MGTOW: Men Going Their Own Way

a reply to: undo
OK then so what are the big corporations and people who got bailed out by tax dollars. Are they capitalists? Nope because if they were then they would not need to be bailed out and likely left to fall. Are they socialist and communists? Well considering they got lots of money from others by way of what do they call it, wealth redistribution, ie trickle up economics from the base population by way of communing withing there social and social networks.

What you call a thing really has no meaning, and in this case the end result will likely be the same, the only options you all have is what word and name you should call that end result, and off course so begin the war of words and so were the isms created. If you ask the average people on the street then they would say there capitalists, but if you look at it closer from a logical perspective, things take on a different view. In all it does not matter what you call a thing. That is a fallacy, because words do not so much describe things, they merely allude to interpretations of things in the mind of those you ask.

Its like if you got lost while you were driving in a part of town you never been before, and you sort of know some of the area but your not even sure if its anywhere near by. What do you do. Your mind links and places things to that which it already knows and tries to blend them into a coherent map in your head. Basically you see landmarks and objects or streets or even shape of streets since your driving at night and you think to yourself, oh that kind of looks like so and so. But really its not.

Basically what I am saying is, its just trajectory estimations, at best all that even the smartest human in the whole world know and says is merely educated queses based on mostly observational input and data said human has run into in its time. Which only can only tell you what you have seen and known already. But little to nothing outside that.

originally posted by: galadofwarthethird
a reply to: undo
OK then so what are the big corporations and people who got bailed out by tax dollars. Are they capitalists? Nope because if they were then they would not need to be bailed out and likely left to fall. Are they socialist and communists? Well considering they got lots of money from others by way of what do they call it, wealth redistribution, ie trickle up economics from the base population by way of communing withing there social and social networks.

have you ever seen this?

and this?

a reply to: undo
Yes I have seen both years ago, if fact so long that I forgot what the majority of what those vids are about.

But anyways. What of it and those vids?

originally posted by: galadofwarthethird
a reply to: undo
Yes I have seen both years ago, if fact so long that I forgot what the majority of what those vids are about.

But anyways. What of it and those vids?

it's the same thing. communism and fascism is just a method of inserting preferred capitalist business in countries, where only a few hundred people hold the bulk of the wealth. in effect, they don't want people to be capitalistic, just them. and then they sell their products to the governments, exclusively, and if something should go wrong, charge the people to pay for it.

originally posted by: undo

in matriarchy socialism, those people are the workers. they work and their energy expended in the form of labor=money, is doled out to the queen bees in the matriarchal harem system.

But.... the "queen bees" as you refer to them, are ALSO the workers.
Like I said, I live in a country which is rather socialistic, and the people here do not see this split between "those who pay" and "those who receive". They pay and they receive. They have, on each pay check, a complete run down on what they have paid into each system (medical, unemployment, retirement, etc.) and that tells them how much they have available to them for these things.

Taking paid sick leave, for example, a person will not feel guilty about that because they say, "Hey, it's my money, I have the right to collect it if I am sick". Same for maternity leave- they paid into it, so they feel they have the right to get it back. They do not get "free" medical care (as the americans call it) they pay monthly into their medical care, like insurance.

But the whole thing gets more complicated than that because other cultural values play into it- like the values on being "social" in general- nobody wants to not work because that would entail lots of alone time- which they detest. They have no value on independence like we do, so doing something alone is very uncomfortable for them. I don't personally know any woman that doesn't work outside the home, myself- I observe that even women who who don't need to work (financially speaking- because their husband is rich, for example) still work because they say they "need" to be part of the community outside and with groups of adults, to feel okay.

But here, you can be working and still get some of your money back in the form of financial aid, so there isn't the same incentive to avoid getting a job.

I think it is easy to judge something when you take it out of it's context.

It still seems to me you are referring to extreme ends of the spectrum.

originally posted by: galadofwarthethird

That's not class. That just weird # you made up. Whoever you friend was that said that, shes full of it, herself likely. Are you under some sort of impression that I would care what your high-horse friend thinks?

For one, it is a man who said that- I only used his words because I found them very effective at describing the what class is.
Look it up in the dictionary and refer to the usage of it as adjective.

Anyways what you describe is just common decency

I disagree. Common decency indicates knowledge of the current rules and values on conduct which are common to the environment. If you go into an environment that you are not familiar with, you do not have the background education to use common decency there unless you are very sensitive and can figure out quickly what is acceptable and what isn't by their standards. Try to use your own native common decency in other countries, you will fall flat on your face!

Such a thing does not exist. Quit making # up. Women who can reprogram there basic code and behavior...YA right. That's like a squirrel who can do calculus. ie it does not exist, probably another thing that they think they do but dont actually do. Quit making # up, and I just may start to take you seriously. Or actually keep making # up. That way I can do that as well.

A thing such as woman that can spot a superficial show off does exist! LOL!
They won't go up and introduce themselves, or tell the superficial show off that is what they are- they are most likely to ignore or avoid contact with them. So I guess that could make them seem "inexistent" to some men....

Quit trying to change the goalpost. The original thing was that strong will equals money, not other stuff.

I did not say that, and I have explained many times. I was attracted and married a man who had no money, no job, no car, because I saw he had a strong will, but no current goals in which to direct it.
I was right in my perception, and now, years later, he rather wealthy- but the will was there as a characteristic before any of the money or objects.

a reply to: Bluesma

where do you live? i mean, what country?

a reply to: KyoZero

And who buys these magazines?

Women perpetuate this sexualisation and materialism just as much or more than men do.

Women consume more than men do.

"Micro-scale aggression", your terminology alone tells me all I need to know about your views.

Could be MGTOW just a copycat of/reaction to WGTOW, which women have been doing in increasing numbers for decades. Seems some men just don't like it when they realize women don't really need them and that they really can't control women. So now everyone's GTOW. Okay. Great. Sometimes those ways are going to intersect and sometimes they're not, which in the end is just business as usual.

Pages and pages later, it's just as simple as that.

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Bluesma

where do you live? i mean, what country?

France.

originally posted by: Bluesma

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Bluesma

where do you live? i mean, what country?

France.

ah, well most of our jobs moved to china, except gov jobs and minimum wage jobs. we are a country under siege by the globalists, who have looted us pretty thoroughly. to provide a safety net around themselves, they have tried to blame their actions on the average white person in the country, many of which have no jobs or are working for minimum wage. all our swanky jobs that allowed us to save up money towards retirements and paid sick leave and medical insurance, were shipped off to china and our savings stolen when the banks crashed in 2008.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
Could be MGTOW just a copycat of/reaction to WGTOW, which women have been doing in increasing numbers for decades. Seems some men just don't like it when they realize women don't really need them and that they really can't control women. So now everyone's GTOW. Okay. Great. Sometimes those ways are going to intersect and sometimes they're not, which in the end is just business as usual.

Pages and pages later, it's just as simple as that.

Call me crazy but MGTOW was there way before WGTOW.

a reply to: vasaga

Not in regards to this particular topic, which by the way was covered in another thread as well. It isn't just a man thing. It's a human thing that's happening more and more with each generation and the passing of time. Also, to your point, it depends how far back you'd like to travel in history and to what locales, I reckon.

America, in particular, for all it's "we're going into Afghanistan for the women" BS is one of the more bass ackwards countries on the planet. We have huge domestic violence issues here so who are we to be fixing the world. We haven't even had (read allowed) a woman leader yet. Few even enter politics. Makes you wonder why. Talk about the old boys club and holding women back. But then again, that's our own fault too.

ETA: But you know what? I really don't much care who goes their own way or who doesn't. That's just up to them....for whatever reasons they have.

a reply to: undo

it's the same thing. communism and fascism is just a method of inserting preferred capitalist business in countries, where only a few hundred people hold the bulk of the wealth. in effect, they don't want people to be capitalistic, just them. and then they sell their products to the governments, exclusively, and if something should go wrong, charge the people to pay for it.

Depends on how you look at it. For instance I said this earlier.

OK then so what are the big corporations and people who got bailed out by tax dollars. Are they capitalists? Nope because if they were then they would not need to be bailed out and likely left to fall. Are they socialist and communists? Well considering they got lots of money from others by way of what do they call it, wealth redistribution, ie trickle up economics from the base population by way of communing withing there social and social networks.

Well if by all accounts they are actually socialists and communists and fascits. Well one thing, then the fact would be that they are not really capatilists, and whats even more, there just disquised as capitalists but are actually socialists and fascists. So really they do not want people to be like them ie socialists and communists, because thats what they are but dont think themsels as that, and they would want the people ie you and everybody else to think themslefs as more socilist ie democracy but really be capitalists to keep people going in circles and the whole trickle up econmy going.

I know its topsy turvy. But the thing is. What this proves is not that socialism or comminism does not work. It proves that it works, after all you have an example right there, there giving themselfs million dollar bonuses every year, and greasing eachothers hands every year. And its all thanks to there socialist network.

The only difference between the rich and the poor is that they have a better social network, and because they can change the rules and do not have to play or apply by the rat race. The majority of the rat race being capitalists who have to live and fall by there own dollar.

So ya! Social conditioning. The majority of what you believe any of it is merely conditioned into your head and peoples heads by the fact that you have listen to propaganda from the time you were kids. But generally in social groups and outlooks for any group things go like this. First there capitalist, if that succeeds they become more socialistic, and if that succeeds they become more communistic, and if that succeeds they become fascist.

That right there is what the US and most other countries are. Words can deceive, and just because you have a billion people thinking something is one way only means that you have a billion people thinking in one way, it does not mean it true, its just means by numbers alone it is true to those who believe it. And to tell the truth any system can work...But only if you can make it work. In fact you could have people worshiping a turd on a stick and if enough people believe that is the supreme truth, you would have a whole society spring up around that.

So ya if you look at all the business and corporation of today and if your remove all the fine veneer its all draped in, you will see that they would follow and do and actually act more intune with the socialist model which was first put down in ww2 then the actual capitalist model. So ya! GM corporation the ceo's and big shots I think gave themselfs bonuses again, though there actual business is doing rather crappy. And that has been going on since the onset of this whole capitalist America myth.

a reply to: Bluesma

For one, it is a man who said that- I only used his words because I found them very effective at describing the what class is. Look it up in the dictionary and refer to the usage of it as adjective.

Your friend was wrong. That is what not having any issues is and presenting them as class. He should have said to be nice to everybody you meet is class, you know do onto others. But that to is only circumstantial.

I disagree. Common decency indicates knowledge of the current rules and values on conduct which are common to the environment. If you go into an environment that you are not familiar with, you do not have the background education to use common decency there unless you are very sensitive and can figure out quickly what is acceptable and what isn't by their standards. Try to use your own native common decency in other countries, you will fall flat on your face!

Which is exactly what the quote you and your guy friend try to post up as class...Duh! Seeing you or him are not familiar with the environment or anything really. Its almost like you read about it somewhere, and now you think you know.

That once again is wrong. What can i say. What you describe is not decency, its just ignorance of cultural differences, but were decency has nothing to do with cultural difference but has to do with the fact that despite cultural differences you would want to treat anybody else like they are themselfs.

Decency is across the board, it does not pick and choose, and has nothing to do with nations or borders. Its treating everybody like you want to be treated. Basically. And class. That just means somebody thinks you should be the way they expect you to be in there eyes. Its in the very meaning of the word ie "class" I mean its not hard to grasp here.

Now do you still want to mix and mince words and meanings with me? I would not advise it.

A thing such as woman that can spot a superficial show off does exist! LOL! They won't go up and introduce themselves, or tell the superficial show off that is what they are- they are most likely to ignore or avoid contact with them. So I guess that could make them seem "inexistent" to some men....

There is no such thing as a woman that is not superficial. There are only ranges, differences, to there superficiality.

What you talk about does not exist. A woman of what you describe would look for those traits, simply because those traits would entail the guy maybe has money or is more set in his life. Once again you are confused. But if you dont believe, hey why dont you give us one expample of what you are talking about...After all you yourself have proven and said that that very fact which you are talking about does not exist.

I did not say that, and I have explained many times. I was attracted and married a man who had no money, no job, no car, because I saw he had a strong will, but no current goals in which to direct it. I was right in my perception, and now, years later, he rather wealthy- but the will was there as a characteristic before any of the money or objects.

Which again proves what...The fact that if he was not going to go as far you would not have bothered with him...Which just proves that there is no real difference in this whole thing but what you have in you head, and it is purely based on if he succeed or not.

So this quote.

A thing such as woman that can spot a superficial show off does exist! LOL! They won't go up and introduce themselves, or tell the superficial show off that is what they are- they are most likely to ignore or avoid contact with them. So I guess that could make them seem "inexistent" to some men.

Is really a contradiction on things and purely based on the fact that your female. Because the more materialistic and superficial a man is the likelier it is that he will go farther in society. Your compass was merely pointing you in the right direction. The proof of the matter is the fact.

Now, I dont see what this issue is that you have. But if you want something its better to just ask instead of trying to persist that things which so obviously do not exist do. I dont have the inclination to mince words with you, its redundant. I have never seen any proof of the thing you say, least of which in females.

But hey those are just my opinions, I am sure they could be wrong to one degree or another.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
Could be MGTOW just a copycat of/reaction to WGTOW, which women have been doing in increasing numbers for decades. Seems some men just don't like it when they realize women don't really need them and that they really can't control women. So now everyone's GTOW. Okay. Great. Sometimes those ways are going to intersect and sometimes they're not, which in the end is just business as usual.

Pages and pages later, it's just as simple as that.

Are you basing this on evidence from the MGTOW website or possibly from feminist websites which occasionally write "articles" about any sort of men's movement.

This view of "control" is right out of the gender feminism playbook which accuses men of attempting to intimidate women on public transport when they spread their legs out. This "movement" sprouted shortly after tumbler dedicated a whole set of pages to pictures of men's crotches on public transport taken by women.

MTA Targets 'Man-Spreading' And Other Subway Faux Pas
www.npr.org...

Is it too hard to believe that men are actually making bitter posts concerning relationships to women in order to vent their frustration with the constant drum beat of having relationships (physical or otherwise) marketed at them every day?

Maybe take a step back and prove your point?

-FBB

a reply to: ~Lucidity
Actually there is no MGTOE or whatever movement, both this and the female version of it was made up, people are just idiots to believe it. The actual number of males this would effect is in the minority, a real small minority, and the female version seems to just be about as authentic as when the tobacco companies got females to smoke because the men were keeping cigarets away from them.

And if there is anything more, you all will not likely know about it or its effects wont be shown till likely the next generation or beyond that.

Oh and plenty of women in politics. And if more want in, all they have to do is play to the tunes that the men have been playing to. And besides most of those women are married to those old boys club men, and reaping the benefits with none of the work. I mean i do not think they would be stupid enough to actually deal with all that stuff and the rat race, when they so easily navigate and circumvent all that even with such a simple a thing as marriage.

But what do I really think on this whole thing. I think one day its all going to come crashing down like a house of cards. So till then....Whatever.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

MGTOW is a very real topic and a very real group (just use Google keywords to witness it's growth).

And, NO, the amount of males that this affects is not a minority. If we divide parental rights and financial obligations into genders, it is lopsided to say the least. If you don't believe that, research the divorce rate, which gender initiated the majority of divorce, and which gender has the highest suicide rate post divorce. The highest rate of suicide will parrellel the gender that is required to provide monetary support while inhibited to provide emotional support to their child.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

I really like this post.

1. "Wgtow" can only be used as a subsequent definition to feminism.. But it lacks the context of MGTOW.
2. Your right, feminist don't need men (unless they want to have kids and be provided for), they can make their own money, support their own kid, and not expect a man to cough up a dime or ask to be included in their kids life because "we can do it". Sadly, this is irrelevant of the man's dedication to his son or daughter through state laws manipulated by extreme feminist.

It's not "business as usual". Not when 70% of divorces are filed by women and they recieve primary custody 90% of the time.

If ANYONE can argue why a mother should recieve majority custody over the father, please do.

originally posted by: galadofwarthethird
Your friend was wrong. That is what not having any issues is and presenting them as class. He should have said to be nice to everybody you meet is class, you know do onto others.

Behaviors recognized as "nice" has a different definition depending upon the person.

What you describe is not decency, its just ignorance of cultural differences, but were decency has nothing to do with cultural difference but has to do with the fact that despite cultural differences you would want to treat anybody else like they are themselfs.

Decency is across the board, it does not pick and choose, and has nothing to do with nations or borders. Its treating everybody like you want to be treated.

The definition of "decency is "behaviour that conforms to accepted standards of morality or respectability."
What those accepted standards are varies depending upon culture, and treating someone as you want to be treated doesn't work when you have different standards. If you treat someone in a way that is acceptable in your culture, but unacceptable in theirs, they usually will not do it back (because they too, don't want to do something they don't want to receive) they will just feel offended and refuse to do business with you.

That is a big obstacle if you are trying to create alliances between peoples.

And class. That just means somebody thinks you should be the way they expect you to be in there eyes. Its in the very meaning of the word ie "class" I mean its not hard to grasp here.

I would think it isn't hard to grasp, and yet, here we are. How do you determine what the other expects you to be?
That is my point. You are in the midst of people from a totally different culture, with different morals, values, traditions, world view.... how do you figure out what will offend them, and what won't, in that moment?
Sensitivity, alertness to subtle non-verbal cues.

There is no such thing as a woman that is not superficial. There are only ranges, differences, to there superficiality.

What you talk about does not exist. A woman of what you describe would look for those traits, simply because those traits would entail the guy maybe has money or is more set in his life. Once again you are confused. But if you dont believe, hey why dont you give us one expample of what you are talking about...After all you yourself have proven and said that that very fact which you are talking about does not exist.

I have given an example- myself. I was attracted to a man who had no money, no home, no car. I was so attracted to him I married him. Later, together, we became wealthy. But what I fell in love with was what he had inside- his mind, his thoughts, his emotional state of being.
You have the right to your opinion, but you will not succeed in convincing me that I do not exist.

Which again proves what...The fact that if he was not going to go as far you would not have bothered with him...Which just proves that there is no real difference in this whole thing but what you have in you head, and it is purely based on if he succeed or not.

Success is relative to goal.
I was looking for success in a relationship -which means a strong will, endurance, ability to be realistic, face challenges, keep an optimistic focus. A successful relationship can be created without wealth. (I was quite used to being poor and didn't have any silly fantasies about ever getting out of that).

The wealth comes as a side effect almost, from the goal.... because people with good relationships are then more supported and have more energy and confidence in all other areas of their life.

Is really a contradiction on things and purely based on the fact that your female. Because the more materialistic and superficial a man is the likelier it is that he will go farther in society.

This shows that you are running on mistaken beliefs. This is part of the poor mentality, which comes to false conclusions based on superficial appearences (I used to think this too).
When you really get to know successful and wealthy people, a surprising majority of them are NOT that way!
You know how some people say "Money isn't important", and it makes you grit your teeth, because you think, "well that is easy for someone who HAS IT to say!" You assume they only feel that way NOW, because they have enough of it.
But in a huge amount of cases, they started with that attitude. They started with the attitude that what is important is to love and feel joy in whatever you are doing.
From there, the side effect was success, because that which you put your love into grows and flourishes.