Video for this transcript:
1. MGTOW is anti-family.
Yes and no. MGTOW is anti-family in the way that a man who does not own a motorcycle is “anti-motorcycle.”. If you suggest to a man that he ought to own a motorcycle, he will then defend his decision to stay with owning a car. These reasons may include criticisms of motorcycles such as they get horrible traction in the snow. They are miserable to ride in cold weather and in the rain. They lack passenger and cargo capacity, they have obnoxiously loud motors.
After all of those criticisms, the motorcyclist may feel that his motorcycle, his choice to own and ride one, has just been insulted. But is it fair to say that guy is anti-motorcycle? He also doesn’t own a helicopter, train, 18 Wheeler, or a cruise ship.
The next problem we run into is that family gets defined in narrow terms. The MGTOW might have a mom and a dad and a sister. He may get along with them perfectly well and enjoy family reunions and family get-togethers. He loves his family. But when you say “family” you mean starting a family. Family, according to the tradcon is: “one man, one woman, entering into a government enforced contract, children, man as sole provider, woman as dependent.”
I’m sorry, but that is one ultra precise definition of family. This is analogous to the Jehovah’s witness telling the Mormon that he is anti-christian because he holds a different interpretation of Christianity.
2. MGTOW are angry.
This is a recently popular one. It used to be MGTOW are hurt. But right now the trend is to say “angry”.
It’s difficult for me to give a rebuttal, because I don’t know every MGTOW. I also don’t know any MGTOW at all on any kind of personal level.
I will say any youtuber that makes videos for social political change, has a certain heir of anger to them. To call MGTOW angry, is nothing more than a hollow deflection. It’s saying “oh you guys have no valid points, you only have anger issues”. This isn’t an argument, it’s a blatant insult and nothing more. This same sort of nonsense could be applied to Martin Luther King Jr, Malcolm X, and every member of every type of civil rights leader (including LGBT and Feminist). “Dear MLK, black people are not second class citizens, you just got anger issues homie, you just need to heal”.
I personally don’t feel angry on any outward level, when I make my videos. As a matter of fact I often laugh and chuckle, a big giant grin as I concoct a comedy skit. I’m not saying I never get frustrated. I often speak to shitheads who want to constantly confuse the issues and bring up the dumbest shit imaginable… like half the arguments you’re going to hear in this video. And yet I continue to make videos and when I have time, argue in the comments. If this anger that I feel was some painful unpleasant angry shit, I wouldn’t keep doing it. I seriously have far better things to do in life than sit around being angry or doing things that make me miserable.
Furthermore, the tradcons who challenge MGTOW and hurl accusations at us, they seem very hostile. I guess everyone that argues MGTOW needs anger management classes? Should that be the new MGTOW retort to all nay-sayers? Just tell ’em they ain’t MGTOW because they’re angry?
Furthermore, what the fuck is wrong with being angry? Why shouldn’t people facing oppression or any level of discrimination be angry? Why shouldn’t people be angry at seeing injustice? Isn’t the fact that injustice prompts anger, being the driving force behind humans to create justice systems and attempt to right the wrongs?
I’m sorry, but the accusation of “MGTOW are just angry” is a complete load of rubbish.
3. MGTOW are misogynists
Well this is an interesting one considering how subjective this is. For the most part, I believe that practically all men are misogynist and practically all women are misandrist. Men and women have a natural fear, distrust, resent, and envy towards the opposite sex. This is natural. And I am not going to go too far into the psychodynamics of how this works. But it’s a normal part of being human. Both men and women have always tried to control and condition the other. I want you to simply reflect on the significance of people who are attempting to control another group of people. Clearly there is fear and or jealousy at the heart of such efforts. Men and women are naturally enemies forced together by biological circumstances. Men need women, thus women have power over them. Women need men thus men have power over them. We live our lives as individuals and as groups, attempting to out maneuver the other in a constant war of negotiation and manipulation. Men trying to create for themselves and others, a circumstance in which they get the most bang for their buck, and women trying to create for herself and her kind the biggest buck for her bang. Two merchants haggling in the market place- is a great analogy for the eternal struggle between men and women. And this is actually where most of the resent comes in. If for whatever reason men and women were not forced to pair bond, forced by biology to be codependent, did not need each other, practically all the hate distrust and sexism between the sexes would disappear. Thus the more autonomy men and women have from each other, the lower the sexism itself would be. Women say “I got what you need, thus I have power over you.” the man says “oh yeah, well I got what you need, thus I have power over you”, and the battle rages on. Again, men and women are in an eternal power struggle with each other. And the moment we no longer need each other, the power struggle ends, and with it the resent, the misandry and misogyny. The more we are autonomous, the lower the intensity of the power struggle. we’re not trying to oppress women; we’re trying to liberate men. We’re not trying to control women; we’re trying to alleviate men of women’s control.
4. MGTOW are leftists, cultural marxists social engineers (and now SJW).
This is just fucking silly, and is an accusation straight out of the right wing fundamentalist, which most tradcons are. It has been widely established that on the mainstream political spectrum, most MGTOW (not all, and this is not a rule) but most MGTOW are libertarian. Anywhere from moderate to extreme. Thus we can rule out both socialism which employs a large government and government control. We are not Social Justice Warriors or cultural marxist (I should note that cultural marxism, political correctness, social justice warrior, this is all the same thing). And MGTOW is none of that. First and foremost we are not anti-male. Just the opposite is true; we are pro-male. On that alone, we are not social justice warriors. We are also not anti-white. We simply don’t give a fuck what color our brothers are, nobody gets racial privileging or racial guilt, and we’re not about to start playing that “check your privilege” bullshit with race or sexuality. None of this bullshit about “destroying the hierarchy, fighting against the white supremacist patriarchy, and creating a society where everyone is equally rich and equally happy and accomplished, etcetera”. This “Social Justice Warrior” allegation shit stems from the tradcon attempting to cement their position by simply stating “men must pair-bond, and there must be nuclear family, and must be bread winners, it’s the way that works because it’s nature. It’s sexual dimorphism, nature. I’m right and MGTOW is wrong, because nature. Can’t argue with nature or your a social engineer, you’re a social justice warrior.” And that’s where that retarded shit stems from. Oh and Paul Elam’s comment that every MGTOW that doesn’t want to accept his pro-marriage interpretation of MGTOW can swivel on it. And people who weren’t receptive to that message were then referred to, by him, as being radicals, social justice warriors on the fringe.
Also the fact that such a silly allegation was ever concocted, and was done so by the extreme right, and their obsession with fighting marxism, and branding everyone that has a disagreement with them, as being marxists etcetera, serves as a reminder of how important it is for the mens movement to remove itself from the superficial mainstream political battle of leftism versus rightism. The bulk of the mens movement consists of right wingers. In the future this may change and the bulk will be made up by left wingers hurling accusations towards everyone that doesn’t fight for mens rights from a left perspective, of being racist right wing bigots.
We seriously need to knock off this idiotic left versus right bullshit and understand that MGTOW is fighting for the rights of men. We are fighting against the gynocentric tendencies in both men and women that lead to such things as womens special protection status, feminism, and all other policies that protect or empower women at mens expense.
5. MGTOW are dangerous and or just as bad as the feminists/leftists/social justice warriors because they construct a threat narrative.
Oh lord the “threat narrative”. This is just some stupid hypocritical bullshit. Who the fuck doesn’t create a “threat narrative”? The libertarians create a threat narrative about government. The conservatives create a threat narrative about change. The tradcon in particular create a threat narrative about MGTOW. The religious create a threat narrative about atheists, the atheists create a threat narrative about the religious, the leftists create a threat narrative about the right wingers, the right wingers create a threat narrative about the leftists, the MRA’s create a threat narrative about the feminists and on and on and on. I’m sorry but this bullshit about a spooky threat narrative, is not an actual argument.
6. MGTOW just want to be victims. (also leads towards accusations of being just like the feminists leftists cultural marxist social justice yada yada yada)
Oh I’m sure we’ve all heard this one before:
“You just want to be victims. You just create a victim narrative, that’s just like a feminist” (and now it’s that’s just like a social justice warrior).
Who isn’t trying to be a victim? And what I mean by that is, who fighting for their human rights can’t be called accused of “wanting to be a victim”. Anyone fighting for political change is painting themselves as a victim. Why fight against feminism? Who are they hurting? Feminism isn’t hurting anyone. If feminists aren’t hurting anyone why fight them? Who are they hurting? If you say they’re hurting men, congratulations you just want to be a victim.
And a common argument here is, if people are willfully marrying and taking the plunge, who are you to decide for them that they are victims?
This is a tough one to answer in any concise way without going off on a seriously long tangent. Summarized the argument is: you are conflating “wanting with willing”. People pay taxes, because they’re willing; not because they really enjoy paying taxes. They’re given a choice. Don’t work and thus don’t pay taxes, or work and not pay taxes and go to jail for tax evasion. Or work and pay taxes. He chooses the 3rd not because it’s what he “wants” to do, but because he is willing to do so, it’s the lesser of the 3 evils.
A man pays a prostitute, or a sex cam girl, for sexual favors. He doesn’t want to cough up money for this service; but he is willing to. If the sex cam girl and the hooker and the phone sex girl gave him a choice of pay $5.99 a minute, or we can do this for free. If that choice were there, he’d want to go with the free option. But because the woman is in charge, she sets the price, and doesn’t give him the free option, and he’s so weak and needy that he gives in and is “willing” to pay the money for her service.
Apply that to your sit-around-the-house-wife, costing you money. You’d rather be able to save that money. But she’s in charge and not really putting it out there as an option. So you are WILLING to pay for her services as “wife”.
Men are willing to pay for women, women are not willing to do the same, because women are right when they say “you need us women more than we need you men”.
Also this tradcon argument becomes a bit of a dirty tactic. Allow me to explain.
Tradcon says: “if people are willfully marrying and taking the plunge, than they are not victims, how dare you denounce marriage.”
I’ll counter that by saying:
Junky says, “if people are willing to shoot heroin of their own free will, than they are not victims, how dare you preach heroin is bad for your health?”
This is also recently coming about when people want to say MGTOW can get married. A man can be perfectly free and going his own way and married. The response is “you’re not going your own way; you’re going your wife’s way”, or something to that effect. To which he will respond, “no I’m not, I do what I want”, and we mention that he does as much as she allows him. Ultimately the power of divorce is in her hands, she has the power. We mention that marriage is exploitative of men, and they will say, “how dare you decide for me what is exploitative!”
And that’s the convoluted mess that ends up with this shit about “you’re trying to determine for me that I am a victim, thus you are just painting an unnecessary victim narrative, just like a feminist social justice warrior blah blah blah leftist this leftist that”.
The problem with this argument is it takes the abstract political, and unnecessarily turns it into a personal issue that you are not allowed to disagree with unless you attack him directly. Quite frankly, this is a dirty tactic.
This is a matter of me saying “heroin is an addictive drug”, and you saying, “I shoot heroin, are you trying to call me an addict? You don’t know me! How dare you pass judgment on me! I declare that I am not an addict, thus heroin is not addictive, and efforts to claim heroin is addictive, is an example of you trying to tell me that you know me better than I know myself. You don’t get to decide for me whether or not I am an addict. That’s painting a victim narrative. So retract your statement that heroin is an addictive drug that ruins lives, or stand guilty of being a social justice warrior.”
Another way of explaining what a dirty tactic this is, is to remind you of the male feminist position:
A men’s rights activist says “Women are privileged over men”.
The male feminist says “As a man, I know I am not under privileged. Thus Mens Rights Activists are full of shit.”
Imagine if the male feminists were to take the argument one step further and say “and if you try to tell me, a man, that I don’t know what I am talking about, and that I am a victim of feminism, than here you are trying to decide for me, a man, that I am a victim. Now because I, a man, proclaim I am not a victim, you can not claim men are. And if men are not victims of feminism or inequality, than MRA’s are full of shit misogynists.”
You’re doing that right there. Stop it! That’s a dirty way to argue, and you know it. Unless you’re just really fucking stupid. In which case stop it, because your
stupidity is showing.
When tradcons say “you can’t say marriage is exploitative of men, because I’m married and I don’t feel exploited.”
This is the same as the male feminist saying “you can’t say men are marginalized, because I am a man and I don’t feel marginalized”.
Disagree with that male feminist and… “mens rights activists just want to be victims”.
7. MGTOW claims to be going their own way but you all have group think.
This is the problem with “going your own way” as a phrase. Now here’s the thing. Every group of people who come together as a group have some similarities. These similarities build inner-community memes. The longer the group stays together and the closer they are, the more familiar and similar they become to each other. This is true for all groups. Tradcons got group think, libertarians got group think, social justice warriors got group think, AVFM got group think. Every fucking group has group think. It’s a stupid fucking statement to make to begin with. Then our opponents try to play on the term “going your own way” as if to say that no MGTOW may think, do, feel, or bare any similarity to another MGTOW, or you guys aren’t going your own way, you’re a conformist cult.
8. MGTOW is a cult.
This is similar to the group think argument. I don’t know how “MGTOW is a cult”, ever got started. I think Bernard Chapin started that shit during his feud with Barbarossa.
I don’t even know how to explain how we’re not a cult. I guess I’d start by asking the accuser to look up the definition of cult.
We have no deity or leader, we have no exclusive club membership. We don’t have any divinely inspired scripture. It cost no money to be MGTOW. We are not “hidden”. And no one is being cut off, or asked to cut themselves off, from the friends family and former life. The accusation of “cult” is hollow fluff talk for “I don’t like that you don’t agree with my point of view.”
9. MGTOW will lead to extinction.
OK, 15 thousand or so guys on the internet not getting married, or abstaining from sex, will not lead to extinction. The argument then becomes “but you are making an effort to reach more people to forever grow. If you do have success in growing, you will eventually grow to the point of causing extinction. If everyone were MGTOW we’d go extinct.”
Arguing this, over simplified (because I have covered this numerous times) comes down to: MGTOW is not anti reproduction. Although reproduction in this day and age isn’t recommended. But even at it’s core, MGTOW is not anti reproduction.
Next, MGTOW isn’t even about abstaining from sex. Many do abstain, but it’s not a requirement.
Next, we’re not proposing that the future must consist of nothing but asexual or abstinent men or even that every man has to be MGTOW of any kind.
Next, MGTOW is less of a political force (although it can be) and more of a personal philosophy. But looking at it as a political movement: in order for significant change to take place in our culture, based on the spreading of the MGTOW philosophy, not even half the male population has to follow the MGTOW philosophy as much as 50% in order for there to be enough men practicing just enough of the MGTOW philosophy to create a pro-male culture. Keep in mind as men change their behavior this will force women to change their behavior which will force men to change their behavior and so on and so forth feeding into each other and settling. The behavior of men effect women and visa versa. If one changes, it has an impact on the other. Of course our biology will always have an underlying current. This is true of any culture and it’s changes.
Point is, not everyone has to take some vow of abstinence or identify as MGTOW for our philosophy to have a powerful cultural impact, liberating men, and significantly reducing gynocentrism.
And even if it did create conditions that put us in legitimate danger of extinction, that alone would drastically change our culture and our situation.
The next part of this is the mens movement is mostly white men, because it’s mostly a western culture thing, and white people are the majority. Lots of tradcons and others, are white, and some of them will point out that we must do everything it takes to keep white birthrate up or whites will go extinct.
Well, that’s a white-people only problem. But none-the-less, most of our members and detractors are white. So… the lowered birthrate is not uniquely white, other races are also experiencing a progressive decline in birth rates. The cause of the birth rates dropping are mostly economic and the complexities which I have covered in other videos, are too long winded and complex to be covered here. The rate of decline will most likely not be permanent. At the current rate it will be well over a century before white extinction starts becoming a real possibility, as of now it’s premature panic. Furthermore, non-white immigration into white countries will ultimately be the thing that hurts the white population since racial mixing is a fact, and eventually, all the different races when locked into a confined space like a nation, over a long enough time period, will interbreed, thus all the genes will get scattered throughout the nation into one homogenous society (not exactly but this is more true than not). Raising the actual rate of offspring from white women will not actually solve this problem. Furthermore white womens offspring, even when that offspring is white, will most likely grow up to be a pro-immigration anti-nationalist yada yada that insists you have to let in even more non-white immigrants. So amping up the amount of babies white women have is not a solution to this problem. Whatever happens in the extremely complex future regarding race and boarders and numbers, is irrelevant to this movement. And MGTOW isn’t going to have anything to do with it. Wars, economics and immigration policies will be infinitely more a deciding factor in all of this than a “grass eaters” or MGTOW phenomenon. And whatever solution any given race comes up with to remain populated and “racially pure” (a subjective term I might add) isn’t going to have anything to do with the philosophy of MGTOW. And the whole idea of all the different races scrambling, in an over populated world, to find ways of maximizing baby output of their race, to remain relevant in the future against all other races, is a sad sad activity, and when you include throwing men under the bus to do it, it just gets sadder. And I only bring up the “whitey gonna die” aspect because I sincerely suspect it is the driving force behind half the panic and hysteria of needing a higher output of babies. In spite of the fact I have seen less than a dozen comments directly confirming this, I suspect it is 50% or more the issue, and due to political correctness, no one wants to pipe up and just say it for fear of being called a bigot. Not that I personally think any group of people wanting their race, their genetic type to be relevant in the future, is a bigot. But I also don’t personally care about any of that shit.
So in conclusion, MGTOW causes extinction? no.
Men removing gynocentrism from themselves will not cause extinction. Men refusing to act like a walking talking boner, refusing to bark at women and throw money at them to buy their affection, will not cause extinction. Women getting off their ass and getting a job will not cause extinction.
And really tradcons, really? Men have to be providers and support stay at home mothers because if women have to support themselves, humanity goes extinct? Is this seriously what your argument comes down to? Us homosapians have risen above umpteen million species of life on this planet, being natures epitome of evolutionary adaptability and excellence. Through all inter species competition and through all manner of environmental disaster. Through the countless wars and revolutions, and entered into the atomic age. Humanity has thrived. Humanity over coming all obstacles to be the most adaptive innovative and flexible life form. We rose to the top of the food chain and we now sit on a stock pile of nuclear weapons that could destroy all life on this planet several times over, but if your wife has to get off her ass an get a job. Well that’s it, humanity extinct. Gimmie a fucking break.
As for the argument that if enough men go MGTOW, there just won’t be enough fathers impregnating enough women to sustain a population. Again, that all depends on just how many men who are MGTOW there are in any given time in the future, and just how many of them decide to reject fatherhood and not impregnate a woman. Then there is the question of how many women will use sperm banks, will men start using foreign surrogate mothers to breed them children? And don’t you think if population got so low as to put that nation, race, culture in serious jeopardy, don’t you just think this problem alone would prompt some serious major no bullshit changes in our culture?
“MGTOW will lead to extinction”, is a premature panic not being applied to such things as middle class families, have below replacement level offspring, thus aspirations to climb your way out of the ghetto will lead to extinction. Rich industrial nations have lower birthrates than under developed countries, so maybe everyone that wants their nation to have a strong rich economy is pushing for genocide? If that sounds stupid, so is saying that a small and growing MGTOW movement will cause extinction. Again, no one knows what 100 years from now is going to look like, or what changes will take place. Maybe when the population gets so low that there is a reason for nations to start panicking, this will cause major changes in laws, which will give incentives for MGTOW men to become fathers. Things like knowing if the man does not have full custody of a child, he is not obligated to pay for it, would make men feel more confident in having children. Like I said, a massive population reduction would force needed changes. The MGTOW philosophy at its core is not the rejection of reproduction or a rejection of fatherhood, even if modern MGTOW believe that having a child with a woman under our current climate is not a smart move. MGTOW will not end the human species.
10. MGTOW is unnatural, only traditionalism is natural.
Ah yes, the argument from nature. The right wing, famous for denying evolution by the way, is a hardcore fan of “nature” and biological determinism. They dictate what is and isn’t nature and fiercely reject social engineering with cries of “I’m afraid of change, change is unnatural”, while living inside of an ever changing world. They push for the social engineering of marriage, and deny that men are not monogamous. They get to dictate what is and isn’t natural the way a bible thumper cherry picks his scripture to validate his every position so that he knows everything and is always right because god is on his side. The same is true of the tradcon and his reliance on the secular version of “gods word” known as nature. Taking only the half truths that fit his narrative, and the whole truths out of context. He sculpts a world of “ought to be”. Any arguing will instantly get you branded as “gender ideologue” and “social engineer” and “Social Justice Warrior”. And the nuclear family man as bread winner model they hold up, is not even that traditional, but dang nabbit he watched The Happy Days, so he knows the 1950’s, and thinks it’s always been that way. Again, marriage, a socially constructed set of rules to modify behavior (social engineering) to fix a problem stemming from “nature”. He’s willing to endorse that shit, but not any modification of his 1950’s nuclear family model of life.
Dear tradcon, people supporting male monogamy, shouldn’t be condemning others for perpetuating an unnatural way of life.
11. MGTOW is a fantasy, traditionalism has a track record, it works.
When people say that MGTOW is a fantasy or “unrealistic” or “unsustainable”, I have to be honest, I don’t know what part of MGTOW they are talking about, and I chalk this up to them misunderstanding MGTOW and hyper focusing on one aspect. I’m just not sure what the aspect is.
Normally it’s some strange conclusion like MGTOW is an abstinence movement, and on a large scale will lower a nations population. And we already went over this misconception.
As for traditionalism’s track record. The horse and buggy has a track record too, you wanna protest cars? And traditionalism is not as traditional as you think.
Slavery worked pretty well too. It was huge in the Babylonian empire, it was huge in the Roman empire, it was integral to the formation of the American empire and many many more. Slavery is a very old institution; you wanna promote slavery on the grounds that it works?
Furthermore, no, traditionalism doesn’t work. If it did, there wouldn’t have been bachelor taxes, there wouldn’t have been in the pre-feminist era, societal expectations & pressures and laws making it difficult for single women to survive and thus forcing them into marriage and then removing their autonomy to force the marriage to work (this system is sometimes what is meant by the word patriarchy). There wouldn’t be an entire marriage industry producing marriage propaganda, there wouldn’t have been feminism, and there wouldn’t be MGTOW. If we all went “traditionalist”, we’d be a nation of married men working 50 hours a week to support a stay at home woman with her feet propped up watching TV all day, and surfing the web, buying crap with her husband’s credit card while the kids are at school all day. And then comes the divorce and the man loses everything and pays alimony and child support. That’s the outcome of traditionalism in this day and age. Come to think of it, that’s far too much of what we’re doing right now. It doesn’t work. It is not 1850, we can’t keep pretending that it is.
At least half the country is practicing traditionalism (more or less) and it’s not working. You can quit blaming feminism anytime now. Your “,men are money makers, women are care givers,” model, is more to blame for the divorce problem than feminism. And hell, feminists aren’t even the ones telling men to get married to begin with. The breakdown of the Traditional Nuclear Family, is more the fault of the fact it doesn’t work, than it is feminism’s fault.
World War 2 brought American women into the work force. They got a touch of independence. The 1960’s gave birth to Betty Friedan’s Feminine Mystique which alerted the world to the chronic problem of “bored house wife syndrome” and the social taboo of women being independent.
This launched 2nd wave feminism which was, by far, the rise of feminism as a cultural revolution. Why did it happen? Is it just possible this was not a carefully executed communist conspiracy? Is it possible, just possible, that this revolution came about because the traditional nuclear family was so out of date, that bored house wife syndrome was such a chronic problem. House work in the electric age was so easy and fast, and independence in a thriving economy was so fucking easy, that women didn’t want to play this stupid tradcon game anymore? And is it possible that many men who didn’t have fragile egos, and those who didn’t come from a strong conservative Irish Catholic background, realized that his wife working full time greatly contributed to the family income, relieving the burden to himself, practically doubling his retirement plan, and raised the over-all quality of life for the family. And thus women poured into the workforce virtually unchallenged, and second wave feminism was born?
Nah, nothing wrong with traditionalism, let’s just keep blaming communism.
Marriage in western culture has been propped up by artificial constraints on women in the past, bachelor taxes, and by religious institutions. It has been kept on life support for well over a century, for crying out loud let it die.
12. No one is forcing marriage or traditionalism. It’s OK to advocate something as long as it is not being “forced”.
If the argument is force, as in “force by law, force by gun point”, than we are not “forcing” anyone to do anything either, but you sure take issue with our anti-traditionalism and our anti-marriage stance.
Common Law Marriages, in the west, are a type of “forcing marriage”. In the east, in many countries, you have arranged marriages, that’s another type of forcing.
But beyond that, force being subjective, yes there is the forcing of marriage by offering marital benefits to married couples. Religious reinforcement of marriage in spite of the fact the marriages spoken of in the bible are not what is getting called marriage by today’s standard. This would be force by artificially constructed incentive, force by shaming and social pressuring.
While this is slightly off topic for this video, I just want to mention now before I forget, that perhaps a much needed modification to marriage should be considered. If a person’s motive for marriage is to be in compliance with their religion, than perhaps marriages need to be bound by church rules. Church performs the ceremony, and you agree to be bound by their decisions in a divorce. They get to decide when a marriage is or isn’t eligible for divorce. The church decides the division of property and child rights and child payments and so on, and the only role government has is enforcing the contract between the married couple and the church. Church in this case representing any religious establishment authorized to perform a marriage: i.e., mosque, synagogue, church, pagan temple, etcetera.
So long as the state validates it as a legit religious institution, and grants marital power to the priest, rabbi, shaman, whoever. As it is now, people are entering into a secular government contract of marriage, that does not hold up to “marriage” defined by their religion, and are doing it in accordance with their religion.
But back to the issue of no one is “forcing” simply by advocating.
Marriage and traditional gender roles are the status quo, even if they are decreasing, they are still the status quo.
The normalization creates expectations, obligations through social pressure. It has often been stated that children born into an Islamic culture will be Islamic, people born into a christian culture will be christian, and so on.
It is true that people tend to be very mailable creatures that adapt and conform to their environment and except the expectations, value system, and over-all reality they are presented with. By virtue of its normality, it is a constant pressure twisting the arm (forcing) young men into bad decisions to meet cultural norms. “Force” is subjective and takes many forms. Peer pressure is a powerful force to manipulate people’s decisions.
Our legal system is a system that often conforms to social values (social norms). So the normalization of both marriage and traditional gender roles and traditional views on gender, greatly effect court decisions and decisions within other institutions. If marriage wasn’t such a “normal” thing that acts as part of our culture’s value system, things like common law marriages that force cohabiting couples to be married, wouldn’t exist. There’d be no need to ram marriage down people’s throats if marriage wasn’t the status quo and a staple of our culture.
We are fighting against this unfair institution. Every person that takes part in marriage normalizes it, thus contributing to the problem. While I do not support attacking individuals who make personal choices, I will go on the attack and fight against these people then advocating marriage as a proper course of action.
Furthermore, I have showed numerous times that our traditional views on gender (women as helpless baby factories, and men as protectors, providers, and self sacrificers) contribute greatly to the double standards and inequalities that hurt men. Marriage and traditionalist advocates reinforce these views that ultimately hurt men. The current system, by virtue of our cultural values and views of gender norms and gender roles, is harmful to men, and exploitative of men. If you disagree, I ask that you please join the nearest feminist group and fight for women’s rights where you belong, because they too would agree whole heartedly that our current traditional gender values do not exploit men.
13. MGTOW are radicals, just as bad as the feminists.
On the grounds of “just as bad as the feminists”:
feminists have argued against your primitive archaic values, and so do we. Maybe we are “just like the feminists”. But another way of looking at this is: if both female advocates (feminists) and male advocates (MGTOW) can agree that some particular thing is harmful, then there is a pretty damn good chance it is harmful. Seriously, when two opposing ideologies can agree on something, that something must have some pretty damn good merit.
On the charge of MGTOW being radicals. Yes, MGTOW have been the radicals of the mens movement since day one. Radicals are good. When men began congregating on the internet and some of them began belly aching about women and feminists, this was hardly a legitimate human rights movement. This was hardly an ideology on to itself. At best, belly aching about uppity feminists was the byproduct of some other ideology. It would require radicals to form web forums, web sites, organizations, and create an eventual legitimate movement for mens rights. It took radicals to go from griping that feminism is wrong because some passage of the bible says this and that about a woman’s role. To go from that, to feminism is evil because it hurts men. And then to go from “it hurts mens feelings” to becoming “it hurts men legally, financially, emotionally, and morally”. It took radicals to push us to that point.
All progress in this movement has been the result of us radicals talking about the things we weren’t supposed to be talking about, and having these radical ideas slowly sink into the moderates until it became a normal part of the moderate’s position. The radicals are the movers of the movement.
Metaphorically speaking: Anti-feminist is kindergarten, MRM is high school, MGTOW is college, and the tradcon is the drop out burning academic books that don’t agree with his faith.
Another way of looking at it is, you begin by noticing how vicious and mean the feminists are, you object, and you are an anti-feminist who fights against feminism (you don’t currently care about men). Then you realize men are actually disadvantaged in society, unequal, and you are a mens rights activist (you still don’t care about men, but you are at least caring about justice). Then you finally get it, it all clicks, you have a greater understanding of the problem, and you see the gender paradigm itself as the problem, and you are MGTOW (and now you care about men). And then you have the tradcon, sure he bitches about feminism, but his faith deadlocks him into bitching about feminism. He refuses to move past kindergarten, and attacks the more educated. He doesn’t want to get left alone in kindergarten while the others move forward. He lashes out at the more educated.
You need us radicals.
The argument that the radicals chase people away: well this is actually a good thing. Those people are in kindergarten, they don’t care about men. Sure they need to complete kindergarten in order to graduate on up as a new recruit in time. But if they had any real conviction about fighting against the injustice and exploitation of men, they wouldn’t run off. These are people who are so content with the injustice that they only kinda sorta mildly belly ache about feminism due to feminists socialism and other miscellaneous crap. These are men who would have shut their mouths and turned on mens rights the moment some girl gave them the time of day. They were just cranky republicans at best. Besides, you need us radicals, and we can’t do our job by whispering and sugar coating our words. MGTOW is the big boys classroom, we use harsh words and speak of adult subjects. I wish there was a way we could segregate our words from the kindergarten class, but we can’t.
As for me being accused of being a radical… Yes, I am radical even within the radical MGTOW movement. I’m not sure why that is. I suspect many of our brothers bearing the name MGTOW, do care about men, but mentally they’re having a hard time getting past their disgruntled PUA phase, or their Butt Hurt Republican phase that lead them to the high school they graduated from. I think many of them just don’t get what MGTOW is, and others are just having a hard time coping with swallowing the red pill, and they are stuck in the “bitch about women” phase. I think they are just having a hard time adapting to life after red pill. And I do not make fun of them, or look down on them. I believe in time, they will adapt, they will progress, they will move forward, they will be strong. I think many of them are upset with women because they are stuck in that state of mind after seeing the truth, and it’s going to take them time to move forward. And maybe others are just more passive by nature, and a more gentle and relaxed “dropping out” of the game is their style. They are walking away a little more quiet. And I happen to be a passionate vigorous person, maybe even a little militant. So yes, I am a radical, MGTOW is radical. And you need radicals.
14. It’s pseudo science, you have no documentation.
That phrase and other variations, translating to: “All proclamations and theories of behavior that stray from generally accepted tropes, require documentation and scientific evidence.”
No, they really don’t need documentation. If I have a theory on why people do things, I do not need a shit load of scientific research to back up a theory. Furthermore, there aren’t a whole lot of facts when it comes to human behavior. There’s pop-psychology research. There is no shortage of academic studies conducted by social justice warriors. There are studies performed by the psychology industry (an industry geared towards maximizing revenue and pathologizing everything). To that industry, everything is a disease, and their pills and talk sessions can help everyone. Again, self serving profit motivated industry has progressively less reliable studies and conclusions on human behavior. Neurology studies on human behavior which are as misleading as they are educating. While the brain is an organ that needs to be studied, and is the organ responsible for our awareness and decision making, our ability to really understand cause and effect neurologically is very limited to anything outside of motor function. What’s more disturbing is the neurology institution tends to survive on grants, grants gained by producing the most outrageous and shocking headlines about the newest behavioral study.
Point is, most of what we know about human behavior comes from personal observation and speculation based on our own motivations. And the other part is observing everything we see through the cognitive bias of our cultural teachings.
The traditionalist lives in a world of “status quo”. He lives in a world of commonly held beliefs. MGTOW challenges traditional conventions. We don’t need documentation for every single thing we ponder, theorize, hypothesize, postulate and speculate.
Furthermore, the tradcon has us at an advantage: it is easier to be the status quo than it is to challenge the status quo. It is easier to parrot traditional convention than it is to challenge it.
15. You can’t use generalizations.
Yes I can, human beings generalize, it’s how our brains function and how we learn. See my video on this, link in the description.
There are two kinds of people: those who generalize and those who generalize and insist others shouldn’t.
The “you can’t generalize” argument is a deflection. If someone generalized in a way you agreed with, you wouldn’t object. It’s when they generalize about something you disagree with, or generalize negatively about something you want to defend, that you insist their argument is invalid because “you can’t generalize”. It’s really an extension of “but not all BLANK are like that”.
16. NAWALT, Not all Marriages are like that, Not all blank is like that. just got to find the right one.
OK, we done gone over the “you can’t generalize”. This is a bad argument for the same reason: it’s a hollow deflection.
It’s an argument that could be used right back at the tradcon. Not all marriages are good, thus marriage is bad. Not all women are good, thus women are bad. And you can’t accuse MGTOW of anything because not all MGTOW are like that. It’s not much of an argument. Again, it’s what you say when you want to defend a position, but can’t argue the argument against your argument. It’s a dismissal, its a deflection; not an argument.
But it also leads to the, “just got to find the right one, because not all women and not all marriages are like that.”
OK, look, the odds are against you, the game is rigged. There is no reason to support a rigged game. If the gambling game is rigged, boycott it, otherwise the operators of the game have no reason to not rig it.
Another way of looking at it, specifically the whole deal about you just have to find the right one, because there are good women out there.
Well OK yes, but let me try to show you the gravity of the situation.
Stardusk once said finding that right one is like finding a needle in a parsec.
Well, I don’t know about all that. But lets just say there aren’t a whole lot of good women out there, and to add to the equation, realize you’re ability to determine a good woman from a bad woman is flawed. Add to that, women know how to put on a good act to get what they want. Add to that, that people just change over time. The woman who loved you with all of her heart and soul and would have taken a bullet for you, 15 years down the road might end up hating you so much she wants to put a bullet in you.
But whatever the math is on “finding the ever illusive good woman”, look at it like this. If I were to be as generous as possible, and really play devils advocate, and said 50% of women are good women and you just got to keep looking and weed out the bad ones and get yourself a good one.
In spite of the fact no where near 50% of women are “good women”, I’m going to be so generous and give you that.
OK then, in a world where men and women are roughly equal, and only half the women on the planet are “good women”, than this means only half the men out there are going to find the right one. The other half are left with two options: settle down with the wrong woman, or go MGTOW.
Now realize, that number I gave you was generous, no where near 50% of women are good enough people to be with for the long haul, worthy of being mothers, or can be trusted with the power given to them over you by marriage. So only a small percentage of men are going to find a decent woman to really improve the quality of his life. Most other men are just acting like desperate drug addicts getting their fix any way they can and living the life of a pussie junky.
And lets not forget, marriage for a man, should be rejected not on the chances of failure, but on the principal of how unfair it is to men, and how uneeded a government contract in your personal life is.
The fact men will not stand up and protest marriage and give their own sex a better deal, is a testament to how divided men are, and thus a testament to how bad MGTOW is needed; not some tradcon “man up” bullshit.
I also want to add something I have stated numerous times; you cannot defeat the system so long as you are feeding the system. You cannot fix the system so long as you’re propagating its corruption. The tradcons scape goat feminism. You cannot fix the system by feeding it. I also think it is amazing how certain types of tradcons (though mostly just woman worshipers in general) will tell us that because women are the gate keepers of sex and babies, society will ultimately yield to them. This is normally stated in a “give up fighting against women and just focus on fighting feminism” type of defeatist message. Yet when men start to walk away from pussy and marriage, where is this style of pussie worshiping defeatist tradcon telling us that because we’re striking, we’re in control? Instead we are told that we have a duty to cave in to women or we’ll go extinct. Men have a duty to keep up population etcetera.
Isn’t that amazing. When women close their legs, they’re in charge and us men better bow to the women. When men go on strike, men better knock their shit off because their strike is going to have consequences for us all.
No matter how you slice it, the message I hear is “men better just shut up and do as women say”.
Admittedly it’s a rare type of tradcon to perpetuate this rare argument. They’re not exactly male feminists, their not completely tradcons. But they are white knights and they are in the MRM.
The tradcon argument that men have a duty to knock off their strike because there will be consequences to us all. That is common tradcon logic. We hear that with all their population panic. But it’s an uncommon tradcon argument that women are in charge because they are the gate keepers. I just find it ironic, that all the responsibility to cave in and “man up” for the greater good of society falls on men. You can tell MGTOW is the only pro-male philosophy because we are the only one’s not holding double standards like that. The sort of double standard of “women’s choice / men’s responsibility”.
This is the double standard found in feminism, and it is also found all through the traditionalist rhetoric.
17. MGTOW must not be against marriage or exclude married men from it’s ranks because MGTOW means doing what ever you want.
No, MGTOW is not “doing what ever you want”. Male feminists are men doing their own thing, doing whatever they want, but they are not MGTOW.
MGTOW is at its core a rejection of female supremacism, gynocentrism. A man entering into a marriage contract is a man placing himself in a subservient position to a woman. He is giving his wife power over him.
To make matters worse, if the man is in a traditional setup where he is supporting a woman, this is even more gynocentric. He is the worker bee supporting his queen bee, and locked into a government enforced contract that gives her power to keep it that way if she wants, or for her to up and change the rules when she sees fit because she has power of the courts on her side. Any man who understands this and then willfully enters into such an awesome display of gynocentrism, is not being MGTOW, he is being the mainstream, he is conforming to the norm, the most gynocentric of norms. To say conforming like everyone else is “doing your own thing” is an oxymoron anyhow.
If the MGTOW community were to accept married men as MGTOW, than what separates the MGTOW, MRA, Anti-Feminist, Tradcon, and every day mainstream vanilla Republican?
Seems to me a MGTOW under those circumstances would just be an MRA uttering silly pretentious fluff talk about finding himself or some shit.
If the marriage strike aspect of MGTOW is dropped, there really isn’t much to define MGTOW, it just devolves into never ending belly aching about feminism, and does not differ from every thing else I mentioned.
At least by rejecting marriage, there is at least a focal point, or point of reference. We can say that MGTOW is rejecting gynocentrism. But if you get married and willingly submit to the ultimate in gynocentrism, than you’re not really MGTOW. And if we can accept a married man as MGTOW, than what are we even claiming a rejection of gynocentrism is? For a person to be MGTOW, they have to reject at least some aspect, some degree, of gynocentrism. MGTOW do not insist that a MGTOW reject sex, dating, and even friendships with females. Although some MGTOW do. But we insist you have to do a little something to reject it in your personal life. A line has to get drawn somewhere. Marriage is where the line is drawn and I am never going to budge on that and I encourage my fellow MGTOW to also not budge on that. MGTOW is not a binary; it’s a spectrum. But it has to have at least some immediately recognizable line drawn for the MGTOW community to determine if someone is or isn’t MGTOW.
This often brings up the nonsense about MGTOW being a cult, or too ideologically pure (and forgive me, I think I am the one that got that shit started).
It’s like a vegetarian eating steak and hamburgers on a weekly basis saying “I’m a vegetarian”. I would have to ask on what basis are you a vegetarian? Is it because sometimes while stuffing your face with pork, chicken, and beef, you make sure to add a vegetable to your meat based diet?
Imagine having a meal with your vegetarian friends, stuffing your face with a bacon cheeseburger and saying “I’m with you guys, I’m a vegetarian for life”. And one of your vegetarian friends says, “you’d be more convincing if you weren’t sputtering pork and beef in my direction while saying it.” And you retorting, “Oh My God you people are a cult”.
It’s that fucking stupid.
18. MGTOW are gender ideologues.
Let me just pull up the definition of ideologue:
1. an impractical idealist theorist.
2. an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology.
We’ll start with the first one. Any group of people challenging the status quo, pushing for change, can be accused of being an impractical idealist.
And the key word is “change”. The fear of change conservative loves to accuse people of “ideologue” based on the first definition because it’s easy. It’s easy to tell people who are pushing for change that their change is impractical, while you get to cling to the status quo and the status quo of yesterday, screaming “see it was working once upon a time, we can do it again”.
I will however mention that people in 2014 wanting to return to a 19th century America style of marriage and family, inside of a 2014 environment, are being impractical idealists. You don’t have a time machine. Believing that we can return to some traditional mode in this day and age, and it will all just start working if we tweet our thumbs off at feminists and we just fight communism, is being impractical. Traditionalism doesn’t work. Our situation is different. The market has changed. Women can support themselves every bit as good as men. And when they stay home, they are not acting like traditional 19th century house wives; they are acting like your 25 year old son who won’t get a job and move out or help out with the rent, but thinks mowing the lawn is earning his rent free keep. This doesn’t work. You’re supporting a stay at home “free ride” of a woman. And you do it for one of two reasons: either you’re doing it to comply with your right wing conservative faith, or you’re so desperate for pussy and female approval, you will pay this woman like a prostitute to give her services to you. If you really want a traditional marriage, drop out and move to an Amish community where your wife can milk cows and churn butter and beet carpets by hand etcetera, go move to Iran where the theocratic government holds a machine gun to your head forcing men to be, “men”, and women to be, “women”, and locking them into a “traditional” gender role.
On the next part of that definition. Blindly advocates and adheres to a particular ideology.
No, we don’t do it blindly. We are aware that our ideology is not some “one true path to utopia”. We admit we don’t have all the answers and we will have to forever figure them out as we move forward. We can’t say for certain what the future is going to look like or how any given thing is going to turn out. We can speculate, and be prepared to re-evaluate and modify our stances.
You tradcons on the other hand are fooling yourself into thinking there is a formula to weed out the bad women to find the right one to marry. As if there is some bullet proof system that RockingMrE and TheCriticalG came up with. You are the ones locking yourselves into contracts with your government (marriage), placing yourself in the submissive position of being at the mercy of your wife the moment she gets tired of playing this traditionalist shit or gets tired of you. You are blindly marching into this contract because “hey it’s tradition, it’s my male duty.”
You are the one insisting in this day and age that women shouldn’t be getting jobs, they should be stay at home baby factories. You’ve got yourselves convinced that a working woman is a “corporate whore”, that women have got to dedicate themselves to motherhood ‘less humanity goes extinct.
You people say “sexual dimorphism” to mean that men and women are hardwired, locked, into certain roles with very narrow and inflexible definitions of masculinity and femininity.
You people feed the exact divorce problem and divorce outcome you bitch about, but scape goat feminism for failed marriages rather than blaming marriage as a failed institution.
You’re the ones who say “family” and then define that as one ultra precise model of family.
You claim to care about men, all the while encouraging men, as their duty, to get married and place themselves in the most danger women can place men in.
All because your right wingism says so. Hows that for blind devotion to a particular ideology?
You people have created this binary where everyone is a hardcore right wing conservative, or instantly a leftist for not being pure enough. You people defend with great vigor every aspect of your right wingism. One critique and that individual is instantly a leftist/communist/marxist/socialist/social justice warrior.
Hows that for blind fanatical dedication to an ideology?
Bonus argument: MGTOW doesn’t work.
There are many more arguments which effectively come down to the core argument: MGTOW doesn’t work.
And each one of those proclamations requires its own unique rebuttal.
But all in all, the notion that it can’t work, just as a general statement, is neither true or false; it’s not applicable.
It’s not an applicable statement because “work” has never been clearly defined.
MGTOW is not a system of government, or a system of economics. MGTOW is not even really a political movement. Although MGTOW doesn’t stray from gender politics, it just isn’t in and of itself a political movement.
It’s a philosophy, and for some a spirituality. To say MGTOW doesn’t work is to say “Buddhism doesn’t work”. In what way does Buddhism not work? Aren’t there Buddhists? Hasn’t Buddhism been around for many many generations? Hasn’t it had an impact on the culture and thus the laws of Eastern countries?
MGTOW is at it’s core, a rejection of gynocentrism. It is just an idea. The idea is that men need to start valuing maleness, rather than worshiping women. He needs to find worth from within, and not seek it from women. A man needs to find completeness in himself; and not seek completeness from women.
It begins with acknowledging that men are vulnerable; they have a major weakness. A man’s weakness is his need for sexual gratification, and for female approval. Some times this approval comes in the form of the male saying “that girl is pretty, I want to own her, and own her prettiness”. But this in reality translates to “I want her approval to own her.” Which ultimately translates to “I want her approval”.
A man wants to earn the approval of a woman so that he may “own” her so that he can hold her up as a trophy of his worth. He is incomplete, and completes himself by achieving worth vicariously through his “trophy”.
This part of male psychology ultimately puts women in control of men. Men are weak, women use and exploit that weakness.
MGTOW holds that men should make efforts to be strong, and to not be controlled by women.
Men seek worth, and judge other men’s worth, by examining his trophy, or the level of female approval in general that he gets. MGTOW says we should do what we can to ease back on that mentality.
The goal of our MGTOW communities, is not to create some immediate and forever sustainable future where no man ever has sexual desires for a woman. Our goal, is to spread an awakening, an idea. That idea being that men should grovel a little bit less. Granted, that’s an over simplification.
And as I said, it begins with men understanding themselves, understanding that women have men on a leash. That leash is wrapped around our cocks, and we follow them where ever they take us.
Men are weak, and men need to “do what they can” to remove this control.
Women laugh at MRA’s and say “you need us more than we need you.” And the MRA immediately starts whipping out arguments such as men built everything, men’s taxes fund this and that. And you need men to repair your broken appliances…
Stop with the defensiveness. These cackling women who mock you, are actually correct. You do need them more than they need you. That’s why men continue to buy women movie tickets and pays for dinner just to get a date. And they buy her jewelry and every other little thing she wants, enter into contract called marriage, financially support a wife who may or may not even bother to have kids. Supporting her like she was a child.
This is so embarrassing. Oh my brothers how you humiliate yourselves pussy begging and buying a woman’s affection. You’re so desperate for sex and their approval you’re buying it. You’re so weak, sad, pathetic, and desperate. And to make it worse, you will not admit this weakness, you instead manufacture convoluted nuclear family bullshit and “arguments from nature” to defend your decisions; decisions born of weakness and vulnerability.
How many men picked up the guitar as a boy, and practiced it with the number one driving force being “I bet this will make chicks really dig me. And if not, they’ll want me when I am a famous rock star”.
Look at how under the gynocentric power you are. Look how much women control your life. The pursuit of women has been your modus operandi.
Men do need women a lot more than women need men. That’s why it so normal to see men financially supporting a woman (buying her affection) and paying prostitutes for sex, than you see women doing either one.
My personal goal as a MGTOW, is to spread this awareness to my fellow man. First acknowledged this weakness, that women have you by the balls. Second step is to say to yourself “I wish it didn’t have to be this way.”
That’s it. Once you have done that, you have been awakened. All I want is a cultural awakening.
Once we as a culture have accepted this, that’s all we need for the wheels to be set in motion for a better, more fair, less misandrous future.
The nay-sayers tell us that if there is gynocentrism, than it is nature and you can no more fight nature than you can gravity, give up.
And to that I say, we fight gravity all the time. A plane does not defeat (as in destroy) gravity, it merely fights against it.
Every day that you get up and move around the house you’re fighting the eternal force of gravity.
Its true that the weight of gravity is always there. We are bound to the eternal laws of universal physics. Yet interesting how we don’t lay on the floor like a puddle of gel, completely defeated by gravity. We fight it, in order to function.
We don’t need to make gynocentrism go away. We just need to fight it. And the fight begins with acknowledging it.