Are Men Going Their Own Way? (MGTOW)

They routinely try to insult my masculinity and shame me, not as an attack on me but to make an example to show others what they will do if someone dares contradict them. I don't value their opinion nor do I hold any respect for them, it's just fun watching them flounder around and it serves as a good example of whats wrong with the progressive political movement. All that group think, double speak and focus on politically correct language just results in a form of thought police where no ones allowed to voice opinions that differ from what's already politically acceptable.

Anyhow these folks have done far more to further my cause then anything I could of said or done.

You're interpreting that to mean men should never care about anyone but themselves. I interpret it to mean that men should put their own interests first, and having a child can be within a man's own interest.

No she's interpreting it the only way it can be, the way it's written.

If a person puts themselves first, then their child can't be first or even a part of that, that's not how it works.

A good parent puts their children first, above themselves, was their assertion, but as it goes against the concept of "go me, *** everyone else" I can see how it doesn't compute.

I assume he has no children. I could be wrong.

that might be a mind-set that surfaces once you have a kid, & not necessarily before.

Is that why the U.S. is filled with spoiled kids these days?

I feel I really should point out again that this isn't "conservative versus liberal" or "right versus left". Something that people in the United States are pretty blind to (like pretty much everything else that happens in the world that does not directly involve the US) is that our Democratic Party, that we consider "left wing" is kind of "right of center" in most of the rest of the world.

This is not a strictly "right versus left" problem. This is a problem with political correctness: the idea that one should not be allowed to hold an opinion that differs from and/or contradicts the official ruling party's opinion on a given stance. Since there is no "ruling" party in the United States in the same way as there was in the Soviet Union, or other similar, one-party, 'communist' states, this comes to mean that holding a belief that differs from the official stance that your party of political allegiance is "politically incorrect". It is "politically incorrect" for a Republican to be "for gay marriage", just as it is "politically incorrect" for a Democrat to be "against gay marriage", for example.

Even though we are not a One-Party nation, there are plenty of people who react to Political Incorrectness much the same as any Party hardliner would have back in the USSR: they vilify, ostracize, attack, and otherwise try to ruin the life of the person who commits the thoughtcrime.

An example of this was Lysenkoism, which was a belief on how traits were passed from one generation to another. It was official Communist party doctrine for a good time in the USSR and satellite states that Lysenkoism was correct, and that Darwinin-Mendelian inheritance was bourgeoisie lies. Lysenkoism was held up as Soviet Science, created by the New Soviet Man, which would prove much better than the Capitalistic theories. To this end, people who disagreed with Lysenko's views were marginalized, harassed, sent to gulags, and murdered. Many scientists and others involved in the subject and its applications were executed for their "thoughtless heresy" of holding the politically incorrect view that Lysenko's views -- which were backed by Stalin, and official Communist Party stance -- were wrong.

Lysenko was wrong, after all, and Soviet agricultural policy lead to around ten million deaths from famine, and god alone knows how many lifetimes of sick and crippled infirmity from malnutrition. And it was suppression of any and all dissent and opposition to official policy on the subject that exacerbated the problem. The Communist Party could not admit fallibility in the subject; they could not admit that Soviet science was wrong and had lead to untold suffering and death that might have been avoided if more bourgeois science had been listened to.

We live in what most people would describe as a two party system. And while there are many people who would dearly love to drag people out into the street and have Commissar Tumblr shoot them in the back of the head for insisting Mayonnaise is not a gender, the fact that, due to the nature of the two party system, and our own Constitution (which so many are so willing to do away with because someone had the audacity to say something that they disagreed with that hurt their feelings), means that they cannot do this. You cannot, legally, execute another human being simply for holding a contrary opinion.

This is necessary. The Sciences cannot advance if old, incorrect theory cannot be challenged and replaced because it is the "party line" and the replacement that more accurately and better describes nature and nature's laws is verboten. Simply look back at scientific thought on man's effect on the environment: we could not have gone back and forth over and over from "getting hotter" to "getting colder" to the current "stuff's happening" without the ability to challenge scientific orthodoxy. My parent's and their parent's generations well remember "Global Cooling is Coming".

The problem lies in that reality is objective. Whether we want, or are willing, to admit to a thing, the thing yet exists. When one attempts to marry the rules that govern the material universe, be they physics, chemistry, maths, et al., to a subjective system of moral belief, there is friction. When one refuses to change one's beliefs in the face of evidence to the contrary, as one does not want to believe what one is presented with, there is greater friction. And when goes beyond refusal to change one's beliefs in the face of evidence, but proceeds to actively suppress the dissident view (no matter how true and correct it may be) by means up to and including murder of those who profess the politically incorrect belief, there is the makings of great harm and grief.

Take as an example transsexualism. The current politically correct belief that is be pushed by the left in the United States, and by the bulk of the media, is that transsexuals are an oppressed minority who are perfectly fine the way they are and were born that way and we should accept them (perfectly fine unless they want a sex change), and we should treat them as the sex they "identify" as.

Nearly all the 'scientific' basis for the modern view on transsexualism is based on the flawed studies of a single man of another single man, studies which were the base for the vast majority of what came after, such as the view that a biologically male infant whose penis was destroyed due to incompetence could be 'reassigned' as female and would grow up as a perfectly (mentally) normal woman, among other related things. Thousands of infants were subjected to sex assignment based on the report that the 'treatment' of David Reimer was a complete success -- which was a complete and total fabrication.

However, the results of John Money's work fitted in very neatly with what certain people wishes to believe. It went along very nicely with their view that "gender" was entirely a social construct, and that there was no biological determinism involved in the matter. It has been much of the basis for the acceptance of hormone 'therapy' and 'sex reassignment surgery' given to transsexuals.

The unfortunate thing is that transsexuals suffer from a feeling that their physical body is at odds to what it should be (I am a man in a woman's body, etc). There are many psychological disorders that are based on this belief. One extremely notable example is a woman who, since she was young, has felt that her body is not right, not the way it "should" be. The specific feeling is that she "should" be crippled and unable to use her legs. She feels so very strongly about this, in fact, that she wants a doctor to sever her spine so as to forever take away her ability to use her legs, to bring her body in line to her mental image of what it should be.

No doctor is insane enough to purposefully cripple a patient because they don't like that they have functional legs (or rather, no doctor should be insane enough to do so). We do not allow people to have themselves surgically mutilated, to dictate "I want this perfectly normal and healthy body part cut off in an irreversible act of doctor-assisted mutilation" -- unless they're transsexuals undergoing "sex reassignment".

Johns Hopkins, which was the premier place for sex reassignment, has stopped performing it, because it does not improve the quality of life of the people who undergo it. "Sex reassignment surgery" does not improve the lives of those who undergo it. In fact, is does so very much the opposite that Johns Hopkins decided to stop doing it, and now the former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins has come out as stating that "transgenderism" is a mental disorder that needs treatment, that it is impossible (as it patently is so) to change one's sex, and that doctors who administer hormone therapy, and advise or perform the operation, are "collaborating with and promoting a mental disorder".

The problem here is that certain groups have a very vested interest in the belief that "male" and "female" are mutable, interchangeable qualities that have no biological basis or determination -- some of the more deluded ones will outright deny there is such a thing as biological sex to begin with. John Money was fond of accusing anyone who tried to bring up or point out how very wrong he had been of being "anti-feminist". The idea that "male" and "female" are not mutable and interchangeable things, but innate characteristics of people based on biology, and that there is a difference between "gender roles" and "sex" is extremely threatening to people who propound a belief system that there are no inherent differences between the sexes or, at least, no inherent differences that are so large as to amount to anything (something else that is patently false).

These groups don't particularly care for transsexuals (if you truly have a morbid curiosity in regard to this, feel free to go looking) as some actually view them as men who are trying to maintain the benefits of their "male privilege" and infiltrate "women's spaces" at the same time, among many other things. However, this idea that "maleness/femaleness" is a notional concept and can be more or less completely ignored and that everything is the result of societal forces entirely hang on to this belief with a death grip-like tenacity, as it fits in neatly, and "supports" and "validates" their belief in the matter.

Because of this politically correct belief that "transgender" people are not mentally ill people who need help and not drugs and mutilation, but simply people who are in the wrong body and can be helped by a permanent, irreversible surgical procedure that is their right to have and you are an evil, transphobic bigot for suggesting anything other than complete and total unconditional acceptance of the person and their beliefs on how their problem should be handled, has lead to countless men and women who would have been much better served with counseling and therapy undergoing irreversible mutilation of their bodies, and countless children who are too young to appreciate or understand the consequences to be given and sometimes even encouraged and pushed to life-altering courses of drugs and surgery because authority figures, parents, and people whose jobs it is supposed to be to provide medical care for children don't want to seem bigoted, backwards, hateful, politically incorrect people by suggesting maybe what they need isn't the surgeon's knife but to learn to accept themselves for who they are.

It is this vise-like grip that political correctness has on our nation, this belief that there is only one acceptable stance on a particular issue and that all who hold contradicting opinions are at best misguided and need to be shown the error of their ways, or at worst to have their lives and the lives of their families destroyed, sometimes quite literally and permanently, that gives rise to much of the woe we experience, not only as a nation, but as a species.

To paraphrase, "We choose companions for their ability to fight and die on the side of right as we see it, or who compliment this moral view of ourselves. We allow for no differences which can come from good will."

This is yet another instance of how we are pressed into and have this binary system of values impressed upon us by both the government and the media. It serves to keep us fractured, as we cannot come together on the basis of common belief or action, as one group can share 99% of the beliefs of another group, yet the two will never work together because of that tiny "irreconcilable" different. This allows us to be more easily manipulated and controlled by those in power.

Which brings us back to a common tactic employed whenever some "badthink thoughtcriminal" expresses any opinion which is not a whole-hearted embracing of whatever their critics view as the definition of feminism: You're mentally defective, you're not a man, you're not masculine, you're immature, no woman will ever want you, you'll never have sex, etc, etc. They do this because they either cannot, or choose not, to directly deal with whatever they are being challenged on. They prefer to attempt to shame and belittle a man into submission, because men are taught to seek female approval. If a man is rejected by women, the assumption, frequently unconscious, is that there is something wrong with that man. This is used to shut down dissent. When the situation occurs in which it is a woman who is breaking rank and file and expressing politically incorrect thought, she is often the subject of much vitriol, and statements such as "she's internalized society's misogyny" and that she's "so oppressed by the patriarchy she can't see it".

If we are ever, ever to have meaningful discourse in this nation on any subject of any importance, it will only be when we are will to accept reason, accept fact, accept evidence, and sit down prepare to accept that we may be wrong. Things certainly are not improving as they are.

Umm thought crime / doublespeak and "Political Correctness" are most certainly Marxist / Communistic in origin, at least their current definition. Old religions also used this same theory, which is why you occasionally see something similar to it in the Republican party.

Anyhow this is definitely a progressive issue, don't throw neoreactionary bullsh!t into this mix. The government isn't some tyrannical set of evil bond villains sitting at a big table smoking cubans deciding how they are going to rule the world. Everything we see is a result of a multitude of different parties all jockeying for power and control and constantly shifting their allegiances. The reason we have two parties is because strength in numbers and it's easier to attain more power by allying yourself with other entities that share goals similar enough for you not to be natural enemies. The entire political system of the USA is built in such a way that it's virtually impossible for any single entity to obtain absolute control and thus we have a constant state of apparent chaos that's perfectly ordered.

Why some male members of Congress won't be alone with female staffers


Welcome to the other side of the argument. Where, for the protection of both the male and female professionals, men are not placing themselves in situations where the illusion of anything going on can be possible, and women cry foul.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't, damned regardless of what goes on.

Anyone else think that if there's one career path where sleeping with people is part of the job, it's politics?

Politics makes for strange bedfellows.

Though I hear things get pretty steamy down at the lumber mill. Alot of wood needs working, if you know what I mean.

As you can see in the article, it's not just the women crying foul or thinking that the policies are improper. And if such policies are in place, they really should be crying foul, as such a gender-based policy would certainly be considered discriminatory.
Also, it's fairly stupid:
Because there certainly aren't any issues with the perception of an older male spending too much time with young males.

Yes, I understand that they are attempting to prevent rumors or gossip from starting. Those rumors can be present regardless of the gender of the individuals; amusingly enough, rumors regarding same-sex interactions would likely be far more damaging.

I would've said prostitution, the adult film industry, or Guns 'N Roses roadie, but politics can be up there too I guess.

It's gonna be fun seeing them defend that one KN. No matter which side they get on they are wrong. Actions have consequences, too many unsubstantiated sexual harassment claims that have ruined careers so now men with something to lose protect themselves by making sure the situation that an unscrupulous women could take advantage simply doesn't happen. Of course it also means making sure that no other women gets the benefits those situations could of created in the first place. You can't have it both ways.

Lesser of two evils Mil.

Thanks "radical feminism"!

Men's rights activists call for boycott of 'Mad Max: Fury Road,' citing feminist agenda

Congratulations MRAs, you've become what you sought to destroy.


My *** senses are tingling.

...but Hollywood would never stuff a liberal agenda down our throats when they remade a classic.

Say it isn't so.

#hanshotfirst

Hey, with a hashtag like that you could support gay porn!

I couldn't help it, I laughed at that.

Here's a guy who tried to go his own way:

Update: HIV-Positive College Student Faces Life In Prison For Infecting Multiple Partners

Several of the women I went to school with ended up being schoolteachers themselves. They've all told me something to the effect that male teachers (what few there are left) will never allow themselves to be left alone with a female student under pretty much any circumstance, at all, period. The fear of even being accused of something improper is so great, since just the accusation can ruin your life or get you lynched, that they just won't do it.

I knew some advisers in college who had a similar policy. They'd close the door with a male student, but not with a female student. All it takes is one student with a grudge to make an accusation, and then your career, if not outright terminated, is not going to be going anywhere, and you'll spend years being harassed by a huge portion of the student body simply for having been accused of something improper.

Furthermore, Colleges use "preponderance of the evidence" as a standard, since the government wants to look tough on this so-called epidemic of campus rape, which means they don't have to prove that you did anything, they just have to think it's more likely than not that you did it. So if they think there's a 51% chance you could have done it, you're ***. You're also not able to present any evidence in your defense. You know, since it's not a court. Well, it is a real kangaroo court.

Or this

I know a teacher who retired in approximately 2003 after putting in his full 35 years and when he was student teaching one of the oldest teachers gave him the advice to never be alone with a female student.

It's a pretty old concept.

So long Mad Men, Funny how many women long for the time of "the patriarchy"


I wonder how shocked this woman would be if she actually knew what the culprit really was.

You mean the show where the husbands cheat on their wives left and right?

Yeah, they were totally cherished and respected.

The author is aware of that and still laments the romanticism none the less. I'm sure she can conceptualize that people weren't necessarily more inclined to cheat on their partners back in the day (despite the show) as opposed to now.

It was a better, simpler time. For everyone.

Also, for me a LOT more fun than now.

Could I go through it again, starting at 15 again, I would.