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
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.
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.
Exactly, “disposition”.
You do not let deforms female calves breed. You do not let aggressive female calves breed.
Society paying women to breed removed the only bottleneck in deterring women from breeding, and thus society has created one weaker generation after the next.
Because many of those women, either due to health or personality would not have otherwise had children, because they would not be able to take care of those children.
That is my point.
Also, if you look at where there were genetic bottlenecks, where few men bred with a lot of women, this is right before civilizations collapsed partly due to the problems of inbreeding.
And this does not even take into account how men at the bottle keep society running.
Feminists claim that all men are disposable and all women are indispensable. All you are doing is parroting their anti-male propaganda.
Procreation is important to society, but it is not the only aspect to society. If the farming man did not grow food, the women and children would starve. If the plummer did not maintain the piping, the women and children would have no water to drink and remain clean. If the men that built houses did not build, the women and children would die from the elements.
And none of these jobs are jobs women do.
The whole point of MGTOW are that men are not disposable pawns to women and society.
Feminists claim that all men are disposable and all women are indispensable. All you are doing is parroting their anti-male propaganda.
Of course I’m not disposable to myself, but will the whole of humanity notice if I never have children? No. in that sense, I am disposable. I don’t need to be important to anyone else in order to have a fulfilling and meaningful life. To believe that is an ego trap.
Procreation is important to society, but it is not the only aspect to society. If the farming man did not grow food, the women and children would starve. If the plummer did not maintain the piping, the women and children would have no water to drink and remain clean. If the men that built houses did not build, the women and children would die from the elements.
In the industrial and building trades, men are the backbone. They aren’t disposable at all. I thought we were talking about social perceptions and gene pool mechanics, not the dynamics of industrialized infrastructure and production.
And none of these jobs are jobs women do.
Shh… don’t tell them. We don’t want them to come back begging. We’re glad they don’t want us anymore!
The whole point of MGTOW are that men are not disposable pawns to women and society.
That might be the point you are trying to make, but it might be one better left unmade. I harbor an immense well of ill-will toward the system of civilization that has propelled things to become this way. It began long before the industrial revolution. You might even say it began with the agricultural revolution. This way of life needs to end, and I don’t see any point in trying to salvage it. People have become too stupid to fend for themselves, generally, and they are too complacent to care. So when it all crashes down around them, most will be dead within 45 days. I think that’s a good thing. I think we need a new way that works as well as old-fashioned tribalism, but without the needless superstition and taboo matrix that causes those societal forms to become stagnant, oppressive, and corrupt.
See: Daniel Quinn’s books “Ishmael” and “Beyond Civilization”. Really, every one of his books is worth reading.
"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
You do not let deforms female calves breed. You do not let aggressive female calves breed.
But that’s just it, only the obviously defective females are culled, while the vast majority of male calves are sterilized and then eliminated, not for being obviously defective but merely for not being quite good enough.
Procreation is important to society, but it is not the only aspect to society. If the farming man did not grow food, the women and children would starve.
Which is why growing food and building houses and whatnot is all part of successful procreation. With our incredibly long childhoods creating the next generation is much much more than mere copulation and gestation like it is for other species. This is why women need men, or at least the resources that men produce, but not any particular man or his sperm, because that can be readily had elsewhere. Sperm is disposable. Individual men are disposable, at least as far as society is concerned. Men are not.
Feminists and other gynocentrists would very happily consume the resources men produce while eliminating the men themselves if they possibly could get away with it. The socialist welfare state is largely in the business of creating the illusion that that’s possible.
The whole point of MGTOW are that men are not disposable pawns to women and society.
No. The whole point of MGTOW is F~~~ Society.
Let society learn its lesson the hard way. If society wants the wealth I create, it’s going to have to make it worth my while. What’s in it for me?
But that’s just it, only the obviously defective females are culled, while the vast majority of male calves are sterilized and then eliminated, not for being obviously defective but merely for not being quite good enough.
You are missing my point.
In this society, the defective women on the poor end are being paid to have children, while women that are productive and intelligent are put in situations of having very fewer children.
This is the reverse of natural selection in some many ways.
Which is why growing food and building houses and whatnot is all part of successful procreation.
No food production nor shelter and women would not survive to have children. This works both ways.
No. The whole point of MGTOW is F~~~ Society.
No. It is not. MGTOW is about self-worth and self- improvement by side-stepping the way society screws us.
There is a list somewhere on the forum of men whom had made GREAT achievements in civilization. They elevated humanity to new levels of quality of life, yet they had no children.
Such as Leonardo Da Vinci. He was born a bastard son, when being a bastard son was a dead end for life. And he proved himself irreplaceable in human history. I consider Leonardo to be worth ten thousand good mothers.
That might be the point you are trying to make, but it might be one better left unmade. I harbor an immense well of ill-will toward the system of civilization that has propelled things to become this way. It began long before the industrial revolution. You might even say it began with the agricultural revolution. This way of life needs to end, and I don’t see any point in trying to salvage it. People have become too stupid to fend for themselves, generally, and they are too complacent to care. So when it all crashes down around them, most will be dead within 45 days. I think that’s a good thing. I think we need a new way that works as well as old-fashioned tribalism, but without the needless superstition and taboo matrix that causes those societal forms to become stagnant, oppressive, and corrupt.
The problem is that rewarding stupidity is destroying civilization.
To break down humanity to just procreation is a disservice and disrespect to humanity as a whole.
There is so much more to humanity than just sex and procreation.
Civilization is a testament to humanity that we are not animals bound by our base desires. That we build and strive for greater heights than where we exist.
Each of us is greater than the sum our parts. We have souls, these bodies are just shells that will eventually expire, leaving only the soul. And when you realize this, you will realize that defining disposablity and irreplaceablity based on generalities is complete bulls~~~.
I like to think that women are like handguns- always treat them as if they are loaded. It’s a safety issue. Most are fully capable of going off and ruining your life.
(This is like KeyMaster’s grenade analogy)The problem is that rewarding stupidity is destroying civilization.
My view is that the very foundation of civilization, i.e. amassing of food surplus, is the basic driver that always has and always will, usually indirectly, lead to civilization’s own destruction. Food surplus leads to more breeding. More breeding leads to overcrowding/stress of available resources. Those factors lead to intelligent members of a civilization voluntarily lowering their birth rate, which in turn raises the ratio of stupid people:smart people beyond the survivable limit, unless the resource stress moves beyond the survivable limit first. It’s all in that book I recommended, Ishmael. It’s actually shown forth in the Bible as well. You see it in the examples of Nineveh, Sumer (Babel), Sodom, and Gomorrah.
To break down humanity to just procreation is a disservice and disrespect to humanity as a whole.
OK, it’s only 80% of what most time is spent on in one way or another, so you’ve got a point.
There is so much more to humanity than just sex and procreation.Civilization is a testament to humanity that we are not animals bound by our base desires. That we build and strive for greater heights than where we exist.
I hate to, but must, disagree. Mankind would still be living tribally if it weren’t for henpecking nags who just couldn’t handle another winter of getting by with just enough. You’ve surely read this joke before… It’s only funny because it’s true.
“Indian Chief “Two Eagles was asked by a white U.S. government official, “You have observed the white man for 90 years. You’ve seen his wars and his technological advances. You’ve seen his progress, and the damage he’s done.”
The Chief nodded in agreement.
The official continued, “Considering all these events, in your opinion, where did the white man go wrong?”
The Chief stared at the government official then replied,
“When white man find land, Indians running it, no taxes, no debt, plenty buffalo, plenty beaver, clean water. Women do all the work, medicine man free, Indian man spend all day hunting and fishing all night having sex.”
Then the Chief leaned back and smiled, “Only white man dumb enough to think he could improve system like that.”
Each of us is greater than the sum our parts. We have souls, these bodies are just shells that will eventually expire, leaving only the soul. And when you realize this, you will realize that defining disposablity and irreplaceablity based on generalities is complete bulls~~~.
I would rather say we are souls. It’s not like there is some other something that owns the soul as a possession… You have a good point about disposability, but we were talking about the way that current Western Civilization treats its men. We weren’t talking about ideals. Ideally, each individual should have his needs met, and contribute to society at large according to his abilities. But you know, that’s communism, and it’s been shown not to work. Why? because you will always have douchebags who want to do paperwork and make other people look bad, so that they don’t have to do any productive labor. That’s why I favor a thorough investigation into the genetic traits of sociopaths, to find the common broken genes and eliminate them from the gene pool (through sterilization). We even know where to look for the research material.. We can start with high-level bankers and serial killers.
"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
You are missing my point.
In this society, the defective women on the poor end are being paid to have children, while women that are productive and intelligent are put in situations of having very fewer children.
Then your point is irrelevant to the topic.
This thread is about the lack of behavioral diversity in female humans contrasting with the wide diversity in male behavior. Human behavior developed over millions upon millions of years from long before we were even human. The socialist welfare state is far too recent to have had any effect on human behavior, and won’t be around long enough before it collapses to have any lasting effect.
You keep trying to bring up cattle and livestock breeding as if that’s also relevant, but it isn’t. Because humans are not cattle. Cattle do not have a choice in their reproduction. Humans do. The breeding choices for cattle are made in the best interest of the farmer. Human breeding choices are made in the best interest of those individual humans making the choice, at least according to criteria that were developed over millions of years.
No food production nor shelter and women would not survive to have children. This works both ways.
Which is WHY generation of resources like food and shelter are part of the procreation process for humans. Women who do not receive food and shelter do not successfully procreate because their children starve.
I have to ask, is English a second language for you?
side-stepping the way society screws us.
In other words: F~~~ SOCIETY.
There is a list somewhere on the forum of men whom had made GREAT achievements in civilization. They elevated humanity to new levels of quality of life, yet they had no children.
What’s your point? There are also many many other men who also “elevated humanity to new levels of quality of life” but were married and did have children
Great achievements are a trait of masculinity, not a trait of domesticity or the lack thereof. Great achievements are only relevant to MGTOW indirectly because it’s MEN Going Their Own Way and great achievements are what MEN happen to do.
There is so much more to humanity than just sex and procreation.
Procreation in humans is more than just sex. Much more. This is not the first time you’ve have that explained to you.
You keep trying to bring up cattle and livestock breeding as if that’s also relevant, but it isn’t.
I was making an analogy, to sidestep talking about eugenics.
Also, I believe I was trying to keep with the core of thread topic, by discussion where the behaviors between genders come from in this society. With it being that men are arbitrarily viewed as disposable, while women are foolishly viewed as irreplaceable.
I would rather say we are souls. It’s not like there is some other something that owns the soul as a possession… You have a good point about disposability, but we were talking about the way that current Western Civilization treats its men. We weren’t talking about ideals. Ideally, each individual should have his needs met, and contribute to society at large according to his abilities. But you know, that’s communism, and it’s been shown not to work.
That is because people grow in their abilities, and we have those that define people in generalities, and thus oppress people over generalities.
Why? because you will always have douchebags who want to do paperwork and make other people look bad, so that they don’t have to do any productive labor. That’s why I favor a thorough investigation into the genetic traits of sociopaths, to find the common broken genes and eliminate them from the gene pool (through sterilization). We even know where to look for the research material.. We can start with high-level bankers and serial killers.
As much as he is hated here, and with good reason, Sandman did do an interesting video a while back on the automation of jobs. The interesting point being that the jobs that women mostly take, mid-level bureaucracy, including the HR department, are some of the first that will likely be automated.
On the matter of population control. When the collapse happens, a lot of the idiots are going to literally die on the street waiting for help to come that never will. Like what happened after Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. I really didn’t believe such stupidity existed in real life until I saw reports on the matter.
After which, the situation may flip. Because MGTOW are more independent minded, we are more flexible in working through constantly changing situations. So, we will likely have a better chance of survival. To the point where women will be looking to be with us, and us having the pick of the litter.
I was making an analogy, to sidestep talking about eugenics.
It doesn’t matter why you were making that analogy, because your analogy isn’t applicable. It’s not apt. Humans are not cattle.
Also, I believe I was trying to keep with the core of thread topic, by discussion where the behaviors between genders come from in this society.
But society is a product of human behavior, not the other way around. And human behavior is largely a product or reproductive imperatives.
With it being that men are arbitrarily viewed as disposable, while women are foolishly viewed as irreplaceable.
I hate to break it to you, but that is how the world works. Societies that fail to protect their reproductive females eventually get pushed into oblivion by societies that do. A tribe that loses 90% of its male population can persist, but a tribe that loses 90% of its female population is f~~~ed.
You also seem to be confusing the imperative to preserve women and their wombs at the expense of disposable males with the current socialist welfare state, but that is misunderstanding the situation.
The current socialist welfare paradigm is very much failing to protect women. It is failing to protect them from themselves.
It doesn’t matter why you were making that analogy, because your analogy isn’t applicable. It’s not apt. Humans are not cattle.
You want to break down human behavior and society to the most basic concepts of reproduction, but you refuse to accept a comparison between humans and cattle. (rollseyes)
But society is a product of human behavior, not the other way around. And human behavior is largely a product or reproductive imperatives.
If you get down to this, it is more like needs based on environment.
I hate to break it to you, but that is how the world works. Societies that fail to protect their reproductive females eventually get pushed into oblivion by societies that do.
When basic services, such a food and water stop, society collapses.
A tribe that loses 90% of its male population can persist, but a tribe that loses 90% of its female population is f~~~ed.
Actually, in such cases, said tribe raided the neighboring tribes for women. A lot of that happened in Africa.
You also seem to be confusing the imperative to preserve women and their wombs at the expense of disposable males with the current socialist welfare state, but that is misunderstanding the situation.
You got that ass-backwards. The welfare state preserves women and their wombs at the expense of men.
Anonymous29I hate to break it to you, but that is how the world works. Societies that fail to protect their reproductive females eventually get pushed into oblivion by societies that do. A tribe that loses 90% of its male population can persist, but a tribe that loses 90% of its female population is f~~~ed.
You also seem to be confusing the imperative to preserve women and their wombs at the expense of disposable males with the current socialist welfare state, but that is misunderstanding the situation.
The current socialist welfare paradigm is very much failing to protect women. It is failing to protect them from themselves.
Exactly !
You want to break down human behavior and society to the most basic concepts of reproduction,
Because that’s life. Eventually everything revolves around reproduction once you go deeply enough, because those things that don’t… don’t get to see “eventually”.
The future always belongs to the ones who show up for it.
but you refuse to accept a comparison between humans and cattle. (rollseyes)
Because there is no comparison here. Humans have reproductive agency. Cattle most definitely do not. So when we’re discussing something that depends entirely on reproductive agency, cattle are irrelevant. Again, cattle breed based on the needs of the farmer, not the needs of the cattle themselves. Humans behavior is based on their own genetic needs.
If you get down to this, it is more like needs based on environment.
Wrong again, because humanity creates its own environment.
When basic services, such a food and water stop, society collapses.
No. Society changes. But only sometimes. Populations depend on services. Societies depend on other things. There’s a difference.
Actually, in such cases, said tribe raided the neighboring tribes for women. A lot of that happened in Africa.
Not just in Africa. And occasionally they are successful. Most often they are not, because we’re talking generational time frames. It takes a large part of two decades to raise up a new generation to cover losses. That’s a lot of time for the neighboring tribes to react. They’re still f~~~ed.
You got that ass-backwards. The welfare state preserves women and their wombs at the expense of men.
Nope. You still don’t get it. The welfare state most definitely doesn’t preserve anything. What it does is provide short term benefits at the expense of the long term, but preservation is entirely involved with the long term. Any system that depends on eating its seed corn the way socialism does is consuming its own future, not preserving it.
The women who fall for the socialist welfare trap are utterly hosed. They are the ones who ultimately pay the greatest price. But it’s only at the expense of chump males who agree to sacrifice themselves for it. Men who refuse to chump up play along are the few who can distance themselves from the system’s inevitable collapse, thereby preserving themselves. Sound like anyone you know?
Nope. You still don’t get it. The welfare state most definitely doesn’t preserve anything. What it does is provide short term benefits at the expense of the long term, but preservation is entirely involved with the long term.
I have come to realize there is no such system for long term preservation. All of it is about short term, and living in here and now, in one way or another.
Monogamy is more of a stabilizing concept, but it is not really a system.
In order to get a mate, males have always had to stand out, while females can sit on their ass, be average looking and still have dudes wanting to bang them.
If dudes were all the same, believe me humanity would be f~~~ed. Competition amongst men is what drove humanity forward. The wymyn just ensured that we don’t run out of workers, pretty much, until recently when they decided to study (bulls~~~ degrees for the most part…) and work.When it comes to” all men being like that”, I’d say that every male, except asexuals, will obviously tend to seek certain things, including females, or the means to attract females. Money, fame, basically: status.
The thing is, some men (aka our fellow mgtow), have noticed that this behaviour stems from social conditionning (Be a man!) and also, simply, thinking with your dick instead of your brain.
So, no. If all men were like that, mgtow’s wouldn’t exist, and to a certain extent, neither would mra’s and all movement that are at least 1% aware of gynocentrism.Maybe I’m wrong, just my 2 cents.
It is a common failing of childhood to think that if one makes a hero out of a demon the demon will be satisfied.
Can anyone prove this statement wrong?
Where have you been all this time?On this site yes?
1)Look around,
2)Done you’ve proven yourself wrong…I have come to realize there is no such system for long term preservation.
Oh, but there is. It’s a large part of masculinity and is systemized in fatherhood, and it also is a result of our biological nature. Consider this:
Women, with their wombs and limited ova, are the gatekeepers of reproduction. They control where, when, and who by the next generation is created. But human children require a staggering amount of resources to let them develop into the next generation of adults. Women do not produce those resources. Men do. So men are the gatekeepers of resources.
It is in the best interest of females to consume as many resources as soon as possible for herself and her offspring. She does this for various reasons including keeping those resources away from competing females, but mostly because she is not the one who pays they price or takes the risks in producing those resources. They are provided to her by men who take the risks and pay the price.
This risks and costs to men at the same time force men to be conservative with the resources they produce. Men are obligated to think long term with their productivity because it falls on their shoulders if things go wrong.
So females with their limited reproductive capacity are reproductively conservative and resource irresponsible, while men with their unlimited reproductive potential but limited resource production capacity are reproductively experimentalist but resource conservative.
Societies that work with this complimentary dichotomy between the sexes succeed and thrive. Societies that don’t… don’t.
And the socialist welfare state most definitely does not. It tries to give females as many resources as they can consume right now (to buy cheap votes) and the females quite happily go along. It does this by robbing men of their ability to manage the resources they produce. That’s what taxation ultimately is. Resources are taken (at gunpoint – make no mistake of that) from the men who produce them, giving those men no say in how those resources are used or preserved because the men are outvoted by the female consumers. In response to mens’ warnings and complaints about this irresponsible misuse of their limited labor they are only told to produce more.
Is it any wonder men drop out of that system? Can anyone here not see how it is doomed to fail?
Monogamy is more of a stabilizing concept, but it is not really a system.
No, it’s definitely a system too. Systems are concepts put into practice. It’s just that monogamy is so simple and effective compared to alternative systems that it has become common sense.
And it’s not really stabilizing so much as it’s just inherently reproductively and resource conservative. A system like that cannot help but be stable.
Women, with their wombs and limited ova, are the gatekeepers of reproduction.
[…]Sidecar, you’re one smart motherf~~~er. You were paying attention in evolutionary bio. AND anthropology!
"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
Is there some argument here with a point? All men are like what? Misogynistic rapists? F~~~ that, we all know that’s not true. Some other thing, supposedly equivalent to the problems MGTOWs perceive in modern women, that could somehow just cancel everything out and make us all live happily ever after, if only men would just recognize it? That’s a profoundly childish point of view, in my opinion. Even if all men are alike in some way, that does not at all address the problems that are driving men away from the tradcon path. To me it’s a red herring, and makes no difference whatsoever.
I am not going to reproduce at this point, nor am I going to pay for any kids beyond that extent forced on me by taxation, so I technically do not matter to the society of the future. I am OK with that, but it does mean I don’t personally give a rusty f~~~ whether all men are like anything. It has no bearing on my thoughts. Is it supposed to make me decide that the plantation was OK after all or something? There is no argument as far as I am concerned, and nothing for me to gain from pretending there is. ."I am is reportedly the shortest sentence in the English language. Could it be that I do is the longest sentence?" - George Carlin
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 is surprisingly insightful. It’s odd how biology is so prevalent and dogmatic yet nobody seems to acknowledge it due to our social conditioning since childhood unless one stops to really think about it. Women, do not ever think about it.
The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. Never lose a holy curiosity. --Einstein
- 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
