Home › Forums › MGTOW Central › If AWALT is true then so is AMALT?
This topic contains 40 replies, has 20 voices, and was last updated by 
MalfunctionNeedInput 4 years, 1 month ago.
- AuthorPosts
If AWALT “All Women Are Like That” is truly valid, because women are created by nature and raised by society then surely the same goes for men. Logic would dictate that AMALT “All Men Are Like That” is also true.
Even though men can be blue-pill, red-pill, mangina, white-knight or whatever, we all share the same essential build and characteristics. One could say all men want pussy. One could say all men want success. One could say all men…etc.
Can anyone prove this statement wrong?
Personally if you would say men are not all the same, how can women be all the same? It doesn’t make any sense.
Im also asking this, because I got this AMALT counter-argument from a feminist once. She gave me the whole NAWALT thing. I told her I certainly cannot prove AWALT, but so far I have not been proven otherwise. Does it make sense to believe AWALT if you don’t know better? Untill the day I truly find that unicorn there is no alternative belief. Therefore there is no alternative then to generalize the entire female population?
Glad to hear fellow MGTOW opinions on this one.
AMALT is true in terms of biological temptations.
however, level 3 or 4 MGTOWs are not AMALT. they are an exception to the rule.
at this time, there is no equivalent of MGTOW for women….. where women truly have no desire to settle down with men and interact with men
MGTOW is not a movement, it is a way of life.
Logic would dictate that AMALT “All Men Are Like That” is also true.
That statement is illogical. It is based on a false assumption that men have to be like, or even comparable to women. They are not.
Evolution and biology tell a different tale. They show that men and women are under completely different biological standards. Put bluntly wombs are the limiting factor in continuing the species, not sperm. So wombs, and women, need to be valued and protected, while sperm, and men, are disposable.
This means that human social development succeeds when women conservatively all follow a single, proven path (AWALT) while men constantly explore new options and experiment with new possibilities. If a large percentage of these experiments fail, it’s no great loss to the species because the remaining men have more than enough sperm to make up the difference. But if any of those experiments succeed, such as playing with fire and learning that it makes mammoth meat more digestible, the whole group benefits. A lot of monkeymen probably died horribly before fire was finally mastered, but monkeymen are disposable. Had a lot of monkeywomen died performing the same experiment playing with fire, we might not be here today.
So in other words, All Women Are Like That (AWALT), but All Men Are Different (AMAD).
Because biology.
This means that human social development succeeds when women conservatively all follow a single, proven path (AWALT)
i don’t fully agree here because you are talking about evolution………Evolution wants genetic diversity!! so all women behaving the same is not diverse…….
that’s why we live in a world with all skin colors, gays, lesbians, straight ppl, alpha, beta males…………. diversity contradicts AWALT
MGTOW is not a movement, it is a way of life.
There’s a big difference.
NAWALT is “not all women are like that” = True statement.
But it PAYS to think AWALT just like it pays to think all grenades will explode in your face.
Because MOST women (and grenades) are “like that”.What’s the best thing that happens when you believe “not all grenades are like that” and you pull the pin??
You don’t die.
Wow. What a benefit.Even if the woman are not “like that”… her divorce attorney and the state is “like that”. There is no reward or benefit in believing NAWALT. But the rewards for AWALT are massive. It may even save your life and freedom.
But AMALT is not true. (i.e. “All men are violent and rapists”. )
MOST men – damn near all men – are not rapists. Less than 1% of the prison population are “rapists”. +99% of the people in prison are in there for every other kind of crime.
“NAWALT” = true. “Not all women are like that”., But almost 100% of them ARE.
Now… take exactly that many random men from the general population and put them in a room. How many of them are rapists? You would be lucky if you found ONE. how many of them are VIOLENT? There’s plenty of evidence showing 10 out of 11 men would never hit a woman back….. even when she’s throwing punches at him and he would be fully justified.
But feminists think women need to be protected from outrageous “rape shield laws” and to “stop violence against women” campaigns? Its’ a hypocrisy of a magnitude that can’t even be expressed with words.
So with all of this…….
AWALT is nearly 100% true.
AMALT is nearly 100% false.If you keep doing what you've always done... you're gonna keep getting what you always got.One could say all men want pussy. One could say all men want success. One could say all men…etc.
i don’t think the original post was talking about rape and violence………could you clarify whether you are talking about success………..or violence?
MGTOW is not a movement, it is a way of life.
don’t think the original post was talking about rape and violence
I know he wasn’t. But he was asking how AWALT compares to AMALT and how to prove the statement wrong… and brought up an example of a dialogue between he and a feminist.
When a feminists says “all men are rapists” you can tell her to go into the street holding $1000 and offering to 10,000 men to “rape” her ….. and damn near every last man will say “Lady, are you out of your f~~~ing MIND???”.
… and she KNOWS it. She already passes 10,000 men in her everyday life every year and none of them are bending her over rock – or even THINKING it. But she is OBSESSED with it.
Even when a woman says “NOT ALL women are like that”….
she is admitting even SHE knows most of them are.If she were SMART, she would say “most women are NOT like that”,
But she says NAWALT for a reason. Because she KNOWS they are.
And there’s a high probability she is one of them, herself.If you keep doing what you've always done... you're gonna keep getting what you always got.In a vague sense, I believe it’s true (men want sex, women want means/power). I think any guy who embraces his masculinity accepts this as a truth; the difference is that guys who try and deny this (manginas, male feminists) are close to universally despised by both genders while women who claim “NAWALT” are generally believed and considered to be better than women who are honest about their intentions.
Do I believe it’s the end-all, be-all for men? Not all, but I think it’s true often enough (roughly 95-85% of the time) that it’s an acceptable rule. The problems that feminist-types then extrapolate it to something like what KeyMaster was saying (“All men rape”) and then you have problems because while all men (or at least close enough that we can justify a blanket statement like that) want sex, not all men are depraved enough to rape to get it.
i don’t fully agree here because you are talking about evolution………Evolution wants genetic diversity!! so all women behaving the same is not diverse…….
Women are the control group, and men are the experimental group. The Y chromosome is one of the fastest evolving parts of the human genome. Diversity comes mostly from male mutation/adaptation.
So wombs, and women, need to be valued and protected, while sperm, and men, are disposable.
Anyone who raises livestock will tell you that is poor thinking.
Not to get into eugenics. But, a man only provides 50% of the genetic material to make a child, the other 50% is from a woman, plus other factors such as development in the womb are also important for the next generation.
So, if a woman with poor genetics (birth defect, including being carriers of genetic defects), poor lifestyle (does drugs while pregnant), and poor personality (child abuse while raising the child), the next generation will be of poor stock than the previous generation. And the process will only repeat itself making things worse for the generation after that.
Then, there is the whom incest and genetic problems from having too many children from a small group of men. By the way, incest does not just call physical deformities, but also mental issues, including insanity. Just look at good old King George III.
This is the likely reason monogamy came into being. Someone realizes that having a few men being the fathers to a lot of children, over and over again, was causing a lot of problems.
For a good generation that builds to the next generation, one needs equal number of men and women providing genetic material for the next generation. While at the same time the women has to be responsible and of a good mindset, so the mothers’ children develop properly in their wombs, and are properly raised to know responsibility and honesty.
If you want to talk about culling the population, you need to look at culling the women. Because that is how one bottlenecks the situation for quality control of the next generation. Sure, it will slow population growth this way, but you have a better quality of stock in the future generations.
AWALT— All Women Are Like That
ASSPOWALT—A Statistically Significant Percentage Of Women Are Like ThatI think yes, AMALT. We are all people who want to fulfill our wants and needs. MGTOWS like to address different wants and needs opposed to many blue pillers. I think all guys want sex, ya know, like EVERY LIVING THING ON THE PLANET wants sex. How we go about it depends. Some of us value certain things over others. I for instance value my freedom more than I value pussy, but pussy still has a value.
Hell, I’ve met women who are very well aware of s~~~ty female behavior, and we talk about it, and they admit they have it, and admit it’s bad. But it’s like there’s no attempt to overcome bad behavior on women’s part. And why should they when men, society, and other women accommodate their s~~~ty behavior? Until they are actually scrutinized, they won’t change.
Feminism is a movement where opinions are presented as facts and emotions are presented as evidence.
It depends on what traits you are describing men and women are like that. Such discussions assume there are unicorns out there that are not just like that.
I believe most behavior is genetic. So most men and women are born “like that”. It’s gender laws and training that creates women that are all like that and men that are reacting in different forms to how they deal with these women that are mainly like that.
If you describe certain characteristics of men, some men are like that some are not. When it comes to being self sacrificial for the benefit of society and women most men start out being all like that. In our current society men have learned to go their own way because women specifically and without provocation decided to change the laws and rules of relationships.
This is what we mean by saying all women are like that. They have been taught and follow the same script today. In the 50’s it was a different relationship script. Still most women followed the script.
Maybe women have more of a tendency to be conformists.
Men have no script when it comes to relationships anymore. Women have, as an organized group called feminists, become similarly incapable of relationships, caring for children or the home.
Men have been trying to adjust and we see many different coping mechanisms.
So, no, not all men are like that. Some are pussy’s, some mangina’s, some white knights, some PUA some MRA’s and some are in traditional relationships with the few unicorn women who fight the feminist juggernaut. The smart ones go their own way.
But most women conform to the feminist script, so most women are like that.
#icethemout; Remember Thomas Ball. He died for your children.
NAWALT is “not all women are like that” = True statement.
AWALT is nearly 100% true.
AMALT is nearly 100% false.I agree with your explanation to a certain extent, it is in our best interest to treat women like AWALT for protection purposes. Nobody ever got rich from believing in NAWALT. I like this mindset.
But when it comes to a logical perspective on the matter: If NAWALT is 100% true, then AWALT cannot be “nearly” 100% true because the two are each others opposites. That’s like saying I have 2 pencils, a black and a white one, but they are both nearly 100% white. Also if you state something is near 100% true, then the “ALL” should be removed from the statement (because ALL = 100%, which is isn’t, because it’s near true).
Concerning AWALT – AMALT. Im not sure of “the all men are violent and rapists” is the right way to go. My point of view would be:
AWALT: women’s core emotional, selfish egocentric behavior & mindset is defined by nature and has grown like a tumor by culture (society).
AMALT: men’s core behavior, mindset is also defined by nature and society.If you take this POF then AWALT and AMALT are both near 100% true. Because if men would not be all the same, we would never exist (for example: all men want sex). Men are all bounded by similar goals (e.g. provider role), just like women are bound by nature to create new life. Whether one monkey invented fire and the other didn’t doesn’t affect this core behavior. Hell, even being MGTOW, doesn’t change this core. Because deep-down we all fight the need for pussy or give into it – AMALT. If you oppose this statement, you are saying that you can redefine yourself by willpower alone and basically stop giving a s~~~ about what it means to be a man and why we are what we are.
Therefore I would say AWALT and AMALT are both equally – nearly true.
i don’t fully agree here because you are talking about evolution………Evolution wants genetic diversity!! so all women behaving the same is not diverse…….
Evolution doesn’t want a damn thing. Evolution doesn’t have wants. Evolution is just an observed phenomenon.
Evolution is not a goal, and neither is diversity. Both are effects, not causes.
The actual goal is reproduction and continuance of genetic lines. The ultimate purpose of a zygote is to produce gametes, and the ultimate purpose of gametes is to combine to form a zygote. Everything else is just emergent behavior.
Again, if the females of a population engage in risky, divergent, experimental behavior, a lot of them are going to be eliminated for it. That is detrimental to the continuance of that population, because wombs are the limiting factor in reproduction. A population can handle losing half its males a lot better than losing half its females.
Continuance of a species depends not on diversity alone, but on a careful balance between divergence and convergence. Between experimentation and conservatism. A species that has too much divergence stops being a single species and instead divides into many different new species, most of which do not survive and their initial populations are too small to handle many risks. A species that is too conservative lacks the flexibility to respond to changing environmental circumstances, and faces extinction with the next ice age or drought or land bridge introducing new predators or whatever. A species that balances divergence and convergence can chug along through millions of years. The result is punctuated equilibria, where species remain relatively unchanged for long stretches of time in the fossil record before suddenly changing into new species, which then chug along themselves for millions of years.
In gendered animals like humans, the reproduction limiting females are the conservative factor while the disposable males are the source of experimental diversity. It’s astonishing how much animal behavior, including human behavior, depends on this simple fact.
Consider this: the best reproductive strategy for females is to mate with the same male that all the other females want to mate with. They go along with the rest of the herd. Sometimes this is because that particular male is a physically superior specimen, indicating more successful genes, but not always. Sometimes it’s simply because he has the longest tail of the darkest mane or the largest antlers or the greatest height. A large part of the feminine drive to mate with the same males as other females is simply so that her own limited offspring are not at risk of having some genetic disadvantage to the rest of the herd. So female mate selection is conservative.
This is as true for human females as it is for, say, elk. It’s why wearing a wedding ring is a sure fire way to attract women. Try it some time.
The best reproductive strategy for males, on the other hand, is to mate with as many females as possible. He is not limited in his potential offspring like females are, so the risk to him of mixing his genes with possibly less successful genes is significantly lower than the same risk for females. It is to his advantage to experiment reproductively as much as he can with as many varied partners as he can. So male mate selection is experimental.
Thus AWALT and AMAD.
Anyone who raises livestock will tell you that is poor thinking.
Then explain why far far more female calves become breeders and most male calves become beef. And why female calves are more expensive than male calves. Yes a very few male calves are allowed to grow up into reproducing bulls, but the vast majority become steers and then hamburgers.
This is the likely reason monogamy came into being. Someone realizes that having a few men being the fathers to a lot of children, over and over again, was causing a lot of problems.
Wrong. Monogamy is the result of neoteny and the incredibly long childhoods of humans compared to other animals. Most animals reach maturity in just a year or two. Humans require the better part of two decades. That takes a lot more resources than the female can provide on her own, so it is to the human female’s reproductive advantage to tie a male to her to provide resources to raise her offspring (whether or not they are actually his is of little concern to her) while keeping his resources from other females.
That is the source of monogamy.
So wombs, and women, need to be valued and protected, while sperm, and men, are disposable.
Anyone who raises livestock will tell you that is poor thinking.
Not to get into eugenics. But, a man only provides 50% of the genetic material to make a child, the other 50% is from a woman, plus other factors such as development in the womb are also important for the next generation.
But as anyone raising livestock knows, you only want your top 10% of males breeding (while ensuring a diverse gene pool). Depending on the purpose the cattle/goats/sheep/etc. are for, you want muscle mass, udder size, milk productivity, muscle tone, disposition, and docility. You turn most males into steers/wethers as soon as they’re born, because why? They’re disposable. Which is the point being made.
"All your children are poor, unfortunate victims of systems beyond their control... A plague upon your ignorance to the great despair of your ugly life!" -Frank Zappa
NAWALT maybe true, but I’ve yet to find that special little unicorn. Even if NAWALT is proven to be true, there’s always a risk factor out there and she may turn on you like that because the state/government supports feminism and she can take advantage of it.
Ever remember the movie rounders?
Here’s a clip from it:
The kid owed more than $10,000 dollars or else he would’ve gotten killed if he couldn’t pay it in time. (or he would’ve got hurt very badly, I barely remember the full movie)
The point being, the kid could’ve ran away with what little money he had left. He could’ve went straight onto Mexico or some other country and go incognito. He didn’t. Why? Because men understand paying debts and being honorable. Women don’t.
So, he took one last gamble to pay back the debt he owes and won. The old guy in the clip (who was the main villain in the story) held to his word also. He paid the kid the winnings he earned and the kid paid his debt back to him.
What do you think would’ve happened if the main villain of the story was a woman? Do you think she would’ve kept her word? I honestly don’t think she would. Which is why women don’t understand honor and paying debts. They get white knights/manginas to do it for them.
Yeah, I am sure NAWALT is true. I think I mentioned that I live with one. But she’s pretty “broken” as a woman. She has some sort of brain damage that makes her more rational than women are normally capable of. Something congenital, IIRC. Anyway. I’m glad to be friends with her. She’s cool as hell. And we often trade stories of crazy s~~~ women do. I’ll quote her opinion of the female species: “I have no use for most women. They’re narcissistic and think that because they have a vagina they can treat men like s~~~ and nothing will ever come of it.” A true unicorn.
"All your children are poor, unfortunate victims of systems beyond their control... A plague upon your ignorance to the great despair of your ugly life!" -Frank Zappa
NAWALTRUUYFOTALT
Not All Women Are Like That Right Up Until You Find Out They Actually Are Like That.
Oops.
So wombs, and women, need to be valued and protected, while sperm, and men, are disposable.
Anyone who raises livestock will tell you that is poor thinking.
Not to get into eugenics. But, a man only provides 50% of the genetic material to make a child, the other 50% is from a woman, plus other factors such as development in the womb are also important for the next generation.
But as anyone raising livestock knows, you only want your top 10% of males breeding (while ensuring a diverse gene pool). Depending on the purpose the cattle/goats/sheep/etc. are for, you want muscle mass, udder size, milk productivity, muscle tone, disposition, and docility. You turn most males into steers/wethers as soon as they’re born, because why? They’re disposable. Which is the point being made.
The thing is, finding a NAWALT unicorn is like playing Russian roulette with your dick. No thanks.
Easy. Men have a much higher genetic variation due to natural selection, while women are a bell curve, men are much closer to that of a line.
For example, there are actually very few retarded women, and at the same time there are very few women that are genius. of the population with an IQ above 150pts, 1 in 8 are women, where as 7 in 8 are men. Thus why there are many more male scientists.
So, in theory you could say that Yes, all men have a higher variety in abilities than women do. However…
AWALT works, because women have such little variety in intelligence and thus also their behavior in comparison to men. Further more, the education system has been targeting women for decades; promoting them to do better, while ignoring men; thus a larger portion of the female population comes out brainwashed in comparison to the male population, which lessons the amount of variety in women and only lessens the variety in men who fit in the same range of women, thus increasing the variety in comparison.Women are generally known to be sheepish for a reason.
My Goal: To Leave Society.
- 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
