Talk:Men Going Their Own Way/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 7 January 2017. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<2>

, (new)(back)

This movement already has a name

... It is called monasticism. 86.135.252.208 (talk) 21:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

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. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{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)

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. Weaseloid^{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)

December 2013

1. Doesn't this mean more wimminfolk for the rest of us?
2. 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.
3. 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)

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!

Now go make me a sandwich. Sophie^Wilder 18:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

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)

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}

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

And they tend to be okay with any long term relationship in which the woman suffers adequately. Ikanreed (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

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)

Same core principle though: "I'm sick of your gender." The analogues don't have to be perfect to be present. Ikanreed (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Asian women

"Occasionally, proponents of the movement will advocate that Western men try marrying Asian women instead, as they are "apparently" more demure and submissive. Asian-American feminists and other decent human beings are wholly disgusted by this idea, as are the MGTOWers who also frequent Stormfront."

Why would Asian-American feminists care about this stereotype? It's not even a racially based stereotype; it's a cultural stereotype that doesn't apply to those who are of Asian descent but grew up in America and were immersed in a culture that included western feminist values. Landmartian (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

You think bigots are going to make a distinction between "looks foreign" and "is foreign"? Complexion is culture to these people. Ikanreed (talk) 17:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

However, any site you go to that advertises submissive foreign women is probably going to consist, on the female side, 99%+ of women currently living in other countries. So I don't think these guys are going to get confused and accidentally end up with an Asian-American woman when they go looking for submissive women in those venues. Landmartian (talk) 17:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Why wouldn't asian american feminists care, exactly? --Miekal 18:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Asian Americans don't care about people stereotyping Asians? Are you sure about this, Landmartian? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Because it doesn't have an impact on their agenda, that I know of. Suppose MGTOWs go overseas looking for demure and submissive women. They'll either (1) find out that those foreign women aren't what they expected, or they'll (2) find such women, marry them, and either expatriate or bring them back to the U.S. In the case of (1), the stereotype is dispelled ("Any person projecting the stereotypes of submissiveness, etc. onto an Asian female is likely to get a sound rebuke"); in the case of (2), it's probably no worse for those foreign women than if they'd married a man from their own country. All that has happened is that a person moved from one country to another; the global feminist struggle remains mostly unaffected. If you consider it solely from the standpoint of the American feminist movement, then yeah, it could be harmful to have guys importing women who are going to be more submissive, since it could impact American culture in ways that work against the feminist agenda.

I personally have never observed anyone saying that Asian-American women are more submissive than American women of any other race, so I don't see evidence that the stereotype is applied across nationalities, and would therefore have any direct effect on Asian-Americans. Most of the women who marry these American guys who are looking for a submissive (or non-confrontational, anyway) woman probably are willing to fit into that role (judging by the success rate of those marriages), but that's a small, specially-selected subset of women of Asian descent living in the U.S.

Great example: notice how the Classy Asian Ladies ad on this site points out how the Asian-Americans women they feature already are established in their own careers and have their own status. That doesn't fit with the stereotype of a passive housewife.

Interestingly, it looks like some Asian-American feminists have beefs with how they're being treated by the larger feminist movement. Landmartian (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Greater concern for women who don't fit the social "norm" on race, class, sexual preference, or culture is one of the big distinctions between second and third wave feminism, and is also one of the most common things I've seen glossed over by radical feminism. If we're honest, the distinction isn't entirely granular either. There's still a lot of white middle class obsession.

Take, for example, college rape. It's genuinely a big deal, because college needs to be an inclusive, save environment, but women who go to college are less likely to be raped than women who dropped out of high school. There aren't easy answers for the interests of the empowered getting more attention than the dis-empowered. Ikanreed (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't thought about it before, but both the MRA and feminist movements probably consist mostly of middle-class whites. These groups would tend to be well-educated and able to articulate themselves in venues where they'll be readily heard, such as blogs or, in the case of feminists, scholarly journals funded by VAWA and similar grant programs (which gives them a major advantage, since such journals are considered reliable sources in places like Wikipedia). The MRA movement has basically no funding; but its positions still have powerful supporters in the good ol' boy system. Poverty-stricken ethnic groups that are preoccupied with economic survival tend to not have time for activism. Landmartian (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

That's a bit of an extreme version, partially because of the racism endemic in how it is phrased, but yeah, you have the long and the short of it. Again there's been a more recent(well, call the early 90s recent) attempt within the feminist community to acknowledge the non-uniformity of women, and embrace more diversity. Ikanreed (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Some other issues are that "Asian American women are criticized for the possible consequences of their protests: weakening of the male ego, dilution of effort and resources in Asian American communities, destruction of working relationships between Asian men and women, setbacks for the Asian American cause, cooptation into the larger society, and eventual loss of ethnic identity for Asian Americans as a whole. In short, affiliation with the feminist movement is perceived as a threat to solidarity within their own community. All these forces have restricted the development of feminist consciousness among Asian American women and their active participation in the feminist movement." Black women supposedly had a similar experience.

"Fighting racial discrimination was seen as being more important of a priority than fighting sexism. . . . Without understanding the history and culture of Asian American women, some white feminists have been impatient with the low level of consciousness among women of color and the slow progress toward feminism of Asian American women." Supposedly, "Political expediency drove white feminists to accept principles that were directly opposed to the survival and well-being of blacks in order to seek to achieve more limited advances for women." Examples of this were "Besides the color bar which existed in many white women's organizations, black women were infuriated by white women's accommodation to the principle of lynch law in order to gain support in the South and the attacks of well-known feminists against anti-lynching crusader, Ida Wells." Also, "Historically, as well as currently, Black women have felt called upon to choose between their commitments to feminism and to the struggle against racial injustice. Clearly they are victims of both forms of oppression and are most in need of encouragement and support in waging battles on both fronts. However, insistence on such a choice continues largely as a result of the tendency of groups of Blacks and groups of women to battle over the dubious distinction of being the 'most' oppressed." Also, "Chinatown women lack a sense of personal efficacy or control over outcomes in their lives, do not have a systematic understanding of the structural and cultural elements of a society that produces sexism, and tend to blame themselves for social problems." Landmartian (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• A group of investors think that Israelis are easy to sell toxic funds to as they have this stereotype that their banks are looking for a quick buck and will buy any investment. They think their best bet (as financial laws in the US is making toxic investing more difficult) is to sell crappy bonds to Israeli bankers. American Jews find this stereotype and practice disgusting. Why would American Jews care? They aren't in Israel. They aren't the ones being stereotyped or sold toxic bonds to. They've grown up in the United States where people of religion are known to fight against religious and racial profiling. Why would Jews in the US be offended at all about any of this?
• American men have learned that in a couple states in North Eastern India women are known to take almost all responsibility, do all the work and not trust men even with housework. American men think their best best is to move there and bag such a wife and then sit around in lazy luxury. American-Indians find not only the racial stereotype offensive but find it disgusting and sexist. Why would American-Indian people care? They aren't the ones American men are trying to marry to live like slobbish pigs with. They've grown up in a country where men contribute to housework and never expect women to take care of an unfair portion of domestic-chores.
• A group of vile young Americans have heard that in parts of Haiti people are so poor they'll have sex for two dollars and sell you weed for 10 cents a gram. These American douchebags who are poor and have no lucks with the chicks think their only bet is to go there and screw whores and smoke weed while they save for their college fun. Haitian Americans find the whole idea revoltingly disgusting. Why would Hatian Americans care? They aren't the ones being screwed for petty cash. It's not as though this is a racial stereotype either. Haitian Americans have grown up in the US which is a virtual racial and gender equality paradise.
• Indeed why on earth would any of these people be offended by any of these stereotypes or disgusting behaviour. They aren't the ones being affected so why would they give a shit? It's such a perplexing enigmatic conundrum I am utterly aghast why these people would act so irrationally ridonculous. ShabiDOO 02:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

References for this article

I came here looking for references for the draft of the article MGTOW on Wikipedia, but when I followed the links as cited I found none of the references cited in this article showed any reference to the term "MGTOW". Please fix this I don't know if it's linkrot or what but your citations didn't work. Chrisrus (talk) 03:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Argumentum_ad_cellarium

Do you think the argumentum_ad_cellarium in the end of the second paragraph is acceptable? "The argument is used to dismiss someone or their views by accusing them of lacking in the usual social and living skills that society expects, and thus being forced to resort to living in their parents' basement." I feel like some random asshat is going to call us out on that and say that we're making men conform to society's expectations or else. --Daehrettop (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

BooHoo says the BoN

I just wanted to say that this website "rational wiki" totally sucks balls. The opinions are lame and subjective. Last time I visit this garbage is right now.. see ya! ^{— Unsigned, by: 70.189.25.49 / talk / contribs}

Oh woe is us, someone locked into this particularly innane ideology can't stand "subjective" pages that accurately depict problems with his movement. Bye. Have a nice trip. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

We're so lame, brah. Why do we got to be so lame, brah? We better go work out, brah. Don't skip leg day, brah. Destroy the alien mothership, brah. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 15:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Man, people who do different muscle groups on different days are just being inefficient with their time. I do my leg presses or squats the same days I work my upper body. But then again, I work out for my health rather than for the approval of my peers. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 16:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The opinions are subjective... I spy tautology. PacWalker 15:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

He was pretty quick to bring up sucking balls... -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I know you people are fruitcakes but

try to aim for some semblance of rationalism. Starting an article calling MGTOW a weird offshoot of anything isn't the path to a reasoned article. No wonder your icon looks like a brain starved of oxygen.^{— Unsigned, by: 58.174.200.36 / talk / contribs}

Because you talk away all the oxygen in the room? Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 00:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki! Drinks --Aile Dhoo (talk) 08:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Blah blah blah...rationalism...blah blah blah...oxygen...blah blah blah...offshoot...blah blah blah semblance. ShabiDOO 11:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

This article does not represent an accurate view of MGTOW and some criticisms are based on inaccuracies.

I would recommend editors of this page look into the MGTOW movement with more objectivity to find and understand facts from both pro and anti MGTOW sources to get a full and more accurate view of the movement as a whole. I understand that this wiki can be rather subjective but this article is just bad and stinks of feminist views on MGTOW. There are clear reasons that the MGTOW movement exists and it is worth exploring them with /some/ objectivity and rationality. I am an egalitarian and even for me this article is nothing more then inaccurate slander against the group.

As the Wiki states in its help section...

"Yes, we have a rational point of view. We create our articles from this rational perspective, and we attempt to demonstrate the strength of science and the scientific method, and the folly of cranks. If you create an article yourself, please remember that we are not an encyclopedia and follow our mission statements:

  Analyzing and refuting the anti-science movement.
  Analyzing and refuting crank ideas.
  Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism.
  Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media."

If the editors of this page consider MGTOW a crank idea, analyze the idea and refute it using a rational perspective. Use scientific method, use stats or studies or cite articles that refute MGTOW in legitimate ways. I do not see how a page that simply slams MGTOW and uses insults and offhand slander of the movement is in the spirit of the aforementioned portion of the Wiki.

I will give a few examples from the article that are simply inaccurate and not just subjective views.

1. "MGTOWers buy into the rhetoric of men's rights advocates (eg, "society is actually biased against men, not women"), but instead of trying to address these (alleged) issues, they have vowed either to stay away from women altogether or to stop marrying women and having children."

This is untrue, the movement has many prominent individuals that do not just advocate ideals but are activists attempting to fix real objective issues that overlap with the general men's rights movements and some that are unique to MGTOW in some cases. The MGTOW movement has a spectrum of individuals that carry a range of ideas however there is a general consensus on legitimate issues that are demonstrable. I would suggest research into this to create a better article.

2. "It's unclear if the movement has any power beyond "disgruntled douchebags talking shit about women on the Internet." As a general rule, the reaction of sane people is "Go your own way and stop whining already!""

The MGTOW movement is highly individualistic, they do not have an organized system of any form of legitimate power. It never will in its current form. This is not unclear in any way when researched.

3. "MGTOWs, in common with MRAs, often speak of a mystical form of enlightenment referred to as "taking The Red Pill"."

There is nothing mystical about that phrase. It is symbolic of seeing through forms of feminist supremacy viewpoints and being over it. Perhaps further accepting that progressive identity politics is unacceptable and wrong in their view.

4. This article could be used to inform using rationalaity and logic over biased ignorance of the topic. That is something I believe most people expect from this wiki in general and this article does not meet that standard.

I am not trying to insult the current editors of this article in any way. I only feel that this article could be used to benefit people to learn and understand this particular movement instead of simply seeing opinions of a person whom has disdain for it. Please consider these ideas and see past subjective and possibly misguided/ignorant ideas on the topic. Thank you. ^{— Unsigned, by: 75.134.142.101 / talk / contribs}

1 "This is untrue, the movement has many prominent individuals that do not just advocate ideals but are activists attempting to fix real objective issues that overlap with the general men's rights movements and some that are unique to MGTOW in some cases. The MGTOW movement has a spectrum of individuals that carry a range of ideas however there is a general consensus on legitimate issues that are demonstrable. I would suggest research into this to create a better article."

So go on, then, cough up some examples.

2 "The MGTOW movement is highly individualistic, they do not have an organized system of any form of legitimate power. It never will in its current form. This is not unclear in any way when researched."

None of which contradicts the excerpt you're complaining about. 'Power' doesn't just mean organisation or leadership. It can mean the ability to effect change in society or culture, and it appears that MGTOW lacks that ability, probably as a result of it seeming to be a group of bitter whiners with entitlement issues and little else. If that's not what it is, then its members are curiously unconcerned about behaving as though it was.

3 "There is nothing mystical about that phrase."

This was a use of the mystical power of 'sarcasm'. Specifically, mocking the 'scales have fallen from my eyes' earnestness that red pill chuggers can exhibit.

4 "This article could be used to inform using rationalaity and logic over biased ignorance of the topic."

There is nothing rational or logical about MGTOW. It's a classic case of self-centred emotional thought. It's self-centred because its proposed solutions take no account of anyone else's happiness or autonomy - such as the dreams of sex robots or ideas for mandatory prostitution that do the rounds every now and again. It's emotional because it starts with a sense of unhappiness and seizes on any bad science that comes its way to try to justify those feelings as reflecting some objective truth. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 11:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

2 Isn't the entire question of power irrelevant to being right or wrong? Early feminists didn't have much power. Did that make them wrong? Were they suddenly right when they gained power? A very similar statement could just as easily been written by the Chinese government about democratic dissidents ('disgruntled douchebags talking shit about the party on the Internet'), which shows that it is just an ad hominem attack, not a substantive criticism. The statement also generalizes over all MGTOWs. Do you have any proof that MGTOWs are all 'disgruntled douchebags talking shit about women on the Internet'? This seems like a stereotype, which is hardly rational.

3 The core of feminism, anti-racism, Enlightment etc is also that dogma must be challenged and people's eyes must be opened to the truth. I'm sure that you would be perfectly happy for someone who says that their eyes were opened and they came to believe something that you believe in as well. That makes this sentence so hollow. It is pure snark with no argumentative value.

4 The central solution of MGTOW (which in fact is their name) is to remain single. So are you saying that it is mandatory for people to be in a relationship and that they may not choose to be single? Do you take anyone else's happiness or autonomy into account??? Your accusation that MGTOWs specifically do not take the autonomy of others into account is especially absurd. By definition, MGTOWs do not ask for women to give up their autonomy for them. Nor do sex robots cost anyone their autonomy or happiness. Unless you feel that MGTOWs owe women sex, of course. BTW, can you give some links about those 'ideas for mandatory prostitution.' I googled for 'mandatory prostitution MGTOW' and came up with nothing, so I have strong doubts that your claim has much (or any) substance. Aapje (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Censorship list

1. "Original article lacked neutrality, contained improper language, and possessed a venomous unbiased voice. Further article expansion still needed." FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 03:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

As usual, a troll whines and cries about all the injustices that they have to listen to

As usual, a site where pathetic feminists, whiny minorities, and white-guilt men whine and cry about all the injustice they have built up in their tiny heads. ^{— Unsigned, by: RBJK515 / talk / contribs}

I know, whiny minorities like me and my microscopic cranium. --Trinity (talk) 03:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

RBJK515...we have statistics and rigorous research on our side. You have a mountain full of ignorant denial on your side. Maybe, if you have time, this weekend...you can bury your head deeper into the sand. 37.134.183.199 (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I think their head is so far up their own ass that getting it in the sand would be a challenge. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Objectivity

This article has a complete lack of objectivity and neutrality. The article uses bias, value judgments, and opinions in lieu of facts. I suggest it be stricken or modified to be more based on facts and a little less of slant and opinion. RationalWiki is not a place for OpEd pieces. ^{— Unsigned, by: Mtravis38 / talk / contribs}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you.

Please state specific parts of the article that you disagree with and how you would improve them. FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 23:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Umm... Rationalwiki isn't objective; we never claimed to be. True objectivity is impossible. Our bias is towards free-thought, science, egalitarianism, and the general advancement of the human race. MGTOW is blatantly anti-women, thus opposes us on egalitarianism. If you don't like it, there's plenty of server space to write your own opinions. OTHER servers. CorruptUser (talk) 23:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the original post about the lack of neutrality and objectivity. This article is clearly biased, and written in a manner that isn't objective. It definitely isn't anything that belongs on a Wiki page. Wikis are not blogs. 24.246.17.80 (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

For reference, we adopt an explicitly non-neutral point of view. We're not the other wiki. PacWalker 17:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Men Going Their Own Way is an objectively horrible movement that attracts objectively horrible people. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The same can and has been said about the entire feminist movement, AgingHippie. If you want respect for the feminist movement then stop acting disrespectful towards other movements. You (and the 'people' who created this RW post) expose yourselves as the idiots you are with posts like this. 96.54.132.63 (talk) 16:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

What goals of feminism are objectively horrible?

And do you have any specific issues with the article, or are you here to just whine? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 16:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Clearly he's just here to go his own way.--SpecialFFrog (talk) 16:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Feminist are basically misandrist movement that wants to #killallmen and force #yesallwomen to do it. Feminists are pretty much next Nazis and most of the radfems have personality disorder, which is easy to prove from their solipsist argumentation and logic. Fuck you all!^{— Unsigned, by: 91.153.113.246 / talk / contribs}

Actually, it's about ethics in strawmanning --Trinity (talk) 03:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

On the whole this article looks like a joke, and the words "shit" and "douchebags" hint at the author's inadequate vocabulary (I stopped reading at that). If it was intended as a joke then perhaps it belongs on "uncyclopedia" where such writing is tolerated and even welcomed. ^{— Unsigned, by: 89.163.101.102 / talk / contribs}

Men Going Their Own Way: The worst RationalWiki article ever?

In presenting constructive criticism the goal is to represent the opposition arguments accurately. This is known as intellectual honesty and the opposite of which is called a Straw man. But the contributors of this article made no attempt to inform the reader about the MGTOW position, so this was not a valid critique. It's baffling how a site called RationalWiki can write entire articles consisting of Ad hominem, such as shaming members of MGTOW rather than analyzing their core views, Red Herrings, such as the off-topic remarks about Asians, and other bullshit, such as poisoning the well.

This article was fallacious and so was not a valid counter-argument. It reads more like the CreationWiki. When Creationists use fallacious arguments it's because the facts don't side with them. But when logic and the facts are on your side, it's expected that you hold yourself to a slightly higher standard. A valid approach would be to present the opposing argument, in the most truthful light possible, present all the relevant facts and let opinions fall where they may. But if you have to resort to a fallacy-based argumentation, such as the Ad hominem, forget it.

I'm probably wasting my time trying to have rational conversation, but the MGTOW position is not necessarily wrong. Fewer men are getting married today than in the past. That's because marriage isn't such a great deal for men. It's a thing that's happening, like it or not. These men seem to want to define themselves and what constitutes a happy life for themselves, rather than allow society dictate that role for them. The MGTOW is not interested as labeling men as victims, like some other movements.

Sure, you could say something slanderous like, "I met a MGTOW once, he was a jerk, therefore MGTOW is a terrible movement," but that would be intellectually dishonest. That kind of reasoning is invalid and this Wiki has a articles explaining the logical fallacy. It's the same nonsense we hear from Christians who say all atheists are angry, therefore atheism is a bad position. Personal attacks don't matter, because ultimately only the arguments matter. Fallacy is not a valid form of reasoning, even if it's done in a snarky manner. This was the worse critique of MGTOW possible.

Good luck with your fallacies.

IrrationalWiki (talk) 09:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll bite. So what specifically about the article is wrong?--SpecialFFrog (talk) 13:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Duh. "There's a bunch of fallacies!" It's so obvious that I'm gonna write 4 paragraphs about how there's lots of a fallacies without identifying what text comprises any of them. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 13:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

While making many fallacies of his own. At least he's okay with men marrying other men, since he only identifies fewer men getting married and not women. Tolerance a step at a time. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem with an article like this - is on the one hand, MGTOW is pretty stupid. On the other hand, the snarky tone does not in any way help anyone who can't already see that to actually see it. And even here - rather than engage with "IrrationalWiki" about some of the stupidity of MGTOW itself - which maybe might help him see the truth about it - the discussion gets derailed by the tone of the article. Just to give one example - "The women they encounter demand attention, loyalty, resources and undue privilege, while offering very little in return" - that certainly isn't true of my experience of women. It isn't true of my wife; it isn't true of many other women in my life either. Probably there are some women out there who are accurately described by this sentence (just as probably there are some men described by it too) - but MGTOW vastly over-represents what is at best a small minority into being the majority. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The snarky point of view is not a good debating point here because this article isn't snark overkill and one of the pillars of rationalwiki is...a snarky point of view...right? Also...could you p-l-e-a-s-e tell us just what these numerous fallacies are? Disagreement does not equal fallacy. ShabiDOO 11:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I came here via a google search for the acronym "MGTOW" due to not knowing what it stood for. I read the article, then detected so much snark, obvious logical fallacies and general poopmanship that not only did I bother to check to the talk back page, but I am also leaving a message. This message is as follows, "Thanks to the overall poor quality of this wiki article, I now have a neutral to positive outlook on MGTOW. I believe this might be unintentional on behalf of the authors of this site." 58.106.155.67 (talk) 22:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Any specific objections, or just ranting? Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 23:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

hmm maybe compare it to the RationalWiki article on Trigger Warning and see if you can spot the tone difference. Also "douchebags" = Ad hominem = Fallacy 68.118.120.71 (talk) 02:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

No you imbecile, Ad Hominem fallacy would be trying to draw any conclusions from the fact that MGTOWs are douchebags. What we have here is leading with the conclusion that MGTOWs are douchebags and then presenting the case for it. Hertzy (talk) 09:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

No need to be rude, and I figure if this were the case, "douchebag" wouldn't be in a subtopic as opposed to the main topic description.. you know.. so it could be "leading" 68.118.120.71 (talk) 04:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

"Men Going Their Own Way: The worst RationalWiki article ever?": The most overblown section title ever? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

This should be used for the page for the Fallacy Fallacy--Trinity (talk) 03:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Dark matter

"It's perhaps telling that despite professing to 'go their own way' they seem utterly incapable of stopping talking about women in their internet fora." Maybe the majority of MGTOWs are quiet about it, but we don't notice them, for that very reason. They could be like dark matter, making up the majority but not being observable. Landmartian (talk) 02:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Confusing initials!

I thought "MGTOW" stood for Maximum Gross Take-Off Weight!

I always wanted to call these guys what they truthfully are: "(He-Man) Woman Haters". Not just a better appellation, but it brings to mind both the Little Rascals/Our Gang and The Three Stooges shorts. Chair tater (talk) 20:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Godwin² ?

Even the Nazis are not described in this negative of a light... What the f...? How stupid must one be to think that being called a douchebag is worse than what has been said about the nazis? The article about the nazis might be less snarky, but obviously that's just a much more serious topic. "Men" (am I am using that word very, very generously) who pretend to go somewhere, hoping that women realize how much they need them (hint: They don't) are just pathetic and thus snark is perfectly suitable. Being as adult as a little boy is one thing, but that? Come one, why do all the idiots come with their own persecution complex? --Irian (talk) 17:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Your question contains the answer: Cause their fuckin IDIOTS!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 17:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

If they think being called douchbags is worse than psychotic genocidal maniacs...they are too skull fucked to really understand what they are talking about in the first place. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

MGTOWJesus's edits

http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Men_Going_Their_Own_Way&curid=152455&diff=1603390&oldid=1603389

[On "power"]

^^ At first this was the case, as many people did not see validity, or believe the message MGTOW was spreading. However as more men began to wake up and see these truths in their own lives, they have become more influential as these young fatherless men seek guidance and advice from the more experienced men of MGTOW. Their influence and image has improved going into 2016, and at this point has become the topic that was once "hush hush" in the media. Marriage rates have declined more rapidly, and men are opting out of the traps associated with dating, pregnancy, marriage, and workplace relationships.

[On "Asian women"]

^^ This too is completely untrue, as many prominent MGTOW on youtube, such as Sandman have release videos expressing how men originally believed they could find the natural woman in such places, and have since discovered the nature of their intentions to be the same as western society. Once these women are accustomed to western culture, their values shift, and men are once again in the worst of situations. MGTOW have addressed this issue to raising awareness that regardless of location or social influence, marriage in general will be toxic to the livelihood of men.

Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 14:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

And this. Top quote: "You call it misogyny. I call it red pill rage." Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Unprofessional Subject Discussions - Information Bullying (Racism, Sexism, Name calling, Bigotry, ect...)

The rationalwiki article concerning MGTOW (Men going their own way) has been unfairly articulated by several bias and untruthful details. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/MGTOW

The movement is described as "a hilarious analog to the lesbian separatism movement, but without homosexuality." A rational wiki should never involve the descriptive adjective of "hilarious" and also shouldn't be use to compare to a homosexual movement as such could be regarded as homophobia.

The participants of MGTOW are identified as "disgruntled douchebags talking shit about women on the Internet." This quote is used without any citation of where it comes from, thus identifying it as not quoting someone's words, but rather an intention of identifying MGTOW men as disgrunted douchebags. This is a deep attack of a lack of professionalism in describing what is MGTOW.

An unrealistic comparison is made concerning the MRA and MGTOW of utilizing the narrative, "good-guy-loser/sucessful-bad-boy-player." MGTOW want no such thing as a bad-boy-player as MGTOW men define such as a man being desperate for sex and willing to take on the persona of a bad-boy just to have sex. So there is more unrealistic details concerning MGTOW utilized in this RationalWiki.

A comparison is also made between MGTOW and libertarians, which can be regarded as political bigotry. Although there are some parallels between MGTOW and libertarian ideology, it is deeply different by the basis of MGTOW seeking to increase awareness of the decrease in human dignity concerning men, while Libeterians are about a bias opposition of government involvement in the lives people. So there is an unfair and unrealistic image presented when regarding the two as identical in any true sense of capacity.

This wiki-page also utilizes racism in defining Asian women as "more demure and submissive."

More negative talk that concerns branding MRA and MGTOW as mutual association with the movie, "The Matrix."

I would suggest creating a forum between an actual MGTOW (probably MGTOW Jesus, who you blocked from using this site) and someone else, let them debate certain aspects concerning the movement and let someone neutral dissect between the two to offer an actual rational unbiased account of what MGTOW is actually about rather than creating a dishonest presentation that mirrors the propaganda of Nazi Germany towards the United States and vice-versa. That is how you make an actual rational article about something so many people have a bias discrepancy for or against.

If this issue is not taken up or is in any capacity disregarded by any means whatsoever, it will be posted on youtube (probably by MGTOW Jesus) and other outlets presenting the truth concerning RationalWiki as a biased and unprofessional source for information. You will ruin yourselves as advocates of progressive politics and ideology, which in turn will unfortunately boaster the advocacy of pseudo-scientific ideas that you and this entire wiki have sought to address, criticize, and remedy. So it is your call. Which will it be: your ego or your dignity?

~ The Lord of Existence^{— Pseudonymously signed by: 70.160.96.61 / talk / contribs}

MGTOW tears are sweet, cry some more.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 18:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC) 18:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

What the hell is wrong with you, Kugelschreiber? You think this is acceptable behavior? ~ The Lord of Existence^{— Pseudonymously signed by: 70.160.96.61 / talk / contribs}

Rational Wiki has very clearly stated biases, and makes no claims of being an unbiased source of information. In fact, quite the opposite. If you do not agree with the bias present on RW, there are plenty of websites that will cater to your desire for a neutral POV. If you do not like the content of a page, you are welcome to edit it, though there is no guarantee that your edits will be retained. Petey Plane (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Why exactly are you bringing this up on the technical support discussion page? Are you having trouble editing the MGTOW article? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

ECx3) :WTF is this doing on the Tech Suport page. Piss off BoN. Pippa (talk) 19:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Wow, you guys have some serious issues. Bias while being rational is an oxymoron. You can be one, not both. You guys won't allow anything to be posted. You just block the person who edited the page for unfunny vandalism even if he is just changing a single word (MGTOW Jesus). What the hell is wrong with you people? I mean godly, you are suppose to be outwitting those Flat Earthers and Creationists, right? But look, you guys are behaving just as uncivilized as those people. This shouldn't register in your brain as acceptable behavior. Look at yourselves. Be rational. ~ The Lord of Existence ^{— Pseudonymously signed by: 70.160.96.61 / talk / contribs}

So one can't be biased toward rationality? Much like your inability to understand that you posted this in the completely wrong place, you also don't seem to understand the correct usage of some words. Also, if we "won't allow anything to be posted", why is this still here (again, in a completely wrong place. It should be on the MGTOW talk page). You are perfectly free to edit the MGTOW page, but there is not guarantee your edits will be retained. Petey Plane (talk) 19:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Was gonna move it but couldn't be arsed. Pippa (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I did. Wonder if the BoN will even notice. Petey Plane (talk) 19:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

How does he style him(?)self? Oh yes The Lord of Existence so he probably should. Pippa (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

A few things.

1. SPOV. We are not NPOV.
2. This isn't Wikipedia.
3. "Political bigotry" isn't a thing. Try "political zealotry", "political activism", "political bias", or "political militancy". "Partisan" is also something to look at.
4. "You will ruin yourselves as advocates of progressive politics and ideology, which in turn will unfortunately boaster the advocacy of pseudo-scientific ideas that you and this entire wiki have sought to address, criticize, and remedy." BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Go ahead and Youtube post, broheim. --Castaigne2 (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey guys...I'm trying to get a handle with what concern-trolling is. Would this be considered a case of concern-trolling? I have my doubts. ShabiDOO 12:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

MGTOW.com hates RationalWiki

A lot of good quotes. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 03:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

What expected was: "ERMAGERD MANGINA BIAS." What I read was: "ERMAGERD MANGINA BIAS." If our point is so irrational, why not give specific examples why it is so, then edit the article to reflect a better position? I mean seriously, it seems people tend to forget the very definition of "wiki" whenever they criticize RationalWiki. Derp cat (talk) 12:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

They're at it again. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 14:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Aren't there a lot of feminist women who have gone their own way too?

Some women have gotten embittered by relationship failures and basically said, "Fuck having a relationship with a man; I'd rather be single than deal with the kind of behavior I've encountered. But maybe someday, if the culture changes to the point that men start acting differently..." For example, at one of my workplaces, a chick was saying that it's unnecessary to have a relationship with a man and that men can't be depended upon anyway. At another of my workplaces, a chick was saying, "Once you move in with men, they becomes assholes."

They were able to make a bunch of blanket statements apparently without worrying about what would happen if any of the male co-workers within earshot took offense, although I doubt it would have gone down the same way if I had started trash-talking females in general. In fact, I think one time I did make a comment that my girlfriend should clean the home since I'm the one who works, and there was a chorus of "That's sexist!" from the ladies who were sitting near me.

I've seen women, after the breakup of their marriage, immerse themselves in reading feminist websites, become radicalized activists, and say they're going to stay single so they don't get treated that same way again. Isn't this basically the female equivalent of MGTOW? But I don't see it stigmatized as much by the mainstream. When women go on those crusades, or just go around angrily voicing their attitude of "fuck men; they're not worth the trouble," it's considered a normal and healthy response to being fucked over by members of the opposite sex; they're even viewed as benefactors who are helping right a great wrong. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 13:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Not sure, because the other people that went their own way aren't so insecure and monomanical as to need to be assholes to everyone they meet in every location they visit. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

How does insecurity cause that behavior? Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Candidates for Darwin Award?

Well, they are removing themselves from the genepool. What is their attitude towards [4]? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Potential Source of Information?

It says at the top of the page that this article needs more sources for its claims. I no longer have access to a copy of a pretty terrible book called Men On Strike by Helen Smith (a local bookstore sold their one copy a few months ago), but if I or anyone else tracks a (hopefully used) copy down, it'd be useful in expanding this article and sourcing some of the claims of and reasons behind men "going their own way." ^{— Unsigned, by: 166.137.14.29 / talk}

Thanks for the tip! You'd be a real hero if you dug it out yourself and then added it to the article (assuming it's useful as source material). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Ambiguity

'Stefan Molyneux, one of the leading figures of the MRA movement, ... remarking that refusing to give birth to children': should this be 'men refusing to have children', women refusing to give birth, or is he advocating MPreg? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

the preceding sentence clarifies it as men refusing to marry and have children. the full paragraph works fine Arawn Emrys (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The ambiguity is there (especially for SF readers). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Complete Rewrite needed

This article needs a complete re-write. What is rationalwiki about? If an individual is really confused about what's right and what's wrong he should be able to come up to rationalwiki and clear things up. Think from the point of view of a guy who has recently come across MGTOW and is confused if there arguments and claim make any sense. Will he be able to take the right decision after reading this page?

These are men who have lost their jobs because a women complained about a joke he made. These are men who have lost their money and children in divorce. These are men who have been cheated on by their significant other. It doesn't matters if in general women have it worse than men. They have been screwed up by a woman, and they want someone to understand. The current state of this page (as well as a most places on internet), give these men the idea that people are completely denying that it's even possible for a woman to hurt a man - and that's why movements like MGTOW catch their attention.

What we need to say on this page: 1. We accept that many men have been screwed up by women 2. We accept that in the future, many men will continue to be screwed up by women 3. Anyhow, one should be vary of these illogical/incorrect/exaggerated/dangerous(suicide?) statements that's being made on MGTOW forums/website/videos 4. Anyhow, these statements/claims that are commonly being made on these forums/website/videos are completely true and logical. (If any)^{— Unsigned, by: Rukmaniahuja / talk / contribs}

If a man or woman is so traumatised by someone of the opposite gender that being near another person of that gender triggers anxiety or the reliving trauma (and yes this applies to men just as much to women)...it's very understandable that they avoid the opposite gender while going through cognitive therapy and support groups. If they are unable or unwilling to overcome it then they have to come to peace with their decision and move on and not obsess with or completely define their being as not one of those horrid she-dragons or man-monsters. That is appailing...while therapy and mutual support is the way forward.

MGTOW is not this kind of support group. Its a forum for men to blame half the worlds population as all irredeemable because of their horrid experiences with a partner. Its a group of men who obsessively deamonise women and read and write hate articles and hate books instead of working through their experiences and working on self development. They conclude they must retreat to a man cave because their gross overvgeneralisations and delusions are somehow insurpassable. Its impossible to come to peace with your decision to avoid the other gender if all you do is talk about and define yourself as ghettoised away from that horrid gender.

Men and women hurt each other frequently...meanwhile billions of others are not. Avoiding the other gender and associating all with the bad apples is perhaps understandable in the short term after a traumatic experience...man cave woman hating is not. We aren't going to change this article because you or others cannot see the difference between the two. If you really care about traumatised men visiting this page and lookinv for help and support.. then put the link to support groups and cognitive therapists in the external link section. We aren't going to find common ground or empathise with a hate group.

I am not asking anyone to empathize with a hate group. I am not asking anyone to empathize with people who currently consider themselves a memeber of the MGTOW group. I am asking you to empathize with men who have recently been hurt by women, have recently learned about MGTOW and are confused. They haven't joined MGTOW yet, but are considering it. They still is hope for such men.

What is Rationalwiki about? Are a guys here to laugh about people who believe in stupid stuff? Our are we here to prevent more people from believing in these stupid stuff?^{— Unsigned, by: Rukmaniahuja / talk / contribs}

This community on the whole definitely empathizes with people who have been unjustly harmed regardless of race, class, gender or religion but we definitely focus on explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism and those who are most likely to be victimised by it. My own empathy with pointless suffering is certainly my own motivation for editing many articles (including female genital mutilation and pregnancy woo). You can certainly sense the empathy and concern users here have by the victims of social justice and all kinds of unecesary punishment by the snark infused within it. It may seem very counter-intuitive but the more snark I see in articles the more I understand how much an author has both researched a topic and how much they give a shit (at least that's how I see it...I speak for no one). But rationalwiki is not a "how not to become a failed human being guide" nor a "how to get over your traumas manual". That's not our mission. Try reading the three pillars of wikipedia which are listed on the home page as well as here. If you can think of a way to improve the article while at the same time respecting the pervue of rationalwiki while maintaining a snarky point of view...then suggest it or edit it. They may be reverted...don't take it personally if they are. Also...remember to sign all your posts on discussion pages by clicking on the "sign" icon at the top of the text box or by typing out four "~" in a row ShabiDOO 17:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, kindly feel free to explore authoritarianism and fundamentalism in pages that are related to them. I have knowledge about MGTOW and so it's best for me to edit this particular page. You can see the edit I made in the edit history, it's nowhere related to "how not to become a failed human being guide" or "how to get over your mental traumas". Yes, my edit respects the pervue of rationalwiki. My edit doesn't has a snarky point of view, feel free to add it. My edit did get reverted, I am not taking it personally, I just understand this is the fall of rationalwiki. Rukmaniahuja (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Men_Going_Their_Own_Way&curid=152455&diff=1756700&oldid=1752955 Rewrite FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 00:14, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Why have you reverted my edit? Can you tell me as to what was wrong with it? I had posted about the edit here and no one was able to sensibly oppose it. To me, this looks like people with a particular opinion have taken over this place and it's no longer about rationality? What am I supposed to do? I am supposed to make an entry here on the talk page and then wait for infinite time for your approval or automatically assume that I am not allowed to make the edit. I see the edit history of this page and this talk page, and I see how this is the end of RationalWiki. Rukmaniahuja (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

As I sayed befor "This page is in need of cleanup. Srsly. It's a fucking mess." And would you looky there, someone did cleaned it up. But then you did not like the truth that it was. Also I have looked at the "three pillars of this wikipedia" and the page falls short. ^{— Unsigned, by: 107.72.164.54 / talk / contribs}

I am open for discussion. These guys haven't been able to make any valid points in the talk page. Going by the edit history of this page and this talk page, I see that a lot of people have tried making valid points but none of them were ever allowed to. Also, if you are an ignorant person who wishes to make fun of MGTOW, feel free to make edits without writing even a single character in the talk page. I guess we would have to contact the founders of RationalWiki in this regard. Rukmaniahuja (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

It seems most of the knowledge here is that which corrupts the mind. So much so that the one's in power have fallen to chaos. If you like me to, I can go see if /b/ is bored and trun this place inside out? ^{— Unsigned, by: 107.72.164.54 / talk / contribs}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

A suggestion

Instead of giving us a bunch of concern trolling and serial blankings to our articles, why don't you guys come up with some actual sources and maybe paste them to this talkpage alongside some form of contextual argument? Maybe provide us with a reasoned discussion on your exact views? If everything's so wrong with our article, why is it still the case that anything constructive has to be dragged out of you like this? If you're willing to make your case in a way that's the least bit useful, then please feel welcome in doing so. If not, well — that's none of my business. Thanks in advance. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I have already spoken about and talked about each and every of those edits. You have never taken part in any of those discussions. I stand by my edits - each of them. All the links you need are already on the page - MGTOW official website. Have you taken a look at them like ever? Or have you only gone through blogs/videos of people who make ignorant remarks about MGTOW. You need links? See this:

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2sBjh5whsg
2. https://www.youtube.com/user/redonkulaspopp/videos
3. https://www.mgtow.com/videos/
4. https://www.mgtow.com/blog/

And, oh, going by the edit history of MGTOW and this talk page, the whole page at it currents state is written by people who never gave any proper links, who never discussed anything on the talk page. What about my edit of Patriarchy page in which I remove a paragraph completely relevant to sexism and no where close to "Patriarchy"? Why can't you reply to my talk page entries? I make an entry in talk page, no one replies or challenges me and so I assume that I can make the change. That's how it works, right? (Rukmaniahuja (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Wall most of the problem is, all this page does is hate on man and mgtow. It is not rational at all. From the way the page reads it makes seem like all of the mgtow guys need to be locked up in jail. More one thing: Concern trolling is not on the level of puting the site on lock down. Will we do this? Maybe one day if we get dored. ^{— Unsigned, by: 107.72.164.83 / talk / contribs}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Also, please indent your posts normally, per the manual of style. Thank you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:28, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I will re-do my edit after some time. Kindly go through a few videos on the official MGTOW website. You will see that my edit had covered almost everything in these videos. You will realise that my edit is correct. Also, reply back with something more than asking everyone to sign. Rukmaniahuja (talk) 18:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the above links — they are certainly relevant to our MGTOW article. Let me ask you, is the site MGTOW.com something like the "official site" for the entire movement, or is the movement really much more decentralized than that? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I do not personally identify with MGTOW, and it doesn't matters if MGTOW.com is the official site or if the movement is decentralized. There are websites which talk only bad about MGTOW - we need to read them and include their points in our article. Then there are websites which talk only good about MGTOW - we need to read them too and include their points too in our article. There are bloggers/youtubers who make a lot of incorrect statements about women - we need to include these statements in our article and label it "bullshit" but we also need to pay close attention to that one video in which he says he had lost a job after a women's illegitimate complain and understand the MGTOW have not "bought into" MRMs, they have been oppressed by women, in their real life. Also, many posts/videos will say "all women", we need to understand that they actually mean "his ex-wife" - they are saying "all women" because they are pissed off. Similarly, you can find posts/videos by women saying "all men" where it's clear that she means "her ex-boyfriend".Rukmaniahuja (talk) 03:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Commenting on various of the above comments - incorrect grammar and spelling do tend to subtract from arguments: and there is probably more to someone losing their job than "one person's illegitimate complaint" - which can be dealt with a local 'employment law legal person' (actual terminology dependent upon locality).

I would say that my incorrect grammar and spelling subtracts from your "perception" of my arguments. I can't argue that, I will let it go. Can you argue against: Men who have been victim of false rape accusations. Men who lost custody of their children just because they are male? Rukmaniahuja (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

A few days ago the US elected a chauvinist misogynist male with no political experience over a women with much experience - where does this fit into your philosophy Rukmanishuja? (And does Siri not work with you?) 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:56, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I will say that's completely unrelated to our topic of MGTOW. Anyhow, let me do this: I agree that women have it a lot worse than men. For every 500 women who are abused, only 1 man is abused. 1:500 is the ratio, let's say. Now, won't you agree that 1:500 also looks like the approx. ratio between no. of MGTOW and no. of feminist?

I will blankly agree with anything and everything you say, and this is what the end result will be: Only a few men get abused/hurt by women, they are in the minority. Does the minority group of MGTOW deserves an unbiased article on RationalWiki? Rukmaniahuja (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

"they have been oppressed by women" -- No, they haven't. That's the whole reason your apologism is bullshit -- it relies on the gross over-generalization that the individuals who MGTOWs are furious at, who allegedly abused them, speak for all women, that there is some sort of systemic, normalized current putting women in power over men and having the bulk of women giving assent to abuse that power.

If you see large quantities of women mocking male rape victims for getting raped, that would be worth mentioning. What you have instead is looking at umpteen cases of abuse, arbitrarily cutting out the half of them that happen to be perpetrated by males and assuming that, because what you have left over is primarily perpetrated by females, that means females are systematically oppressing men.204.11.142.106 (talk) 18:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

That's nowhere close to what I mean to say. Let's consider that in the whole world only 100 people identify as being MGTOW. I mean to say that most of them are MGTOW because they have personally been abused by a women in their real life. There is no generalisation. There is no claim of systematic oppression by women. If you find a MGTOW blog post claiming that, let's link it as "bullshit" in this Article. And while we are at it, let's also include whatever few valid points they have under a "valid points" section. That's it. Rukmaniahuja (talk) 18:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Wait, wait — there's only (about) 100 people in the world who are part of the MGTOW movement? Could that really be true? I mean, the MGTOW reddit lists 17,000+ subscribers! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Percy, don't abuse his poor hypothetical assertion with empirical evidence. Thought experiments are more important than reality. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:04, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Having examined the MGTOW subreddit, I'm forced to conclude that, no, you're wrong. It's pretty much exclusively misapprehensions about sex and relationships, particularly with respect to their own entitlement that drives the "movement." Abuse is real. It happens to people(including many men) who in no way deserve it, and should neither be ignored nor minimized, but it's pretty safe to minimize as an explanation for why guys go on the internet and brag to each other about how they totally ignored a woman flirting with them. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:04, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Kindly examine https://www.mgtow.com/poster/lou/ Yes, just as there are women talk about "totally" ignoring a man who even says "hi" to them - calling them creep and what not, even when she never interacted enough with him to determine if or not he even meant to flirt with her. Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEu6BpEkKSw I agree that there is a lot of bullshit here, but there also are a lot of valid points. You can report the bullshit and include it in MGTOW page here, but you also have to look beyond the bullshit and include the valid points ---> That's what it means to be "unbiased". Why don't you go through my edit: http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Men_Going_Their_Own_Way&diff=1756700&oldid=1756650 and tell me if which statements do you agree with. Let's start by including those statements into the current version of the article and then we can continue discussion on the remaining statements. Rukmaniahuja (talk) 08:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Note also that it's a complete myth to suggest that "feminism" (pictured as some monolithic entity, no less) categorically fails to recognize the valid grievances that men have. In the words of noted feminist Jaclyn Friedman:

“”The list of grievances for [MGTOWers] is long. It includes the elevated rate of suicide for men, educational discrimination against boys, economic and workplace conditions for men, violence against men, false rape reporting, fathers’ rights in custody battles, rates of male imprisonment and prison conditions, and the horrors of war. Many of these issues deserve a thoughtful response and the force of an organized movement for address them. It’s too bad that’s not what [the MGTOW movement is] offering.

Sing it, sister. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so you agree that these are valid grievances of MGTOWers and we can edit the page to include them? Why don't you go through my edit: http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Men_Going_Their_Own_Way&diff=1756700&oldid=1756650 and tell me if which statements do you agree with. Let's start by including those statements into the current version of the article and then we can continue discussion on the remaining statements.

Perhaps you could explain why if 1 in a million men are being done over by 1 in a million women, then men should withdraw from all relationships? Either you believe the majority of women are evil, or you are making a very irrational decision. Annquin (talk) 21:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

How have you arrived at the number 1 in a million? These men are not withdrawing from all relationships. They are just withdrawing from marriage. It's mostly divorced men who have lost custody of their children, deciding to not marry and not have children again. Why don't you go through my edit: http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Men_Going_Their_Own_Way&diff=1756700&oldid=1756650 and tell me if which statements do you agree with. Let's start by including those statements into the current version of the article and then we can continue discussion on the remaining statements. Rukmaniahuja (talk) 08:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

You know most of us mgtow don't talk about about mgtow. There is alot more of us then anyone knows. And most of the stuff on your page looks crazy. ^{— Unsigned, by: 107.72.164.83 / talk / contribs}

I thought all you did was talk about MGTOW. I mean, isn't it sort of an entire lifestyle? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

They are normal people with normal life, some of them talk about MGTOW sometimes - Just like people on every subreddit ever, every website ever, every blog ever, every forum ever.

Let me tell you something very seriously. When it comes to social issues, it's not all black and white. This website has done good work debunking alternative medicine and what not, but when it comes to social issues, you can't pick sides. There are bullshit statements and grains of truth on all sides and a "Rational" being will acknowledge them all. Rukmaniahuja (talk) 21:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Lol. I have a normal life, I just don't date woman (or man.) ^{— Unsigned, by: 107.72.164.83 / talk / contribs}

There are (probably) many paths to MGTOW and the female and other equivalents - and those not of the MGTOW persuasion can think of many reasons for not to be so (not least an element of [5]).

Samuel Johnson provides a good few reasons not to be [6]. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes he dose, but for those man in has time. Not for us mgtow, not anymore. You know if we were doing this for religious reasons, no one would question us... maybe I should start saying I'm a Jedi.^{— Unsigned, by: 107.72.164.83 / talk / contribs}

A major reason for not being Jedi - you age rapidly (going by the movies). The problem with the MGTOW persuasion - it smacks too much of sour grapes - no chapesses want to engage with these chaps so the chaps go sulk. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

You seem to miss my port. I want nothing to do with woman. Thay cost alot of time and money to upkeep. But here is the real killer, they are not fun to be round. One more thing, I'll have to look into Jedi ageing rapidly. 1st time I'v have heard of it. ^{— Unsigned, by: 107.72.164.76 / talk / contribs}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

MGTOW IP: life in general costs - and statements like 'women are not fun to be around' is likely to result in them being not fun to be around. Perhaps you should consider the Wiccan Rule of Three.

In the actual first SW trilogy Obi Wan Kenobi, Anakin Skywalker and Emperor Palpatine are visually 'older persons'; in the prequel trilogy they are visually a lot younger than the apparent 20 year-ish gap between the two trilogies. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

New edits

The legitimate concerns section is totally bonkers. It's easy for women to file a false rape claim? It's difficult for many women to file a rape claim at all and get it investigated. A man no longer has the emotional strength or money to support a succubi woman? Paying child support for another womans child (an anomoly that happens in what...a couple states in one country to a handful of men?). The only one that sort of belongs there is frustration with not getting equal custody of a child...but then...we don't need a full section for that...do we? ShabiDOO 12:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, it's rare, it's extremely rare. Everything written by me is extremely rare. It happens only to a few men. And so, only a few men identify with MGTOW. Now, don't these few men have the right to get a "rational" article written about them - instead of just trashing them? Rukmaniahuja (talk) 13:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

So, write it. Just provide citations. This is a wiki. Arawn Emrys (talk) 13:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, where were you and your request for citations when crap about MGTOW was written? Ohh, yes, back then, you guys were happy with just a "citation needed" box at top of the page. Rukmaniahuja (talk) 13:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

And to quote the edit box; "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." Amen. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Basically, Shabidoo means to say that she accepts that part of it is factual. Yet, she/he edited it out? What's that? Being hostile. Also, I had given you guys enough time to discuss any part of it on the talk page, why didn't you do that? Rukmaniahuja (talk) 13:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

This is you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

YOU ARE SICK. We had a complete proper discussion, you weren't able to logically oppose my points. You will never be able to logically oppose my points. You are just going to reverse my edits, not make any calls points -ever and then tell me that i am impatient. No article can ever be improved if we people like you "protect" the page and behave like this.Rukmaniahuja (talk) 14:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Dat championing of "complete and proper discussion" immediately following calling me "SICK" in allcaps. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

You are sick. I stand by my word. You made the false claim of me being "attention seeking". Rukmaniahuja (talk) 16:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

So you mean to say you're not seeking attention, then? Gotcha. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

First they talk with you, then they start loosing the debate. Within a day, they will stop replying to your messages. Lastly, when all hope is lost, they will make fun of you. What else would they do? They can't possibly find fault in your statements! Rukmaniahuja (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Being discourteous, using swearwords irrelevantly and accusing people of 'being hostile/sick etc' and asking people to 'logically oppose your complaints' does not strengthen your argument. And (resetting) do you mean 'losing' or 'loosing'? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I would appreciate, if you tell me which of my statements were "discourteous", show me one "swearwords" written by me. Establish that deleting someone's statement even when you know it to be true is not "Hostile". Establish that lying is not "being sick". Establish which of my argument is actually a "complaint". Rukmaniahuja (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Some people find the word 'crap' offensive; calling someone 'sick' is discourteous... and you do come across as 'you are right and everybody else is wrong.' And some of your grammar is wrong - switching between singular and plural 'you' verbal forms, ' we people like you' etc. As other people have said - provide proof that your statements are true (and that there are only 100 MGTOWers). Less sour grapes, more accurate grapeshot - and going by your 'Firs they...' statement you seem to make a habit of your position. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 19:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I called the content as "crap" and not any individual user. I called him/her sick only after he/she made a false claim about me. Why do you need to talk about my grammar? Can you provide proof that my statements are not true? If you think my "First they..." statement implies that I made a habit of your position, I seriously doubt the future of this website. You are yet to comment on whether removing a statement from a wiki, even when you accept it to be true is "hostile" or not. Rukmaniahuja (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)