Infected MGTOW - Men Going Their Own Way

brainlent said:
and there's no man on earth who could argue that femininity reigns over masculinity.
Click to expand...

1588263295225.png

Behold, it is I. Thy Lord and God.
 
  • Islamic Content
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
Reactions: GenericReviewerDraco, Static Voices, Nephi and 13 others
I guess I'd be technically considered MGTOW by their rubric and the way I live my life, difference is I don't need to gather with a bunch of other people to have a big collective circlejerk/pity-party as a result. I feel for a lot of these guys because many of them are probably legitimately incels but trying to fit under a different umbrella, or they've convinced and deluded themselves into believing they need some kind of support group just because they decided not to engage in dating. You don't need a god damn support group or a bunch of people echoing what you think. Just do your own fucking thing and focus on other shit, it's that simple. You don't need some pseudo political movement based around it, you don't need to fight with obnoxious ass feminists, just fuckin' keep to yourself and do what you like. And how the hell can MGTOW be 'thwarted' if it's not a movement? Those guys repeat over and over that it isn't a movement or a political group, so how can it be thwarted? You can't really thwart someone choosing not to engage in certain behaviors. I guess you can bitch at them but it isn't going to matter. Point is I guess, thinking someone has a decent point doesn't mean you need to become a zealot or a flag-bearer for whatever group of asshats they've fallen in with. Likewise I think feminism is mostly cancer in the year of our Lord 2020 but ultimately I don't give a shit because they aren't bothering me, which is true of pretty much everything.
 
Last edited:
  • TMI
  • Like
  • Autistic
Reactions: Mad Asshatter, GenericReviewerDraco, Vivian and 10 others
GrimProphet said:
I guess I'd be technically considered MGTOW by their rubric and the way I live my life, difference is I don't need to gather with a bunch of other people to have a big collective circlejerk/pity-party as a result.
Click to expand...
But you did have to tell us about it on our Artisanal Oceanic Dairy-Production Forum.
 
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Mad Asshatter, No Exit, Malagor the dank omen and 3 others
nurses.jpg nurses copy.jpg
I love how their ignorance overshadows their "superiority" just because the only nurses they saw were in pornos. Guess that means my mom was super selfish and didn't devote most of her life to check diagnostics, constantly monitor vitals, and care for patients because it was her calling! Should've gone for that camgirl degree.
 
  • Feels
  • Like
  • Horrifying
Reactions: A Weddell Seal, Mad Asshatter, that jerk over there and 16 others
I love this. I've never loved anything more. If MiGtAuW hates you, you know you've done something right. Also still waiting on that own way they're going on. Any day now. Road's open. Try not going on any murder sprees before you leave.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mad Asshatter, Buer, longjohn and 2 others
goodgrief said:
I love this. I've never loved anything more. If MiGtAuW hates you, you know you've done something right. Also still waiting on that own way they're going on. Any day now. Road's open. Try not going on any murder sprees before you leave.
Click to expand...
They've been going their way for a while now. It's just they've been stuck at the Circlejerk Turnpike for years and since there are no women in their shortbus with them they haven't stopped to ask for directions yet.

"I know where I'm going, damn it!"
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mad Asshatter, saralovesjuicyfruit, longjohn and 2 others
OwO What's This? said:
via @CatParty:

Domestic Terrorist Website KiwiFarms fails at thwarting MGTOW(First Amendment Audit)

View attachment 1258694

Page Archive: https://archive.md/4KZxP
Click to expand...

lads its over. pack it up. theres no stopping the MGTOW tide now that its in play. Gang weeders are finally waking up to veronikas and Society's bullshit and more and more normies get redpilled every day. we will show you what happens when you make fun of MGTOW on a obscure internet fourm.
 
  • Winner
  • Like
Reactions: Mad Asshatter, GenericReviewerDraco, Daughter of Cernunnos and 1 other person
brainlent said:
I'm gonna keep this brief to hold your attention but if you want more details, please ask. I don't want the lack of detail to read like I'm being patronizing but I also don't want to blab forever in the MGTOW thread.

Radical feminism: sex is the cause of oppression. To extrapolate, men use various things - physical strength, reproductive differences, evolutionary instinct of authority, to keep women down.
Everyone else is Liberal feminism - not 'regular feminism': gender is the cause of oppression. Men use masculinity to control public perception of femininity and keeps feminine people from holding power or from accepting femininity in positions of power, and represses women sexually. By attacking gender - normalizing sex work and stay-at-home dads, and stupid things like nonbinary genders, masculinity loses its hold on femininity.

There's no feminism that wants more than equal rights, but from the mra/mgtow perspective radical feminism poses an actual threat to their philosophy that women use sex to oppress men. There is no liberal feminism equivalent in mra philosophy because liberal feminism is mra philosophy. It gives men sex workers and the right to wear a stupid dress to work, and there's no man on earth who could argue that femininity reigns over masculinity.
Click to expand...

All feminism wants more than equal rights. Feminism is not about equality and never has been, it is about increasing the social mobility of women. One of the very first feminist victories is widely regarded as the Tender Years Doctrine, a legal victory which forbids men from getting full custody of children during a divorce, it's been slanted since day one. That's why the vast majority of dudes in the movement are not domineering alpha chads.
I'm not in any way involved in this, but from what I've witnessed most of them are shy nerds and as close as a man could conceivably get to the non-threatening non-masculine feminized ideal many of these women have and they find themselves still in their crosshairs, and they just rightly ascertained that there is no egalitarian endgame even in discussion.
 
  • Autistic
  • Winner
  • Disagree
Reactions: George Floyd Sneed, GenericReviewerDraco, traplover69 and 14 others
Rekkington said:
All feminism wants more than equal rights. Feminism is not about equality and never has been, it is about increasing the social mobility of women. One of the very first feminist victories is widely regarded as the Tender Years Doctrine, a legal victory which forbids men from getting full custody of children during a divorce, it's been slanted since day one. That's why the vast majority of dudes in the movement are not domineering alpha chads.
I'm not in any way involved in this, but from what I've witnessed most of them are shy nerds and as close as a man could conceivably get to the non-threatening non-masculine feminized ideal many of these women have and they find themselves still in their crosshairs, and they just rightly ascertained that there is no egalitarian endgame even in discussion.
Click to expand...
You're a national socialist, I thought you opposed social egalitarianism and equality before the law anyway. Don't you see life as a struggle? And don't you think that women are better suited for raising children since men are "warriors"? If that's so why do oppose the Tender Years Doctrine?
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Agree
Reactions: Mad Asshatter, GenericReviewerDraco, Buer and 7 others
Rekkington said:
All feminism wants more than equal rights. Feminism is not about equality and never has been, it is about increasing the social mobility of women. One of the very first feminist victories is widely regarded as the Tender Years Doctrine, a legal victory which forbids men from getting full custody of children during a divorce, it's been slanted since day one. That's why the vast majority of dudes in the movement are not domineering alpha chads.
I'm not in any way involved in this, but from what I've witnessed most of them are shy nerds and as close as a man could conceivably get to the non-threatening non-masculine feminized ideal many of these women have and they find themselves still in their crosshairs, and they just rightly ascertained that there is no egalitarian endgame even in discussion.
Click to expand...
1. Nowhere close to a fair characterization of what the Tender Years Doctrine is predicated on. The assumption of the Tender Years Doctrine is that during the ages of birth until 4, custody of a child should default to the mother or joint custody, instead of to the father (which was not only the default, but the only legal option beyond the state before the TYD was enacted, as women had virtually no legal rights or obligations by British Common Law, where the doctrine originated), out of the belief that young children need their mothers more than their fathers. It does not "forbid men from getting full custody", neither de jure nor de facto.
2. Also, irrelevant, as the TYD has been replaced by Best Interests in all the countries that have adopted it.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Mad Asshatter, Buer, goodgrief and 4 others
Rekkington said:
All feminism wants more than equal rights. Feminism is not about equality and never has been, it is about increasing the social mobility of women. One of the very first feminist victories is widely regarded as the Tender Years Doctrine, a legal victory which forbids men from getting full custody of children during a divorce, it's been slanted since day one. That's why the vast majority of dudes in the movement are not domineering alpha chads.
I'm not in any way involved in this, but from what I've witnessed most of them are shy nerds and as close as a man could conceivably get to the non-threatening non-masculine feminized ideal many of these women have and they find themselves still in their crosshairs, and they just rightly ascertained that there is no egalitarian endgame even in discussion.
Click to expand...
That's just it. It's opposing views over what is equal. It's not about male domination or female domination, it's opposing stances on how much ground should be given on either side in order to achieve equality. Neither side argues "I want male supremacy" or "i want female supremacy," but rather there are legal scales that are nearly impossible to balance as you get closer and closer to actual equailty.

My favorite examples relate to abortion. Let's say that the man and the woman in these situations are both pro-choice overall, and believe that a baby could be aborted for reasons that aren't strictly medically necessary, just to eliminate that from the proceedings.

Situation 1 is Tyrone the Kingpin. Tyrone has committed enough crimes to earn him a life sentence, but has yet to be caught. In order to achieve something that will be very difficult for him to do behind bars, he quickly finds a young wife and promises that she can depend on him financially to raise a child. She cannot afford this kid alone. He knocks her up, then gets arrested and all his assets are seized.
In a society where the mother needs the consent of the father in order to abort, he will never give her permission. Does she have the right to abort?

Situation 2 is Latoya the Destitute. Latoya cannot provide for herself, but she's hot, so she finds a man for whom she can bear his kids and depend on him. However, she's clever, so she finds someone wealthy, then abandons him as soon as she gets a positive pregnancy test, then explains that she expects childcare payments.
In a society where the father needs the consent of the mother in order to abort, she will never agree to abort. Can he abort her child?

Both sexes want to win the overall advantage over abortion. They wanna win. But it doesn't make them sex supremacists.

An actual sex supremacist would be more along the incel line of "Every man has the right to a woman to impregnate in order to maintain his mental health," or "the state should subsidize prostitution" or whatever.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Mad Asshatter, Buer, Starving Autist and 3 others
brainlent said:
That's just it. It's opposing views over what is equal. It's not about male domination or female domination, it's opposing stances on how much ground should be given on either side in order to achieve equality. Neither side argues "I want male supremacy" or "i want female supremacy," but rather there are legal scales that are nearly impossible to balance as you get closer and closer to actual equailty.

My favorite examples relate to abortion. Let's say that the man and the woman in these situations are both pro-choice overall, and believe that a baby could be aborted for reasons that aren't strictly medically necessary, just to eliminate that from the proceedings.

Situation 1 is Tyrone the Kingpin. Tyrone has committed enough crimes to earn him a life sentence, but has yet to be caught. In order to achieve something that will be very difficult for him to do behind bars, he quickly finds a young wife and promises that she can depend on him financially to raise a child. She cannot afford this kid alone. He knocks her up, then gets arrested and all his assets are seized.
In a society where the mother needs the consent of the father in order to abort, he will never give her permission. Does she have the right to abort?

Situation 2 is Latoya the Destitute. Latoya cannot provide for herself, but she's hot, so she finds a man for whom she can bear his kids and depend on him. However, she's clever, so she finds someone wealthy, then abandons him as soon as she gets a positive pregnancy test, then explains that she expects childcare payments.
In a society where the father needs the consent of the mother in order to abort, she will never agree to abort. Can he abort her child?

Both sexes want to win the overall advantage over abortion. They wanna win. But it doesn't make them sex supremacists.

An actual sex supremacist would be more along the incel line of "Every man has the right to a woman to impregnate in order to maintain his mental health," or "the state should subsidize prostitution" or whatever.
Click to expand...

Or the answer is "you should not be allowed to terminate a life" and literally the only opposition comes from women on the grounds of "fuck you I do what I want." That's the summary of the pro choice argument which is why they don't even bother with defining what a fetus is anymore, and in many cases they are in favor of third term abortions as well.
Because it's about the control they have at the expense of whomever else. That is what feminism is.

You're right in that its not about female supremacy. It's Zach de la Rocha screaming "FUCK YOU I WON'T DO WHAT YOU TELL ME" in the face of all responsibility, forever.
 
  • Dumb
  • Like
Reactions: George Floyd Sneed, Mad Asshatter, GenericReviewerDraco and 13 others
Rekkington said:
Or the answer is "you should not be allowed to terminate a life" and literally the only opposition comes from women on the grounds of "fuck you I do what I want." That's the summary of the pro choice argument which is why they don't even bother with defining what a fetus is anymore, and in many cases they are in favor of third term abortions as well.
Because it's about the control they have at the expense of whomever else. That is what feminism is.

You're right in that its not about female supremacy. It's Zach de la Rocha screaming "FUCK YOU I WON'T DO WHAT YOU TELL ME" in the face of all responsibility, forever.
Click to expand...
- And if the woman would die from the child being born? Which life do you terminate: the fully-grown person who has an entire life and a circle of friends, or the infant that could grow up to be anything and which has (presumably) two parents who both would be heart-broken at the loss of a child before they even fully were?
- And if the infant has a condition that renders them completely non-viable? Do you terminate the infant surgically, in the womb, or do you make the mother carry the body to term and give birth to either a corpse or a thing with a lifespan in the minutes?
- And if the infant has a condition that renders them near-completely non-viable? Do you make the mother give birth to a pile of meat with no qualities, beyond genetic, that would make it human, and then hook it up to life-support to keep it functional for as long as possible? And if so, at whose expense? The State's? The mother's?
- And if both the mother would die from the birth and the infant has a condition that renders them completely, or near-completely, non-viable? Do you perform triage on a horrible situation, or insist on having both mother and infant die for the sake of having an inviolable principle?
- And if the mother has no desire for the child, and you force her to have it anyways? Do you then try and force her to keep the child that she doesn't want? Do you compel her to care for the child, do you have the State take custody, or does the obligation to preserve life only take into account continued vital function, without any concern for quality?

You are taking a very complex topic and reducing it into "My side is good and noble and just, and the other side is bad and stupid and silly".
 
  • Like
  • Winner
  • Dumb
Reactions: Curious, Mad Asshatter, lamp and 14 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back