"Men Going Their Own Way" - The family is doomed

[Drop_It_Like_Its_Hoppe]

This idea started out as a legitimate cause, as the "Men's Rights Movement" (MRM) to combat against the Feminist "anti-male" culture we see all around us these days, but just recently this movement has been corrupted by the same forces that corrupted the early (and just as legitimate) "Women's Rights Movement", which morphed into radical Feminism. These MRM's have invented a new philosophy of "Men Going Their Own Way" (MGTOW), where they have had it with women, and the traditional family structure. Similar to how Feminists see their roles as mothers (nurturer, and caregiver) as some sort of servitude, men see their roles as fathers (protector, provider) as servitude. They have begun to be taken over by the Marxian theory of an oppressed class, and instead of setting things in the balance, to get men and women to once again work together to better serve their children and society, they would rather "go their own way", and forget about it. Many of the MGTOW's argue for the state (many are Communist/Socialist sympathizers), but just like Feminists, they want the state to fund what they, as men, want and desire, even at the expense of women and children. 

I see some dark days ahead for civilization, and especially children. If women and men continue to remain divisive by such ideologies, the West (and perhaps all of humanity) is doomed.

These ideologies, whether radical feminism or radical MGTOW, is radical individualism, and a revolt against nature.

 

 

[empyblessing]

 

This idea started out as a legitimate cause, as the "Men's Rights Movement" (MRM) to combat against the Feminist "anti-male" culture we see all around us these days, but just recently this movement has been corrupted by the same forces that corrupted the early (and just as legitimate) "Women's Rights Movement", which morphed into radical Feminism. These MRM's have invented a new philosophy of "Men Going Their Own Way" (MGTOW), where they have had it with women, and the traditional family structure. Similar to how Feminists see their roles as mothers (nurturer, and caregiver) as some sort of servitude, men see their roles as fathers (protector, provider) as servitude. They have begun to be taken over by the Marxian theory of an oppressed class, and instead of setting things in the balance, to get men and women to once again work together to better serve their children and society, they would rather "go their own way", and forget about it. Many of the MGTOW's argue for the state (many are Communist/Socialist sympathizers), but just like Feminists, they want the state to fund what they, as men, want and desire, even at the expense of women and children. 

I see some dark days ahead for civilization, and especially children. If women and men continue to remain divisive by such ideologies, the West (and perhaps all of humanity) is doomed.

These ideologies, whether radical feminism or radical MGTOW, is radical individualism, and a revolt against nature.

 

I remember a few years ago, the MRM was such a small, obscure part of the internet that I thought it would never become anything. Now it seems to have grown so fast I wonder if the state isn't involved with funding it already. There have been more and more stories of female child molesters in the news as well. I wonder if this isn't some way to divide men and women more, a coup d'etat to destroy the family completely.

This is what Alan Watt predicted would happen to the family. His theory was that the elite would first use feminism to remove the husbands from the family and then decades down the line show that women were unfit mothers. The children would then be raised by the state from birth to death. Part of his predictions were that gender would be demonized on both sides. Boys would be raised as girls and girls raised as boys to creat an androgynous society. The male fertility rate has been declining at a rapid pace and very little alarm has been raised. It's now normal for a boy to dress as a girl. Effeminate men are the norm as well and there are a lot more violent "mean girls" than before. Alan Watt believed the final goal of the elite is to introduce pedophilia into the culture through woman/boy rape because of how it's often treated as a joke. 

I don't believe most of what he says. He's too depressing and provides little evidence but knowledge isn't a bad thing.

[fractional slacker]

That summation of how the frog is slowly being boiled, if you will, resonates with me. Feminism didn't start the fire that engulfed my FOO; it just poured on a bunch of rocket fuel.

When did Alan Watt make these predictions? I recall hearing something similar, albeit less detailed, back in the 1980s.

[empyblessing]

 

That summation of how the frog is slowly being boiled, if you will, resonates with me. Feminism didn't start the fire that engulfed my FOO; it just poured on a bunch of rocket fuel.

When did Alan Watt make these predictions? I recall hearing something similar, albeit less detailed, back in the 1980s.

 

I have no clue. I've been reading his posts on his site for a few years now but have no idea when it was first published. The guy is as morose as they come and I tend not to believe a lot of what he says simply out of self-preservation. 

[AdamC]

Many of the MGTOW's argue for the state (many are Communist/Socialist sympathizers), but just like Feminists, they want the state to fund what they, as men, want and desire, even at the expense of women and children.

On the contrary, it would seem consistent with the MGTOW and "Zeta Masculinty" perspective that they would opt out of toil and sacrifice for the state or any other collective.

AVoiceforMen: Men Going Their Own Way:

JohnTheOther: "The collective/social-approval definition of male
identity is: a man who is of service to, of utility to, or sacrifices on
behalf of the collective, of high-status males, and most commonly, of
women. Male social identity depends on the collective approval of
women. Zeta Masculinity rejects all of that... something we absolutely
need is male self identity apart from the disposable service to other
people." 

Many (perhaps a majority) in the MRM recognize the state as a tool of male self-sacrifice that primarily serves the exaggerated vulnerabilities of women and the power lust of apexuals:

AVoiceforMen: The Patriarchy at Feminism's Core - Part Deux:

TyphonBlue: “I think that feminism really is better termed 'Harem
Patriarchy'. And what I mean by that is: when alpha males – through the
process of male disposability, the various social powers that enables –
they start to centralize power, they start to look at women and start to
want to gather them up in a quasi harem that’s circling around them.
And in our society, that quasi harem is essentially the woman’s vote.
This is what is happening. Our politicians, our male politicians who
have achieved their power through male disposability, they have come to
the point where they want to have a harem. It’s a psychological harem of
female voter approval, but it’s still a harem. A lot of people say the
huge thing about sex is getting approval. Well, what is voting but
approval?”

GirlWritesWhat: “Single women are more likely to vote Democrat, and
married women are more likely to vote Republican. And its because single
women want to protect their entitlements, and married women want to
protect their husband’s ability to provide for them."

The Apexual sees all male-bodied-individuals below itself in the
hierarchy as pawns to sacrifice in its attempt to rise within the
hierarchy. While it identifies with the status of the
male-bodied-individuals above it, the male-bodied-individuals inhabiting
those positions of greater status are merely objects to be removed. In
that sense, the Apexual shares no identity with other
male-bodied-individuals, but a desire to see them as tools to its own
advancement in the hierarchy. And those male-bodied-individuals who
either don't have power in the hierarchy or are useless to assist other
male-bodied-individuals within the hierarchy – they are treated as
pariahs, as untouchables, by the Apexuals, by the hierarchy, and often
by male-bodied-individuals in exactly the same position.

Also:

GendErratic: MRAs, PUAs, MGTOWs, and How the MRM Is Not a Monolith

"Now they're staying single, working fewer hours, and barely paying any taxes!"

[empyblessing]

 

Many of the MGTOW's argue for the state (many are Communist/Socialist sympathizers), but just like Feminists, they want the state to fund what they, as men, want and desire, even at the expense of women and children.

On the contrary, it would seem consistent with the MGTOW and "Zeta Masculinty" perspective that they would opt out of toil and sacrifice for the state or any other collective.

AVoiceforMen: Men Going Their Own Way:

JohnTheOther: "The collective/social-approval definition of male
identity is: a man who is of service to, of utility to, or sacrifices on
behalf of the collective, of high-status males, and most commonly, of
women. Male social identity depends on the collective approval of
women. Zeta Masculinity rejects all of that... something we absolutely
need is male self identity apart from the disposable service to other
people." 

Many (perhaps a majority) in the MRM recognize the state as a tool of male self-sacrifice that primarily serves the exaggerated vulnerabilities of women and the power lust of apexuals:

AVoiceforMen: The Patriarchy at Feminism's Core - Part Deux:

TyphonBlue: “I think that feminism really is better termed 'Harem
Patriarchy'. And what I mean by that is: when alpha males – through the
process of male disposability, the various social powers that enables –
they start to centralize power, they start to look at women and start to
want to gather them up in a quasi harem that’s circling around them.
And in our society, that quasi harem is essentially the woman’s vote.
This is what is happening. Our politicians, our male politicians who
have achieved their power through male disposability, they have come to
the point where they want to have a harem. It’s a psychological harem of
female voter approval, but it’s still a harem. A lot of people say the
huge thing about sex is getting approval. Well, what is voting but
approval?”

GirlWritesWhat: “Single women are more likely to vote Democrat, and
married women are more likely to vote Republican. And its because single
women want to protect their entitlements, and married women want to
protect their husband’s ability to provide for them."

The Apexual sees all male-bodied-individuals below itself in the
hierarchy as pawns to sacrifice in its attempt to rise within the
hierarchy. While it identifies with the status of the
male-bodied-individuals above it, the male-bodied-individuals inhabiting
those positions of greater status are merely objects to be removed. In
that sense, the Apexual shares no identity with other
male-bodied-individuals, but a desire to see them as tools to its own
advancement in the hierarchy. And those male-bodied-individuals who
either don't have power in the hierarchy or are useless to assist other
male-bodied-individuals within the hierarchy – they are treated as
pariahs, as untouchables, by the Apexuals, by the hierarchy, and often
by male-bodied-individuals in exactly the same position.

Also:

GendErratic: MRAs, PUAs, MGTOWs, and How the MRM Is Not a Monolith

"Now they're staying single, working fewer hours, and barely paying any taxes!"

 

 

That hitler reacts video is hilarious. 

If it's true that men are going to generate significantly less tax revenue for the state in the coming years than I have no doubt that politicians will line up to make changes. Nothing gets the state motivated like when there isn't enough money to steal. 

I'm interested in how others see this playing out.

[Drop_It_Like_Its_Hoppe]

 

Many of the MGTOW's argue for the state (many are Communist/Socialist sympathizers), but just like Feminists, they want the state to fund what they, as men, want and desire, even at the expense of women and children.

On the contrary, it would seem consistent with the MGTOW and "Zeta Masculinty" perspective that they would opt out of toil and sacrifice for the state or any other collective.

AVoiceforMen: Men Going Their Own Way:

JohnTheOther: "The collective/social-approval definition of male
identity is: a man who is of service to, of utility to, or sacrifices on
behalf of the collective, of high-status males, and most commonly, of
women. Male social identity depends on the collective approval of
women. Zeta Masculinity rejects all of that... something we absolutely
need is male self identity apart from the disposable service to other
people." 

Many (perhaps a majority) in the MRM recognize the state as a tool of male self-sacrifice that primarily serves the exaggerated vulnerabilities of women and the power lust of apexuals:

AVoiceforMen: The Patriarchy at Feminism's Core - Part Deux:

TyphonBlue: “I think that feminism really is better termed 'Harem
Patriarchy'. And what I mean by that is: when alpha males – through the
process of male disposability, the various social powers that enables –
they start to centralize power, they start to look at women and start to
want to gather them up in a quasi harem that’s circling around them.
And in our society, that quasi harem is essentially the woman’s vote.
This is what is happening. Our politicians, our male politicians who
have achieved their power through male disposability, they have come to
the point where they want to have a harem. It’s a psychological harem of
female voter approval, but it’s still a harem. A lot of people say the
huge thing about sex is getting approval. Well, what is voting but
approval?”

GirlWritesWhat: “Single women are more likely to vote Democrat, and
married women are more likely to vote Republican. And its because single
women want to protect their entitlements, and married women want to
protect their husband’s ability to provide for them."

The Apexual sees all male-bodied-individuals below itself in the
hierarchy as pawns to sacrifice in its attempt to rise within the
hierarchy. While it identifies with the status of the
male-bodied-individuals above it, the male-bodied-individuals inhabiting
those positions of greater status are merely objects to be removed. In
that sense, the Apexual shares no identity with other
male-bodied-individuals, but a desire to see them as tools to its own
advancement in the hierarchy. And those male-bodied-individuals who
either don't have power in the hierarchy or are useless to assist other
male-bodied-individuals within the hierarchy – they are treated as
pariahs, as untouchables, by the Apexuals, by the hierarchy, and often
by male-bodied-individuals in exactly the same position.

Also:

GendErratic: MRAs, PUAs, MGTOWs, and How the MRM Is Not a Monolith

"Now they're staying single, working fewer hours, and barely paying any taxes!"

 

 

 

"The collective/social-approval definition of male
identity is: a man who is of service to, of utility to, or sacrifices on
behalf of the collective, of high-status males, and most commonly, of
women. Male social identity depends on the collective approval of
women. Zeta Masculinity rejects all of that... something we absolutely
need is male self identity apart from the disposable service to other
people."

This sounds a lot like someone revolting against nature, desperate to cling to ideology in an attempt to overcome responsibility. 

Here are a few great videos by a guy on Youtube that deconstructs this subect quite well...

 

 

 

 

 

[AdamC]

This sounds a lot like someone revolting against nature, desperate to cling to ideology in an attempt to overcome responsibility. 

Unfortunately, that sounds like a typical "Man up!" shaming tactic: “Men are shirking their God-given responsibility to marry and bear children.”

Any man possessing the virtue of responsiblity will recognize when his own virtue is being used against him in the service of another's power over him.

MGTOW/Zeta Male seems to be a spectrum of perspectives that range from abstaining from ALL relationships with women (because women are too dangerous/"hypergamous"), to raising the standard of expectations for relationships with women (because women are desirable for relationships and necessary as partners in parenting).

It should go without saying that all adult relationships are improved by the mutual recognition that all adult relationships should be voluntary, and that this recognition is a precondition to a healthy family where children can draw additional strength from the earned security of their parents' relationship.

Thanks for the links to RockingMrE. He does a good job of warning against the sort of polarization that inevitably arises in any sustained discourse.

[Drop_It_Like_Its_Hoppe]

 

This sounds a lot like someone revolting against nature, desperate to cling to ideology in an attempt to overcome responsibility. 

Unfortunately, that sounds like a typical "Man up!" shaming tactic: “Men are shirking their God-given responsibility to marry and bear children.”

Any man possessing the virtue of responsiblity will recognize when his own virtue is being used against him in the service of another's power over him.

MGTOW/Zeta Male seems to be a spectrum of perspectives that range from abstaining from ALL relationships with women (because women are too dangerous/"hypergamous"), to raising the standard of expectations for relationships with women (because women are desirable for relationships and necessary as partners in parenting).

It should go without saying that all adult relationships are improved by the mutual recognition that all adult relationships should be voluntary, and that this recognition is a precondition to a healthy family where children can draw additional strength from the earned security of their parents' relationship.

Thanks for the links to RockingMrE. He does a good job of warning against the sort of polarization that inevitably arises in any sustained discourse.

 

I never said all MRM's are like that, but it does seem to be a growing trend within the movement that recalls of Feminism's development as an ideology. And I'm not arguing from a religious stant-point, I'm arguing from nature, and biology. Many of these men sound just like feminists in that they are not willing to accept nature for what it is.

[AdamC]

I never said all MRM's are like that, but it does seem to be a growing
trend within the movement that recalls of Feminism's development as an
ideology.

I don't see any substantive parallels with feminism since MGTOWs/"Zeta Males" are not advocating as a group (men don't easily see themselves as a part of a group) and are not proposing to use state violence to achieve their ends because to do so would be to risk putting women in harm's way.

"Men Going Their Own Way" equates to each individual man going his own way and not to an alleged or feared state-sponsored "gender separatist" movement in the manner of radical feminism. To gain any traction at all, such a male separatist movement would have to first overcome men's biologically hard-wired protector instinct – and that's not going to happen any time soon. Plus most men want secure relationships and happy families.

MGTOW = Can't live with feministic women; can't possibly put any woman in harm's way; the only dignified and honorable option is to go my own way.

[Drop_It_Like_Its_Hoppe]

 

I never said all MRM's are like that, but it does seem to be a growing
trend within the movement that recalls of Feminism's development as an
ideology.

I don't see any substantive parallels with feminism since MGTOWs/"Zeta Males" are not advocating as a group (men don't easily see themselves as a part of a group) and are not proposing to use state violence to achieve their ends because to do so would be to risk putting women in harm's way.

"Men Going Their Own Way" equates to each individual man going his own way and not to an alleged or feared state-sponsored "gender separatist" movement in the manner of radical feminism. To gain any traction at all, such a male separatist movement would have to first overcome men's biologically hard-wired protector instinct – and that's not going to happen any time soon. Plus most men want secure relationships and happy families.

MGTOW = Can't live with feministic women; can't possibly put any woman in harm's way; the only dignified and honorable option is to go my own way.

 

 

I guess I'm generalizing based on a few loud-mouths in the movement that have made names of themselves on Youtube, such as this Barbarossa character that argued that women should be considered more "disposable" and put in more military positions, and that men should have more state-funding for particular medical problems like testicular cancer. I believe he was also the first to come out with the "Traditionalist Smear" tactics that RockingMrE was talking about.

It is true that men are not group-thinkers like women, so I doubt such psychology could take advantage of all men in such a way that feminism has for women. However, I remain cautious as to the intentions of this movement, and its ever-growing popularity, that it will just become another ideology for which the Marxists can take advantage of and promote as a narrative to further push the "State is family" garbage. I do not want a world where the relationship between men and women is cold and detached, while the state handles the children.

There's already nascent legislation in Canada which will
"protect" parental rights by assigning government committees to
monitor divorce children.

[AdamC]

I guess I'm generalizing based on a few loud-mouths in the movement that have made names of themselves on Youtube, such as this Barbarossa character that argued that women should be considered more "disposable" and put in more military positions, and that men should have more state-funding for particular medical problems like testicular cancer. I believe he was also the first to come out with the "Traditionalist Smear" tactics that RockingMrE was talking about.

I don't think these wounded characters have much influence – certainly not enough to overcome the male protector instinct.

Whilst I appreciate RME's evolutionary and biological perspectives, I remain senstive to language that shames men into compliance with appeals to what are
referred to as "traditionalist" notions of gender roles where men
self-sacrifice for the sake of the "family" – and where feminists have redefined the "family" as a woman and her children, and "society" as women and their children. If "family" has any virtue it is due to being a voluntary arrangement not an assumed obligation, particularly when men now have so little control over reproduction or any "right" to guarantee paternity of their alleged offspring.

However, I remain cautious as to the intentions of this movement, and its ever-growing popularity, that it will just become another ideology for which the Marxists can take advantage of and promote as a narrative to further push the "State is family" garbage. I do not want a world where the relationship between men and women is cold and detached, while the state handles the children. There's already nascent legislation in Canada which will
"protect" parental rights by assigning government committees to
monitor divorce children.

Emotions run high when it comes to post-divorce parenting arrangements. Given the urgency of this particular situation, the "rights" part of "Men's Rights" will inevitably tend towards state activism.

Marxists rely on exaggerated claims of victimhood to garner popular support. Excepting male feminists, are the majority of men going to exaggerate their victimhood? I don't think so. Male victims aren't sexually attractive to women, and men don't enjoy sympathy from either sex unless they are members of an "oppressed" "class" that includes women.

There are likely many intentions within the movement but I am yet to encounter any marxist/socialist/communist Mens Rights Activists. Those affiliated with A Voice For Men seem to be on the libertarian spectrum. For example, JohnTheOther has promoted Freedomain Radio for its "first principles" and voluntaryist perspective.

I don't identify as an MRA but I do have empathy for the MGTOW perspective because it is voluntaryism in (re)action. Sadly – but understandably – it is fatalistic. Male FDR participants would be highly unlikely to opt for MGTOW since exposure to the discussions here about male-female relationships foster male self-empowerment and optimism with regards to women.

It's easy to forget how most in the MRM – men and women – have yet to be exposed to the philosophy discussed here.

.

 

[Drop_It_Like_Its_Hoppe]

Of course it should be a voluntary arrangement, but it is not shameful to recognize the natural and biological suggestions of both genders, particularly in regards to the family, and the development of children. I would say that it is an obligation to children (and society at large) in finding the most practical ways of protection, nurture, and development; thus the biological nature of men and women cannot be disregarded, as even you recognize this when you bring up the man's "protector instinct", or likewise the woman's "nurturer instinct".

However, beyond all that, I am just not a fan of the Conflict Theory that some of these MRM's seem to be going for- I think it will just help further the decline, either by strength or speed. 

But then again, the decline is inevitable.

[Kevin Beal]

JohnTheOther is actually a fan of Stef's and borrowed the phrase "gun in the room" in a few of his videos. He's also tried to introduce UPB to his audience on youtube. GirlWritesWhat and ManWomanMyth also appear to be libertarian leaning. And of course there's RockingMrE, but none of these people are MGTOW.

[PatrickC]

To be fair MGTOW is unlikely to be the catalyst to the death of the family. Staism, feminism and the current economic conditions are primarily to blame. MGTOW is just a way some men have decided to react to the current state of things.

Not sure you can catagorise them in the same vein as radical feminism. Since RadFem is always demanding more goodies (rights) for women and less for men. MGTOW is just about men walking away from relationships with women. A form of ostracism if you like.

 

[AdamC]

I would say that it is an obligation to children (and society at large) in finding the most practical ways of protection, nurture, and development; thus the biological nature of men and women cannot be disregarded, as even you recognize this when you bring up the man's "protector instinct", or likewise the woman's "nurturer instinct".

Men – at least those that are waking up – are tired of having their virtue (in this case their protector instinct) used against them, which is precisely what shaming always attempts to do. Shaming is a vicious, verbal assault aimed to steal away someone's own self-approval and have them jumping through hoops in the hopes of getting it back. (Hint: It's never given back.)

You say men are not honoring their "obligation" as if men have somehow willfully denied their protector (and nurturer) instincts and are walking away from their families just for the hell of it. That's just more shaming on top of the shaming radicalized women used to drive men away from their families – or made them too frightened to start a family in the first place (hence MGTOW).

If a man was heartless enough to maliciously walk away from his children, then you wouldn't appeal to his protector instinct since he obviously doesn't have one. For shaming to work, you first have to assume possession of the very virtue you then deny exists: "You don't have a protector instinct!" "You don't care about the poor!" "You're evil!" Performative contradiction! Go inject your self-attack poison elsewhere.

RockingMrE: Being single is not a choice I'd deny anyone. But if you
get enough people living that way then nothing will progress. You'll
just have a world predominantly made up of hedonistic narcissists.
Keeping the nuclear family alive is essential if human beings are going
to continue to move forward as a species.

An appeal to the cult of the family – FAMILIES THAT DON'T YET EXIST! As if anyone within a family benefits from either parent being there just to avoid further shaming. Nothing is more narcissistic than to shame people for the sake of self-serving collectivist concepts like society or "species".

The very idea that men don't want to enjoy being a fully valued and respected member of a nuclear family. If men truly don't want that then why would you attempt to shame them into it?? "Man up!" Cui bono?

"You'll just have a world of... <shaming label>" See, you can have any choice BUT you can't choose not to be shamed because then you'd have the power of your own self-approval!

However, beyond all that, I am just not a fan of the Conflict Theory
that some of these MRM's seem to be going for- I think it will just help
further the decline, either by strength or speed.

I'm just not a fan of ABBA; I hadn't thought to tell anyone about it before.

You've already named names so take up their behaviour directly with them, and please stop shaming those men who have decided (for whatever reason) to opt out of relationships with women. Go shame the radicalized mothers holding their children hostage for ransom. Go shame the radical feminists for spewing their hate. Go see if you can manipulate their protector instincts.

[PatrickC]

You've already named names so take up their behaviour directly with them, and please stop shaming those men who have decided (for whatever reason) to opt out of relationships with women. Go shame the radicalized mothers holding their children hostage for ransom. Go shame the radical feminists for spewing their hate. Go see if you can manipulate their protector instincts.

You raise a very good point about 'male shaming' Adam. It does appear to be the default position for attacking men by both genders. Female shaming is generally frowned upon and seen as an unreasonable attack on them, which for the most part is probably true. Except when it comes to men, the shame can be piled high without even a whimper from the male victim. This was quite a recent discovery for me and has radically transformed my empathy for other men.

Personally I have adopted some of what I consider to be the better ideas of MGTOW. Making my own way in the world, concentrating on my own self development and happiness, without necessarily always looking for the romantic angle. I have and do reject some women in my life because of their behaviour, attitude and circumstance. Even when sex is an offer on the table. I still engage with women socially and intellectually and I certainly consider many of those women as my equal. I have had a few relationships with women and each time they have been an improvment on the other, despite their eventual failings. But with all this I am still open to the idea of meeting my eventual wife someday. I'm just not going to accept half measure from that lady, anymore than she should expect of me.

Feminism has already dealt a number of hefty blows to the family unit thus far. Any idea that this will be resolved by men is somewhat short sighted. It's like expecting someone walking into battle, already badly wounded.to weild a sword accurately. It will certainly take both genders to resolve this together I have no doubt. And a big part of that resolve will come when both men and women understand that 'male shaming' is no longer a legitimate way to get men to do things.

[Rick Horton]

I'm wondering what you guys think about things like opening doors, or pulling chairs out for women.

[RestoringGuy]

In a discussion, it seems that a way to filter out women with an anti-male agenda is to ask them about circumcision of male babies and what force they would employ to prevent it.In the same way, feminists have used rape as a wedge issue to filter out anti-woman males.  I have witnessed many surveys about "how many men on university campus would intervene if they saw a woman being assaulted".  The implication is not just that rape is wrong, but that every man has a duty to expose himself to risk.  By the same token, it is widely believed a woman has a duty defend her child.  Yet in most of the US, an "advanced" nation, her belief suddenly reverses itself when her child's genitals are discovered to be male.Some people will use cultural norms and preferences to excuse her behavior.  But feminists say old-fashioned cultural norms and preferences are wrong and crippling to women.   Yet they cling to such violence when male children are the target.  Most people do not spontaneously discover that anti-male contradiction in their thinking, but they feel prompted to answer the question one way or the other.  If they still do not see the problem with the status quo, their empathy fuse has been blown.

[suomipoi]

If a man was heartless enough to maliciously walk away from his children, then you wouldn't appeal to his protector instinct since he obviously doesn't have one. For shaming to work, you first have to assume possession of the very virtue you then deny exists: "You don't have a protector instinct!" "You don't care about the poor!" "You're evil!" Performative contradiction! Go inject your self-attack poison elsewhere.

Very nice.

 

 

[Stephen C]

It's cute how these men pretend like they're making a decision. 

[Kevin Beal]

 

It's cute how these men pretend like they're making a decision. 

 

I think that a lot of it is ex post facto thinking for sure, but many MGTOW claim they get sex and could have girlfriends if they sought it out and I'm inclined to believe them. There tend to be a lot of fatalistic arguments they put forward (see Briffault's Law) and they all seem to uniformly oppose psychotherapy from what I can tell and that stuff all smells of confirmation bias, of course.

Whenever I have suggested that they hold the corrupt women in their lives accountable they get very mad at me. That would be their decision, and that decision is to do nothing.

[PatrickC]

Whenever I have suggested that they hold the corrupt women in their lives accountable they get very mad at me. That would be their decision, and that decision is to do nothing.

Yes, this has also been my experience of them at the more extreme end. One of my thoughts on this was, since they are not investing in 'self knowledge', then it's probably for the good that they don't attempt a bad investment in a relationship with a women. Whilst it can perhaps be considered as the path of least resistance, at least they wont go on wrecking their lives with more woman and having children with them.

[Drop_It_Like_Its_Hoppe]

 

RockingMrE: Being single is not a choice I'd deny anyone. But if you
get enough people living that way then nothing will progress. You'll
just have a world predominantly made up of hedonistic narcissists.
Keeping the nuclear family alive is essential if human beings are going
to continue to move forward as a species.

An appeal to the cult of the family – FAMILIES THAT DON'T YET EXIST! As if anyone within a family benefits from either parent being there just to avoid further shaming. Nothing is more narcissistic than to shame people for the sake of self-serving collectivist concepts like society or "species".

 

Oh dear, you really are unhinged, aren't ya'? So now "species" is a "collectivist" concept worth shaming? You Stefbots have truly lost it, haven't you?

And shame the family unit for being "collectivist" while we're at it, yeah, brilliant stuff.

 

 

You've already named names so take up their behaviour directly with them, and please stop shaming those men who have decided (for whatever reason) to opt out of relationships with women. Go shame the radicalized mothers holding their children hostage for ransom. Go shame the radical feminists for spewing their hate. Go see if you can manipulate their protector instincts.

 

 

You clearly have a side here and aren't interested in critiques of it (MGTOW, Radical MRA). This thread is about that, and if you don't like it, then get out and don't bother commenting. Feminism is a tiresome ubject these days, and you all know the evils of it - Thus I brought this up which is new and relevant.

[Arius]

Isn't it entirely possible that people use shame and guilt to control each other, regardless of gender?  Why should women be any more or less manipulative than men?  It's true that both men and women use a wide variety of tactics to engender guilt and shame in each other.  It seems, to me, a better approach than MGTOW is to simply reject guilt and shame as largely invalid.  Both are relics from a manipulative authoritarian parent/child relationship anyway.  Assuming a bad behavior (manipulation) can be attributed to an accident of birth (gender) lacks all the earmarks of rational thinking.  There is no imperative that men and women must pair-off.  There is no particular form that a family unit must take.  All that nonsense is an inherited narrative from a culture of pure subjectivity.

[Kevin Beal]

 

One of my thoughts on this was, since they are not investing in 'self knowledge', then it's probably for the good that they don't attempt a bad investment in a relationship with a women. Whilst it can perhaps be considered as the path of least resistance, at least they wont go on wrecking their lives with more woman and having children with them.

 

I would definitely agree with that.

Also I actually sympathize a lot with MGTOW. I don't mean to pick on them necessarily. I've had no luck making the argument that people bring their grievances to people in their real lives, MGTOW or otherwise. And there are definitely a lot of reasons not to do that. It would be a conscious decision on their part though and would take actual courage and I feel very grateful to myself that I did it.

(I want it to be their decision and not a decision made for them. Stephen C's comment really hit home for me.)

[Stephen C]

 

 

It's cute how these men pretend like they're making a decision. 

 

I think that a lot of it is ex post facto thinking for sure, but many MGTOW claim they get sex and could have girlfriends if they sought it out and I'm inclined to believe them. There tend to be a lot of fatalistic arguments they put forward (see Briffault's Law) and they all seem to uniformly oppose psychotherapy from what I can tell and that stuff all smells of confirmation bias, of course.

Whenever I have suggested that they hold the corrupt women in their lives accountable they get very mad at me. That would be their decision, and that decision is to do nothing.

 

Oh, I don't know what the heck I'm talking about. I read the title of this thread and a little bit of the first post and for whatever reason the thought came to my mind that these men have no control, can't get what they want and need and are inventing control and the idea that they're getting what they want and need.

I think it's terrible that so many men and women aren't getting the relationships they want and need in their life.  

I was thinking a bit about this yesterday and something that came to mind was that men in the past fucked men over in the future by treating women something awful, but I'm no historian and again still have no idea what I'm talking about.  

[Stephen C]

On second though, that's a bit ridiculous. Maybe men treated women awful, maybe women treated men awful, it doesn't even matter. Screw adults. Children have been and are treated awful by both men and women, and I think that's what matters. 

[Kevin Beal]

 

Oh dear, you really are unhinged, aren't ya'? So now "species" is a "collectivist" concept worth shaming? You Stefbots have truly lost it, haven't you?

 

A danger of using collectivist concepts and ascribing characteristics is that you make generalizations like "You Stefbots have truly lost it, haven't you?"

Maybe species is more valid a collective in whatever respect, idk, but your statement is obviously unfair and unnecessarily antagonistic.

[Kevin Beal]

 

Oh, I don't know what the heck I'm talking about. I read the title of this thread and a little bit of the first post and for whatever reason the thought came to my mind that these men have no control, can't get what they want and need and are inventing control and the idea that they're getting what they want and need.

 

I think you might be being too quick to discount yourself here. I think there is definitely something to a lot of MGTOW stuff being what you said about not having control and creating a false sense of control. At least it would make sense to me.

 

I think it's terrible that so many men and women aren't getting the relationships they want and need in their life.  

[...]

Children have been and are treated awful by both men and women, and I think that's what matters.

 

And I think that's why there are MGTOW. I think it has a lot more to do with what you said than what most MGTOW are saying. I mean, I'm not any kind of expert or anything, but I've been following it somewhat closely for the past year, people like Barbarrossaaaa and Stardusk and these sorts of people. And that's the impression I get.

I totally agree, for what it's worth.

[AdamC]

You raise a very good point about 'male shaming' Adam. It does appear to be the default position for attacking men by both genders. Female shaming is generally frowned upon and seen as an unreasonable attack on them, which for the most part is probably true. Except when it comes to men, the shame can be piled high without even a whimper from the male victim. This was quite a recent discovery for me and has radically transformed my empathy for other men.

Thanks for your reply, xelent. I felt vulnerable and exposed after expressing my anger about male-on-male shaming, especially that aimed at further

already wounded men.

Empathy for men... Warren Farrell's Father Child Reunion really opened my eyes to the issues both sexes (men and women, boys and girls) are facing and how they interrelate. "...men's biggest fear is emotional insecurity; women's is economic insecurity."

Personally I have adopted some of what I consider to be the better
ideas of MGTOW. Making my own way in the world, concentrating on my own
self development and happiness, without necessarily always looking for
the romantic angle. I have and do reject some women in my life because
of their behaviour, attitude and circumstance. Even when sex is an offer
on the table. I still engage with women socially and intellectually and
I certainly consider many of those women as my equal. I have had a few
relationships with women and each time they have been an improvment on
the other, despite their eventual failings. But with all this I am still
open to the idea of meeting my eventual wife someday. I'm just not
going to accept half measure from that lady, anymore than she should
expect of me.

That's also how I interpreted the MTGOW/"Zeta Male" perspective: take time out of romantic relationships to reassess your values and standards. Even men within much maligned PUA community recommend doing "inner game" self-knowledge work before playing the field. It's inspiring that you have the humility to learn from relational setbacks and the drive to pursue your goal.

Feminism has already dealt a number of hefty blows to the family unit
thus far. Any idea that this will be resolved by men is somewhat short
sighted. It's like expecting someone walking into battle, already badly
wounded.to weild a sword accurately. It will certainly take both genders
to resolve this together I have no doubt. And a big part of that
resolve will come when both men and women understand that 'male shaming'
is no longer a legitimate way to get men to do things.

I agree, all shaming has to stop. The underlying shame that shaming language taps into is just too toxic. (I speak from experience of being both the shamed and the shamer.)

Perhaps women didn't help men before because they've wanted them to "just get it" – to just step confidently around her "

" and "shit tests" (both of these being instinctual, self-protective, male-qualifying mechanisms) without any hesitation or instruction. But it would seem men really haven't been getting it.

This could be due to the increasing fatherlessness of boys who have learned to invest their self-esteem in how well they can manage mother's moods via an appeasing and pleasing strategy that they, as adults, take into romantic relationships. But (and this may be putting it crudely) a woman wants a leader/protector more than she wants a follower/nurturer; in actual fact she wants both, but on her terms, except when she doesn't – because a woman doesn't want to openly dictate terms to a man because then she'd be the leader, and that would reveal the man as "useless": ("Women despise a man who needs to be told to be dominant. If masculinity has to be explained to a man, he’s not the man for her.")

So women, still with hard-wired dreams of being swept off their feet by dominant protectors, likely feel frustrated, unprotected, and abandoned by men who are far too preoccupied with pleasing them. Perhaps in exasperation they resort to shaming tactics (*malign* "shit tests") in an attempt to provoke the protective instincts they want extended to them. And then there are those deeply insecure and wounded women (radical feminists) who constantly employ preemptive shaming in attempt to rid themselves of shame.

In its benign form, male-on-male shaming could be equivalent to "hazing": a "shit test" used to qualify a candidate for group membership. But, again, given the prevalence of fatherless... and then the feminization of workplaces, malespaces, and the general culture... Now a man can't be sure that another can withstand hazing and so he can't trust his resilience in the face of danger. And given that many men really can't handle hazing (I certaintly couldn't) – or rather, just haven't been initiated into manhood by a father who presented them an ongoing series of challenges throughout boyhood into manhood – that can leave a man with a fundamental weakness. And aspiring "alphas" seem to have taken it as great sport to exploit this weakness to get a rise up ("Man up!") on the "Apexual/Male Disposability" ladder. See: [TyponBlue] [GirlWritesWhat

I wonder if so called "extreme MGTOWs" are quarantining themselves due to shame. Failed relationships create shame. Shame creates avoidance. Avoidance causes relationships to fail. It's a downward spiral. And since shame doesn't just come from nowhere (it comes from relational failures in preverbal childhood), the only real solution is a healing relationship with a relationally-oriented psychotherapist. But all previous relationships have failed. The impulse to connect itself becomes the source of pain. So relationship is simultaneously the problem and the solution. And if you've repeatedly experienced failure in relationships – if you've only ever known relational failure – then you really have nowhere to turn, no one to turn to. Having no hope for relationships, having no way to heal, your only strategy is immediate pain management and containment. Quarantine, in other words.

If the "extreme MGTOW" impulse is to avoid all relationships in an attempt to override and disavow one's own psychobiological attachment system due to the pain it causes – then that suggests deep, deep shame.

[suomipoi]

Perhaps women didn't help men before because they've wanted them to "just get it" – to just step confidently around her "

" and "shit tests" (both of these being instinctual, self-protective, male-qualifying mechanisms) without any hesitation or instruction. But it would seem men really haven't been getting it.

In my mind the bitch shield thinking gives me an image of a woman as a helpless victim to her impulses that arise from her brain - unable to control what comes out of her mouth and later on never admitting that she could ever have acted in an inconsistent / abusive / passive aggressive way. Why would anyone want to deal with that crap just get some pussy?

[PatrickC]

In its benign form, male-on-male shaming could be equivalent to "hazing": a "shit test" used to qualify a candidate for group membership. But, again, given the prevalence of fatherless... and then the feminization of workplaces, malespaces, and the general culture... Now a man can't be sure that another can withstand hazing and so he can't trust his resilience in the face of danger. And given that many men really can't handle hazing (I certaintly couldn't) – or rather, just haven't been initiated into manhood by a father who presented them an ongoing series of challenges throughout boyhood into manhood – that can leave a man with a fundamental weakness. And aspiring "alphas" seem to have taken it as great sport to exploit this weakness to get a rise up ("Man up!") on the "Apexual/Male Disposability" ladder.

Wow, the detail in your analysis puts me to 'shame' []

Whilst I thought you commented on some fascinating topics, the above particularly caught my attention. I'd never thought of some aspects to male shaming as being similar to hazing or a male initiation test. This would make sense of course, since it's a very obvious way in which men are granted status within a group. How you handle or rebuff humiliation as a man will be a deciding factor for female appreciation. Since the world has it's fair share of humiliators out there in positions of power. A man that can handle humiliation with grace (for himself), without complaining will be seen as a good catch by some women.

This clearly puts some men in a difficult quandary of course. Learn to handle humiliation and rejection and get women’s appreciation or don’t and isolate yourself from them. Perhaps that thinking is little simplistic, but I think it often fits for men at different points in their lives, depending on their relationship status. It's all part of the risk and reward culture that men are expected to partake in. I think Warren Farrell discusses this at length when he says, "men's weakness is their facade of strength; women's strength is their facade of weakness".

I'm still not entirely convinced that 'some' of these cultural expectations are unreasonable. Providing a woman with resources whilst she produces and nurtures our children is a very reasonable trade-off I think. However, I do think that as people develop more universal ethics and as child rearing improves that the sort of things men and women find attractive in each other will change. We kind of live in a state of nature for now, for which some of those attractions are frankly reptilian and largely unnecessary in the modern world.

This partly fits with how I've decided recently to break from my previous deliberate seeking out of women. Concentrating more on my own life, pursuing my passions and interests and enjoying the friendship’s I have already developed. Since I am still single and 44 I must take some responsibility for the situation I find myself in. A period of honest self-reflection has made me realise where some of my deficits have arisen. Which is all for the good, because I'll be that much more conscious of them in future.

[Jose Perez]

AdamC, you make a very interesting and clever analysis (thanks for all the sources too!). However, I do not see the connection you make between avoidance of relationships and shame. You say failed relationships cause shame (universally?) can you please explain?

My perception of this analysis is that it ignores much of the reality of childhood trauma and how it manifests in what you and others consider a simple biological need. I do not deny there is a mechanism of attachment, but it would not function in the ways discussed here in the case of a healthy, well-raised individual. 

Everyone comes out of (parent-child) relationships in which the measure for love is power - not virtue - and is fundamentally broken in their experience of attachment, so it is hard for me to see how any discussion around power in relationships has anything to do with philosophical truth - more like the same thing. I hope to be corrected if this perception is wrong.

As a result of this, all women's "bitch" mechanisms are nothing but the appropriate response to the man's not virtuous or biological, but dysfunctional intentions, which are of course equally offensive - and they simply use the resources they have: shaming, passive aggression... This is not just my own musings, but something I have had to admit to myself as I process my past failed relationships and assume my share of responsibility. Maybe I completely misunderstood the point you guys are making, but it seems to me I have been one of those men most of my life, and I draw my conclusions from my own experience.

It was precisely my own process of overcoming shame that revealed I had no good intentions towards my previous partners, but mainly childhood needs - which is perhaps what makes that shame legitimate.

[suomipoi]

I find it remarkable how well bitch shield/shit test  as I read it in PUA community resembles so much of passive aggression. Perhaps bitch shield is just misslabeled passive aggression. It would be easier to be with passive aggressive person if you re-label her behaviour it as bitch shield and tell that all women have this. Rather than have to accept that you accept seconds class behaviour from others.

This resembles alot of idealizing your own parents. "They did they best they can. It's not my mom who is like this. It's all women." VS "It's not this girl. It's all of them."

 

The following stuff I found in wiki relates to both passive aggressions and shit tests.

 

1. Ambiguity and cryptic speech: *Just get it!..*          What's wrong? *Nothing*

2. Intentional inefficiency, e.g. being late or forgetting things, as a way to exert control or to punish;  *Late from date*

3. Convenient forgetfulness: to win any argument with a dishonest denial of actual events;

4. Cold shoulder response: withdrawing into long silences to avoid either confronting or connecting with others.

 

10. Obstructionism; deliberately delaying or preventing a process or change *Girl: My problem is A.  Guy: Solve this by doing B. Girl doesn't do B.   Girl: My problem is A.*

11. Sulking; * Too many examples *