Are Men Going Their Own Way? (MGTOW)

End game of modern feminists is enslavement of men to the female imperative. That means high male only taxes to pay for female only benefits in such a way that females no longer need to rely on males for direct resource provision. That would free the female to follow her biological instincts without realized long term consequences.

Basically their end game is overt male oppression vs the already existing covert variety.

Blame the voters? There was a time where 0% of the population in Congress, Governor's office, and Mayor's offices were women.

I don't think society is just peachy and nothing is wrong. I think there's quite a lot that is horrible, and quite a lot that is wrong. I think the things that are worst and most wrong and that need to be addressed the most urgently are constantly ignored because the people who are in power remain in power by exploiting those very defects in society that most need to be fixed in the first place, and to conceal the fact that they do this and that all of our reality is very carefully designed and micromanaged to keep us from realizing exactly how we're all being exploited. They parade "class struggle" in front of us in various guises "economic" class struggle, "sexual" class struggle, "cultural" class struggle, but all it really comes down to in the end is the people who are in power have the power and will do whatever they have to do to remain in power.

The muck doesn't get a meaningful say in anything. The people on the top get to choose everything, but they also don't want the muck at the bottom to catch on to how badly they're being exploited. They don't want the muck to band together, because that would mean the muck realize exactly how badly they're being exploited and are ready to make the ones at the top dance. So what they do is they harshly, harshly limit the scope of what you are allowed to know, to think, to feel, but within that very narrow area they allow lots of very loud and vocal disagreement.

Imagine a scene in front of you. Three people, and an apple tree. Person A charges person B and C for apples from the tree. Person B says the apples should be cheaper, person C says they should cost more. Person A makes a big show of agreeing with B in part, and agreeing with C in part, but all he really wants is the two of them to continue arguing about whether the price of apples should go up or down. He doesn't want them to think that apples should be free, or want them to realize they don't have to pay for the apples and can just go get them themselves, or that they can save the apple seeds and plant their own trees. Any of those things 'rob' person A of their monopoly on apples.

In similar fashion, those in power have a vested interest in making it seem like the system that exists in which they are on top, the muck are on bottom, and everything works to their benefit is the only possible system that can be. Oh, sure, they say there's room for improvement here and there, but no one knows exactly what improvement is. And anything anyone suggests that would actually fix a problem is a crazy person. They can't have any of the problems actually being fixed, because the problems are what keep them in power, in a job, in the public eye.

They give the muck just enough freedom to think that they're free, but in reality all you have is the illusion of freedom. Like a prisoner in a cage who says "I can choose to rattle the bars or not rattle the bars; I have choice, and therefore I am free" you have but the illusion of freedom. Sexism, Classism, Racism. Gay versus Straight, Black versus White, Christian versus Non-christian, Republican versus Democract. You're like the characters in the Seuss novel who are fighting over whether the toast must be eaten Butter Side Up or Butter Side Down, because you're so used to being forced to eat toast that you don't even grasp there's other things to eat than toast, just that it's possible, in theory, to eat toast more than one way, but that only one of those ways can be right.

The people who hold the reins like keeping the muck fragmented and distracted. Identity Politics is the best thing that ever happened to them, 'cause it's such a great thing to *** the muck over with. It can't be that we are all Americans, and we must work together. No. I'm a white American and you're a black American, and we are, of course, intrinsically enemies. I'm a male American and you're a female American, and we are, of course, intrinsically enemies.

And so on and so on it goes. We can't band together en masse for a common cause because we have been so violently fragmented over petty issues that are made to seem important. Gay, Straight, Trans, Republican, Democrat, Progressive, Conservative, Liberal, Tea Party, Occupy Wall Street, Pokemon, Digimon, Cardinals, Red Sox, Vin Diesel, The Rock, on and on and on and on. We have all this choice, except all you get to choose which poisonous snake you'll let bite you.

The fact of the matter is that feminism serves no further purpose except as a tool of social control. Feminism will never go away because it's impossible to ever actually achieve its goal because there is no defined goal. There is far too much money to be made, and power to be exercised (and, disgusting thought, enjoyed) in shouting about how oppressed you are.

Look at the wage gap: Women get paid what? 75 cents for every dollar a man makes? But wait: It's illegal to pay a woman less for a job than you'd pay a man for the same job. It's literally illegal, there are laws against it, and you can file suit against an employer over it. And if women really did make 3/4ths of what a man made for the same work, why are men being employed at all? Why not just give the jobs to women instead, and pocket the money?

This is why. Imagine a Dog Grooming business. It has 12 employees. 10 women, and 2 men. It has 10 dog groomers, 9 women and 1 man, and two managers, one woman and one man. All the dog groomers, male and female, all make ten thousand dollars a year. Both the managers, the man and the woman, both make a hundred and ten thousand dollars a year.

So. All Male Dog Groomers and All Female Dog Groomers make 10,000 a year. All Male Managers and All Female Managers make 110,000 a year. That's wage parity, right?

No. There is a huge wage gap. See, it turns out that at this hypothetical dog groomer, women make 33 cents for every dollar a man makes!

But wait: that's insane. All the employees, regardless of their sex, make the same as their counterparts in the same positions.

Yes. But that's not how statistics work.

When comparing the average wage of a female employee versus the average wage of a male employee, the average female employee makes 20,000 a year and the average male employee makes 60,000 a year.

Because that's how statistics work.

That's what the Wage Gap is -- it's statistical nonsense. The government itself (when it's being honest about it) says that it doesn't exist. The Department of Labor, the government agency that's in charge of keeping track of this stuff, says that there is no wage gap. The reason women, on average, make less than men, on average, is because men take jobs that are more dangerous, more stressful, more demanding physically, work longer hours, and work worse hours.

When you take into account those things (and that's a short version of the list), the pay gap vanishes to nothing. In fact, if you actually look at official government statistics (you know, the government of which the head recently said that there's a pay gap, despite it being illegal for decades, despite decades of "work" and "legislation" to fix the "problem), why, there is no such gap, and women actually make more than men in a lot of instances.

But the thing is, if Feminists, and I use big F Feminists here to indicate not the muck that is indoctrinated with these things and believes them, but the people at the top who know they're lying and manipulating the muck, if the Feminists admitted tomorrow that, yes, actually, there is no pay gap, and that, actually collegiate women have a lower chance to be raped than the general female population, to name just two things, well, what would they work for then?

That's never going to happen. It's never going to happen because if people who have made careers and livelihoods out of activism actually get what they want and they admit that their problems are fixed, they have two options: They can say, "Well, we got what we wanted, I guess we can stop now", or they have to say "No, that's not enough, there's X, Y, and Z, too!". Guess which one keeps you paid, which one gets you book deals, which one gets you awards.

There are an awful lot of people who make an awful lot of money off of being activists. And they don't actually want the problem resolved.

Do you know what would happen to Al Sharpton if we actually became a post-racial peaceful society overnight where, well, we have our differences, but we're all Americans, and that's what's most important, and we should judge each other on our actions and not on accidents of birth?

He'd be out of a *** job. He'd be out of donations and grant money and speaking engagements and media air time. He'd have to go find a real job doing real work.

The same goes for all the others like him, on "both" sides of an "issue". There are actual, real solutions to our problems that we face that could be enacted RIGHT NOW if we ACTUALLY wanted to solve them.

But we don't. We don't want to solve them. We don't like the solutions, either because they hurt our feelings, or they're "too much", or because we stand to lose something, or because it benefits people we don't like. We don't want to solve them because enacting living, breathing solutions to complex problems is difficult, is hard to understand sometimes, and it requires the ability to understand that there are more than two sides to any particular issue, that there are more than two sides to a coin. That there's ANOTHER side of the sky. That our existence is infinite but bounded.

Shakespeare said "All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players." I prefer the concept of the pendulum. Humanity builds in the path of the pendulum. We build our cities, our families, our hopes and our dreams in the path of certain destruction. Nothing is permanent in this world, no ideology, no love, no friendship, no state, no State. The only Permanence in this world is that there is Impermanence.

But the pendulum swings, and we build. This can be great, and stable, for a long time. And we build. People are born, they grow old, they die, their children and their children's children, too, and yet we build.

Eventually, though, the pendulum will swing back. The farther the pendulum has gone, one way or the other, when it starts its inevitable return to center, the more force it will have, and the harder it will damage everything in its path. Which is all of human civilization.

Right now we are at a point where the pendulum has swung too far. It's Mother's Day, for example. My mother was born in the Baby Boom. She experience a lot of things that I consider despicable and would not wish anyone to experience. And she thinks that modern day feminists are batshit insane. She thinks that people talking about "Stare Rape" when she had to worry about things like "Is my boss going to try to rape me if I turn down an advance" are batshit insane. She thinks that people who compare people saying mean things to them on the Internet that the horror a solider or rape victim goes through are batshit insane.

And she's right. They are.

We are at the point where the pendulum is hanging in the air. It seems like nothing bad will ever happen: famine, war, disaster are all things that happened in the past. They never happen to US. Well the pendulum is going to swing back. It won't be today. It most likely will not be tomorrow, or the next day. It might not be this year, or this decade, but the day will come.

It's gonna be really bad. The reason it's going to be so bad is because we, and herein I speak specifically to the United States and, vaguely, to "the West" have had it really, really good for a really, really long time. We have Antivaxxers who deny their children vital medicine because they were blessed to grow up in a generation where they didn't have a friend who had to quit playing football because the polio crippled them, didn't have a weird uncle who was HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE by the mumps, didn't have a sibling who died to Scarlet Fever. They didn't have brothers who died at 21 of black lung from spending 10 hours a day in a coal mine since they were old enough to hold a pick. They didn't have fathers who lost their eye sight to mustard gas, or had their legs or arms blown off artillery bombardment.

We have had whole generations now who have grown up and the worst thing that has ever happened to them is they didn't get the car they wanted for graduating high school. Not "they didn't get a car," but "they didn't get the car they wanted." We have so successfully eradicated sexism that you will find young adults who compare being asked out for coffee by someone they don't find attractive to being raped, who (sitting in a Starbucks, via their iPad) complain on the Internet that the oppression they face is equal to that of girls who get shot in the head for daring to go to school, or women who get stoned to death for showing ANY skin in public.

There is the thing that these people don't want to face and admit. We don't need Feminism anymore. The Western World doesn't need Feminism anymore. All that's left for Feminism to do is make it illegal for men to piss standing up, or spread their legs in a seat on the subway. I will say it again:

The Western World does not need Feminism. Saudi Arabia needs Feminism. Nigeria needs Feminism. India needs Feminism. Not the United States. Not England. Not Canada. Not France, or Germany or Scotland or Italy, and certainly not Sweden.

But no. That's hard. That's work. To go to another country and be an activist for women and girls? A country where it's hot and they don't have air conditioning, I can't get internet access? A country where I will be shot in the head, or have acid thrown in my face, for daring to say that maybe a girl should be able to learn to read? That's dangerous! I'll just stay here, in my Starbucks, sipping my non-diary mocha latte, and post about how oppressed I am on tumblr because I have to pay for birth control. 'cause men don't. They never pay for condoms, ever. Under any circumstances.

[edit] typographical errors

This is where I drop the mic and and moonwalk off stage.

I'm just waiting for one of the mods to lock the thread, the progressives are already losing and can now only respond with ridicule and other emotional arguments.

Holy ***, you people need to spend way less time on Tumblr.

You guys do realize all of that crap is the vocal fringe, and the wild majority of people (men AND women) don't actually give a ***about any of this, right?

The Internet only amplifies the voices of the crazy. Nobody retweets/reblogs someone calling for moderation.

(I think society does have some actual problems, but listening to the wingnuts never got anyone anywhere good, so I don't do it and you shouldn't either)

That's the thing, though. It's not fringe.

It was fringe 20 years ago. 10 years ago it was "radical".

These days it's the ***that's getting taught in the Universities.

I have literally gone to school with these people, learned from these people, taught these people, worked with these people. They have infested academia, starting in the humanities, because that gave them a foot in the door in a place that didn't require intellectual rigor compared to the hard sciences, or evidence. It was "critical theory". Then came Women's Studies, African-American Studies, Gender Studies, Underwater Comparative Basket Weaving.

Now it's complete and total ***, but it's being taught in the schools because you don't want to be percieved as sexist and these are the experts on the subject, right? And they say if you don't agree with them you're sexist, and you want to maintain a good, PC reputation.

So now we have departments of Gender Studies and Women's Studies and all these other studies. And all they do is masturbate pseudointellectually in the hallow halls of learning. Women's Studies LITERALLY is "if you try hard enough yo ucan blame men for everything!"

And it's "real legitimate scholarly thought"! I mean, look at all this peer reviewed research on all this marxist drivel! I mean, sure, it's stupid, but if enough people say it's true, it must be true, right?

I mean, it's not like we're going to lock back in a hundred years on all this pseudointellectual *** that literally throws out the scientific method as being a tool of patriarchal oppression and denies such a thing as objective reality like people alive now look back on phrenology or anything.

Except the feminist leaders are those very people spreading the vitriol and who happen to have the ear of our current lawmakers. So while you think "nobody gives a f*ck", in actuality our political leadership very much does give a f*ck and is actively engaged with these radical feminists. President Obama has publicly acknowledged and even supported many of their lies, even though his own administration has produced studies and reports that refute it. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton not only supports the radical feminists but is actively pushing for even more radicalism.

I'm fully expecting a "bachelor tax" to be created within the next few years with married folks or single mothers being exempt of course. There is currently a problem where over 70% of men in the ages of 20~34 are not married as that's the prime range for a man to start providing resources to his consumerist wife and her child. Economic data shows that women are responsible for the vast majority of consumer spending, this spending is far greater then what they individually acquire and thus we must assume they are using the income from men to make up the difference. Government welfare can't be counted because that's just money being transferred from someone else, it's not economic activity.

So in short, yes the government is actively involved in this and are listening to those same "castrate all men" radical feminists.

The really funny part about this is that men are now the minority in higher education. Technically this means the school should be sponsoring male scholarships, removing female only scholarships and investigating possible barriers to male education. Title IX should apply to feminists discriminating against men and creating hate speech towards men since men are now in the minority position.

Yet you mention anything like that and it's like a hang grenade going off. That is how bad the institutional misandry has become. It's not just openly practiced but it's openly enforced, sometimes violently.

Let's not forget that the people shutting down lectures on campuses around the world, either by setting off fire alarms, making false accusations, or screaming, yelling, using bullhorns or otherwise making it impossible to even hear are the "radical" feminist students of these universities.

And they're the people being "oppressed".

I live my life one day at a time. Not obsessed with labels. I play video games, workout, and watch anime.

I support equal rights, but care neither for the feminist or menist movements.

Each person I meet starts with a baseline of respect. Whether that goes up or down from that point depends on you.

And the universities are supporting them and refusing to punish them for actions that would get another other organization locked down or outright disbanded.

The funny thing is other non-western nations are taking one look and saying "f*ck that noise". There was a big push by feminists over here in SK and the result was a giant "hell no" from everyone, it's such a minor movement that people just look at them funny. Living outside the western world really puts everything into perspective.

Hey now! Watch it! Judging people by their actions, individually? Only some sort of sexist, racist bigot would judge people by their actions instead of their innate biological characteristics!

Oh please. I presented testimony of education of women in my country, argued with my feet on the ground, expressed multiple times how many things are wrong with the neo-feminism, and yet you go on this dumbass remarks. Because instead it's totally rational to say:
right?

And so do I. Yet I keep getting lumped with that group just cause I'm not a polar opposite extremist like Saevel. I hate these neo-feminists, I don't know how many times I have to say it, but still making claims that are pretty much the same but about men is completely demented. "Women aren't oppressed, men are!" yeah, totally. Everyone has problems for one thing or another, each should be tackled independently and with a rational mind.
A big issue with these neo-feminists, to remain on our main topic, is that they're activists.

I can't speak for other countries, but can about mine. Gender discrimination is very strong here, it's not central Africa bad, but it's nowhere on the level of a modern civilization. Feminism here, and I mean the real movement not the crazy tangent we've discussed so far, is still needed.

The neo-feminist movement and the men's rights movement are both insane. They're arguing polar opposites, having a little pissing content over who is more oppressed, who has it worse, etc etc, instead of pulling their heads out of their *** and realizing that fighting each other won't actually solve jack ***. Men are harmed by gender inequality. Women are harmed by gender inequality.

If both sides would stop yelling at each other and instead discuss the problem, we might see some advancements. This shouldn't be a fight. This should be a coming-together to actually improve issues for everybody. Stop waving your ***at each other and talk instead.

I've been a long-time supporter of legitimate feminism and legitimate men's rights, but the extremists in each group have ruined the movements beyond repair. The ideals represented by the movements, sans the insanity, are still very much needed.

I wish I had the self-control to not respond here.

So...it's good to see this thread went about as expected. ^^

So much misplaced rage in some people. I hope they find peace some day.

*Gives the middle finger to various biological imperatives and sips his coffee, enjoying his maladaptive existence*

You know that they won't. Ego and superiority complex will prevent anything from happening though.

Mmm. I just meant "some day", but that's what I get for typing before I finished my coffee.

Today is certainly not that day, I'm sure.

I assumed as much. I wasn't referring to today or even anytime soon in my response.

Any man willing to jump head first into marriage is a fool. It is not the same agreement as it was throughout human history. Today, it's a pretty risky deal for men, women make out like bandits.

No fault divorce, asset division, and alimony.

Near default child custody, and accompanying child support.

No wonder the vast majority of divorces are initiated by women. Marry someone, have whatever kids you want, get a divorce whenever you get bored and force your now abandoned partner to subsidize your life. Rinse and repeat as necessary to fulfill your inclinations. Radical feminists (and divorce lawyers) have turned marriage into a systematic wealth transfer from men to women.

So, does anyone have a scale that indicates the varying steps to feminism? Really? Does anyone here have a finite gauge by which feminism is measured?

When I think "radical feminist" I think about the women who diminish motherhood, and don't engage in relationships with men. (Basically, the polar opposite of this goofy movement.)

Nausi, what do you think about co-habitation couples having children no longer being taboo? Do you take exception to that also, or are you under the delusion that only men choose to go un-wed?

Yeah the degree of radicalization is tough to quantify, safe to say it's so blurry that simply stating oneself as a "feminist" is almost meaningless.

Well, I'd hardly call it a "delusion" when I've personally never met a woman who didn't want to get married. Why would women otherwise incentivize an agreement so tilted in their favor. Not to say they don't exist, but there doesn't seem like much of a reason for them to.

Co-habitation is a step towards the middle, but not a very big one. If the couple separates the woman still has the man under her thumb. How often does a male gain primary custody and thus receive support payments from the women? In marriage or otherwise?

I'm not saying that men who want primary custody don't exist, they certainly do, but how many cases do men even try to get primary custody? I know when my parents divorced my dad didn't even try. So of the cases where men try to get primary custody, do we have a percentage for the frequency with which they get it?

There's certainly bias out there in this regard, not going to dispute that. I just wonder to what degree, and inversely, to what degree it's a factoid used as a weapon in discussions such as these.

Things like religion and the like frequently factor into these discussions too -- as much as they shouldn't -- and let us not forget the cases (such as the one recently publicised in the U.K.) where a man was denied custody because he was an atheist and wouldn't take his kids to church. And women are -- in my experience, at least -- far more likely to be "believers" and to push that on their children.

And if, in the case of a woman being the filer for divorce, if it's due to infidelity, people will see that father as a poor moral guide for their children, right or wrong though it may be.

That's just one other factor. Though I'm sure there are cases of mothers being unfaithful and still getting custody.

But these are all factors that should be judged on each individual case, not in general, and judges who use gender bias or the bias of their own personal beliefs are wrong and should be held accountable as such.


There's certainly the capacity for personal gain involved, as women are every bit as capable as men of being coniving, self-serving ***, but at the same time girls are taught from a very, very small age to be nurturing and to seek a family and the social status that comes with being married.

So while "personal benefit" certainly can play a role -- more so for some women than others -- for many it's been hammered into them since before they were even self-aware at any recognizable level, and certainly since before they have concious memory.

And Zahrah with the win.

Essentially both MRA/Redpillers and radical Feminists are insane, disconnected from reality and hate the other side for little other reason than to fuel their stance.

Divorce, custody, and paternity cases are basically the most extreme form of male oppression, with things like car insurance premiums and employment biases being the least. If you look at the range of female oppression even in the US, it's definitely just as extreme or moreso.

But, the issues with gender bias in family courts is a singular issued that needs serious attention, whereas the theoretical "marriage = wealth redistribution" is a little out there.

Marriage is a risk for a man, it's also a risk for a woman, and to that point, every contract you enter has the possibility of risk.

I wouldn't necessarily be enraged if my wife took off and ended up with most of our assets, the majority of them were accumulated during the course of our relationship, and she's just as entitled to our collection of junk as I am.

I have a friend who, when he and his wife got divorced got custody of their daughter.

The only thing it took for this to happen was for his wife to get arrested multiple times for drug offenses, with their daughter present, and then for her to completely fail to even make an attempt to keep custody.

You can be a woman in my State, get busted by the cops for being so *** out of your mind high or drunk that when you show up to school to pick up your child a random cop who happens to be there who doesn't even work/isn't assigned to the school stops and says "there is no way in hell this is right" and then you confess to him you've spent all day doing drugs and that you do them around your daughter all the time, etc, etc, etc, and the state would STILL prefer to give the child to you, but they can't if you won't even show up.

For all the talk about "equality" we still have an overriding cultural imperative to view women as perfect angels who can do no wrong. They can't lie, they can't rape, they can't murder, they can't cheat. And even when we do know they've done those things, they're poor fallen angels who had to be tempted into it (by a man).

I have told the story before about a friend who was still required to pay child support to his ex-wife for a solid 6 months after she dumped the kids on his doorstep and took off to another state. There are probably examples of it going the other direction as well. That's the problem with citing extreme cases as justification for an extreme viewpoint. Yeah, the courts are biased in family disputes, but that's one area of inequality that should be addressed, not a universal gender bias against men.