Its’ a privilege and you had to agree to that when you joined. Telling us “what you want” is not the right way to get it. You already DEMANDED to be made a participant when we usually make all members wait 24 hours and upload an avatar. But we received no thanks from you. So now you will wait.”
This is WHY we make new members wait 24 hours.
Special thanks to RedPill Bible for your message.
Will reply to that shortly too.
(PS. The Genie will be back AQAP)In an unsurprising twist, there has been no word back from Martha “Stuart” yet, and certainly not nearly as quickly as the member was to tell us to reactivate. “Stuart” is tragically missing out on basic manners and politesse, so you have to wonder why such a person is so fascinated with what other people choose do in regards to their life choices.
If you keep doing what you've always done... you're gonna keep getting what you always got.Society says to get married, I turn my back to society and walk to the beat of my own drum. For me that means focusing on my own interest and hobbies. I choose to have no relationships and for me that means no sex. I’m happy and proud of my choice. Communities such as this one allow Mgtow to share their experiences, vent, and reach out to other men who could benefit from going their own way.
We all have our different reasons for going our own way, and each mans path is unique, but we all share the recognition that marriage is a bad deal and that women arnt the perfect human beings that they are often portrayed as. I’m tired of being viewed as a potential rapist for just having a dick. I’m tired of being told to man up, take the toxic masculinity down, to check my priveledge, to not check out her tight yoga pants…. “You’re not looking. Are you gay?”….. “Why the hell are you gawking at me you beast… Raaaaape!” I am somehow both a coward that can’t stand a strong independent woman and simultaneously an opprsive patriarchy agent perpetuating the omnipresent mysoginistic forces of men.
Even if there was no corruption in the law and women were all decent human beings, Mgtow would still be a valid lifestyle. I like being single.
What a thread…
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?
For my own perverse reasons I will answer this bit from ‘Stuart’.
The term sovereignty get’s thrown around a lot in society and so much so that it’s difficult to decide on a definition that would encompass all it’s uses (some of which sound contradictory). but I would argue there is no such thing as sovereignty over others, only over yourself.
A nation is a sovereign nation if it exercises sovereignty over itself. If it doesn’t because some other nation occupies or rules over it, then it has no sovereignty. The other nation is’t a sovereign, it’s an oppressor.
A sovereign ruler, who exercises executive power, is a sovereign precisely if they exercise a power for and on behalf of the ruled. It’s their power that they grant to a leader for their benefit. Otherwise, said leader is NOT a sovereign, but a tyrant.
Likewise we exercise sovereignty over ourselves, not others. A man has sovereignty if he rules himself and his life. If someone else is in charge, there is no sovereignty.
[Here endeth Shiny’s views on this word. Ymmv].
The idea of men having ‘sovereignty’ over women is not only flawed, but if it is a throwback to some ‘man is the head of the household / leader of the family / king of the castle’ idea, then it is not at all what MGTOW is about. That’s a TradCon idea, if I understand these terms correctly. As a religious person, I think it’s a good idea, but in the modern western world, with laws specifically to oppose it, it’s barely a hypothetical.
The milk has been spilt. The horse has bolted. The eggs are already cracked.
So MGTOW walk away. They exercise sovereignty over themselves, and walk away.
As KM said, ol’ ‘Stuart’ could have spent just a modicum of time reading up on what MGTOW is before posting ‘questions’, because it’s hard to think of a phrase more inaccurate, distorting, or irrelevant to describing a MGHOW than, “a man who wants to exercise sovereignty over a woman”.
Not even close…
Anonymous42I just read my way here from introductions, where I thought Stuart was a shrink fishing for intelligence, but after tracking him through this thread I’m convinced he’s a …..
Anonymous0Well, that was fun! Air smells fresher already.
A couple of points for Stuart in case “he” is still reading:
1. You said after my reply that I was fighting with women. That is not the case. You used the analogy of two boxers, I merely went with your analogy. In fact, I stated that you left out a choice which was to not fight at all. The old saying goes fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. Well, what does fool me five times get you? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. How many times to do have to get burned before you learn to stop touching the stove? After being cheated on by four different women, would you like me to go back for another?
2. You made a comment that a MGHOW is walking AWAY from something. That may be partially true, but the exciting thing about going your own way is when you are going TO something. Your own path, your own choices, carving out your own part of live and living it to its fullest. Leaving the plantation is the first part, where you go from there and what you do once you are free is the point. The plantation was yesterday, and that is a memory. Today is all you have and what YOU choose to do with today is the energy of MGTOW.
3. I now view people as the energy they give off. People with a positive energy get to stay in my life. People with negative energy DON’T. Simple as that. Since I left the plantation I have yet to meet a single woman in my age group with a positive energy that makes me want to come close to committing to a relationship. IF I even run into that Bigfoot walking its pet unicorn down the street, I’ll be sure to notify the group. Until then I’ll just continue to live my life on my terms. Based on my own personal satisfaction and the fact that my kids think I am happier than ever, I’d say I’m on the right path.
4. As far as society goes, I don’t view that as my problem. I’m just a tax guy with a couple of kids trying to raise them as best I can on a part time basis. My saying to people that get too preachy on that subject is basically “Gee, I wish my life was so perfect that I had nothing better to do than tell someone else how they should live their live.” Most people that get all preachy on that subject have a messed up life at home that they can’t control so they go looking to boss other people around. To me, that’s negative energy. See #3 for my thoughts on people with negative energy……..
OK, off my soap box and back to work.
Happy Friday gentlemen. I plan on making it a great one!!
Order the good wine
- 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
