Information icon.svg The 2018 RMF board election has started! We are electing 3 boardmembers for the 2018-2020 term.
Nominate users here and read their campaign slogans here!

Talk:Men Going Their Own Way

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>

Stuff Mom Never Told You on MGTOW[edit]

Insert your earbuds and dig this: http://www.stuffmomnevertoldyou.com/podcasts/men-going-their-own-way.htm

Just found this podcast today. Haven't heard any of their other stuff — but what I can say is that in this particular episode, they certainly give the MGTOW phenomenon an insightful oversight (and laudably fair treatment at that).

The episode is also available on Spotify. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Singalong song[edit]

This one.

Bear this in mind.

And - women are more likely to go for tinsel than incel. 109.147.90.91 (talk) 11:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

If you are incel, drop your standards. What makes you think you deserve a hot girlfriend? Do you have the 3 6's; figure, foot and pack? No? The vast majority of women in the world are not thin, young, and childless, date one of the others. CorruptUser (talk) 12:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
The majority of women have their own brain and mind and they go for whoever they bloody well want to go for...and if this cannot be respected (that they have their own intelligent brain and can make their own informed decisions) then I cannot imagine why a woman would ever want to date you. 87.218.196.163 (talk) 12:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Funny how this whole articlet is mocking men for taking that same stance. I guess women's feelings of sexual entitlement trump gender equality? I guess were just supposed to accept this double standard because gynocentric sexismRationalMGTOW (talk) 19:45, 8 December 2017 (UTC)RationalMGTOW (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Not necessarily a case of 'dropping standards' but making yourself more marketable - which MGTOW-language is the reverse of. We don't like men behaving childishly/'Unless you play by my rules I'm not interested' (nor do we care for 'those up themselves'/'big swinging d##ks/those who think we should be grateful that any chap (especially one as handsome/intelligent/worldly wise as they see themselves as being) gives us a glance. If you won't go part of the way to making us want to be with you, why should we?
Who cares what you want? you think men are just objects put here to please you? did you ever consider the radical notion that maybe men are people too?RationalMGTOW (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Tinsel in this context - the decorative/good-natured/fun little things that make relationships (at whatever level, including with your acquaintances) 'worth it' = I know X is interested in Y so if I see something however trivial (even an advert in the paper) on the theme I will save it until the next time I see them. 109.147.90.91 (talk) 13:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
It's always so odd, whatever you're complaining about doesn't seem to afflict people who aren't misogynist pieces of shit. weird innit? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Who is 'you' in this context?
Is ignoring the MGTOwers the best 'revenge'? (And their biggest fear?) Anna Livia (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
BoN. And... no, they really just need everything they demand be done to women done to them. No MTGOW should be allowed to vote, e.g. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Which BoN - this one who would consign them to the 'lower than vermin' category (along with others of that ilk) the other one? 109.147.90.91 (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

why doesn't the article attempt to use any facts to debunk mgtow theories? wouldn't that be a more "rational" approach ??[edit]

Why is it all ad hominem, why doesn't it make any effort to actually debunk any mgtow theories by appealing to facts or evidence? Do the authors simply not understand any mgtow theory, or do they simply not have any facts to support their positions on mgtow? Are there any mgtow detractors on this site who are capable enough in their rational faculties to try to understand mgtow theory on an intellectual level and then make a fact-based counter-argument or counter-theory that isn't just an ad hom smear job? Or is that beyond the intelligence level of the users of this site?RationalMGTOW (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Do manginas simply not have any facts on their side supporting their bs because they are brainwashed by the gynocracy and their blue pill false consciousnesses is just a delusion of their own stupidity?RationalMGTOW (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Ad hominem doesn't mean "attacking an ideology." I'd encourage you to read up on it. ΛίνΡ (ομιλία) (συνεισφορές) @ 21:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

We've been DESTROYED[edit]

https://www.mgtow.com/forums/topic/humor-rational-wikis-entry-for-mgtow/ Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 06:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

*cowers in fear* БaбyЛuigiOнФire(T|C) 06:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I love how the original poster complains that "pick up artist" tropes don't apply to MGTOW (do they not?) and then almost every other post that comes afterwards is a user calling us manginas and blabbing "I'm a real man standing on my two feet apart with my balls hanging down" and the whole "woman controlling you and bitching at you all the time". I certainly don't see any "pick up artist" stupidity in that. Humorous indeed. --ShabiDOO 20:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

A better sign[edit]

This one or this? 86.191.120.238 (talk) 14:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Nationalists[edit]

Most white nationalists and traditionalists are not very happy with them either. And national socialists think it is a ruse from the Jews to accelerate white genocide. There is serious tension between the groups. Perhaps interesting to note?

See https://www.reddit.com/r/MGTOW/comments/4le0n5/mgtow_vs_nationalism/ and And https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1221388/ — Unsigned, by: 195.240.154.162 / talk 14:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

The "Herbivore men" of Japan[edit]

It's not unrelatedWikipedia's W.svg. 217.119.171.154 (talk) 13:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)