Talk:Men Going Their Own Way/Archive2

This is an archive page, last updated 7 October 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)(back)

Links establishing my points

These links establish the reasons behind men joining MGTOW. Establishes that they have been a victim. Establish MGTOW as a support group for men who have been through a lot. Establishes MGTOW as a community where men who have faced similar difficulties because of women can talk to each other.

Reasons behind men joining MGTOW:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MGTOW/comments/5fqetu/voting_what_was_your_bad_experience_that_led_you/

Divorce, Alimony and child support:

https://www.mgtow.com/forums/forum/marriage-divorce/

https://www.mgtow.com/poster/where-all-the-good-men-have-gone/

Child custody problems:

https://www.mgtow.com/forums/topic/divorce-right-of-first-refusal-rofr/

https://www.mgtow.com/forums/topic/my-son-wants-to-live-with-me-full-time/

Being forced to pay child support for someone else:

https://www.mgtow.com/forums/topic/you-are-not-the-father-2/

Cheating & Financial exploitation:

https://www.mgtow.com/forums/topic/lost-another-friend/

https://www.mgtow.com/poster/my-body-my-choice/

False rape accusations:

https://www.mgtow.com/forums/topic/how-to-avoid-a-false-rape-charge/

https://www.mgtow.com/poster/that-girl/

Feel free to find posts on mgtow.com using which we can make fun of them. But at the same time, we should not ignore these. Rukmaniahuja (talk) 17:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

These links are anecdotal and so much of it is so full of sexist, gross-generalising exagerated hyperbole it basically confirms cliches. If you want to take a synthesis of all of this and then put it under "this is what they claim" that's one thing. Men sharing their view of a bad brake-up and then qualifying that experience as a legitimate reason to never try a relationship with a woman things) cannot possibly be a good reason to list it under "legitimate reasons". If an Indian had a bad experience with a Chinese person we wouldn't consider it legitimate reason to never deal with Chinese people again. Perhaps slightly understandable if it was a traumatic experience...but legitimate? 88.3.143.12 (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I never claimed any of that. All I say:

These links establish the reasons behind men joining MGTOW. Establishes that they have been a victim. Establish MGTOW as a support group for men who have been through a lot. Establishes MGTOW as a community where men who have faced similar difficulties because of women can talk to each other.

I have not said that these "justify" not marrying. Here, these people are not even willing to accept that these men have actually had bad experiences with women and have been a "victim". Got my point? Rukmaniahuja (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

No. It does not establish what you are saying. You're taking a few specific pages from one website and a reddit page (a reddit page?) which shows discussions where some talk about being a victim...and then generalising this across the whole MGTOW sphere as though the movement is a support group. You've established that some men on one website consider themselves victims of women...not that the movement is a group of victims or that they actually are victims. Can you not find a secondary source? (p.s. the previous reply was mine) ShabiDOO 18:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure as to what kind of evidence you are asking for. Do you want me to link to a blog post which claims what I am claiming? Or only a very big survey that gets published somewhere will do the trick?

Can you give me an example? Either with MGTOW or with some other topic?

For anything and everything I say, your counter argument is "yes, but only for a very very very few of these men". I think I can make similar counter-arguments against any page on this website. Let me try this. What would be your counter argument when I say that "women get raped, but only very very very few of them", "feminist do not hate men, but only very very very few of them", "<insert any problem faced by any group> but only very very very few of them".

In your opinion, if it's not about men who have personally been cheated/betrayed/looted by women in one way or another, what is it about? What do you think is the reason behind them deciding to not marry and not have children? Can you provide any evidence that supports your claim? - one that satisfies the conditions and standards that you are subjecting my links to?

If you can't do that, how are we supposed to move forward on this topic? Rukmaniahuja (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The problem with MGTOW logic, the thing this page is pointing out, and the problem with your own argument is the generalizing. The assumption that "problem with one woman" means that "women are the problem. And the article already points out -- yes, prospective, MGTOW-er, your GF could have been the worst cliche of a parasitic, awful, traitorous harpy. Nowhere is the article claiming "all women are great and never victimize men". What it is addressing is the irrational aspect of the movement -- i.e., why there's an article on RationalWiki in the first place -- and that is where MGTOWers generalize that ill-treatment to how women, as a group, operate. What you're not getting is that the rational parts of your argument? They're already on the article. The only part that's not already on the article is the irrational leap to the conclusion "all women must be shunned and constantly complained about" -- and the article is instead criticizing that conclusion as irrational.

It's possible to move forward if you can highlight which sentences of the article you believe are incorrect, and why.204.11.142.106 (talk) 18:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The article, in it's current state, is entirely written by me. I am the person who wrote down the word "generalizing" in this article for the very first time. I agree with you. The problem here is that others have completely removed statements that are legitimate common thoughts found in MGTOW.

These were: 1. These individuals have been a victim of women in past 2. "Women should be punished if it's proved that they made false rape accusations" 3. Men should not be made to pay child support for children she had with another man 4. It's okay if "DIVORCED" men, who have "LOST CUSTODY OF THEIR CHILDREN" decide to never marry and never have children again. Now, you tell me, what's wrong with these statements? Rukmaniahuja (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Let's get to the main point of why the source can be utterly ignored for this point

Citing people posting on the internet about their own motives for doing something is often suspect. Doing it selectively to describe an entire group is more suspect. Doing it for a group whose very identity is wrapped up in layers of misogyny so profound they join a men's separatist movement, laying the blame directly on women, is almost certainly missing the forest for the trees. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I thought doing that was just being bold and determined? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Can you even hear yourself? You are asking people to ignore stuff which doesn't "confirms" to their beliefs. Yes, they are misogynistic. But they have also been cheated by women, in regard to false rape accusations, in regard to divorce, child support, etc.... Why can't we dedicate two sentences to that? Rukmaniahuja (talk) 19:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

"Yes, they are misogynistic" — Ladies and gentlemen... We got him. Regarding why their stories aren't true just because they're telling them — just like why rape accusations aren't true just because they were made — see our article on anecdotal evidence. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I never said that they are not "misogynistic". Okay, so the first link given by me can't be considered, but rest of them? Also, similarly none of the statements present in the previous version of the page can be considered true because they are all anecdotal evidence. Eg.: That MGTOWs have "bought into" MRAs, that "suicide is spoken of as a badass way", etc... Even if all my points are invalid, they have the same level of validity as everything said against MGTOWs in the previous and current version of the page. Rukmaniahuja (talk) 17:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

These men have been victimized by women in past

It's not meaningfully true to any substantial standard of evidence. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Similarly, nothing that you guys say against MGTOWs is true to any substantial standard of evidence. Eg.:

MGTOWs have "bought into MRAs"

"Promote suicide"

Claim that it's better to marry asian women.

There's only anecdotal evidence for each and everyone of these. You have a few links for these and they prove nothing beyond the point that 2-3 individuals have expressed these opinions on MGTOW websites/forums.

What's the solution here? Let's state at the very start of the page, "it's all anecdotal, there's no evidence to support any of it".

It's okay to discard my point because there's no substantial evidence, but then you would also have to discard all points against MGTOWs because there's no substantial evidence for it either. Rukmaniahuja (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

False rape accusations should be punished

They are. No really. There isn't a point of contention here. No one is saying "Hey, let's take away perjury laws." or "Let's nuke filing false police report laws." Those laws already exist. This point is stupid.

No. Not "kinda stupid"

Real damn stupid. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Then why isn't this point made here: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rape_apologetics#Underreported_rape_versus_false_rape_accusations or any other page/section on this website which talks about false rape accusations?

Also, has it ever happened that a women actually got punished for making false rape accusations?

What about cases in which the woman makes false rape accusations but never files a formal complaint. Can the guy file a complaint of "false rape accusation" and get her punished? Shouldn't that be a thing? Rukmaniahuja (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Men shouldn't have to pay child support if the child is not his

"his" being a subjective term legally speaking. If using the strict biological definition, the answer is a resounding "no" because there's all sorts of exceptions where a lack of biological connection to a child has no bearing on parentage: adoption, marrying a widow/widower who has young children and taking on a parental role. Child support is not and will never be about the parents and is always and will always be about the safety and wellbeing of the child. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, good point. This point should be mentioned in MGTOW's article and many other articles on this website as this is a very serious concern.

But then, what about cases in which the women CHEATS on the man, sleeps with another guy and gets pregnant. The guy finds out soon after the child is born and seeks divorce. In such cases, shouldn't the child's biological dad be made to pay child support?

Apart from the issue of child support, shouldn't it be a crime to lie to a man about the paternity of a child? Is it okay for a woman to tell a man that it's his child when she knows that he isn't? Rukmaniahuja (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

It's okay for 40+ year old divorced men who have lost custody of their child to decide to not marry and not have children again

Ah. I see what kind of person you are. A crazy one who invents oppression that doesn't exist. No one is ever required to marry, and MGTOW are only dumb and obnoxious because of how much pretense they put on it, and how much misogyny they cook into it. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Lots of people decide they don't want to be in a relationship for the foreseeable future, or possibly ever. I know people like this, who're happy being single; they're not necessarily asexual, but they have reasons. All are capable of interacting in a civilised way with the opposite sex (for straight people here; substitute same sex for homosexuals), and don't form some kind of hate club or compile lists of reasons why the opposite sex is awful or preach about separatism; most don't even feel the need to declare their intentions to all and sundry (even if some get annoyed with friends or parents trying to pair them off). But being annoyed at your family asking if you've met anyone yet is not a particularly great form of oppression, and should be met by moaning about your family, not about all women. Annquin (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

+ 1 point for Annquin! ShabiDOO 18:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

See Annquin gets it. Most mgtow are like this, but as to were all the hate comes from... There are alot of us that get the Red Pill Rage and the internet is were we go to vent are feelings. I was like that for about a year. I'v moved on and I am quite happy with life now. Yes Percy, I know aout the (107.72.164.129 (talk) 08:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC))

Kindly reply to statements made by me. Don't imagine claims and assertions that I never made.

All I say here is - in some cases it's okay for men to decide to not marry and not have children. So, the very idea of men deciding to not marry and not have children cannot be ridiculed by feminist, MRAs and general public. It looks like you guys agree to this statement. So, let's go ahead and include it. Rukmaniahuja (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

"Do we want more or less MGTOW apologism? Less! Less! Less!"

Okay, so this is the statement made by JorisEnter while protecting the page. Does anyone else here agrees with me when I say that it's very easy to call any statements that oppose your world view as "apologism"? Rukmaniahuja (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

No. It's appologetics when you defend the absurd/impossible/cruel/dehumanising ... or when you pretend it doesn't exist. You've done both. So we don't need to draw on our personal bias. ShabiDOO 00:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Kindly respond to statements made by me. Don't get creative and "imagine" stuff I never said. I always agree that MGTOWs are screwed up. All I say is that there are few statements commanly made on these websites and forums which are RATIONAL, and we should acknowledge them here. Rukmaniahuja (talk) 09:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Sir please stop trying to do Tone policing here. Please read Pratts and Cognitive bias and try to ask the question "where could my points have weaknesses?" and "how could i make my points more accesible?" instead of repeating them ad nauseam. Anyway Reverend Percy already asked for sources besides MGTOW Videos and other anecdotal evidence for your claims. To our critic of your points: please refer to sources cited on the Page. Thank you. --Benaresh (talk) 12:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

My reply to Shabidoo isn't tone policing. He is outright wrong about my statements. I just went through everything you asked me to. All the sources cited are anecdotal evidence. There isn't a statement in regard to MGTOWs that isn't anecdotal. I agree that my statements are anecdotal and not upto the standard. Do you agree that almost all statements here that put MGTOWs in a negative light are also anecdotal and not upto the standards? Rukmaniahuja (talk) 14:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Statements with no significant proof

Hello, these following statements present in the current version of the article are all anecdotal and do not have any proof. They arent upto the standard and should be removed:

Women can't live without men's support.

Good guys are loser and women go for successful bad boy players.

Going one's own way isn't just self-preservation but a "strike" that is supposed to punish women.

Kindly note that, it's very well possible that "your" ex-wife or ex-girlfriend preferred a successful bad boy player over you. It's very well possible that your ex-wife might have never survived if it wasn't you. And it's possible that now she is having a comfortable life only because of the alimony & child support that you pay. It's also reasonable to assume that many (not "most") other women in your society have similar tendencies. Anyhow, one can't overgeneralize it to include all women.

Women need men to have control over reality.

It's better to marry Asian women.

Cutting off all ties with the outside world and essentially living a life of solitude.

Suicide is a badass way to stick it to women. Rukmaniahuja (talk) 14:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

thatsthejoke.jpg

Did you even read the title and introduction to that section? Petey Plane (talk) 14:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Have I read it? The whole thing has been written by me. Rukmaniahuja (talk) 15:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Is it possible for Women to hurt Men? Yes or No?

Is it possible for women to hurt men? Yes or No?

If "Yes", then why the use of words such as "claim to be victim"? "feel mistreated"? Rukmaniahuja (talk) 15:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

The answer is awaiting you here. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

What an irony...

This is what I see on the front page, about another wiki:

"Advocates ended up managing these articles largely on their own terms, removing criticism and cherry picking references. This led to the first sign that something had gone badly wrong" Rukmaniahuja (talk) 14:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

You mean, just like you've been trying to get away with doing? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

This is how RationalWiki ends?

This discussion was moved here from User_talk:Reverend_Black_Percy#This_is_how_RationalWiki_ends.3F.

See the main article on this topic: Betteridge's law of headlines

I have taken a lot of time and replied to all statements raised by everyone, none of you guys have been able to prove me wrong. I accept that I made the little mistake of including anecdotal statements in favor of MGTOW but kindly note that all statements against MGTOW are also anecdotal. I demand that you remove lock from the page ASAP and tell me as to what shall we do: Shall we remove all statements with only anecdotal statements or do we make an exemption and allow all anecdotal statements on this page.

If you fail to remove the lock ASAP and rationally revolve this problem ASAP, I will raise this issue with the founders of RationalWiki. Rukmaniahuja (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know whether I should burst out laughing or quietly roll my eyes... ScepticWombat (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

We're quaking. Also, see "shifting the burden". B) talk 18:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Why don't you do what everyone else has failed at. Prove me wrong. Rukmaniahuja (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This should be fun. Petey Plane (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinions and we to ours; chapesses are as entitled to have their own agendas as chaps; all relationships involve some measure of compromise/agreeing to disagree etc (and this can apply to business as well as personal relationships). 'Do this or else' is part of the problem. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinions and I am to mine; and when even all of you combined are not able to counter my points, I am supposed to be entitled to include my points on the MGTOW page or any other page on this website for that matter.

"Do this or else" may be a part of the problem. I may be wrong to say so. But aren't you guys wrong and irrational to not let me include my points even after months of several of you guys trying to counter me and completely failing at it? Rukmaniahuja (talk) 15:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh great, now the just asking questions box can be ticked too... ScepticWombat (talk) 21:34, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

You guys are completely ignoring evidence pointed out by me, completely ignoring many posts on MGTOWs websites, that's more serious than anything else. Shabidoo is agreeing with me, saying that I am absolutely correct - but still says that the edit won't be made. Now, which box gets ticked in that? Rukmaniahuja (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Dirty lies. Stop harassing user's on their talk pages and take it up on the article's talkpage. ShabiDOO 18:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

(reset) 'You's not listening to me (and besides I'm right and you ain't)' is not a vote winner. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Which boxes can be ticked here?

This discussion was moved here from User_talk:Reverend_Black_Percy#Which_boxes_can_be_ticked_here.3F.

Let me know which boxes can be ticked here, for these statements of mine:

1. There is absolutely no evidence that MGTOW is an offshoot of MRM

2. There is absolutely no evidence that MGTOWs have been influenced by MRMs

3. There is absolutely no evidence other than anecdotal evidence in regard to anything and everything in that article.

4. If statements which are supported only by anecdotal evidence is allowed, then such statements from both sides of the argument should be allowed. Rukmaniahuja (talk) 14:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding points 1 and 2: MRA's and MGTOW's both differ significantly, while also overlapping significantly. For starters, Wikipedia makes it clear that they're both part of the manosphere and indeed the larger movement known as Masculinism. It's (for example) like the case of Calvinism and Lutheranism (or even of Protestantism and Catholicism) — they both differ significantly, yet they also share significant overlap. Any comparative analysis inherently depends on your frame of reference — while never giving priviliege to any one frame of reference — and thus, there can never be any "absolute" difference between the two. And our analysis correctly places MGTOW within the manosphere and masculinism, and we will continue to do so as long as Wikipedia and other trusted, neutral sources do so. So please, drop that unreasonable complaint. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding point 3: Did you notice the "Sources needed" template on the page?

Regarding point 4: That's the wrongest thing I've heard in a while. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

The "Sources needed" stuff says that whatever is not creditable should be removed. You are misinterpreting "Balance Fallacy" here, my points have the SAME CREDIT and yours. It's not an assumption. My references are from the same source as your references. There aren't two extremes here, I completely and agree that MGTOWs are batshit crazy. All I am saying that some of these men have really been hurt by women.

If you agree with me, include, "Some of these men have really been hurt by women" in the article.

If you disagree with me, include, "Claim: Some of these men have really been hurt by women. Response: *Whatever you guys think is the most appropriate response*" in the article. I will stop talking about this forever

I want you to debunk me. Is this too much to ask for? Rukmaniahuja (talk) 16:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

The former sentence is already implicit in the article. Will you go away forever if we make it explicit? Answer yes or no. B) talk 18:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, kindly make it explicit. Rukmaniahuja (talk) 19:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Why does this matter so much to you? I do not find the statement necessary and it seems rather apologetic.—CheeseburgerFace  (talk • stalk) 18:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Include this one little statement that you know to be true. It's a tiny, small step in the right direction. Rukmaniahuja (talk) 19:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Right direction? I don't know this, it's an assumption you're making. Can you present a credible source?—CheeseburgerFace  (talk • stalk) 19:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

We do know it to be true, as does anyone who reads the article, whether or not it's stated explicitly. Anyways, see the last change. Stop wasting time now, please. B) talk 19:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Asian-American feminists

"Occasionally, MGTOWers who support marriage 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."

It's a true statement, although I'm not sure what the point of it is. MGTOWs will readily admit that not all Asian women are equally domestic and submissive. Henry Makow wrote, "Never marry a woman who doesn't fetch water and know how to kill and pluck a chicken." ^{— Unsigned, by: Men's Rights EXTREMIST / talk / contribs}

That sounds like good advice...if you are a chicken thief.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

My mother said, "don't marry a woman if she does not know how to cook." I think i know why, i don't want to be at work all day and come home and have to make dinner for both of us after a long day (by the time it is cooked it would probably be really late), and i don't want to have to go to a restaurant constantly. So depending on the situation i disagree with the Feminist. But women should be treated better than most men treat them. I mean just look at the Muslim community, women have next to no rights. So you can go to extremes on either end.--King Tempest 19:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

So you just assume that you'll be the only one working? Christopher (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Good to know about

Mythopoetic men's movement. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

MGTOW: a Form of Gender Dysphoria?

It seems to me that some discussion could be given to the notion that MGTOWs suffer from a form of dimorphic gender dysphoria. Instead of, for example, a case of a male body with a female brain, resulting in a transexual female, a MGTOW is a male body with an indeterminately gendered brain that is slightly gynephobic. Say, a female left hemisphere and a male right hemisphere. We can only hope.Ariel31459 (talk) 03:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

...Why? ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 09:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

As with everything else, MGTOWs might then be interesting.Ariel31459 (talk) 13:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Your statement doesn't makes any sense. Rational1 (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it's more likely that the left side of the brain is failed-macho-man and the right side is hysterical-whining-baby. Or is hysterical-whining-baby the left side? ShabiDOO 18:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Shabidoo, but more and more women will have to either get a job or learn to be submissive if they choose to parasitize a man instead.82.161.30.183 (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Ugh. That doesn't even make sense...woman needs to get a job if she wants to be a trophy wife who doesn't work. I think your argument started to go wrong when you realised that your hyper-overgeneralizations here has nothing to do with what anyone has said on this entire talkpage.

Tell me...what kind of brain hemispheres do you think you have and what kind of brain hemispheres do you think cunning-devious-female-succubuses have? ShabiDOO 00:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I take it that none of you think the male with a female brain construct is correct. Otherwise, the idea of bi-gendered hemispheres would seem natural, similar to male/female twins: e.g., an individual both attracted to and repelled by the opposite sex. Meh, never mind, the number of theorists who would be forced to back off makes the whole thing untenable. Ariel31459 (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Being a whiny overgeneralizing asshole requires no mental disorders, and, in fact, is perfectly normal for human beings. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

"...whiny overgeneralizing asshole," may be normal in general. When it becomes delusional it is no longer normal, e.g., heterosexual men who claim to no longer to be interested in normal relationships with women. Bipolar disorder is a better explanation than whiny-overgeneralizing-assholeAriel31459 (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh do shut up. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I had thought this was the place for satirical generalization. Also, I still think the idea is not entirely bad.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

You are wrong. The idea is entirely bad. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

If that were true there should eventually be a citation somewhere in this section to that effect. Do you find it disturbing from your personal perspective? There is no accounting for taste.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

There's no mental disorder for being a moron (unfortunately), unless it's to the extent of mental retardation. Move on.—CheeseburgerFace  (talk • stalk) 05:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, but look at this lovely variety of moron. These beauties all believe that women are the cause of their problems. That's a special kind of moron. Like the classic delusion where the victim mistakes himself for a dead Corsican. Madness does not require imagination, but sometimes, it takes imagination to recognize madness.Ariel31459 (talk) 04:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

^ Look at this lovely variety of moron. That's a special kind of moron. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

you all know mgtow is just a juat lifestyle right? Its not even a movement. >1d4chãņfåģ

I seem to have made a terrible mistake. Never mind!Ariel31459 (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Is it not a variety of deliberate stupidity? Or blaming everybody except yourself for the problems you have with them? 86.191.125.168 (talk) 21:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The first case is genetic if it is based on intelligence, the second is a paranoid delusion. In reality they are just pretending to make us all angry. No kidding!Ariel31459 (talk) 22:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Deliberate stupidity is a specific type of behaviour - variants on [1]: we all have 'types of activity with which our brains will never engage.'

I keep thinking: "deliberate stupidity....oxymoron."Ariel31459 (talk) 01:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Many of the topics debunked on RW would probably fall at least partially under 'deliberate stupidity' (some will be 'incomplete understanding of the situation'/'not all information is available (for various reasons) and creatively interpreting what there is.' 31.51.114.76 (talk) 10:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Not having a snappy acronym might be an indication of the first possibility. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Road sign

Should not the arrow be pointing #downwards#? 31.49.115.211 (talk) 10:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Come now! Making fun of their erectile dysfunction is completely uncalled for. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Is it?

Or am I merely articulating what most RW-ians are thinking?

Most women do talk/read the problem pages in newspapers and magazines/watch soaps etc - and 'at least the bad boys can be fun (if you know when to let them be)'/'you know where you are with what the MGTOWers call betas'/the 'self-regarding preeners look better etc.

Right, because men are just sexual objects, right?RationalMGTOW (talk) 19:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

How would the MGTOWers survive in the 'Last of the Summer Wine' environment? 31.49.115.211 (talk) 11:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Please remember to indent (:) your posts properly . Thank you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I was redirecting the thread.

See [2] for further details. 31.49.115.211 (talk) 13:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

How many MGTOWers are in Jack De Ripper's Army? (And should there be a 'MGTOW/TOWIE joke? 31.49.115.211 (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Diagram 508.1 (and possibly 512) here apply? 109.148.99.97 (talk) 10:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

What do MGTOWs need?

• A fast fancy car (pseudo-Freudian analysis - more fun than the real thing)
• As a birthday present copies of '50 reasons why you are a kick-ass cool-dude unappreciated by women' from all 2 friends.
• A willie warmer.

What else? 86.146.100.72 (talk) 10:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Gender equality would be niceRationalMGTOW (talk) 19:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Article is written in a patently absurd and nonrational way

So I am thinking of going the MGTOW way and I was doing further research on the subject from different sources needless to say I don't agree with everything about MGTOW as I usually have short-term relationships with women which are usually mutually sexual in nature. I also do happen to be an ethnic minority I am originally from the Indian-subcontinent and an Ex-Muslim I used to spend a great deal of time debunking Islam as I was familiar with the literature I used to read the rationalwiki back then, however, today this articles tone and style is clearly an attempt to troll. I would expect to read something like this on Encyclopedia Dramatica do you have any idea how absurd this is, it is clearly just folly and slander do you really want to take this into that direction, I have been disappointed it adds nothing to the discussion and does not increase my knowledge on the subject it appears to be written in a quite petulant way. --UserHerName (talk) 10:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Anything specific wrong with the article? Christopher (talk) 11:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

This paragraph, in particular, is rather petulant: "It's unclear if the movement has any power beyond disgruntled douchebags talking shit about women on the Internet. The reaction of people who come across their posts online largely tends to be "Go your own way and stop whining already!" what is the point of adding such demeaning nonsense, as I have stated as the article currently stands it is offensive, tasteless and beneath the ethos of anything rational. Feminist articles do not read in such a slanderous and folly fashion why a particular this article? UserHerName (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

First, complaining about petulant comments won't get you far as the SPOV is a pillar of rationalwiki. You should reread the pillars of rationalwiki from time to time. No one ever claimed rationalwiki was some collection of neutral detached pure logical reporting.

Second, If you can point out some group or forum of MGTOW which is post-MGTOW, that is one which goes beyond bad-talking women or complaining about oppression or unfairness towards men ... and instead "actually go their own way" and talk about their lives now (again without the bad-talking or unfairness) and things they do to live a fulfilling life and supporting one another (again without the bad-talking women or unfairness towards men) ... I'd be very interested to see it. I've been unable to find anything of the sort, except for the occasional forum or group that bad-talks women or comaplains about unfair treatment towards men, with a comment or two sprinkled here or there about their lives post-MGTOW and how to live a fulfilling life (without the bad-talking women part or complaining about unfair treatment towards men). But a group or forum that is really post-MGTOW, I doubt there are more than a handful...please post links if you know of an actual post-MGTOW group or site, it would certain be a very educational to read about their lives and experiences. ShabiDOO 04:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Why do you think critiquing women is off limits? Are you a brainwashed anti male sexist mangina or something? I don't think you actually understand what "go their own way" means...RationalMGTOW (talk) 19:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

https://katyandtheword.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/do-not-think-it-means.jpegRationalMGTOW (talk) 19:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

So more goading and mocking as opposed to a reasoned comment, you can't even spell or use grammar correctly. I am dyslexic, English isn't my mother tongue (Urdu is) however your self-righteous nonsense is all over the place. As an Ex-Muslim I find this comical, you guys soon will be telling us the "great virtuous" of Islam. Get a grip of yourself even I as an Ex-Muslim who considers himself liberal is finding this hard to swallow. Keep up the white-knight crusade I'm sure you'll find a woman soon. --UserHerName (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't live in an English speaking country and in any case, attacking spelling and grammar instead of the actual argument is a red flag that you have no response to give nor nothing else to offer. I will repeat this one more time: please give me any evidence of MGTOW groups which have moved BEYOND lamenting their role in a world stacked against men and woman criticising. Give us a link or a reference to a post-MGTOW group, any such group, I'd be very interested in seeing it. I highly doubt you can find one, though I hope you do. Looking forward to it. ShabiDOO 17:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Let me make it simple for you to understand: the mgtow philosophy is centered around a gender-dynamics theory. This notion that mgtows are supposed to "not complain about women" is ridiculous when you're able to step out of the mangina rigidly sexist mentality for two seconds. A gender - dynamics theory that never critiques women, makes sense... if you're a manginaRationalMGTOW (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

So it is all about women bashing...right? ShabiDOO 06:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

What does Islam have to do with this? Christopher (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the paragraph you brought up because, whilst it's perfectly true, it either tells you nothing (if you're a non MGTOW) or just makes RW seem immature and therefore unreliable if you're a MGTOW. Christopher (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Could say the same about this stupid site. Wheres the part where you rationally discuss anything ... looks like a bunch of whiny liberal authoritarian douchebags that actually consider themselves some sort of intellectuals or something... do you have any idea how stupid you all look to anybody even marginally red-pill aware? RationalMGTOW (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Stuff Mom Never Told You on MGTOW

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

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

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

Singalong song

This one.

Bear this in mind.

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

If you are incel, drop your standards. What makes you think you deserve a hot girlfriend? Do you have the 3 6's; figure, foot and pack? No? The vast majority of women in the world are not thin, young, and childless, date one of the others. CorruptUser (talk) 12:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The majority of women have their own brain and mind and they go for whoever they bloody well want to go for...and if this cannot be respected (that they have their own intelligent brain and can make their own informed decisions) then I cannot imagine why a woman would ever want to date you. 87.218.196.163 (talk) 12:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Funny how this whole articlet is mocking men for taking that same stance. I guess women's feelings of sexual entitlement trump gender equality? I guess were just supposed to accept this double standard because gynocentric sexismRationalMGTOW (talk) 19:45, 8 December 2017 (UTC)RationalMGTOW (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Not necessarily a case of 'dropping standards' but making yourself more marketable - which MGTOW-language is the reverse of. We don't like men behaving childishly/'Unless you play by my rules I'm not interested' (nor do we care for 'those up themselves'/'big swinging d##ks/those who think we should be grateful that any chap (especially one as handsome/intelligent/worldly wise as they see themselves as being) gives us a glance. If you won't go part of the way to making us want to be with you, why should we?

Who cares what you want? you think men are just objects put here to please you? did you ever consider the radical notion that maybe men are people too?RationalMGTOW (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Tinsel in this context - the decorative/good-natured/fun little things that make relationships (at whatever level, including with your acquaintances) 'worth it' = I know X is interested in Y so if I see something however trivial (even an advert in the paper) on the theme I will save it until the next time I see them. 109.147.90.91 (talk) 13:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

It's always so odd, whatever you're complaining about doesn't seem to afflict people who aren't misogynist pieces of shit. weird innit? ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Who is 'you' in this context?

Is ignoring the MGTOwers the best 'revenge'? (And their biggest fear?) Anna Livia (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

BoN. And... no, they really just need everything they demand be done to women done to them. No MTGOW should be allowed to vote, e.g. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Which BoN - this one who would consign them to the 'lower than vermin' category (along with others of that ilk) the other one? 109.147.90.91 (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Do manginas simply not have any facts on their side supporting their bs because they are brainwashed by the gynocracy and their blue pill false consciousnesses is just a delusion of their own stupidity?RationalMGTOW (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Ad hominem doesn't mean "attacking an ideology." I'd encourage you to read up on it. ΛίνΡ (ομιλία) (συνεισφορές) @ 21:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

We've been DESTROYED

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

*cowers in fear* БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 06:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

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

A better sign

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

The (UK) No Through Road sign - even has a red pill. Anna Livia (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Nationalists

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

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

The "Herbivore men" of Japan

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