Talk:Men Going Their Own Way/Archive1
[edit] This movement already has a name
... It is called monasticism. 86.135.252.208 (talk) 21:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
[edit] WTF? lesbian separatism = radfem
Any evidence that radical feminists are lesbian separatists?.
- Hm, that's kind of klutzy. I'll redirect to political lesbianism, at least for now. EVDebs (talk) 00:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Lesbian Separatism is a subsect of RadFems. --Token Conservative (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
[edit] A grain of truth to the movement
although many bloggers in the manosphere are going the full retard, there is some truth in the imbalance of the legislature that guarentees more rights to the female partner of a heterosexual couple in some western countries. custody, alimony and divorce claims can financially cripple some men who do not see the need for continued support following a decision to seperate. while it's quite possible either member of the agreement is an asshole, lets reserve our judgement for now.
as an example there was an easy loophole put forward in australia under the whole "Prevention of Violence against Women and Children Strategy". notice that this is not domestic violence but specifically discriminates against men who are the victims of domestic violence. under these new proposals if a women simply accuses a man of sexually assaulting her children he will be instantly barred from custodial access forever.— Unsigned, by: 121.223.147.48 / talk / contribs 04:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
TL;DR - and waaaaay too biased. MGTOW is not a 'movement' - in that it has no leaders, no codified doctrine and no structure - and it is most definitely not an 'offshoot' of MRA. As others said, it is a rational reaction to the idea that an individual man (especially one who has already gone through the divorce mill) gains very little by enslaving himself to a woman. It furthermore recognizes certain fundamental truths concerning female biological imperatives that, to a large extent, have been whitewashed over the last 50 years by a left-leaning Academe.— Unsigned, by: 142.134.44.214 / talk / contribs 13:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- What was the reason for that "tl; dr"? The article (which is really short, especially when compared to some other articles), or the comment above yours (which is marginally longer than your post)?--ZooGuard (talk) 14:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
[edit] A couple of clarifications.
The "strike" is seen as punishing not so much women, but society as a whole, a society that completely depends on the labour and risk-taking of men, while busily removing from men the traditional rewards for their efforts (homes, families).
And as for "FFS, go your own way and shut up about it", the answer is "No, U, and stop browsing our sites if if bothers you so much".
124.178.225.104 (talk) 08:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- I think I speak for most men when I say your "services" will not be missed. EVDebs (talk) 19:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- "Society that completely depends on the labour and risk-taking of men" And you think feminists want this? You're a fucking dumbass. Osaka Sun (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- And who sews on your buttons and cooks your meals mate? 171.33.222.26 (talk) 18:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Bias and reverts
I find it interesting that you guys will attack Conservapedia for their support of psuedoscience and fallacious reasoning but any attempt to remove the bias or fallacies from this article gets it reverted back to the biased version as evidenced by the Fossil Record page. You are no better than Conservapedia, really.— Unsigned, by: Faulk / talk / contribs 13:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Ok sunshine, tell me the logic in literally being so angry at woman that you want to uproot and go to a TOTALLY NOT GAY all male fantasy camp? --Revolverman (talk) 13:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- I hope you see the absurdity of your statement, as separating yourself from women is a completely rational reaction to being "so angry at woman". This article is horribly biased.— Unsigned, by: 2.106.253.226 / talk / contribs 10:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- MGTOW has nothing to do with hatred of women. Simply men that opt out of traditional male gender roles. They aren't interested in putting a lot of efforts in courtship, working more hours, do physical tasks, because they consider the reward to be not worthy enough. It is very similar to herbivore men in japan. This is the rational, expected, event that comes with loss of men privileges over the years, without reconsidering men responsibilities. The cost/benefit ratio of the male gender reducing, many male are optin out. That is the most basic economy at work. These men aren't pro or against women, they simply don't want to bother with that as they think there is nothing for them. I was really surprised to find this kind of article in something that call itself rationalwiki. 103.4.96.77 (talk) 08:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- WEll, I frequent their sites, and that's all that is out there - and they very much hate women, and yet focus a HELL OF A LOT OF TIME on women, for men who have "given them up for lent" and all that. Sorry, but me thinks you have drank the cool-aid.
Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 14:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- WEll, I frequent their sites, and that's all that is out there - and they very much hate women, and yet focus a HELL OF A LOT OF TIME on women, for men who have "given them up for lent" and all that. Sorry, but me thinks you have drank the cool-aid.
- MGTOW has nothing to do with hatred of women. Simply men that opt out of traditional male gender roles. They aren't interested in putting a lot of efforts in courtship, working more hours, do physical tasks, because they consider the reward to be not worthy enough. It is very similar to herbivore men in japan. This is the rational, expected, event that comes with loss of men privileges over the years, without reconsidering men responsibilities. The cost/benefit ratio of the male gender reducing, many male are optin out. That is the most basic economy at work. These men aren't pro or against women, they simply don't want to bother with that as they think there is nothing for them. I was really surprised to find this kind of article in something that call itself rationalwiki. 103.4.96.77 (talk) 08:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Revolverman, go have a look at [1], a very fine expositionb of the usual; ad-hominems directed at men. Your little outburst, of course, is "Code Lavender". Is "LOL! U SO GAY!" really the best you can do? 124.178.225.104 (talk) 08:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- I hope you see the absurdity of your statement, as separating yourself from women is a completely rational reaction to being "so angry at woman". This article is horribly biased.— Unsigned, by: 2.106.253.226 / talk / contribs 10:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know much about editing wikis and honestly don't really care, but if this lets me edit this then I just want to throw my two cents into this conversation. I totally agree that this article so severely biased and looks like it was written by either feminists, feminist-sympathizing men (also known as SIMPS) or some other lamers trying to preserve the "status quo". If you're going to have an article about MGTOW at least have an unbiased article that lists criticisms in the same manner that wikipedia articles do. This site is a joke. After seeing the blatant bias in this article I'm never coming here again. Hopefully someone can put up a real article about MGTOW on Wikipedia, where there is still some semblance of standards and respect for objectivity. And yeah you guys can call me whatever juvenile names you want because I don't fit society's stereotype of the average male and actually enjoy the idea of having some power over my own life, not letting women rule me and being able to turn them down when they hit on me. I don't go "talking shit about women" but I do call things out as I see them, which includes criticizing women where criticism is due. Sorry you don't like hearing criticism from someone with alternate views and that you resort to childish name calling in retaliation. Call me gay, virgin, whatever you want. None of those things are true and I could honestly give less than two flying fucks if you think that about me. Have a nice day.
- P.S. I love how you call this site "RationalWiki" when it is anything but rational. LOL. Maybe it was just a joke, I don't know. -A man— Unsigned, by: 50.184.5.44 / talk / contribs 08:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
@The current description: "The Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) movement is an offshoot of the men's rights movement consisting of a weird type of straight male separatism" .... I like how the simple and straightforward idea that men own themselves (which ON THE FACE OF IT is obviously true) is described as "weird" in an overt ad hominem attack. That shows you just how completely mainstream society has now accepted the biased viewpoint of men as indentured ATMs for the state and women. So obviously biased and decidedly not 'rational'. Ad hominem doesn't belong on a 'RationalWiki', nor do descriptions of overtly factual positions as being "weird". 196.215.21.113 (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- It's not the "owning yourself" bit that makes MGTOW weird, it's some of the beliefs they expound. Anyone who argues that (from [2])
- Our world is a corporate plantation and men are its primary slaves.
- You have unwittingly been programmed since birth to become a slave.
- A wife, a mortgage and kids almost always guarantees you a life of servitude.
- Men do not innately owe to women or society anything, but they still end up as slaves in sexless marriages with moody wives.
- The illusion of marriage from prior generations lures men into bondage.
- is sufficiently non mainstream so as to be considered weird. But then, after a life of wife, mortgage and kids, I'm so deeply programmed that I must be one of the sheeple so what would I know. Innocent Bystander (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Kinda the point BON - who else must say "I own myself?" I mean, seriously?
Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 17:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- The article describes the MGTOW movement as "weird", not the "idea that men own themselves", which as you say is obviously true and not in doubt. This appears to be a movement built around mutual nurturing of butthurt, persecution complexes & hostility towards women. Frankly, it's pretty weird. That's not an ad hominem; it's a comment on the movement itself as typified in most of the sites & forums relating to it. Wèàšèìòìď
Methinks it is a Weasel 20:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- The article describes the MGTOW movement as "weird", not the "idea that men own themselves", which as you say is obviously true and not in doubt. This appears to be a movement built around mutual nurturing of butthurt, persecution complexes & hostility towards women. Frankly, it's pretty weird. That's not an ad hominem; it's a comment on the movement itself as typified in most of the sites & forums relating to it. Wèàšèìòìď
- Kinda the point BON - who else must say "I own myself?" I mean, seriously?
[edit] Description vs Criticism
I took the liberty of dividing such a sociopolitically heated subject into two categories: description (main body) and criticism. Elaborate, develop, add sub categories, but be sure you keep them separate: they are different things. Putting harsh criticism under "Criticism" is fine. Putting false words in someone else's mouth by trying to describe their views with the opposition's strawmans and overgeneralizations is not. I assume that is how we all expect an encyclopedia, moreover a rational one, to be conducted. — Unsigned, by: 68.123.235.164 / talk / contribs 07:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- I took the liberty of undoing that. This isn't an encyclopedia. Please see our newcomer's guide before making assumptions. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď
Methinks it is a Weasel 08:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Care to give an example of what exactly was against the mission statements? Do you have a problem with the material I cited directly from the MGTOW website? Do you have a problem with having criticism subcategories despite articles of the same controversy having some form of them?— Unsigned, by: 68.123.235.164 / talk / contribs 22:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note that Weaseloid provides no rational or logical response to any of our questions. His MO is to simply quash doubt and discussion of anything that doesn't fit within his ideology or worldview. Reminds me of some fundamentalists I know. Welcome to IrrationalWiki. --Iridiumoxide (talk) 21:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Care to give an example of what exactly was against the mission statements? Do you have a problem with the material I cited directly from the MGTOW website? Do you have a problem with having criticism subcategories despite articles of the same controversy having some form of them?— Unsigned, by: 68.123.235.164 / talk / contribs 22:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Is this a glitch?
How come whenever I make a change to this page and I come back the next day, it goes back to its original text? This is the second time it happened.....? — Unsigned, by: Username13 / talk / contribs
- Partly because the writing is really problematic, partly because you're removing a lot of the snark and criticism from the article. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.
13:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- This isn't a MGTOW site & pro-MGTOW articles/essays don't belong here. Wėąṣėḷőįď
Methinks it is a Weasel 00:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- I agree. This site has decided to eschew any pretense at an equitable and rational description of anything that questions far-left feminism. What a joke. It might as well be named IrrationalWiki. --Iridiumoxide (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- More like we find people like you a failure at being a decent human being where women's interests are concerned, not that I can expect someone who thinks that particular approach is "far left" to understand that. As far as we're concerned, people like you are tilting at windmills and spraying the rest of us with shrapnel from your shattered lances. EVDebs (talk) 00:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- I agree. This site has decided to eschew any pretense at an equitable and rational description of anything that questions far-left feminism. What a joke. It might as well be named IrrationalWiki. --Iridiumoxide (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- This isn't a MGTOW site & pro-MGTOW articles/essays don't belong here. Wėąṣėḷőįď
[edit] December 2013
- Doesn't this mean more wimminfolk for the rest of us?
- Why waste time with Asian women? Unless you live in Asia and speak their language, they are only going to be corrupted by feminists in the West, learn English, get their citizenship and divorce you. Why not develop a relationship with Miss Porn-fantasy-woman? About as practical.
- I wonder how a gender-reversal of this song would sound like—Amanda Marshall's Birmingham. "She's careful not to slam the door And as she drives she rubs her rosary She's never been so all alone, she's never felt so free."
Talk to Civic Cat 19:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- Incidentally the #2 provides a means to gauge the popularity of this. I'm too lazy to find good recent statistic, but at least in 2000 (which I guess predates this internet stuff) Thailand had 100k more emigrating women than men [3]. --81.175.225.92 (talk) 04:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Whiney, passive-aggressive nonsense
Which bitter, unhappy feminist wrote this garbage? It's not trying to even give the illusion of being rational, so what on earth is it doing on this site? Why are people debating it instead of straight up deleting it? — Unsigned, by: 188.226.192.137 / talk / contribs
- "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink!
- Passive aggresive? I don't think there's anything passive in straight-up mockery. :D
- And yes, the article at the moment is a bit heavy on the satire, light on insight in their, ahem, condition.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Is this a fallacy?
The phrase "MGTOWers that also frequent Stormfront" seems like an Association fallacy used as an ad-hominem, specifically guilt by association. Also the implication that all MGTOWers are whiny also sound seems unfounded. — Unsigned, by: LeslieH / talk / contribs 00:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- To my knowledge only one has ever visited Stormfront and he is the local conspiracy kook on the MGTOWforums. Not representative of all of them. — Unsigned, by: 69.221.162.2 / talk / contribs
[edit] Garbage article
FeminiZm rant in bile and bitterness. Can this article be less blatant!!!!! — Unsigned, by: LeslieH / talk / contribs
- !!!!! --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Feminist tears
Too much feminist tears full of bias and bullshit. I'd be rather reading ED, their bias is at least sometimes funny24.134.14.25 (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Awful, awful, awful, awful
As explored by others, this article is complete trash. I get that RationalWiki is off limits to all who take a view on gender equality different from western-feministm. I understand that you have this little thing going, you and your rebellious little Tumblrette friends, where you jack each other off in circles at how "oppressed" you all are at the hands of this ghoulish patriarchy which controls the media, the government, wealth and whatever else they can get their hands on to enslave women. I really do understand it. My nephew is very similar to you in a lot of ways, except he's fighting International Jewery, something which seems to be synonymous with the patriarchy in almost every way from how he describes it. Pathetic. And I know that you don't care, that you will never listen, never consider any opposing view would that it might shatter your entire belief system, that you will just continue to ignore us and masturbate at how "witty" this "satirical" garbage is. I get it, but I don't respect it. Not because I'm a bitter asshole, no, but because it's just not even funny.
You're not Voltaire. You have no sense of humour, and your minds are not of the intellectual standard which is required to engage in such a high-brow form of comedy. A feminist extremist (that is, any feminist living in a privileged western country) doing comedy is about as useless as... I'm too lazy to come up with a comparison. In short, feminists are usually uptight, humourless, privileged babies who could never actually finish a joke without getting emotional and breaking down in a fit of rage at the odious spectre that is patriarchy, and all those white, straight cis-gendered men profiting behind the scenes off your slave-labour.
Get over yourselves. Please. I'm worried that you might kill yourselves from excessive masturbation, if such a thing is possible. — Unsigned, by: Maring / talk / contribs 01:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Before I read the rest of your post, I thought the last sentence was directed at the MGTOW. Landmartian (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- What is this person against? What has Voltaire done to annoy him (apart from being intelligent, witty, successful...).
What would Maman Brigette say? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 19:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
[edit] Unfixable typo
'dimentional' not 'dimensional' 155.245.49.97 (talk) 11:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for pointing that out. I've changed it now. WatcherIntheDark (talk) 11:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
[edit] Celibacy
Is this concept pretty similar to celibacy? Landmartian (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not so sure. Isn't celibacy about purity or spirituality? Self-imposed celebacy to avoid the intricacies of opposite-sex dating is more of a cop out than celibacy. ShabiDOO 14:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- It might be the only viable option for some. "Cop out" usually implies some shirking of responsibility, but there is no responsibility to date. And if someone realizes he's not going to be able to find a woman who's willing to put up with him, and who will do what's necessary to please him, then maybe he's doing both himself and womankind a favor by not dating. It's not to say that either the women or that guy are wrong. It's just that they're not a good match.
- There could be all kinds of reasons why a guy would choose to stay permanently single. Maybe his income is low, he can't figure out a way to increase it, and he's not satisfied with the women he can attract with that level of income. Maybe he's not satisfied with a relationship that doesn't lead to marriage, but he's also wary of how women can wreak a lot of havoc on a guy's life because of how the divorce system is set up. In that case, it's a situation of not even hating the players, but hating the game. Landmartian (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- You're trying to find the positives in a concept and term rooted in the fact that women should feel like they are missing out from these men "going there own way". These guy's aren't doing it because no relationship is leading to marriage, or because they don't have money, but because women aren't being what the men want and so they are "on strike".--Miekal 15:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keeping in mind that they completely disregard the diversity of beliefs and behaviors among women. Incredibly dense sexism is a functional prerequisite for membership. Ikanreed (talk) 16:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- Apparently there are a lot of variants of MGTOW. This article says "The problem, of course is the gun in the room, and the willingness of averagely socialized, 'normal' women to use that metaphorical gun." So it would seem they don't have a problem with all women; just normal women. But that too might vary from one MGTOW to another. Landmartian (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keeping in mind that they completely disregard the diversity of beliefs and behaviors among women. Incredibly dense sexism is a functional prerequisite for membership. Ikanreed (talk) 16:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- You're trying to find the positives in a concept and term rooted in the fact that women should feel like they are missing out from these men "going there own way". These guy's aren't doing it because no relationship is leading to marriage, or because they don't have money, but because women aren't being what the men want and so they are "on strike".--Miekal 15:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- There could be all kinds of reasons why a guy would choose to stay permanently single. Maybe his income is low, he can't figure out a way to increase it, and he's not satisfied with the women he can attract with that level of income. Maybe he's not satisfied with a relationship that doesn't lead to marriage, but he's also wary of how women can wreak a lot of havoc on a guy's life because of how the divorce system is set up. In that case, it's a situation of not even hating the players, but hating the game. Landmartian (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- No. "No (long term) relationships with women" does not mean "no sex". One-night stands and prostitution are the most obvious counterexamples.--ZooGuard (talk) 14:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
[edit] Women going their own way
Is there a female version of this? I know some women who say they've given up on men after having had some unpleasant romantic experiences, and now have decided to stay single. Landmartian (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- Lesbian separatism is a pretty old thing at this point. It's a flavor of radfem. Ikanreed (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- MGTOWs aren't openly gay, though, so lesbian separatists aren't really analogous to MGTOWs. Landmartian (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)