TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

account4189 Archive

View 1 posts and 1,357 comments by account4189 on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Showing the 1,000 most recent of 1,357 comments.
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
14

My father was using some very red-pill, manosphere type references to me, and I've never told him that I've contributed to MGTOW content. He's in his 70s. We've had to pander to the "lived experience of women" ever since it became a catchphrase. Well, now the lived experience of men is finally seeping out from the internet into the mainstream. The REAL lived experience of forgotten men, not just the highly advertised experiences of the apex.
/r/MGTOW10/04/20 01:22 PM
1

Yeah, words are important. At the end of it, the feminists might not be completely wrong in their assertion that there is an epistemological barrier between the sexes on certain things, but they aren't charitable when they refuse to suggest that men may know things that women can't know. Unfortunately, we're caught in a place where we default to a woman's point of view when we have irreconcilable differences. We don't have to resolve all disagreements between the sexes or people in general. The …
/r/MGTOW226/03/20 04:08 AM
3

I don't know how you'll find peace. I can only tell you what helped me - reconnecting to my childhood religion. Roman Catholic. Coming to the conclusion that sometimes you can't do the things you need to do to please God and please certain women at the same time.
/r/MGTOW13/02/20 12:12 AM
1

I'm going to throw this out here and hopefully it won't sound too hamfisted. There's the biological and social aspects of this, but I don't see a lot of people commentating on the possible spiritual aspects of this - particularly Christian. If you think about Christ, the Apostles, the martyrs, and the saints - there aren't a lot of people in that group that were chasing tail. Yes, some married, but a large number of celibates and member of the religious orders once the monks and nuns got rolling…
/r/MGTOW12/02/20 11:44 PM
51

And this is the fundamental problem. The thing that makes men try without success until they die to satisfy women. What does she need? MORE. And when she gets more, what will she want? MORE.
/r/MGTOW07/10/19 03:42 AM
2

I'm fine with women tackling the investment gap, as soon as they tackle the homeless gap, the dying on the job gap, the lifespan gap, etc. Plenty of places where women are better off than men, but they do fuckall to address those "inequalities."
/r/MGTOW05/10/19 09:15 PM
2

Yes, but if you want to be a MGTOW, it may make sense to start leaving women's perspectives behind. When you say you're unattractive, that's looking at things from a woman's point of view. Unattractive to whom? If the answer to that is women, well - then you've already adopted their values. Unattractive to other men? Probably not. Unattractive to God? Probably not. Other men and God will be judging you on different standards. MGTOW, almost by definition, is something that is not, must not, and s…
/r/MGTOW03/10/19 03:24 AM
2

There's nothing wrong with quitting. The psychologists have a fancy name for it - "goal abandonment." It's FAR healthier than to keep trying if the likelihood of success is low, or if it just doesn't make sense on a risk/reward basis. It's even better for you if other people are manipulating you into chasing a low probability goal because your disposability helps them out more than it helps you out.
/r/MGTOW26/09/19 09:21 PM
2

and i'm firmly not an evolutionist - or a darwinian pragmatist. for me the individual is more important than the species. **thought I needed to edit this because just saying the individual is more important than the species doesn't get at exactly the issue I have with Peterson. The idea is that if morality is constructable, arguable, and perceivable to an individual, and acted upon by an individual - then the individual has to be able to come to that on his own with his reason, and act on it by …
/r/MGTOW17/09/19 01:00 AM
5

It's perfect having Nietzsche as the Chad and Schopenhauer on the other side. Nietzsche is the guy that's all about power, dominance, and mastery of women as proxy for mastery of the universe, dangerous plaything, etc. etc. Schopenhauer definitely proto-MGTOW.
/r/MGTOW16/09/19 06:48 PM
1

Why are you even here? And he's spoken out NUMEROUS times AGAINST utopianism. It's a big part of his screed against fascism and communism - the slight of hand that goes on when people impose their utopian vision on other people. There is no such thing as a common goal of bettering society, because people have different ideas of what society is, what common is, what goals are, and even agreeing upon those things (which people don't) then they have to agree on the rank ordering of those goals. Any…
/r/MGTOW16/09/19 06:37 PM
1

He says "man up" all the time. He calls it "taking responsibility," and becoming 'useful to society." He talks about "accountability" - but leaves it deliberately ambiguous. Well, to whom should men be accountable? There are tons of conflicting value hierarchies - and it's clear which one he advocates. HE'S A DARWINIAN PRAGMATIST. He employs narrative and rhetoric in place of argument to persuade people to make choices that lead to what he thinks creates long-term stable societies that avoid the…
/r/MGTOW16/09/19 04:34 PM
2

A lot of this stuff is old hat for anyone that has lurked on this sub or any redpill sites. He should have spent more time on male variability because that explains a lot more of the gender stuff. The world we see is sometimes shaped a lot more by extreme behavior than by average behavior, especially when it comes to things like wages. He gives the game away completely when he says that men are "expendable." His body language shows some hesitation and he gives a nervous laugh. Everyone here know…
/r/MGTOW15/09/19 01:32 AM
1

Whether or not men respond to WOMEN'S CRITICISM OF MEN'S RESPONSES TO ANYTHING is not the metric for what is acceptable for men to be. Deal? Neither side sets the standard for the other. Go fuck off and die, just give us our tax money back on the way out.
/r/MGTOW29/08/19 11:16 PM
16

When you've spent the entire evolutionary history of man and other mammals being valued for holes, what do they offer? It's not a few decades. They've gone down a completely different pathway than men because the selection pressure isn't the same. Different values, morals, viewpoints, instincts, etc. It's not a few decades of social change. If anything, certain men had a few thousand years of a social overlay to combat the primal instincts of both men and women, but that's all gone now.
/r/MGTOW11/08/19 12:38 PM
2

No. Biology precedes ideology. Women were risk-adverse, risk-shifting, rent-seeking social climbers and manipulators long before Marx's ancestors were born. Feminism just provides them with a rationalization for some of their instincts, same with Marxism. Marxism also provides cover for certain instincts in men, and other ideologies provide rationalization for other instincts. The same idea applies, though, biology precedes ideology, and women are more collectivist than men because of biology - …
/r/MGTOW14/07/19 05:16 PM
3

Yeah. The only times you see a significant amount of men around my neighborhood are in the morning 6-8am or right before rush hour. The rest of the time it's just women walking the street, taking breaks from the office, hitting the shop, getting lattes, this that and the other. Men haven't been part of society for a long time, even when they were heads of a nuclear family. For the most part, society and civilization are "tools" for the safe-rearing of children. Women care about their safety and …
/r/MGTOW08/07/19 03:38 AM
3

Just look at the sidebar. Things that I found useful besides predatory female were Manipulated Man, Anatomy of Female Power, The Case for Father Custody, and Women's Infidelity 1 and 2, not necessarily in that order.
/r/MGTOW07/06/19 04:11 PM
2

I don't really have many red pill friends except those that have been bent over by divorce court or had bad experiences with women. Blue pill tastes good if you've never had to deal with the unpleasant aspects of female nature. In this vein, it's hard to get an apex male to have sympathy for what the majority of men have to deal with from women and from the social world at large. They see things from a certain perspective where people are kissing their ass or giving them shit, much like a woman,…
/r/MGTOW26/05/19 02:24 PM
3

close. they want to be boys. they want the powerful aspects of being male without the risk and disposability. that's what boys have before they get tossed on the trashheap by society.
/r/MGTOW23/04/19 01:13 PM
7

I had this happen to me over a croissant not too long ago. The croissants were right in front of me, I asked for one. Then she looked at me point blank and said they didn't have any. Then I pointed them out and she doubled-down, saying they "usually aren't available until later." If that were true, she would have opened with that. I just happened to be dressed poorly and she didn't want my business - which is also out of bounds because she's just rank and file and doesn't own the bakery. But hey…
/r/MGTOW14/04/19 10:29 PM
2

actually no. the whole point of a government is having the power to ignore standing law and create new law, otherwise people would just use private arbitration. as a matter of principle, the state is inconsistent with the idea of contract, because the state proclaims that it doesn't have to adhere to contract. it can go back on its promises at any time, and you don't have anyone to appeal to because it arbitrates disputes as a first person and not just a third party.
/r/MGTOW01/03/19 09:32 PM
10

because she can claim she was under duress or emotional abuse when she signed it, etc. the court can also claim that the agreement was "unfair" to the point where the state has to step in. depends on the court, the state, and luck to a large extent. lots of legal contracts get thrown out all the time because the government reserves the right to change the rules or ignore contract when it suits them.
/r/MGTOW01/03/19 02:25 AM
2

The vast majority of men aren't great at anything either. Conflating mean and variance with respect to ability. The other thing is that being great at anything usually takes a degree of risk-taking, as well as being naturally excellent. Women, higher in trait neuroticism, don't like to take these risks, and it's biologically motivated because men are more disposable with respect to reproduction. So it has less to do with anything cultural and almost everything to do with the essential natures of…
/r/MGTOW16/02/19 06:36 PM
2

those wavelengths are already bioreactive even without the presence of metals. the papers are already out there if you care to look. detoxing probably isn't going to be enough. the Europeans have already done a lot of research on how high frequencies fuck with both complicated animals and single-cell organisms. the issue isn't just the binding, it's that cells probably use those frequencies already for some sort of communication. there have been some interesting experiments that tinkered with ba…
/r/MGTOW10/01/19 10:01 AM
9

"working girls" is a another word for prostitutes. and prostitutes are honest, some of the most honest women I've known.
/r/MGTOW07/01/19 01:43 AM
14

And they have it - that's what a lot of social media is - women stirring up thirst - feeling the validation of male desire - without having to confront ugly men and reject them directly.
/r/MGTOW23/11/18 04:03 AM
1

they are NOT the same. the psychological underpinnings of romantic love in MEN is self-sacrifice - the type that causes a guy to work to his grave or outright take a bullet for his mate. women don't do that because they are the bottleneck? can it get any more crystal? i won't even argue the more alike than different - i'll take a different tack. even if women and men were exactly alike EXCEPT FOR REPRODUCTIVE DISPOSABILITY AND REDUNDANCY - that would condition the interactions between the sexes.…
/r/MGTOW03/11/18 08:15 PM
1

sexes are more alike than different? Hardly. and the differences matter much more than the similarities. men are disposable and women aren't - and that sets the tone for EVERYTHING ELSE. when women start making painful sacrifices (VOLUNTARILY) for the good of men, then MAYBE, just MAYBE - I would give airtime to type of apologist bullshit that says that men and women practice deception, manipulation, and narrow self-interest in the same frequency or towards the same targets. It's not even close.…
/r/MGTOW02/11/18 02:49 PM
1

non sequitur is something that doesn't follow from premises. I don't believe you. If you really wanted to do what you say, you would probably would have said something like: "Is hypergamy inconsistent with female achievement?" And the short answer to that is "no." There are tons of other things that could be "possibly" inconsistent with what the poster said. You could have asked about ice cream, or the Baltimore Orioles, female preference for height, trait neuroticism, or anything that was eithe…
/r/MGTOW01/11/18 05:06 PM
2

Your thoughts about high-achieving women are completely unrelated to his original post. His post claims nothing about high-achieving women - money, academia, or anything else. His post centers completely around hypergamy and female risk-aversion. So it's a non-sequitor to put forth high-achieving women as a counterexample to women's hypergamist instinct. Low-achieving women AND high-achieving women have the same instinct. It means that nurses mate up to doctors, and high-achieving PhD women want…
/r/MGTOW01/11/18 04:21 PM
12

If you've "never understood" why people make fun of MGTOW, then you probably haven't realized how little the rest of the world cares for your wellbeing. Some actively despise you - most of these people will be women who don't think you're attractive. Most likely this is a biological hangover that ties into "disgust" - the same parts of the brain that get activated in the presence of rotten food and such. The rest don't dislike you, but rather prefer acting in their own selfish interest than your…
/r/MGTOW31/10/18 11:03 AM
14

It's not about decreasing marriage. That's a side effect. It's about men living for themselves for a change. People don't care about men, so men have to take care of themselves. MGTOW saves lives.
/r/MGTOW26/10/18 11:26 AM
2

he's not wrong about the first part. there's an old study about female/male neuro response to pornography... in short... the women get turned on by pretty much any type of porn and are more sexually fluid, where straight men get turned on by straight porn and girl/girl porn but not gay male porn.
/r/MGTOW24/10/18 12:12 PM
1

one small thing...she thinks a lot of men have been "damaged" by decades of anti-male propaganda. I think a lot of men have been MADE AWARE WHAT WOMEN REALLY THINK ABOUT THE NON-APEX MALE by decades of anti-male propaganda. pump your own oil, fix your own cars, make your own money, raise your children without male support, or even better - grow old and die alone. enjoy your cats, women. we know what you are now.
/r/MGTOW22/10/18 06:06 PM
2

Nah, I just look at what goes on with other animals and assume that culture operates weakly on them, and then when I see simiilar trends in people, my conclusion is that culture isn't as important as biology or else the same pattern wouldn't be seen in culture-strong animals (human) as culture-weak animals (primitive sea life). If culture mattered more, then I'd expect to see the pattern removed or strongly attenuated. I just see it weakly attenuated.
/r/MGTOW20/10/18 05:16 AM
0

Nothing you wrote refutes what I said. Culture operates within and sometimes against hypergamy. It doesn't eliminate it. Sure, culture can exacerbate it - so what? I didn't elevate anything. If you think so, you're bringing something of yourself into what I wrote. I simply said that if men didn't have an instinct that was complementary to hypergamy, and men DO have this instinct - the race would have gone extinct - because women and men would then only mate EXACTLY across the hierarchy and the l…
/r/MGTOW19/10/18 02:57 AM
5

Man's willingness to take lower-status mates isn't a cultural artifact. It's been demonstrated cross culturally, and if you accept hypergamy as fact, then it's pretty much the natural complement to woman's hypergamous instinct. In order for the race to survive and for woman to mate up, man has to mate down.
/r/MGTOW18/10/18 04:32 AM
2

even 5% is too high. you're talking about a lifetime of support for a person that will most likely either despise or resent you - if not immediately then eventually. and if you aren't the breadwinner - the ripcord is just going to get pulled earlier because of hypergamy. even if the laws were "fair" - hypergamy and Briffault put the man in a weaker bargaining position. a lifetime of capital investment and labor and you don't even get symmetrical love from the wife in the bargain. that's how litt…
/r/MGTOW18/10/18 02:29 AM
1

well, it's debatable how much they are forced to change over time, but your main point is right. they will change less than men will because they are the bottleneck - same pattern seen in other species, just like you pointed out with the birds.
/r/MGTOW17/10/18 07:47 AM
7

may want to offer clarity on the word "care." if you mean are "interested" in other people, then yeah - women use the social structure and other people as tools to get what they want because they don't have as much mastery over the physical world as men (either through violence or understanding of things). if you mean "compassionate" or "sympathetic" - then women don't care about other people at all. they use their empathy as a tool to manipulate - and jobs like secretary or other things that fo…
/r/MGTOW14/10/18 03:58 PM
1

thousand cock stare. mouth is smiling, but eyes aren't.
/r/MGTOW11/10/18 12:00 AM
12

"need to talk to each other, find common ground." How about I send you a hobo's dick cheese and you go fuck yourself? It took me over two decades to figure out that learning about, negotiating with, or even generally talking to women was a huge waste of time. The writer presumes a common ground for cooperation that is a lot larger than what really exists. Once you get past the safe rearing of offspring - men and women's goals look pretty different pretty fast. Need proof? Look at the way they vo…
/r/MGTOW09/10/18 08:07 PM
5

Division is exactly what the world needs. Less integration and more secession. He's scared of hell of species annihilation. Just because people hate each other doesn't necessarily mean they have to kill each other. They are more likely to kill each other if they are forced to deal with each other. If they are allowed to secede and erect borders around their property and lives so they aren't forced to associate and support their enemies, then they don't have to blow each other up. People just nee…
/r/MGTOW08/10/18 03:19 AM
10

It's "fun" to pretend to be more beautiful than you are. It's "fun" to use hard-wired male responses to color in lips, cheeks and eyes against them. It's "fun" to make myself look more neotenous to curry favor from other people. It's "fun" to deceive. FUCK OFF, liar.
/r/MGTOW05/10/18 02:53 PM
4

high IQ comment. the high value women aren't traditional out of principle so much as constrained by circumstance.
/r/MGTOW04/10/18 08:35 PM
3

Depends on how the segregation is done. If you segregate it so that women have all the power and men have none, that sucks in my book. If you segregate it so that private property is sacrosanct, then you end up with a situation where people have power over what they own and not what other people own - and then a different type of gender segregation would emerge. (Granted, this isn't consistent with voting - where people vote for the power to take other people's stuff...)
/r/MGTOW02/10/18 01:55 PM
3

every day is a vacation.
/r/MGTOW01/10/18 03:06 PM
4

I know this story. Happens in the US, too. Girl gets her "fun," and then changes lanes to improve her lifestyle. Sadly, I've been in both categories. Women only love themselves and their children.
/r/MGTOW28/09/18 10:03 AM
7

That's exactly what they are. No coincidence that they tend towards collectivism, socialism, totalitarianism, and social control.
/r/MGTOW18/09/18 12:07 PM
4

hybristophillia - the gift that keeps on giving. making men kill other men for a sniff of vagina since the beginning. they fuck dark triad, and complain about the world being evil.
/r/MGTOW14/09/18 03:08 AM
2

Nutshelled, have an upvote.
/r/MGTOW06/09/18 02:56 PM
1

Yeah, you're right Shimoda. It's not a series in the strict sense of the word. I was speaking casually. But pointing out my slopping language doesn't change my point. And yeah, there are infinitely many rules that could produce those four numbers as a list. Should I have been more careful with my wording? Apparently so - but it doesn't change what I meant - and again - that is an illustration of MY point. Which is that you just go around making guesses about what people are doing and what they m…
/r/MGTOW05/09/18 08:31 PM
2

No one can read minds. At best, you can come up with a decent guess. But you're right. I'm not "proving" anything in the sense of math proof or a formal proof in logic. I'm just using rhetoric. The same as you. I don't think EVERYTHING is subjective. I just think some things are. I also think a lot of things that I think are subjective overlap with things you think are objective, but that's not the same thing. You've already accused me of having "no chest." And for the most part, I agree. Any ot…
/r/MGTOW05/09/18 07:22 PM
1

agreed. I'm just pointing out you don't have proof either way - just rhetoric. I'm not saying you're wrong about him, or wrong about yourself. I'm saying you can't prove it.
/r/MGTOW05/09/18 06:07 PM
2

perhaps. perhaps not. the same rhetoric can be used to suggest that you picked that interpretation (out of many) because it coheres with your way of life.
/r/MGTOW05/09/18 03:39 PM
5

yeah, i remember this well. there were even a handful of people in the sports media that publicly raised the question why hope solo's assault case wasn't getting any air time, noting that if it were sexes reversed, it would be all over the place. those voices were mysteriously silenced - and the story just faded out of public consciousness
/r/MGTOW05/09/18 01:47 PM
9

this guy has thought it through. collapse revenge fantasy is just that - a fantasy. surveillance state and govt power have become orders of magnitude more severe than at any time in human history. The cycle of empires doesn't have to play out the same way this time. numerous possible game changers. the best you can hope for is a slow decline. any quick collapse will just be an excuse for them to declare martial law - and people will cry out for it. All the government has to do is play both ends …
/r/MGTOW05/09/18 01:39 PM
23

No, everyone WON'T be happy...because those misogynistic assholes are still CONSCRIPTED BY THE STATE TO PAY FOR YOUR SHIT. No male resources except on male terms.
/r/MGTOW05/09/18 01:44 AM
2

I don't think it's relevant. It's different enough for one to choose one way and the other to choose the opposite. Different from what perspective? How much weight do you want to place on this one choice? I'm just sick of using the female POV with respect to men. I think it's bad for male mental health to default to the female categories, despite our instincts. Disposability can be a blessing. It frees the male mind to wander in places that aren't motivated strictly by survival and reproduction.…
/r/MGTOW05/09/18 12:04 AM
2

It means that men can think in ways that aren't directly related to reproduction and survival. It's really hard for women to this. That's why they are so anxious - it's all about breeding. But men aren't needed for breeding - so we can think whatever and can create mental models even of things that would possibly be harmful to self or uncomfortable to think about. In other words, men can pursue truth when it leads away from life, but women's epistemology has to be something like Jordan Peterson'…
/r/MGTOW04/09/18 05:04 PM
8

MGTOW and volcel are categories defined by men. Incel is a category defined by women. The reason for this simple - incel is determined by a woman's judgment after a man pursues. If a man isn't pursuing - then the power to label himself lies with him. The most shaming a woman could say would be something like - well he would be an incel if he approached me, and even then that's not the correct label. The right label there would be an ugly volcel, but the point remains - men get first labeling pow…
/r/MGTOW04/09/18 04:36 PM
1

It's not that there is a disconnect - it's that the two concepts are framed from different perspectives. Incel is framed by a desire to have sexual intercourse with a woman and being denied sex. MGTOW is framed by the decision to not pursue traditional relationships with women (the lowest bar being marriage.) MGTOW isn't framed in terms of sexual intercourse - so it doesn't have a direct relationship with involuntary celibracy - which by necessity - MUST be defined in terms of sex. MGTOW, when c…
/r/MGTOW04/09/18 04:16 PM
2

Yeah, but it's not common. It's not like the government has passed out pamplets or created some sort of training program. It's basically the women being selfish and then the government enabling in it. That's a big part of my point - which is they don't have to DO a whole lot. They basically have to nudge here and there and let people's natural instincts do the rest. Stuff that's overtly totalitarian raises a lot of suspicion.
/r/MGTOW04/09/18 02:50 PM
1

Meh - they won't do it. They are clumsy, but not that clumsy. You have to think of these guys like beaker (from the Muppets) fiddling knobs. They know that they can't squeeze past the point where people opt out too much or get violent. The game is to maximize production while keeping people mushroomed, and when they get scared that they've overdone it - they'll dial back.
/r/MGTOW04/09/18 02:29 PM
4

too direct. they just need to get the resources through taxation and redistribute to women. they dont need to train the women to target men, etc. all they need to do is continue the trend that they are on now...which is turn men into worker drones - harvest resources - then give resources to women. women will fuck whom they want - have baby, but male has no rights over baby - and then the anonymous class of all men will anonymously support all babies in a socialist cuckolding dystopia. yay.
/r/MGTOW04/09/18 02:01 PM
6

respectfully disagree...the point of the marriage technology was actually to curb natural tendencies, and a lot of what we are seeing now is simply a regression to those tendencies, perhaps encouraged by those who want to farm other people. if mother nature "wanted" us to compete in the way you described and have a toned-down version of hypergamy and male competition that resulted in loosely associative mating, then we wouldn't need to use sociological harnesses to shift behavior in that directi…
/r/MGTOW04/09/18 01:10 PM
8

doesn't matter - even if everyone were fully woke, men as a class are fucked under any sort of popular vote. there are more women than men gynocentrism means that both men and women value women's interests over men's female hypergamy results in harems - where women and high-status men can form an economic/political/social block that farms lower-status men for resources. it's not that any one is too far gone - it's that men can't win in an environment where the privilege of initiating violence (w…
/r/MGTOW04/09/18 02:12 AM
8

Sadly, we do have a deal. It's called - men pay for their shit through social democracy while women spit on our graves. Male sovereignty isn't consistent with men being a minority vote. Figure it out, gentlemen.
/r/MGTOW03/09/18 08:48 PM
6

Yeah. I've seen some that are positively atrocious without it.
/r/MGTOW03/09/18 08:44 PM
8

yeah uniforms and sex segregation is where its at. You can't educate the kids if they are fighting for status with what they are wearing. You want to force the kids to fight with their minds, not their clothes - and not to impress the opposite sex... at least if you give a shit about teaching them anything.
/r/MGTOW03/09/18 01:29 PM
3

Pure projection of her own neuroticism and fear of death. It's never been just about mere survival with men, and it's because we're biologically disposable that we're afforded a clearness of thought that they don't have. If Mother Nature doesn't give a shit about your life versus a woman's - the mind is free to do other stuff.
/r/MGTOW03/09/18 12:20 PM
15

some mgtow hate incels. I don't. i think that the mgtow that do - are just acting out the typical hardwired dominance hierarchy software, even though they may protest to the contrary. my flavor of mgtow has little time for putting other men down - regardless of what I think about their beliefs or lifestyles. I just don't really care a lot about status and the dominance hierarchy anymore. Where you stand versus other men matters most in trying to attract a mate for reproduction - if you've walked…
/r/MGTOW03/09/18 04:10 AM
1

Before that, you have to figure out if you want to follow consequentialist or deontological ethics. You can't argue for the first, you can only argue for the second. So before you pick one of those, you have to figure out whether you want to "argue" for your views, or if you want to use rhetoric and violence to get your way. If you're a consequentialist, then it doesn't much matter - ends justify the means - do whatever. If you want arguable ethics, then you need to do a lot more thinking.
/r/MGTOW03/09/18 01:13 AM
5

People don't care about fairness. They care about survival and reproduction. That's why the world runs on power and not on logic.
/r/MGTOW02/09/18 09:08 PM
17

high iq post: they don't love men. they can't love men. all their love is for baby.
/r/MGTOW02/09/18 09:06 PM
4

but it's totally ok to rob men at gunpoint and use their labor to cuckold them through women's proxy agents, society and social democracy. men paying for women's choices and other men's babies - yeah, that's fair. educating other men's children, making other men's children safe, making complete strangers better off and happy. women can go fuck themselves. no male resources except on male terms.
/r/MGTOW02/09/18 08:22 PM
5

They grasp it. Women don't have sympathy for men.
/r/MGTOW02/09/18 05:21 PM
3

There is no justice in this life, but perhaps in the next.
/r/MGTOW02/09/18 05:20 PM
2

no, the solution is to just socially ostracize the lower-status male and enslave via government and policy in order to provide resources to women and upper-status men at the barrel of a gun, denying him the ability to trade his most useful natural ability - labor - for reproductive access and the possibility of sublimating his baser instincts into higher meaning. oh wait - we already do that.
/r/MGTOW02/09/18 05:07 PM
5

Well, to their credit, they ARE far more empathetic than men. If they weren't, they couldn't push the buttons in the way you described. Like Florence Nightingale said, they lack sympathy. The increased empathy is probably a biological advantage that they use to communicate with infants and children, who either can't talk or express themselves poorly. They need to be able to read body language, facial expressions, and then make a guess about what to do next. So as far as intuiting emotions, they …
/r/MGTOW02/09/18 12:04 PM
5

No, they don't. At the end of it, language is a tool to get what you want. Your mistake is assuming that your wants are similar enough to theirs so that communication takes place. They don't want to use words to communicate. They use words to express power and manipulate the environment. When it seems to you that they are communicating, it's because the communication coincides with their manipulation. When their manipulation DOESN'T coincide with communication, it is revealed to you that their g…
/r/MGTOW02/09/18 12:49 AM
1

We're not that different from the monkeys in that study.
/r/MGTOW01/09/18 09:41 PM
3

Here's the skeleton key, dude. Women only recognize something as "true" if it makes them feel safe. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2018/08/31/female-monkeys-dont-trust-males-even-obviously-right/
/r/MGTOW01/09/18 04:44 PM
5

Let me dispel that notion. Men transmit knowledge and technique quicker than women do. Men also can learn easier from either sex. Women's neuroticism and ingroup preference as the reproductive bottleneck causes them to prefer safety over knowledge. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2018/08/31/female-monkeys-dont-trust-males-even-obviously-right/ Sorry, but saying men are equally prone to living in a bubble is just bullshit. Yes, men can live in a bubble, but the question is - is one sex more l…
/r/MGTOW01/09/18 04:43 PM
2

extremely important post. great find. *edit: actually it's more important than I thought. there are a lot of factors that contribute to female group-think and herd behavior, but this is the first hard evidence that I've seen that the female will IGNORE empirically demonstrated practical improvements to goal-oriented action in favor of sticking to what the group does. tons of possible explanations: in-group preference, higher trait neuroticism, higher threshhold to accept new knowledge because th…
/r/MGTOW01/09/18 10:47 AM
1

Ah, you are talking about really rolling back the clock, then. Fair enough. I find that world almost as bad as the one we live in now, but to each his own.
/r/MGTOW31/08/18 01:04 PM
57

In other words. It's morally ok to kill an arbitrary man than an arbitrary woman if you have to kill one... Gynocentrism laid bare. Men are a slave class.
/r/MGTOW31/08/18 11:53 AM
6

missing the point - this is how a lot of women see themselves. AS GODS. it's how matriarchies and fertility cults are born.
/r/MGTOW31/08/18 10:54 AM
1

Nah - just read the bit where it talks about these parties bribing the women by promising more resources to families. Same shit. It would be a sort of tradcon fascism - where you take resources away from those who aren't making families to those who are.
/r/MGTOW30/08/18 05:30 PM
9

taxes
/r/MGTOW30/08/18 05:17 PM
2

Well, if you care about the biology of it all - your mother and other family are FAR more likely to care about your interest and have affection for you than non-family. Women are hardwired to care about their children (and even then, sometimes the software fails), so in my opinion - a mother's love is real. It's unreasonable and foolish to expect any thing like this from any other woman. (Grandma is pretty much in the same category as mom, but sisters will be far more likely to abuse you than mo…
/r/MGTOW30/08/18 09:56 AM
2

I don't think that those things effectively change the underlying desire so much as they develop work arounds so that the conscious brain is either ignoring it or telling itself that it ignores it. Either way may "work" functionally, but I don't think it's the same as eliminating the underlying desire. Just my opinion, but I think that software is walled off from operator control. That said, I don't think what I'm saying goes against what they were trying to achieve, at least functionally. From …
/r/MGTOW30/08/18 09:09 AM
13

Because the human ape, like most mammals, is naturally gynocentric. High status men and women tend to collude against the pool of lower-status men and farm them for resources. Biology doesn't care about equality, and most people don't care at all about men as a class. It's not about equality - it's just the game theory of the dominance hierarchy.
/r/MGTOW29/08/18 06:34 PM
2

LOL. of course, it's a MGTOW subreddit. I'm just pointing out to third party that testing their character is mostly a fool's errand too because I've seen guys that have tried. A lot of times the woman was just able to pull off a con job that last for years before splitting him down the middle.
/r/MGTOW29/08/18 06:29 PM
4

Nope. It's about genetics. If you're hot, your niceness will be rationalized as charming. If you're ugly, your niceness will be rationalized as creepy and deceptive. If you're a guy that women want naturally, then pretty much all your behavior will be interpretive positively and vice versa. If you're going to stand up for yourself - do it for yourself - not because it will get you laid. Women give fuck all about your personality, etc. Their subconscious judges you, and then their conscious mind …
/r/MGTOW29/08/18 06:07 PM
1

Doesn't necessarily work. If you play this game, you'll just likely select into a woman that plays the long con.
/r/MGTOW29/08/18 05:50 PM
2

Chris Rock came to the same conclusion.
/r/MGTOW29/08/18 05:49 PM
1

Even in the world you describe, women get final veto on the breeding.
/r/MGTOW29/08/18 05:18 PM
-1

Well, I don't see it that way. The thing is - women decide what types of men exist. Men who refuse to deal with women on the terms that women ask tend not to reproduce. Women seek men that respond to them sexually and are willing to do what women ask with respect to the rearing of children. Women breed men that are controlled by pussy because they are the evolutionary bottleneck. Sometimes these men are physically strong and dominant over other men and the material world, to be sure, but at the …
/r/MGTOW29/08/18 01:14 PM
4

Well, that's how a dominance hierarchy works. A man's reproductive odds are better when you are a big fish in a small pond...women don't judge absolutes - they merely compare relatives.
/r/MGTOW29/08/18 11:58 AM
5

Darwinian Pragmatism: don't be a cuck for women. Be a cuck for the species instead. Pathetic.
/r/MGTOW29/08/18 11:50 AM
2

I didn't know this. I feel sorry for her. Tragic, but I'm probably showing more sympathy for her than women show for men.
/r/MGTOW29/08/18 10:27 AM
2

it doesn't. it would be a subclass of it. but that would be if Peterson were arguing. He's not arguing. He's using rhetoric. But if he were arguing formally, you could certainly say it's just an appeal-to-nature fallacy. That's one of the big things you have to understand about Peterson. He's building a narrative, not arguing. There's a big difference.
/r/MGTOW29/08/18 12:09 AM
2

no that's not what it would do necessarily... it could be that it loops within a certain tolerance, and then if the environment changes enough, perhaps it creates a new loop that manifests slightly different in that environment. If that is the way it works, and I'm not saying it does - I don't know, but if that is the way it works - then it would indeed be globally adaptive. The point isn't progress - the point is to maximize survival. Doesn't matter from the standpoint of evolution if people ge…
/r/MGTOW28/08/18 10:29 PM
10

Just say "Are you done?" to everything she says until she leaves. Eventually she's gonna get tired of yelling at you and you can chuckle inside while you irritate her. Then when she leaves, you let her leave. But you have to keep a poker face when you do it.
/r/MGTOW28/08/18 09:50 PM
1

Good luck.
/r/MGTOW28/08/18 09:28 PM
3

I subsidize women, as a class, with every dollar I pay in taxes.
/r/MGTOW28/08/18 09:27 PM
6

Peterson is a Darwinian Pragmatist. His epistemology and morality are both founded on and constrained by survival and reproduction at the species level. Because of this, he thinks that individual choice that jeopardizes the chances of species survival (at any level of resolution) is morally prohibited. In his words, men in order to be moral and avoid social shame, should "sacrifice" for the "greatest good" - which in his mind - is identified - and MUST be identified with species survival and rep…
/r/MGTOW28/08/18 08:00 PM
2

only locally suboptimal, perhaps globally flexible.
/r/MGTOW28/08/18 07:45 PM
3

Missing my point - i was implying that chaotic female behavior may actually be a way to avoid the endpoint of Calhoun's mouse utopia.
/r/MGTOW28/08/18 06:46 PM
5

They do, and I appreciate that my male friends do it more than my female friends used to. But I don't expect it when I'm being charitable - from either sex.
/r/MGTOW28/08/18 04:25 PM
1

I don't have any thoughts on it at all, sorry.
/r/MGTOW28/08/18 04:22 PM
3

Right, but it may be another way that women create flexibility (despite their own flexibility) is by behaving in ways that destabilize the social structure and cause violence. In your example for instance, perhaps the environment changes so that height is maladaptive, well eventually the short guys are going win out - which resets the game, and even though the first hundred genrations after that may still express a preference for height, the environmental advantage towards shortness will probabl…
/r/MGTOW28/08/18 04:22 PM
2

You're missing my point. Knowledge and "progress" don't define what is adaptive from an evolutionary standpoint. Male abstractions about what constitute "good or better" versus prior generations don't either. I sympathize with what you're saying, but you're missing my point - which is that nature has it's own idea what works (and not saying that it will always work because species go extinct all the time) - and women MIGHT be playing within THAT framework - rather than a framework that a male mi…
/r/MGTOW28/08/18 04:15 PM
3

I didn't say that. I just said you can't control your feelings. I just suggested that you find things to do, places to be, etc. that seem to make your life more livable and hopefully that make you feel better. But as far as eliminating a fundamental biological instinct - i don't think you will be able to get rid of that. I will say that your desire for women will probably lessen with age - but sometimes you can't get what you want - and if you can't get what you want - maybe it's time to figure …
/r/MGTOW28/08/18 01:45 PM
6

yup, thanks but no thanks. the guys that want the reproduction bad enough can pay the toll that women require. I deal with women on equal terms or not at all - there will always be plenty of guys willing to throw themselves into the woodchipper - that's just the biology of it.
/r/MGTOW28/08/18 01:24 PM
10

You might not. You don't control your desires, you somewhat control your actions. But you also don't have to punish yourself by pathologizing your instincts with thoughts like "how do I stop craving a relationship?" It's sorta like saying - how do I stop liking things I like? You don't. Because you're dealing with the part of your brain that isn't driven by the consciousness - instead the conscious part of your brain just records that you want it. So - forgive yourself, if you want, for having d…
/r/MGTOW28/08/18 01:21 PM
5

I'm familiar with the concept of Fisherian runaway. I'm just not sure it applies here. It might apply, but there's no real way to prove it ahead of time. It's one of those things that only acquires real meat as a hypothesis after the species has died out or is really on its last legs. I think that women both consciously and unconsciously try to make selection pressure as high as possible - and part of that may be to make choices that destabilize societies and create violent resets - to reset the…
/r/MGTOW28/08/18 01:07 PM
15

yeah, the problem isn't the laws for me. it's the biology. I want relationships that are more symmetrical and closer to 50/50. That's not how the sexual relationship works, not just in man - but in pretty much most dimorphic species. Depending on the social environment, maybe I'd go 60/40 max, but with a lot of irritation. I just don't like the idea of a woman having so much power because of egg scarcity and sperm abundance. So it's not about the politics, the culture, the muh white babies, the …
/r/MGTOW28/08/18 12:56 PM
16

It's kinda deeper than that. Even if you have money, you don't necessarily exist until that money is used to help HER. In fact, the only parts of the world that manifest to her are those that benefit her - the other parts are ignored if not threatening, avoided out of fear if dangerous, or don't even enter into her perception. She's the reproductive bottleneck - and she has to carry on the species, after all, no time to let anything into the brain that could jeopardize her survival or the surviv…
/r/MGTOW28/08/18 12:42 PM
29

I actually really liked Pride and Prejudice. I remember when I read it, I was completely shocked how mercenary the women were in terms of trying to estimate a suitor's income, etc. etc. Red pills everywhere in Jane Austen, and she writes well, too.
/r/MGTOW28/08/18 12:40 PM
13

oh - about the women walking around in groups to bathroom. That is not the biggest reason why they do this. yeah, they are gossiping and consensus forming as you say, but they do this even with frenemies and women they can't stand and think have no valuable information to give. they walk around in groups of other women, both friend and foe, useless and useful, for the same reason that zebras have stripes. it's so if they get attacked by a predator, there's a greater chance that the other woman g…
/r/MGTOW28/08/18 12:30 PM
5

I think this is only half the story. part of it is because women seek information about what's good from the social structure, so they are conformists. but even in the absence of this, they would still appear to be conformists because they are fundamentally similar, and thus even acting independently - would do the same things and like the same things. and as far as proof of the sort of stuff, you can look at the preference for relative height and relative wealth that exists across time and acro…
/r/MGTOW28/08/18 12:18 PM
1

Well, I used to move in circles that weren't the highest wealth, but let's call them, wealthy ivy league try hards and similar - and I think what you're saying applies there. It's sorta the long con. The women stick around until the kids are through high school or college perhaps, and then bolt with cash and prizes. These are women with better impulse control, lower trait neuroticism, higher trait conscientiousness, and a better ability to forecast and plan. Makes them more dangerous - because y…
/r/MGTOW28/08/18 10:37 AM
3

All this is spot on. Sadly it takes pain to wake most men up. Hopefully the internet can save some more without them getting split down the middle.
/r/MGTOW28/08/18 09:18 AM
4

could be many hundreds of years. the successful replacement of hard currency by fiat worldwide was a game changer for the cycle of empires in my opinion. all those old empires still ran on hard currency, so when capital wasn't getting formed and given over in the form of current taxes and stuff, the government could get starved out in about 150-250 years. But in today's world - they can continually raid the private stores of capital through financial repression in ways that weren't possible when…
/r/MGTOW28/08/18 09:07 AM
62

Not for nothing, but I have taken male friends to dinner.
/r/MGTOW28/08/18 08:59 AM
24

There's something else in your comment. When women say stuff like that, it also indicates that women are essentially the SAME in the parts of their nature that men get to interact with. What she's saying is that the men she wants, have to be able to satisfy other women. Which means - in turn - that the is satisfied by the same things THAT SATISFY OTHER WOMEN. This isn't just sex, it's also protection and provision as well. And, yeah, there are differences from woman to woman - but those differen…
/r/MGTOW28/08/18 08:52 AM
2

This, so much this. And oh man - I've seen the hypocrisy laid bare on those examples in a BIG WAY. They virtue signal until it impacts them negatively and then they flip immediately. Their only "principle" is naked self-interest. Man - I have some stories about watching women around gay and trans that support your claim - but they are so crazy that they carry a pretty high risk of doxxing... :( Just let me say you are 100% right.
/r/MGTOW28/08/18 08:44 AM
2

putting the cart before the horse. It's more that it's female rather than socialist. women are attracted to socialism because they are risk-adverse, high in trait neuroticism, and net resource consumer. those are hardwired biology - socialism is just an easy way for them to act out those instincts. individualism is just too risky for the preserved sex - the one that has to live as the reproductive bottleneck while the disposable men can be as individual as they'd like. it's not typical socialist…
/r/MGTOW27/08/18 03:44 PM
4

nope, nope, and nope. that's not how women work and that's not how the world works. if you want to interact with women and resources aren't scarce - you are interacting with her on HER terms. it's only when she's starving and fearful that you have leverage. You aren't superior unconditionally, you have power over her only in certain material environments. Look around you. You don't live in an environment like that. They are safe. They have resources galore from cucks, white knights, and governme…
/r/MGTOW27/08/18 03:02 PM
23

should be stickied or put on sidebar.
/r/MGTOW27/08/18 11:24 AM
4

You're not superior if they can ruin your job, your reputation, your life on a whim and you can't put them in jail with the same ease.
/r/MGTOW27/08/18 10:08 AM
1

many reasons. one is government intervention. the other is probably biological in that matriarchy manifests easier in warmer climates where you don't need as much male surplus labor to create investment capital to survive a winter or some other really unfavorable environmental challenge. that isn't to say that it's warm weather -> matriarchy, because patriarchies exist in warm climbes too, but rather it's easier for matriarchy to make it, and thus for people people that descend from areas where …
/r/MGTOW27/08/18 10:03 AM
52

wow - thousand cock stare.
/r/MGTOW26/08/18 05:56 PM
16

There is no MGTOW consensus on having female friends. It's not a movement. If you are a man going his own way, make up your own mind about it.
/r/MGTOW26/08/18 05:38 PM
3

it's a very appropriate post. women do this sorta stuff all the time. they don't love men.
/r/MGTOW25/08/18 05:39 PM
42

where social competence is gynocentrically defined as the ability to further a woman's goals. it's not important whether the man is smart enough to get things done for himself - what is important to her is whether it helps her get what she wants (which usually involves manipulating the social structure.) you know - when a man can easily manipulate other people - it's not usually a good thing...LUL. So women want a guy that it slightly sociopathic, but not enough that he outsmarts HER.
/r/MGTOW25/08/18 12:37 PM
4

People deny it because low status men are farmed by high-status men and women. Men live on a farm. Hard labor before the glue factory - with a few breeding to replace them when they get to old to make power - to replace them when they get to old to make power - to replace them when they get to old to make power.... etc. Once the human mind became advanced enough to realize the most valuable resource was other people - we were sorta fucked in an original sin kind of way...
/r/MGTOW25/08/18 10:30 AM
8

LMAO. MGTOW hall-of-fame. Thotnium - high affinity for gold and chadnium. :) Need more upvote.
/r/MGTOW25/08/18 10:11 AM
3

"draft off of gay rights" - I see what you did there. Nice choice of words. :) Have an upvote.
/r/MGTOW25/08/18 07:11 AM
2

Because they aren't directly competing with them for a mate, for a job, for a promotion. But if you put these guys in the same room where they have to compete for the same thing - the behavior changes. It's one thing to say you aren't intimidated when you are miles away. It's another when you are eating from the same bowl.
/r/MGTOW22/08/18 11:19 AM
1

There's a reason why witches have been frowned on by all types of cultures/societies...
/r/MGTOW22/08/18 08:40 AM
5

Bingo. that's the world we live in. They are so safe that they don't pair bond. Not that they ever loved men in the way men loved women. Women's "love" is simply a consequence of their "need."
/r/MGTOW22/08/18 05:27 AM
1

I get it, but you reap what you sow - especially with lies.
/r/MGTOW22/08/18 04:05 AM
1

Yes, they are. Men are intimidated by people that are better than them as a general rule. And the reason for that is because no one gives a shit about men, men are the disposable class, and a random sample of any person, male or female, is more likely to NOT be an ally of a man than an ally. Similarly, any superior person, picked at random is also more likely to NOT be an ally - unless you believe that right bell curve people naturally embody some sort of noblesse oblige, but I've seen more evid…
/r/MGTOW22/08/18 03:59 AM
1

I firmly disagree. Your first point is irrelevant to the class of women who are strong, independent, and aesthetically beautiful. The argument is about women who are these things, not women who claim to be these things and are not. Your second point is irrelevant for the same reason your first point is. The argument is about women who are actually apex female, not those who aren't and hamster themselves into the class. Your third point doesn't support your claim that men as a group are not intim…
/r/MGTOW21/08/18 06:56 PM
1

So what? Depends on whether you care about "truth." A lot of men on this subreddit hamster away certain things about women and probably hamster away things about themselves. I'd be willing to bet that if I hadn't added counterweight to shift the perspective, a lot of guys here read that article and immediately fall into the trap of "haha, another harpy that thinks she's too good for men so she can't be telling the truth about things." Well, sometimes people tell the truth by accident, or sometim…
/r/MGTOW21/08/18 06:35 PM
17

Women tended to be more loyal and respected her husband.... uh no. Women pretended to be more loyal and pretended to respect her husband to avoid shame. There's a big difference between being loyal and pretending to be loyal, if they were actually BEING loyal, you wouldn't need the social controls.
/r/MGTOW21/08/18 04:31 PM
35

That's not the point. The point is because men have lower standards for female beauty, men don't treat as much of humanity like pieces of trash based on looks. And women should feel fortunate that men are blind in this way, because if we were to treat them as ruthlessly as they treat men - the world would be an even more awful, power-hungry place than it is already. From a practical standpoint, men are far more capable of treating others fairly because men are more accepting and less judgmental …
/r/MGTOW21/08/18 04:06 PM
2

the premise isn't men are scared of women as a class. the premise is men are scared of smart, attractive women. In my experience, they are - in the rare cases they are actually around one. Most of the time hypergamy and social sorting prevents men from even being in the same room with a woman who fits that bill. Where the rationalization comes in is the assumption or deflection that women make when they fail with men and assume it's because they are smart and attractive. But in all seriousness, …
/r/MGTOW21/08/18 02:57 PM
2

In your first point, you aren't refuting me - you are agreeing with me. It's about the resources. Your second point doesn't refute me either - women divorce men all the time that can protect them, lead them, and teach them. Most of the time women are hitting the eject button on men that exceed them - but that's not necessarily enough. Being able to protect and lead a woman is merely a necessary and not even close to a sufficient condition to keep a marriage together. It's also to a large degree …
/r/MGTOW21/08/18 02:11 PM
1

They don't. For the most part, the smart, attractive women aren't in the market - by choice or by force (because they exceed most men they deal with.) That's a big point of what I wrote. This subreddit acts like these women don't exist. They do, they just are exceedingly uncommon and no one can satisfy their hypergamy - it's even harder to satisfy than the typical THOT. But her article isn't "most women are smart and attractive and still single" it's "smart and attractive women are still single.…
/r/MGTOW21/08/18 02:05 PM
1

Yeah, I've met many, and if they are wealthy and/or attractive, the hypergamy is off the charts.
/r/MGTOW21/08/18 01:51 PM
12

In my experience, the post-wall women don't need men. They need men's resources. If they really needed men's "commitment" in any other way, for instance - emotional commitment, husbandry, enhancing and protecting reputation, edification, wisdom, then the divorce rate simply wouldn't be where it is. Their actions tell you what they care about, and they couldn't care less about all that touchy-feely shit in the rom-coms as long as they can get government to strongarm men into writing a check, whet…
/r/MGTOW21/08/18 09:33 AM
39

Unpopular opinion - she's right about a lot of it. Women don't need men anymore because they have financial independence from their jobs, the informal social safety network from innate gynocentrism, and institutionalized gynocentrism (the government transfer of resources to services that women need more or use more, e.g. police, hospitals, public schooling for their bastards.) Women have high standards. Yes, hypergamy. Men are intimidated by women who are intelligent, attractive, and successful.…
/r/MGTOW21/08/18 06:21 AM
3

I own these books. The candid description of male disposability and female "entitlement" was disgusting. Mindbreaking, along with the "Case for Father Custody." Amneus' treatment of feminist literature is the right one, I think. It acknowledges that feminists are right about a lot of things, but it also means that male and female interests are opposed in many areas of life.
/r/MGTOW20/08/18 04:27 PM
3

You can't control your desires. There are a lot of things you are going to feel in life that are completely uncontrollable. Don't make yourself feel worse by pathologizing your own feelings. You can somewhat control your actions, and you can also somewhat control your circumstances. Act in ways that make your life livable and avoid situations that make you feel bad about yourself, and don't punish yourself if your choices still end up producing bad feelings. You really can't control what you val…
/r/MGTOW19/08/18 12:38 PM
1

Projection writ large. In almost every dimorphic species, the male is the sexual servant of the female. Men wouldn't sacrifice themselves under the crippling material and emotional burdens women ask them to bear if men hated women. On the contrary, men love women and children so much that they ruin themselves in service to reproduction.
/r/MGTOW18/08/18 10:20 AM
2

Absolutely, I have had many. Here's the catch. Hypergamy means that you don't get a chance to talk to them. They screen you out from across the room. Even though men and women aren't that different in terms of mean general intelligence (although variance is greater for men and this matters a LOT in some applications), a lot of men never get a chance to talk to women as equals or inferiors because women don't ALLOW them that chance.
/r/MGTOW16/08/18 07:22 AM
1

Well, I was verbally confronted by a crazy old lady outside of my residence yesterday, and in the span of a few minutes, she basically shamed me as a bachelor, gave me the Jordan Peterson "man up" admonishment, told me I won't get a girlfriend, seemed amazed when I said I didn't care, and then tried to psychoanalyze me as well as pin down my politics...all of which still eluded her when I told her I wasn't a communist or a fascist - which was what she was afraid of. The whole thing was incredibl…
/r/MGTOW15/08/18 07:02 AM
2

WILL they? They already do. Wake up.
/r/MGTOW15/08/18 03:39 AM
9

She has a point. Men and women's lived experiences are different and incommensurable, which to me suggests that we shouldn't be using government to interfere in each others' lives - there is no RIGHT and WRONG when you are talking about subjective lived experience and any forceful government interventions would necessarily be arbitrary and be whimsy on the part of one sex or the other.
/r/MGTOW15/08/18 01:19 AM
9

This is the reason why you ask for a male salesperson, and a male doctor, and a male anything else. You're gonna be hearing the siren's song otherwise.
/r/MGTOW14/08/18 11:22 PM
1

Important comment... they think it's "deceptive" for a low-status male to change lanes through effort. Because they want offspring that will dominate others easily...
/r/MGTOW14/08/18 10:44 PM
2

Not quite. Men are net resource producer, women are net resource consumer. Men are net buyers of risk, women are net sellers of risk. Men and women aren't in a homogenous market for some good called a "relationship". It's simple supply and demand, but men and women trading different things. It's misleading to lump those things into "cost" of a relationship when the goods are really different as well as the marginal utilities attached to the different good by men and women... So yeah, what you sa…
/r/MGTOW14/08/18 10:38 PM
3

I thought erdos was cool even before I discovered MGTOW. :)
/r/MGTOW14/08/18 08:35 AM
11

I was single-sex educated for four years, and for the years after that, I was almost single-sex educated de facto because there were almost no women in my classes. I'm sure mixed sex classes hurt male development at least. In the single-sex environment, the boys could explore art, music, and drama as well as hardcore STEM without having to posture in the reproductive contest. Even some of the guys on our football team dabbled in acting and other stuff, and there was a lot less of the geek/jock d…
/r/MGTOW14/08/18 06:28 AM
3

I'm not quite sure on this. If I remember right, there are some studies that indicate that IQ has a stronger correlation with the mother than the father. I'd have to look at the stuff in more detail to make sure the math was right, but for the sake of argument, if it's true, then it means that the increase in general intelligence over time might actually be the result of increasing mean female intelligence, and then outliers on the male spectrum end up creating new knowledge - which feed back cu…
/r/MGTOW14/08/18 06:24 AM
2

HIGH IQ post. Scetis understands women.
/r/MGTOW14/08/18 12:36 AM
1

Mind fucking, that's exactly what it is. Prisoners in our own minds.
/r/MGTOW13/08/18 08:53 PM
1

No he's not, because if he were an individualist, he's be an individualist even if it caused the species to die. Individualism isn't just about responsibility for actions, it's also about sovereignty, law, and the legitimacy of political violence. On those points, he's a statist. All you are doing is narrowing the casual definitions of individualism to focus on one aspect of it. I won't use your definition. You are free to, but others may or may not agree with you.
/r/MGTOW13/08/18 05:39 AM
1

No, but "all about individualism" will lead to a form of anarchism. Because if you are ALL about individualism, then the individual takes precedence over the collective in ALL points of contention. You can be selectively individualist, and Peterson falls into that category - but he doesn't take individualism out to its conclusion or else he'd be an anarchist. So in other words, he's an individualist only when it supports his Darwinian Pragmatism, and when collectivism fits his pragmatism better,…
/r/MGTOW13/08/18 05:14 AM
2

Either A or ~A. Either the individual is sovereign, or not.
/r/MGTOW13/08/18 04:07 AM
2

The catch is that if the other person was operating in the same logical system as you, you probably wouldn't have a disagreement. What you might want, and what most people don't do - is have a pre-argument - where the important definitions are fleshed out beforehand so logic can proceed. And as far as his "debate" with Harris, which wasn't a debate, it was a two-sided declaration of faith - both revealing a different fundamental definition of truth - which if had been stated at the beginning wou…
/r/MGTOW13/08/18 03:16 AM
2

Ah, then we have different definitions of truth. I think I see where you're coming from, but I think the subset of constructively true things that are arguable, logically provable is almost prohibitively small - because logical argument has to proceed from unprovable axioms. Even in things like math/geometry, there are incommensurable systems that produce contradictory results that "talk past each other." That isn't to say they are unresolvable in their own systems, they are demonstrably true/fa…
/r/MGTOW13/08/18 02:44 AM
2

Didn't say you should. I'm just writing to the subreddit in general. I'd be willing to bet most of these guys think he's arguing about stuff, but he's not. He's story telling. He's a Jungian, after all.
/r/MGTOW13/08/18 02:38 AM
3

He doesn't argue. He uses rhetoric, and even admits that.
/r/MGTOW13/08/18 02:34 AM
2

He's not "all about individualism." If he were, he'd have the flavor of an anarchist rather than a state/social reformer.
/r/MGTOW13/08/18 02:30 AM
1

I think he probably would do that, but in the meantime, it wouldn't mean he was wrong or that you were right, or that right and wrong could be discerned on the topic, or even that those were constructive categories in the particular instance. Too many interpretations for one set of facts and incommensurable systems of thoughts. May as well be 2 different geometries.
/r/MGTOW13/08/18 02:28 AM
2

raisins is right about Peterson being Straussian. Peterson is a Darwinian Pragmatist, and has even ADMITTED that he is. That means he doesn't adhere to a correspondence theory of truth and words and ideas are simply means to an end - and if you're a Darwinian Pragmatist, that end is survival/reproduction of the species. I'm almost certain he knows what the risks are - it's just that in his world - there are probably no such things as "noble lies" as long as they serve the greater "truth" of repr…
/r/MGTOW13/08/18 02:22 AM
1

He's a Darwinian Pragmatist, an admitted one. That answers your question.
/r/MGTOW13/08/18 02:17 AM
-2

But that's not MGTOW, that's surrogacy within MGTOW. MGTOW includes the men who go their own way from reproduction. So unless you restrict MGTOW to men who seek reproduction it doesn't work with Darwinian Pragmatism. Is your definition of MGTOW restricted to such men? If so, then you're right, MGTOW WOULD work with Darwinian Pragmatism, but we just have different definitions of MGTOW.
/r/MGTOW12/08/18 08:49 PM
8

It doesn't matter. Consequences come after actions and are often uncertain or at least not certain to be caused by said action and not some coincident factor, so if actions are to be catgorized as "right" or "wrong" - they need to be categorized as right or wrong in themselves and not as a result of their consequences - at least - if you want to argue for them instead of just use rhetoric. When it comes to MGTOW, I make the choices because I think the choices are right in and of themselves, and …
/r/MGTOW12/08/18 08:08 PM
-1

Ok corazon - care to explain to me how MGTOW works with Darwinian Pragmatism? That's my claim, and you didn't disprove it. MGTOW includes the possibility of NOT REPRODUCING. MGTOW even includes the possibility of ENDING THE SPECIES. Darwinian Pragmatism, if applied to morality, precludes the possibility of man avoiding reproduction as a morally correct choice. In a system of thought that is constrained by reproduction, MGTOW is inevitably going to be framed as a perversion, and if lucky, one tha…
/r/MGTOW12/08/18 07:27 PM
-1

He's not a tradcon. He's a Darwinian Pragmatist. There's a difference. That point has been made a ZILLION times on this subreddit and people still call him a tradcon. That said, MGTOW doesn't work with Darwinian Pragmatism, and that's where the whole pathetic weasel thing come from. Well, that and he's a consequentialist as well as a Darwinian Pragmatist and he thinks the ends justifies the means with respect to survival/reproduction at the species level.
/r/MGTOW12/08/18 03:24 PM
4

Well, I think women make poor friends because they have a different idea of friendship than men do, for the most part. They also don't seem to value friendship as much because women, in general, have more people interested in their lives and trying to help them. If it's relatively easy for you to get help (compared to a man), why would you value other people as much? When you combine that with their greater risk aversion and neuroticism you get a flaky "friend" that's more likely to cut and run …
/r/MGTOW12/08/18 01:28 PM
5

He's not wrong. This was the case in my profession (finance), and I was pressured by bosses, etc., to buy a big house, nice car, get married, etc. However, I WAS able to get promoted and get hired despite my single status, but at the end of it - I was able to leave at the drop of the hat and my bosses had less leverage over me than otherwise - which is why they wanted me to live a leveraged lifestyle with family rather than save money. They were right - I was unstable, and I was selfish, and I r…
/r/MGTOW12/08/18 12:10 AM
4

Yours is an important post. I wish more men on this subreddit who have experiences similar to yours would speak up. It's good counterweight to the guys on the subreddit who are still flirting with traditionalism or Darwinian Pragmatism (Jordan Peterson). Men just don't have power in their relationships with women. All she has to do is cry wolf and someone is going to believe her and white knight, at worst - it will be the State, and then you're fucked. There just is no justice for men in relatio…
/r/MGTOW11/08/18 08:30 AM
5

Wow, it's hard to find a more blatant abuse of correlation and causation than trying to pin the lower frequency of sex for low-status males on lower marriage rates. I quote: "But the 68% increase from 2002 to 2015 in the incel share of the male, never-married, 22-35-year-old population is mostly due to a decline in marriage, not never-married men having less sex." Ok, tradcon - and why are these men NOT MARRIED - because they CAN'T SATISFY HYPERGAMY. It's not like marriage comes out of nowhere. …
/r/MGTOW11/08/18 06:07 AM
17

Yes. They have tons. Far more than men in fact. They just have no sympathy for people besides their own children, and sometimes not even then. Just because they know what you're feeling doesn't mean they care enough about it to help you. The opposite is more likely - they'll take advantage of weakness in others or hypergamously discard a weak mate. But being able to intuit another's emotional state? Yeah, they absolutely have more empathy than men - they just aren't naturally compassionate or sy…
/r/MGTOW11/08/18 05:52 AM
9

100% true and unnoticed by most. For instance, women can adopt male fashion without anyone blinking an eye, but the reverse? Laughable. Not that I want to wear a dress, but honestly - care less about the way men dress than I used to. The whole "dress to impress" and shaming of effeminate men is tradcon bullshit. Yeah, a guy that is wearing a dress probably won't be able to defend any borders, but at the end of the day, I shouldn't be expecting other men to defend me anyway - it's more of an issu…
/r/MGTOW11/08/18 05:45 AM
1

Not at all. I just don't think people live in the "real" world as much as people live in the worlds constructed by their own minds. Because men and women have different brains, it's inevitable that the frameworks and "realities" will be incommensurable. For the most part, when people are speaking the same words - there's no guarantee that both listener and speaker assign the same meaning, and the further you get away from concrete action into abstraction - the more likely this is to occur. The m…
/r/MGTOW11/08/18 12:29 AM
1

Only ridiculous if you're looking at it from a male's point of view. Men and women don't see the world the same way - which is enough reason to not bother with them unless they really have something you want, and even then you'll need power to get it.
/r/MGTOW10/08/18 11:52 PM
2

That's not what she means. What she means is "response on your terms." It's just another way to say - you aren't entitled to what you want from me. And that's why it's pointless to deal with women from any standpoint other than power - if you don't have real leverage, you may as well just ignore them.
/r/MGTOW10/08/18 10:12 PM
4

She's right. She doesn't owe him or anyone else a response, but in the meantime, she expects her proxy agents, high-status males and various enforcers in government to steal from men as a class and provide her with safety and lots of free shit. I have no problem with women saying that men are entitled to nothing, but the flip side is also true. Women aren't entitled to safety, shelter, money, medical care, roads, cars, oil, or anything that comes from the labor of men.
/r/MGTOW10/08/18 06:38 PM
7

High IQ post.
/r/MGTOW09/08/18 11:26 PM
1

No-fault divorce isn't going to cut it without presumed paternal custory. If men are paying for wombs, then they should get custody outright in contract.
/r/MGTOW09/08/18 06:56 PM
3

Well, if it does happen - it will just add weight to the idea that freedom, reason, and self-discipline are less evolutionary successful than amorality, feelings, and pandering. And why wouldn't this be the case? Most of the planet gets along just fine without those high-level male abstractions. Mother Nature always bats last.
/r/MGTOW09/08/18 06:55 PM
1

No. It's simply men leaving women. Motivations don't matter. There are bitter MGTOW, hateful MGTOW, peaceful MGTOW, happy MGTOW, ignorant MGTOW, smart MGTOW. etc. But hey, if you want to make yourself feel better by shitting on men who are lower in the dominance hierarchy - go ahead - but realize that's what you're doing - you're not in it for truth, and you're not in it for helping other men. You just want to make yourself feel better by pathologizing certain aspects of other men.
/r/MGTOW08/08/18 11:25 PM
2

And I added counterweight to shift the perspective - because it's not about capitalism.
/r/MGTOW08/08/18 01:58 AM
16

this will never pick up because capitalism is built on consumerism - which is built on gynocentrism - - which was a result of human evolution. so - this will never pick up because of human evolution - buying stuff to show status is just proximal to the ultimate cause of reproduction. blaming capitalism is a red-herring - you can bet your ass that even if we tried to equalize material outcomes by force - women would still demand and men would find a way - to demonstrate status through controlling…
/r/MGTOW07/08/18 10:30 PM
60

Can confirm. Spent far more time and money on stuff given than the worth of stuff received.
/r/MGTOW07/08/18 10:27 PM
5

Why is this surprising? You need the same sort of skills to take care of a small pet that you need to take care of an infant. It's the same software, just being directed towards a different animal.
/r/MGTOW07/08/18 08:36 PM
1

male feminist? LOL
/r/MGTOW07/08/18 05:25 AM
1

Wouldn't be as bad if they didn't lie about it and then manipulate others towards that goal.
/r/MGTOW07/08/18 04:01 AM
2

she's half right. women love power. no surprise that they fall in love with dominant, powerful men. they wish to use that power for themselves after manipulating the powerful man with sex. stockholm syndrome my ass.
/r/MGTOW07/08/18 03:58 AM
8

True enough, sometimes it doesn't have to be better, just has to relieve her boredom.
/r/MGTOW07/08/18 02:30 AM
3

Bingo.
/r/MGTOW06/08/18 08:45 PM
3

What a cunt.
/r/MGTOW06/08/18 08:24 PM
35

Important post here. This jives with my experience. I knew a hot girl who probably had high functioning autism - a real unicorn. Was a college athlete as well as a PhD level mathematician with the ability to generate new theoretical results. WAAAAAAY to the right on the bell curve on a lot of attributes. Guess what? Doesn't change hypergamy - only makes the bar higher - only the chaddiest chad need apply - and he needs to be smarter than her - good luck.
/r/MGTOW06/08/18 06:49 PM
12

"might" - until she finds better.
/r/MGTOW06/08/18 06:39 PM
37

Thanks, but no thanks. I don't do "phases," and I don't create relationships with that sort of instability.
/r/MGTOW06/08/18 06:39 PM
3

Well, it starts by not worrying about being a badass motherfucker.
/r/MGTOW06/08/18 05:47 PM
1

I prefer having a lower sex drive, thanks.
/r/MGTOW06/08/18 05:23 PM
12

Age helps. My sex drive is probably 5% of what it was when I was 18. I'm in my 40s. Once you aren't as sexually attracted to women - they become pretty toxic fast because they just don't bring a whole lot else to the table besides reproduction. In fairness to women, though, this isn't always because they don't have more to offer. Some women have a lot to offer but just won't offer it because the reproductive roles and hypergamy just prevent her from giving freely to a male mate, and women with a…
/r/MGTOW06/08/18 04:48 PM
15

Definitely a sign. Very cool
/r/MGTOW06/08/18 01:57 AM
2

I honestly think there IS no challenge for the pair. Men and women are different enough with respect to morphology, reproductive strategies, and just general interests and values that what people would have called "shared" goals ended up being not shared at all - with women jumping ship en masse from their male partners as soon as they got their safety. Those "challenges for the pair" exist until they don't, and then they are exposed for what they are - temporary coincidences of wants that, when…
/r/MGTOW04/08/18 10:54 PM
3

Nah. That's projecting male standards onto the female. Women are risk-adverse and more neurotic than men. It's all about getting other people to provide resources and safety for them. But resources and risk transfer are zero-sum games, and as men take less risk and keep more resources for themselves, it's harder for women to feel safe and have children. It's that simple.
/r/MGTOW04/08/18 09:59 PM
5

I've been thinking along these lines as well. You put it nicely - they subconsciously create chaos and strife in order to ramp up the pressure. It's fucking awful.
/r/MGTOW03/08/18 04:57 AM
101

exactly. let it burn.
/r/MGTOW02/08/18 05:30 PM
19

"Hatred." This woman doesn't know what hatred is. Do many MGTOW dislike women? Of course. And why not? It's perfectly natural to develop a dislike for something that creates negative affect when you encounter it. Whether it's romantic rejection, creep-shaming, ostracizing, divorce-raping, gaslighting, sperm-jacking, false accusations, holding children hostage, aborting children - and that's just the personal stuff. What about the institutionalized stuff? The forced redistribution of male wealth …
/r/MGTOW31/07/18 04:48 PM
7

The same thing that makes zebras have stripes. To move risk to themselves to the zebra next to them. They usually don't have enough power or ability to create safety directly, so they create safety by making the person next to them more unsafe.
/r/MGTOW31/07/18 12:40 AM
2

Thought some of my own life history would be a useful add here. This is how my grandmother did it. She was part of the WWII generation, and once the kids were old enough to get by on their own, she started work as a secretary, and eventually made it to whatever the head secretary was - the one that handled the stuff for the head of the company. My grandfather retired about 10 years before she did, but she continued working and providing income for their household into her mid 60s if I recall. Bu…
/r/MGTOW30/07/18 11:59 PM
94

Loving simply doesn't satisfy hypergamy and keep a marriage together.
/r/MGTOW30/07/18 11:46 PM
18

Hojabi should be immediately added to the MGTOW lexicon.
/r/MGTOW30/07/18 11:44 PM
59

Yeah, it's gaslighting. They love doing it, too.
/r/MGTOW30/07/18 11:39 PM
2

I don't think it's solipsism on the part of the women I'm talking about, or even solipsism on women in general for the women for this particular point. For the women that aren't masculine, smart, strong and independent - it's just a lie, deflection, or rationalization when they are saying - I'm too independent for most men. Usually it's because they are too bitchy or ugly. It's also uttered by low-status women that are surrounded by low-status men, and admittedly - a lot of times they ARE better…
/r/MGTOW30/07/18 02:49 PM
4

Wow, that's really what it comes down to isn't. choose between either enjoying sex or life.
/r/MGTOW30/07/18 02:01 PM
1

I'm curious about the amish issues. Can you post a link to some data?
/r/MGTOW30/07/18 01:56 PM
1

doesn't matter how smart or attractive they are. the behavior is a sliding scale. I've known many women that were smarter and probably more attractive than a lot of the guys on the subreddit - and when they get an IQ > 125, they want the multimillionaire, superhawt guy, where your average chick just wants the millionaire, hot guy.
/r/MGTOW30/07/18 01:17 PM
1

Those aren't feminist lies. Those are tradcon lies. Don't blame the feminists for those lies. Feminists have been very open about sexual liberation since the 2nd wave. A lot of Betty Friedan's original screed was about having the freedom to ride more cock.
/r/MGTOW30/07/18 12:55 PM
8

Hypergamy. Brad Pitt? Yep. Perfect man approaching them? Yep. And guess what, even guys like Brad Pitt get rinsed when they outlive their usefulness. Women are not interested in "men." They are interested in some men - the men that dominate the social and material worlds, so they can maximize the chance that the woman's children will be able to dominate others similarly. Make sense?
/r/MGTOW29/07/18 12:30 PM
1

That's assuming that people don't need concrete signals of station from other people to keep from losing their shit and surviving. Mouse utopia. I think a successful attempt at replacing the low-status men with technology would end up producing a behavioral sink and extinction event in the elite, because their brains wouldn't be getting enough signals from the lower-status people to keep functioning correctly. In other words, you'd have to keep a zoo of lower-status people around just to feel go…
/r/MGTOW29/07/18 11:51 AM
2

yeah, probably the most important one in my opinion isn't even on the sidebar. Barbarossa. barbarossa preceded most of the guys on the sidebar, anticipated the tradthots, anticipated feMRAs, anticipated PUA/MGTOW issues and offered critiques of PUA. I'm pretty sure that internet-based MGTOW as we understand it today doesn't happen without the work of Barbarossa. He saved lives. youtube: bar bar blog: sheddingoftheego.com
/r/MGTOW29/07/18 10:32 AM
1

Not exactly. The most important and valuable resource for high-status men and women are worker bee men.
/r/MGTOW28/07/18 11:20 PM
3

I'm not saying they have to kill themselves. They just have to choose to not have children under the new management (whether they stay in the society or not.) There's a big difference. Part of the issue of reproduction is whether or not the world that the children are being born into is worth living in. One of the big reasons why men step away more than women is they conclude that their vision of the world isn't going to manifest, so they'd rather not create a new life that is going to suffer in…
/r/MGTOW28/07/18 11:31 AM
2

They have other options. It's called walking away. In fact, walking away was a lot easier in earlier times than it is today. You've always had men walking off on their own into the wildnerness when the conditions of civic life were unbearable. Women could do the same, but they don't. Their biology demands that they LIVE. It doesn't matter to them what they LIVE FOR. So it's rare that LIFE ever becomes unbearable for them because their instincts for self-preservation, reproduction, and hypergamy …
/r/MGTOW28/07/18 11:02 AM
3

There might not be anything wrong with you. If you care to look it up online, you can find the studies where they tested female responses to pornography, and women were turned on by all sorts of crazy shit, where men were mostly turned on by hetero or girl/girl. So what this probably means is that women are more sexually fluid than men, and you just happened to see that more than some other men for whatever reason.
/r/MGTOW27/07/18 08:38 PM
1

I honestly don't really care about it. Give Caesar what is Caesar's, and give to God what is God's.
/r/MGTOW26/07/18 03:44 PM
1

I don't advocate or practice consequentialist ethics. i don't care if things work if they are wrong. Better to lose a hand than to have your whole body thrown in to hell, so they say...
/r/MGTOW26/07/18 03:36 PM
2

No. I don't vote and I think the state in all forms is immoral. I'm neither left, right, or center. I occupy a point orthogonal to the political spectrum.
/r/MGTOW26/07/18 12:28 PM
1

And I'll continue to provide counterweight. MGTOW is bigger than anti-feminism, free-speech, post-modernism, or the old Jungian Archetypes. MGTOW includes men who simply DON'T CARE about society anymore, not just temporarily embarrassed would-be alphas or near-alphas who were comparatively advantaged in the older structures and are holding out for a better deal. Not my circus and not my monkeys. From my perspective, it's not like the old ways were that great for men either. It's not OUR issue. I…
/r/MGTOW26/07/18 09:39 AM
14

Sure, the number of male taxpaying residents.
/r/MGTOW26/07/18 08:42 AM
4

It's not a simple dismissal. Other MGTOW here have developed deep criticism of his Darwinian Pragmatism. He has no answers for MGTOW who aren't of the marriage-strike or pump-and-dump variety. So sure, if you love western civilization at heart, and you're MGTOW because you don't like the way things are falling apart - Peterson might have something to say to you. On the other hand, if you are MGTOW because you have a fundamental dislike for power structures, biological realities, etc. then Peters…
/r/MGTOW25/07/18 07:21 PM
6

important post here.
/r/MGTOW25/07/18 10:11 AM
4

there's a bigger principle here, which is - on what types of conflicts should law apply? Well if you want a law to be a rule that people don't break, then you also have to know, in principle, when the law is being BROKEN. Thus, law (if it's to be law or rule) can only be applied to situations that cross the intersubject barrier - in other words - conflict where you can create objectivity and not subjectivity about the law being broken. That's why when people have committed physical crimes - they…
/r/MGTOW25/07/18 10:08 AM
13

Who cares if women want a man to lead? I never wanted to lead, and I never wanted to follow. Don't want to employ power, and I don't want to submit to power. If evolution has made it so the material world is about power, then I'm checking out.
/r/MGTOW24/07/18 11:43 PM
17

because the trade that men and women make is sex for resources. happens not only in the human ape but in other primates and in species away from primates. it's only in the human ape does the female get to welch on the deal years after the fact because her feelings change and get the guy thrown in jail. http://welkerswikinomics.com/blog/2007/06/03/gambling-prostitution-and-theft-rampant-among-yale-monkeys/ women are whores and men are johns - it's in the DNA
/r/MGTOW20/07/18 06:56 AM
1

If the means are the same as in your first graph and the distributions are still normal, then no - the probability is still 50%. And if there is more probability mass on the upper or lower extreme, which now you can't claim because you're cutting off the tails, then it could be shifted one way or another. The graphs that you're using just don't support the claim you make - they actually prove you wrong.
/r/MGTOW20/07/18 06:38 AM
1

You're the one spreading lies.
/r/MGTOW20/07/18 05:46 AM
1

Ok, this may even need the moderators to step in and edit some of the comments because the original poster is flat out wrong, and meaningfully so in a way that twists the narrative in a way that damages men. Firstly, there are no means and variance posted, but let's assume these are normal distributions centered around 100 (in IQ fashion). Let X be a random variable for the IQ of men, and let Y be a random variable for the IQ of women. You are either claiming that the 50th percentile woman is sm…
/r/MGTOW20/07/18 05:38 AM
1

I stopped paying attention to news after the financial crisis. After that, i only paid attention to what was relevant to my job, and finally, I stopped paying attention at all.
/r/MGTOW17/07/18 01:03 PM
5

yeah, it's cruel to raise a child without a mother - especially when very young. It's likely to cause some messed up wiring and attachment issues. Just go look up some of the experiments they did on monkeys where they had them nurse from "fake mothers" one that dispensed real milk (but was a cold wire frame) and the other that didn't dispense nutrients, but was covered in a fuzzy coating like a monkey mom. Guess which one they picked? Anyway - you get the idea.
/r/MGTOW17/07/18 11:26 AM
3

try to be active so that you feel less pain when you get older. making healthy choices is no guarantee of health, but if you have already made choices to eschew romance (likely because it isn't worth the risk), then you can ask yourself if not being healthy is worth the risk of the physical pain that you may feel. sometimes, it's hard to find motivation in terms of seeking happiness, but if you can't find motivation to avoid pain, then you may need to seek professional help. (therapy/medication,…
/r/MGTOW17/07/18 11:23 AM
7

No, they can fathom it, it's just not useful to them. Money isn't useful to them unless it's signaling status or used as power in the social structure. And men are disposable after all, so if she can soak one guy, there's always another... women don't have to save because men will save her. No one saves men.
/r/MGTOW17/07/18 06:26 AM
2

You can also add taxes and any governmental service that is needed more or used more by women.
/r/MGTOW15/07/18 07:10 AM
3

From my perspective, there is the beginning of a MGTOW consciousness in that wall of text, which is in the last two paragraphs. The realization that the deck is stacked, he can't win, and not playing is better than winning the "prize."
/r/MGTOW14/07/18 02:18 AM
1

Yes. The lowest common denominator for MGTOW is unmarried and not seeking marriage. MGTOW is silent on sexual interest and frequency.
/r/MGTOW13/07/18 03:23 PM
2

yes, but perhaps only if I had my current understanding. if i had lived a life where I hadn't been aware of female nature, than probably not.
/r/MGTOW13/07/18 11:54 AM
0

easy. dress like you're poor.
/r/MGTOW13/07/18 04:07 AM
2

There are no corporate interests. There are people that own corporations, including a lot of run-of-the mill folk with modest 401ks. Corporations don't run on autopilot, some people are more leveraged to corporate success than others - and these are people that own equity or are high-status/high-salaried in the corporations. Corporate interests are human interests - perhaps humans you don't like, but human nonetheless.
/r/MGTOW12/07/18 01:20 PM
2

oberlin is a shithole - up there with Reed.
/r/MGTOW12/07/18 12:07 PM
5

these examples are important...if there's evolutionary continuity across species, then it wouldn't be surprising at all to see certain patterns of male/female behavior cross-species...
/r/MGTOW12/07/18 10:05 AM
1

It's not insecurity at all. It's bait, tools of the trade. They are more likely to get what they want by using those tools than they would otherwise.
/r/MGTOW12/07/18 10:04 AM
1

Unlike the world has ever seen? The temple prostitutes of Ishtar would like to have a word with you... Some speculate that Gilgamesh's rejection of Ishtar was very much about man striking out against matriarchies and fertility cults...
/r/MGTOW12/07/18 09:54 AM
5

Depends on what you mean by honest. As far as I know, I've never heard him lie about what could be considered a fact. I do think he omits certain facts that don't build the narrative that he wants to build - for instance, the whole "man up" thing but doesn't inform the listener that he more than likely will fail. The rappers say it better than Peterson, "get rich or die tryin'" - no country for Darwin's failures after all. Get to work, weasel!
/r/MGTOW12/07/18 09:51 AM
1

I know he isn't Dawkins. He's worse than Dawkins in some respects - because he's eerily close to Dawkins with respect to the importance he places on reproduction as the most important framework through which people view life and live life. Despite his claims that he isn't a materialist, in an extended 1-on-1 interview that was close to 2 hours long (if I remember correctly) he lays out his epistemology and take on religion - he comes out and identifies as a Darwinian Pragmatist. In the same inte…
/r/MGTOW12/07/18 03:57 AM
2

But Peterson will never do that - even if you pointed that out to him - because if the man in the past doesn't pass women's relative standards for reproduction - then he doesn't "deserve to exist" in Peterson's mind - and in short order - won't exist - at least in the evolutionary sense. If you're Darwinistic with respect to your epistemology, morality, and clinical inclinations - then the only tool in your tool box for "losers" is to get them to "win" and make "someone else" the loser, which of…
/r/MGTOW12/07/18 12:29 AM
2

Hell, I have a couple of degrees, used to make a lot more than 65,000 year (enough for an early retirement in my early 40s), I USED to read the economist, went to top schools, worked at prestigious firms. And even despite a working class upbringing - I could successfully "pass" as a person of "privilege" in certain corridors of power... AND DESPITE THE TWENTY YEARS OF SLAVERY that i endured chasing vagina - I still didn't have a lot of luck - in fact, I had more luck when I was younger, freer, p…
/r/MGTOW11/07/18 01:58 PM
3

In my experience, the ones with traditional upbringing or religious upbringing are only held back by culturally enforced shame. They don't seem to run on guilt. In other words, all the cultural programming in the world doesn't change their essential nature. AWALT. More restrained? Yes, but by what - not a conscience, I assure you. And if they are ever in a situation where they can act out their nature without being censured, ostracized, or made to suffer meaningfully, then they'll be just as bad…
/r/MGTOW11/07/18 01:35 PM
5

Well, in all seriousness, I don't see a lot of MGTOWs standing up for incels, at least in this forum. I do see what I think are some MGTOWs who are trying to rationalize their position in the dominance hierarchy (as they perceive it and understand it) by pushing incels down. It's reminds me of the no true scotsman fallacy with respect to MGTOW - "you can't be MGTOW if you're forced to go your own way" etc. etc. "Real MGTOW aren't guys who were rejected. MGTOW's do the rejecting!" etc. I'm paraph…
/r/MGTOW09/07/18 09:14 PM
1

basically lays it out in the abstract. what do women want? resources. cue Kanye: now I ain't saying she a gold digga...
/r/MGTOW07/07/18 03:01 AM
2

stefan molyneux has a good essay about it.
/r/MGTOW05/07/18 08:30 AM
2

depends on what you care about - human farming, rent-seeking, sexual differences. I condensed a lot of stuff - I can't tell you where to go unless I know where you want to go.
/r/MGTOW05/07/18 04:39 AM
1

different lies work in different places.
/r/MGTOW05/07/18 02:20 AM
8

It's not just American Society. It's many societies. Why do higher-status people lie? Easy - because they are higher up on the dominance hierarchy and they benefit from having an army of worker drones underneath them. You don't live in a country, or a neighborhood, or a community. You do - from one perspective, but from another perspective you live on a FARM. Once upon a time, you had slaves, then you had subjects/serfs that were bound to the land, but now the farmers have moved to a system wher…
/r/MGTOW05/07/18 02:07 AM
5

save it for the red pill.
/r/MGTOW04/07/18 09:59 PM
4

MGTOW, when celibate, are voluntarily celibate. But there's a lot of rationalization going on in this thread. A lot of guys trying to put more distance between themselves and incels than there probably is on at least one dimension - attractiveness to women. Most men aren't apex. Most men aren't attractive to women. It is likely that a randomly selected incel or a randomly selected MGTOW will more likely be non-apex than be apex. Not just because of statistical probability but also because if you…
/r/MGTOW04/07/18 05:56 AM
3

They gaslight all the time, just like Schopenhauer noted years ago. What's worse - is that they have the nerve to claim that it's mostly men doing it to women. Projection, deflection, and deception - the tools of the female trade. If it weren't for the male sexual instinct to favor the female, we'd have disassociated from them long ago.
/r/MGTOW29/06/18 04:10 PM
1

I know what the rules are. I just don't like to employ power - it's a big reason why I'm MGTOW and mostly monk.
/r/MGTOW26/06/18 03:27 AM
1

I'm as nostalgic as many men, but even the traditional relationship is too asymmetrical for my taste. Sorry, but I've never been interested in the man>woman>children>puppies thing. I'd rather be alone than have to be "dominant."
/r/MGTOW26/06/18 02:12 AM
2

Men are already in these three groups.
/r/MGTOW26/06/18 12:59 AM
3

Life is full of misery. The point is to find a way that makes you less miserable than otherwise. Most men can't fulfill his prescriptions.
/r/MGTOW26/06/18 12:23 AM
2

You'll probably need to take a menial job that doesn't require a PC first, establish a wage history for awhile. Then, you'll eventually be able to get a credit card, or alternatively - save up some money and buy a used-PC second hand. I'm not UK citizen, though. I know the class structure is far more rigid there than in the US...good luck.
/r/MGTOW25/06/18 02:03 PM
12

They were woke first. From my perspective, the deterioration in the black family wasn't because black men were deadbeats, it's because they were crushed by hypergamy, male disposability, competition with the state. There's probably also some evolutionary stuff at play because warmer climes probably tend more towards matriarchies because you need less male investment if you don't need to make capital improvements to survive a winter. At any rate, my point is that the myth is that black men walked…
/r/MGTOW25/06/18 01:39 PM
14

Just substitute "ugly" for creepy. That's all it means. And more men need to realize this, it's not about what you do. It's about how you look. There is very little creepy behavior that is creepy on its own. It's more that any behavior from ugly men gets labeled by women as creepy.
/r/MGTOW24/06/18 05:50 PM
1

You're the one telling me that what I describe is non-existent. I make the more modest claim that it isn't common, and when I say most people don't argue - I mean most people don't formally establish common axioms and then proceed to use logic to deduce conclusions. Most people use rhetoric, and you agree with me because you're the one telling me to watch broadcasts where people are persuading. You're also not even using argument with me - you're just using rhetoric - appealing to the crowd. In …
/r/MGTOW23/06/18 11:19 PM
2

This is awful. Even though they did trend left, they held the line on lots of issues even for people on the right. In other words, they now say free speech is less important than their values that their preferred speech serves. This is a dangerous road.
/r/MGTOW23/06/18 11:44 AM
1

no. what i'm trying to say is most people don't argue. argue is the formal case - rhetoric is the common case. violence is also common. people get confused about what game they are playing. the point of the original thread was someone complaining about how someone wasn't arguing. (bringing up their point for debate within the system.) I was merely pointing out yelling fuck you is as much of a rhetorical strategy as the type of "make the other person look weak to a lurker" strategy that you are t…
/r/MGTOW21/06/18 08:39 AM
0

Wrong. It happens all the time in theoretical physics and theoretical mathematics. (Not the experimental branches, of course) It's actually the preferred form of resolving conflict in those fields. That's what formal argumentation is. What do you think a formal math or geometry proof is? It's an argument. It also happens sometimes in philosophy. I never claimed it was common.
/r/MGTOW20/06/18 03:59 PM
1

actually the point of an argument is precisely to convince the other guy. It's a particular type of game where if you win, the other guy has to change his mind. If this isn't the game you are playing, then you aren't arguing, you are doing something else. Could be many different types of speech acts, but not argument. You're describing persuasion and rhetoric, which is precisely my point.
/r/MGTOW20/06/18 01:20 PM
2

Arguments don't work if people have different axiomatic beliefs. that's when most people switch to rhetoric and violence to get what they want - also known as politics.
/r/MGTOW20/06/18 11:57 AM
2

Depends on what you mean by fine...even if we didn't have the institution of marriage...it's very easy to see a world where women and the state are aligned in other ways. test-tube breeding, surplus male worker drones, etc - the extinguishing of male consciousness and spirit and a boot stamping on a human face - forever. The "natural" state of affairs is for women and high status men to collude against the non-apex male and rent-seek off of his labor. For thousands of years, the State actually m…
/r/MGTOW20/06/18 08:38 AM
6

Thousand-cock stare.
/r/MGTOW19/06/18 11:09 PM
21

Anybody else want to sign up for a test that never ends? One where if you fail, you lose your kids, your savings, as well as incurring an emotional wound that may never heal? Hypergamy doesn't sleep. It's operative 100% of the time - poking, prodding...just a ticket towards anxiety, hypervigilance, walking on eggshells...and potentially a disaster scenario. The fucking you get just isn't worth the fucking you get.
/r/MGTOW19/06/18 10:36 PM
2

Yes, I believe in evolution, but I don't think it logically follows that you need to have a morality and epistemology that is Darwinistic. For starters, the is-ought naturalistic fallacy is the first thing you'd have to be careful of when jumping from nature to a personal morality. That's been pretty well laid out since Hume. As far as Darwinism goes, I don't have a formal definition at hand - but I imagine it's close to other people's definition when they are talking about a theory of evolution…
/r/MGTOW19/06/18 09:33 PM
3

I'm getting sick of having to provide counterweight to Peterson on this sub. It seems like every other day a guy walks in after listening to Peterson, feeling hopeless because he can't follow Peterson's prescription for men because of his particular life circumstances. You have to remember that Peterson isn't JUST speaking as a psychologist at this point. He took a degree in political science. He's admittedly had aspirations towards public office, and he's also a self-identified Darwinist, from …
/r/MGTOW19/06/18 08:57 PM
8

I created this account for this sub. I've made a few posts elsewhere with it, but in general, I've found separate accounts to be useful.
/r/MGTOW16/06/18 03:30 PM
19

Don't give your life and love away so cheaply. If you can't find anyone worth your gifts, then keep them to yourself. Matthew 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. **edit: I'm at a different point a year after I wrote this: I think you can always find someone worth giving your gifts, and that someone is God. And sometimes giving things to God means giving things to people who …
/r/MGTOW15/06/18 04:11 PM
12

I stopped at "emotionally unavailable." Women don't give a shit about men being emotionally available. They prefer you NOT show emotion - like a good dildo, and then when Chad inevitably pumps and dumps them - they rationalize his departure as "emotional unavailability." Meanwhile, emotionally available Bob is completely invisible to them - except as some sort of beta orbiting buffoon to run errands. I couldn't even make it past a few paragraphs. He doesn't write from a male point of view, and h…
/r/MGTOW15/06/18 04:07 PM
5

Women aren't willing to solve the problem because it's not their problem. They don't have cultural allegiances. They don't have tribal allegiances. They don't even have an allegiance to dominance. What they DO have - is a desire to use dominance in service of the only allegiance they do have - an allegiance to themselves and sometimes, their offspring.
/r/MGTOW15/06/18 06:19 AM
4

No, they don't think that things "cancel out." Their software doesn't run that far. Things canceling out suggests they have some sense of equilibrium, justice, restraint, etc. They don't. Their software runs only as far as "do what I can to get more for me."
/r/MGTOW15/06/18 05:02 AM
6

Yeah this is pretty much on target.
/r/MGTOW15/06/18 05:00 AM
2

I actually don't mind it if incels are here. I sympathize with lower-status men in general. The game of life across dimorphic species needs male disposability and the incel condition isn't just a human one, it exists in many animals. I think that many of the reasons that the other posters give for hating on incels is just 100% bullshit rationalization. For instance, the post about "not wanting to be lumped in with losers" is a good example of what I'm talking about. One reason among many why inc…
/r/MGTOW15/06/18 04:47 AM
18

He broke frame and skipped leg day.
/r/MGTOW12/06/18 11:42 AM
10

sigh. wouldn't surprise me at all if this was why he ended his own life.
/r/MGTOW08/06/18 11:30 PM
0

That isn't his perspective as a psychologist, it's his perspective as a citizen, particularly a high-status citizen. His own Darwinian worldview knows that MGTOW, while robbing the somewhat disenfranchised guys (70 to 80th percentile) it can provide an alternative source of individual meaning to the non-apex male (0 to 80th percentile) in a way that is potentially socially unstable. It's a numbers game - he willingly throws men under the bus because they are "untreatable", "pathetic weasels" who…
/r/MGTOW30/05/18 12:23 AM
0

Absolutely not, but you do in the particular case that you are trying to pin on certain MGTOW. There is a segment on Steve Paiken's Agenda where Peterson himself admits that it's perfectly ok to use generalizations even in cases where it's only slightly above 50% with respect to the characterization. You have no way of proving that a MGTOW, when he invokes AWALT, is describing a category (which would be wertfrei) or making a normative judgement (which would not be) about what that person should …
/r/MGTOW28/05/18 04:20 PM
0

For real? So you can step in the mind of various MGTOW and determine that they use generalizations differently than Peterson? Go fuck yourself.
/r/MGTOW27/05/18 03:22 PM
1

This is an important post. Needs more upvote.
/r/MGTOW27/05/18 01:37 AM
1

Exactly. MGTOW use generalizations and don't necessarily judge people by them - just like Peterson. the friction isn't about the generalizations - it's about the Darwinian Pragmatism and prescriptions as they pertain to the Jungian Collective Unconsciousness.
/r/MGTOW26/05/18 09:40 PM
2

Agreed, done and dusted. If I had realized what was going on earlier, we could have saved time and defined terms.
/r/MGTOW26/05/18 06:50 PM
5

"apologized for his cheap tactic" Ok, I get it - we're speaking at cross-purposes. We have a different definition of apology. To you - he was apologizing for using rhetoric instead of argument - and that's what you're focusing on. To me - an apology would be an admission that MGTOW's choices had validity in their own right. I don't need apologies from men or women that regret not using the principle of charity with respect to argumentation when their values are opposed to mine. It's sorta like s…
/r/MGTOW26/05/18 06:37 PM
2

No, Peterson uses generalizations all the time. His dislike has fuckall to do with identify politics within or without, preceding or following MGTOW. He's a Darwinian Pragmatist and a Jungian, among other things. Many MGTOW men their lives outside of those perspectives. Some by choice, and some perforce. MGTOW choices are choices that work against the world he wants to build. His epistemology, philosophy, morality, politics - basically his whole ball of wax is built on reproduction/species conti…
/r/MGTOW26/05/18 06:25 PM
25

close, but no cigar. Some men can put a woman in her place - depends on relative station. If an ugly guy tries to put a woman in her place, she calls the cops, #metoo him on facebook, gets a restraining order, reports to HR, gets some random simp to defend her honor and throw the ugly guy out of the bar, etc.
/r/MGTOW26/05/18 06:12 PM
1

yes, and the admission of MGTOWs having a point doesn't mean that he thinks that MGTOWs deserve an apology or territory in the world he wants to build. It could simply mean that as opponents who don't peddle outright lies, MGTOW are more dangerous than opponents who have perspectives that can be refuted simply by stating facts. that said, equal recognition of facts doesn't mean you get along with people - it's easy to come to a directly opposing position even after agreeing on facts. In language…
/r/MGTOW26/05/18 05:38 PM
6

No it's not necessarily an apology. Sorry just means "regret." In order for it to be an apology you have to know WHY he regrets it. It's one thing if he regrets it because he thinks that the MGTOW perspective is valid and deserves ideological space in its own right and quite another if he regrets the "weasel" comment because he underestimated how much certain MGTOW ideas threaten the narrative that he's trying to tell young men. He's not fighting for us. One - MGTOW isn't a movement. the overlap…
/r/MGTOW26/05/18 04:08 PM
16

that's not the point that the OP was making. The point he's making is that Peterson's apology isn't an apology. He's right. Peterson didn't apologize. Peterson sees MGTOW as a threat to the things he values, and if he has a regret, the regret is that he characterized it as being a bunch of losers - instead - he now probably characterizes it as a coherent threat to the narrative that he wants to tell. In other words, not a pathetic opponent, but a serious opponent. It's not an apology.
/r/MGTOW26/05/18 03:51 PM
32

Most men can't live his prescribed life. They can try, but it doesn't change the realities of material abundance, hypergamy, and male disposability. He sends men on the hero's journey - but heroes succeed where many others fail. It takes 80 failed men to make 20 heroes, or even fewer - depending on the specifics of the particular competence hierarchy. Basically, he's just got a more sophisticated riff on "get rich or die trying." Men need to find ways to live for themselves and not live in the s…
/r/MGTOW26/05/18 02:33 PM
1

tha'ts an insult to bebop
/r/MGTOW25/05/18 12:55 PM
1

Probably more than just better spatially. Some of it's probably risk aversion and neuroticism. And finally, there was a guy here that had an interesting theory about the way that women relate the external to the internal - in that many things are related to herself. For instance, when she's giving you directions on the phone and you ask her for a landmark - she might say the landmark is across the street from ME rather than giving you the landmark relative to your position or from a 3rd point. T…
/r/MGTOW24/05/18 08:43 PM
10

why not finish the rest of it? they also have more white matter and less grey matter...just like pathological liars do... and yet we are supposed to just "believe women." they can go fuck themselves.
/r/MGTOW24/05/18 04:22 PM
4

The time and money you spent learning how to become a medical doctor is what an economist would call a "sunk cost." You can't get that back. What you need to decide to do is whether you still want to practice medicine at all. Even if you don't want to be a clinician, perhaps you could be a researcher. And even being a clinician is still a relatively high-paying, high-status gig compared to lots of jobs. Another thing you want to think about is whether or not a particular choice opens or closes d…
/r/MGTOW24/05/18 02:24 PM
2

Probably not driven by nihilism but certainly by fear of certain things as it leads to death and nuclear annihilation. If you watch some of his early lectures and videos (well before he got famous) - there are some where he talks openly about how his nightmares of nuclear annihilation motivated him to study evil.
/r/MGTOW22/05/18 10:46 AM
2

In his defense, I've never heard him lie about a fact, or at least a fact that we presumably both know. For instance, he's far more forthright and upfront about red pill sex issues than almost anyone else I know in the public space. What he does seem willing to do - is remain silent about giving the whole picture at once, or given the choice of two narratives - one that serves Being and one that doesn't, he will tell the story that serves Being and not bring up the other one (or many - because t…
/r/MGTOW22/05/18 10:43 AM
17

That's not quite his point about truth. I'm actually charitable on his definition of truth. He simply doesn't believe in Truth, he believes in pragmatic truth, and I'm inclined to roll that way myself with respects to certain types of knowledge - I just have different goals than he does. I don't identify species continuation or Being as the ultimate good. I don't identify survival and reproduction as the ultimate Goods. Even the old Testament myths that he's baked over a zillion times in his pro…
/r/MGTOW21/05/18 11:35 PM
8

Peterson isn't mistaken on MGTOW. He knows exactly what it is - it just exists outside his Darwinian Pragmatism and works against his goals.
/r/MGTOW21/05/18 11:15 PM
45

exactly. this is one of my big issues with Peterson. He goes on about the sacred, divine individual as counterpoint to ideological possession or totalitarianism, but at the same time, sanctions the state - and even sanctifies it some instances, provided it comes about by certain processes with jive with his Darwinian Pragmatism. At the end of it, all governments use coercive violence against that same individual. So you either have individual sovereignty or you don't - he uses slight of hand all…
/r/MGTOW21/05/18 11:13 PM
76

probably anywhere from a few months to many years. Each guy is different. Took me about three and half years to be less angry, but I'll never be able to go back to a conventionally "normal" way of looking at the world.
/r/MGTOW21/05/18 09:04 PM
7

He's right. Even stupid women are as practiced with dissimulation as the smart ones. Pro-tip: it's useful to consult female friends or female subordinates with respect to possibly contentious situations in business or other... If you're one of those guys that's bad at reading body language or deciphering subtext, it can be really good to get a woman's opinion on somebody - provided she has no skin in the game and can give you an honest opinion. If it's to her benefit to shade it one way or the o…
/r/MGTOW21/05/18 08:04 PM
2

Exactly. It's also easier for them to trade on people's natural gynocentrism when you need subjective interpretation rather than objectivity.
/r/MGTOW21/05/18 07:47 PM
6

yeah, i dress poorly on purpose. I'm pretty much on the ghost/monk part of the spectrum.
/r/MGTOW21/05/18 03:05 PM
51

I've heard this from women as well. It's more bullshit narrative-control and plausible deniability in the interest of power. They are more than happy to play hard to get in the interest of controlling a beta provider - in fact - the harder he's willing to signal the better it is for her in terms of demonstrating his willingness to commit resources - but she also wants the ability to shut a guy down if he's completely unattractive to her even as a beta bucks. And truth be told - I have gotten wom…
/r/MGTOW21/05/18 12:04 AM
2

funny. i used to be that guy - and I've dated that girl. no longer.
/r/MGTOW19/05/18 07:33 PM
2

care to post the mu and sigma for that? it's not enough to just show a shifted middle. if you're making claims about tails, you need to post the variance.
/r/MGTOW19/05/18 01:10 PM
2

Duh...women tend to roll that way...
/r/MGTOW17/05/18 05:37 PM
2

One small suggestion though, it's probably not about punishing desires as it is harnessing male desire to work towards women's goals. Sometimes women get their jollies from punishing men, but her tone is more about controlling men (which incidentally can involve punishment, but only antecedent to the ultimate goal of control). Either way, the women can fuck themselves and do their own thing without male support.
/r/MGTOW17/05/18 05:34 PM
3

truth
/r/MGTOW17/05/18 02:42 PM
22

In all fairness to her, most of what she writes about in her article wouldn't be out of place on a MGTOW subreddit. She understands the issues, but her parting shot is typically female. "In the shadow of desire-hacking technology, humans are going to need to get a sober view of sex differences, evolved motivations, and the best ways to exercise control to limit destruction and increase productivity." In other words, we (read "me") need to figure out how this works so we can control people for ou…
/r/MGTOW17/05/18 10:07 AM
3

Maybe it does make you a coward. Does it matter? Does it matter more to you or to other people? I'm pretty sure that other people have far more to gain than you by following the same old script that broke your heart. Maybe it's time to not give a shit about how other people label you and start doing things to protect yourself.
/r/MGTOW16/05/18 11:44 AM
0

We're not 90% on the same page. Not at all. I'll try again using your example. If somewhere around 60%-100% of a kind of wallpaper complemented 60-100% of a particular kind of wall, then I'd go ahead and say wallpaper X complements wall Y. I'm not confusing complementary with equality or symmetry. My point is that MOST women have an antagonistic relationship with MOST men. it's something like 80/20 or 70/30 or maybe even 90/10. It's not complementary at all in the way that you describe. It's not…
/r/MGTOW16/05/18 11:01 AM
1

And what I'm saying is that it's not complementary...simply because it's not 1:1 matching. Most of those guys pushing stones weren't reproducting. I respectfully disagree that adding another paragraph explaining how it's not complementary by class is superfluous - particularly when it's misleading when you don't have it there.
/r/MGTOW15/05/18 04:28 PM
3

That's not my point. My point is that they are not complementary as CLASSES. If they are complementary at all, as you say, they are complementary as sub-classes, where women are complementary to the apex male, and the rest are disposable. What part of history do you want to look at? What about male slaves used to build giant structures for their lords and kings? I doubt there were many complementary women in their lives. They worked, and they died - just like many men today. If anything, the mar…
/r/MGTOW15/05/18 03:11 PM
3

They're not reciprocal to men. They behave in ways that a small number of men would consider to be reciprocally beneficial. These men either satisfy the hypergamy or else have some other thing that the women are trying to get, and the women act pleasant just to get what they want. The reciprocity, when it occurs, isn't even close to being an ultimate cause or motivation. And as far as the men who aren't satisfying hypergamy or bringing some other benefit to women - they are either ignored or tre…
/r/MGTOW15/05/18 02:50 PM
1

They have very little evidence that mental illness isn't the result of external invaders. And generally, absence of evidence isn't the same as evidence of absence... Anyway, there's plenty of signs these days that most of the chronic illnesses - physical and mental are at least partly related to infection. They've linked various types of inflammation to all sorts of problems - and inflammation is the body's response to an invader. I'm oversimplifying to make a point, but the body isn't a sterile…
/r/MGTOW06/05/18 02:35 AM
9

Wrong. Non apex-men have always had a worse deal than women.
/r/MGTOW05/05/18 09:04 PM
18

I have two important points to make here. Men AREN'T wired to perceive and dissect non-verbal cues the way women are. So from that standpoint, she's right - men don't have the social skills - but these are anything BUT basic. It's pretty significant evolutionary hardware and software that helps when dealing with infants (who can't speak) and helps them manipulate the social world (since they are a comparative disadvantage in dealing with the physical world - whether that's manipulating objects i…
/r/MGTOW05/05/18 08:27 PM
20

Yes. In ways that you probably can't even possibly imagine.
/r/MGTOW04/05/18 09:41 PM
2

in this case, no. what breaks the coincidence and allows you to figure out causality is that the earlier drives have to come ahead of the more abstract concepts... at least if you buy evolution. woman can't "see" character, they can't "eat" spirit... people try to levy the same criticism as men, but that's not quite the same - because males - in the human ape as well as many other species are usually net givers instead of net takers.
/r/MGTOW04/05/18 05:55 AM
1

unreal, woman's arrogance and entitlement knows no bounds. Gee, let's cripple a man's income because he's unattractive. She may as well say - let's put ugly men in a gas chamber...
/r/MGTOW04/05/18 12:09 AM
9

No men's commitment doesn't = resources. it equals a lot of other stuff besides that - the promise to be faithful, to try and be a good father, the husbandry of the woman against risk and other things, the protection of his and her reputation, the promise to cherish and sacrifice, yada yada yaa. and my point is simply that she cares about the materialistic part of the commitment at lot more than the psychological or spiritual part of commitment.
/r/MGTOW04/05/18 12:06 AM
67

They have always preferred fictional women. For millennia, men were with fictional women - even when they were with a real one...
/r/MGTOW04/05/18 12:04 AM
80

wrong. men are are the gatekeepers of RESOURCES. women give FUCKALL about a man's commitment. they DO care about safety and material resources - they will discard a man who's made a commitment or not even notice a man who's willing to make a commitment if they can get their safety and resources elsewhere. women don't care about committed relationships - they care about the STUFF they can get out of a commited relationship. The relationship itself is a means to an end for them.
/r/MGTOW03/05/18 10:16 PM
5

Actually, no - feminists are women who want to be BOYS. There's a big difference. Because manhood - carries RISK and disposability. What they want are the good parts of being a male but none of the bad parts - that's more characteristic of what a boy experiences rather than what a MAN experiences through his life.
/r/MGTOW03/05/18 07:31 PM
4

This is the tip of the iceberg. If you are restrained by the environment and others, you are less likely have to an evolutionary reason for restraining yourself. If you are less restrained by the environment (the equilibrium of the game is such where even the weaker player has a shot of inflicting death or serious injury on the other), then to the extent there is restraint - it's internalized (necessarily). Disposability vs gynocentricism has preceded and conditioned the differences in male and …
/r/MGTOW03/05/18 07:26 PM
13

or just live a life with a small footprint and die without reproducing. easy peasy
/r/MGTOW03/05/18 11:01 AM
11

I don't need to change it, I just need to drop out.
/r/MGTOW03/05/18 10:29 AM
17

Only if you identify what's natural with what's unproblematic. I don't - many here don't. It could be a problem that can't be fixed - fair enough - but men also don't need to exacerbate that problem, perpetuate that problem, or support systems that do either. I don't speak for MGTOW, but my own brand of it is a sort of dropping out - a singular no vote on a lot of what Mother Nature has done. It doesn't have to change anything, and I don't expect it will - but sometimes you just have to disobey.
/r/MGTOW03/05/18 09:53 AM
3

There are no Western women. There are just women.
/r/MGTOW03/05/18 03:27 AM
3

exactly right. and that's one of Frank Herbert's points in Dune. The Bene Gesserits breeding program couldn't do what war, violence, and chaotic mixing of genes could accomplish much better. Unfortunately, male disposability happens in both routes, but hey - you can't have everything. Well, when it comes to this stuff, like Herbert said in his book, "for the father - nothing."
/r/MGTOW02/05/18 07:52 AM
6

Yeah, I've had personal experience of this type of shit as well. Sounds like a Cluster B. If I were him, I'd ghost her completely and run. Block the number, etc.
/r/MGTOW01/05/18 08:18 PM
9

you're close. it's precisely that they need less attractive guys around. Chad isn't defined except as relative to other men. A few hundred years ago Chad was far less handsome than Bob is today. Also, dominance itself isn't defined absolutely - it's a relative, too. You can't be "dominant" unless you are currently dominating someone (preferably in a woman's line of sight) etc. So yeah, it's not just a "you're a resentful piece of shit" but that and "if you're not around, how can I show how aweso…
/r/MGTOW01/05/18 05:40 AM
5

yes. which is why you shouldn't put too much emphasis on what they are telling you about yourself, otherwise you will spend your life chasing their whimsy. It's never about the things that characterize you - which are fundamentally unchanged from day-to-day, otherwise her feelings wouldn't flip like that. What it's about is how she perceives you relative to others and relative to how she can use you to accomplish her goals - which can change but those things are mostly beyond your control. The q…
/r/MGTOW30/04/18 05:25 AM
6

I'm sorry you have to do this on your own. I hope you are able to raise a healthy child.
/r/MGTOW30/04/18 04:53 AM
1

Or we can just realize that men and women are perhaps different enough, as a class, that the same rules don't have to apply the same way. In other words, practice pure power in our interactions instead of assuming universal morality. Power with respect to our relations with the other sex, and power with respect to the State. If they love the law of the jungle so much, perhaps we should remind them what it is. The world is only three square meals away from barbarism, after all.
/r/MGTOW26/04/18 06:21 AM
1

I think that's off target and also not important for a MGTOW subreddit - which often highlights the differences between men and women. The point is that males, in general, have a greater willingness to help out others in the abstract than females. This is even noticed away from the human ape. And unless you want to attribute "good manners" to what you see in stuff like sea creatures and goats, the males seem to be more sympathetic. This is how I imagine woman to be empathetic but not sympathetic…
/r/MGTOW25/04/18 06:26 PM
1

no, the definition of empathy is right, but that's not sympathy. sympathy is closer to concern/care/compassion.
/r/MGTOW25/04/18 06:33 AM
1

actually, i would reckon that would apply more to sympathy really...lots of people can look at a homeless guy's face and identify what he's probably feeling - they just dont give a shit.
/r/MGTOW25/04/18 06:22 AM
1

no, there are plenty of people that are empathetic and not necessarily sympathetic. yes, I'm claiming that many women fall into this bucket. depends on what you call psychopathic. usually psychopathy and sociopathy are loaded with stuff related to criminality... I'm not so much talking about violations of social or legal norms so much as an entity that understands peoples feelings, just doesn't care so much about them except to manipulate them and navigate the social world - UNLESS it's offsprin…
/r/MGTOW24/04/18 11:31 PM
1

empathy isn't the same as sympathy. empathy is being able to guess what another person is feeling because similar parts of your brain are being activated. acting with concern or care once that recognition is made is sympathy. the two words aren't the same. you're right. it is just what they think is happening - in the same way that your viewpoint is "just what you think is happening." it's hard to prove anything unless you accept a starting point as axiomatically true. I didn't say it was proof …
/r/MGTOW24/04/18 09:43 PM
3

fwiw, i think that women are more empathetic than men, in that they probably are more sensitive to the emotions of other people. this is useful when caring for infants, because infants can't talk. whether they give a shit about what men are feeling (sympathy for men) is a whole other story entirely. i reckon they probably don't have a lot of sympathy for other women either - at least that's what Florence Nightingale thought, and she was a woman. but there is what seems to be some biological basi…
/r/MGTOW24/04/18 09:05 PM
3

sympathy <> empathy
/r/MGTOW24/04/18 08:18 PM
7

tore his patella? shouldn't have skipped leg day.
/r/MGTOW24/04/18 05:23 PM
7

And most men aren't top of the dominance hierarchy. That's the whole point. Not just most men, but on the order of 80-90%. Not just in the human ape, but most males across most dimorphic species. It's a mistake to extrapolate the life experience of an apex male and project it onto some sort of "truth of the male condition." If anything, the truth of the male condition would seem to me, at least, to be better told as something that fits to the majority of males, not from a slim minority. And men …
/r/MGTOW24/04/18 04:35 AM
15

No, it's not like that at all. Hypergamy dictates that most men get shit on by most women. It's not a rare dog bite case for most men, it's the typical situation. Happily ever after is the atypical situation.
/r/MGTOW24/04/18 03:50 AM
2

This is a very important post. What "they" want, and by they I mean women and some high class men, is for men to perform labor without getting paid in reproduction. That has been the trade for thousands, maybe millions of years, you can even see the sex for stuff trade happen in lower primates. It's the best of both worlds for those two groups. The rent-seeking men at the top of the pyramid get a serf/slave class that's indoctrinated into being good little worker bees while posing little threat …
/r/MGTOW23/04/18 09:11 PM
26

it means that if she decides you're not attractive, you're a criminal. interesting, no? they've effectively criminalized sexual advances if you're not chad.
/r/MGTOW19/04/18 02:18 AM
1

It's less about reproductive rights or even about resources. At the end of it, no one has a right to reproduction or anything else really. It's simply about power - and that comes from the old instincts. The funny thing is - that instinct probably doesn't have an off switch is in extreme forms - in that if you have it - you're probably always seeking more of it - and it may have been self-reinforcing in a sort of fisherian runaway kind of way. (And the women certainly help this along with their …
/r/MGTOW18/04/18 11:04 AM
1

I don't think the inequality is causing as much of an issue for many men as the thwarting of their natural instinct to reproduce, protect, provide, etc. I'm saying this as someone who came from a solidly middle class background where a lot of men worked in manufacturing or construction, and those guys didn't seem particularly riled up about their place in the dominance hierarchy because they had families. Their families, sports, and a six of beer seemed to get them through their lives just fine.…
/r/MGTOW17/04/18 01:15 PM
1

You could call it narcissistic, I suppose, even though I don't like that label. It's pretty loaded with lots of other things besides an overly optimistic assessment of one's future prospects. I prefer to think of it as an instinctual bias that lots of men have (including myself). It would almost have to be that way from a biological standpoint - because men who were able to assess the situation more neutrally or pessimistically probably would have been phased out through reproduction. I agree th…
/r/MGTOW15/04/18 02:11 PM
1

Not proving anything. Not arguing. Because I'm not arguing, there's no onus on me to prove anything. I'm not trying to create a framework with agreed upon axioms with deduction to some point. i just put forth a perspective. You're right. It doesn't prove anything at all. Not intentionally oblivious - perhaps subconsciously oblivious. Big difference. We are doing different things. You want an argument. You want me to agree to play to the game where we agree on a framework and then we deduce somet…
/r/MGTOW15/04/18 12:01 AM
1

see reply to soelc3
/r/MGTOW10/04/18 10:16 AM
1

I don't know if it's fair to characterize it as THE antidote to Peterson or even an antidote at all. You're right, I think I do see many things the way he probably sees things. (I'm not sure. I'm not him.) I don't see MGTOW as the antithesis of his position so much as something that is outside of the framework that he has built. I'm hesitant to define MGTOW, but I'm also pretty sure that MGTOW isn't framed contra-Peterson or contra-sacrifice as it is contra-certain types of relationships with wo…
/r/MGTOW10/04/18 10:13 AM
1

Not cognizant of? Hardly. I can look at two apples - a red one and green one. Sometimes, the most relevant thing to me is the color - then they get separated into the red thing/green thing buckets. Other times, the most important thing to me is the "appleness." I'm just saying that in this case I'm focusing on some things and not other things, but that's different from saying I don't see that the apples have different colors. I DO see the different colors - I just happen to be writing about appl…
/r/MGTOW10/04/18 09:52 AM
1

I'm not going to get into a debate with you about the appropriate level of analysis or the appropriate amount of distinction that is relevant for MY perspective. I get it - you think the differences between the Amish and the Ghetto are more important to what I was writing about than I do, but that's not the same claim as OP (me) dismissing them out of hand. To use your example, there might be some men of lower status in the Amish community who don't couple and reproduce and there are going to be…
/r/MGTOW09/04/18 06:24 PM
1

Guilty as charged. It is precisely my spin. No one sees THE truth, just his own truth. If what I say isn't useful to you, fair enough. Should I have qualified what I said with - the preferential treatment that women receive and the suffering of men in the reproductive contest remained relatively unchanged? Perhaps - but that is what I'm thinking about - and it's what I think is most germaine. Not what you think or what others think - but what I think - with whatever motivational biases generated…
/r/MGTOW09/04/18 04:19 PM
1

I've read parts of it, but not the thing in total. It does go into detail more on the topics from his old Harvard and early Toronto lectures. If you don't find it compelling, then why would you seek it out? I personally found it more compelling when I was still trying to make the red-pill approach to hetero male/female relationships work. I even tried to incorporate some of his suggestions into my life, but finally, I realized that I was living a life that was outside of the Darwinian prescripti…
/r/MGTOW09/04/18 03:18 PM
1

Sadly, Harry passed on a few years ago. Hopefully somebody with some technical savvy archives his website's contents. I don't know who is paying to keep the lights on his old URL, but I think eventually it will go dark and it would be a shame if that content vanished with it.
/r/MGTOW09/04/18 03:08 PM
1

In fairness to Peterson, he doesn't leave the religion part out. In fact, Peterson was FAR more famous for his attempt to rehabilitate religion in the tradition of Jung than he was for any of the stuff he's known for now.
/r/MGTOW09/04/18 03:06 PM
4

This is their 5 million year old game plan. Almost certainly goes back further than just the appearance of the human ape. Other mammals do similar stuff. It's probably fundamental to maleness and femaleness in a general sense, not just human.
/r/MGTOW08/04/18 03:13 PM
1

they have tons of empathy. they don't have sympathy.
/r/MGTOW06/04/18 02:55 PM
5

it's always been theft. just the nameplates have changed.
/r/MGTOW05/04/18 11:59 AM
8

yup. let them do it all. you go grlllz.
/r/MGTOW05/04/18 04:53 AM
1

Think about how hypergamy works. Then think about how a high income woman relates to her own hypergamist instinct. Now, think about how a man relates to a high-income woman who is relating to her own hypergamist instinct. There you go, now you've answered your own question and BONUS - you may have learned something about how to think for yourself.
/r/MGTOW03/04/18 12:21 AM
1

I wasn't saying you were. I was just pointing out that the criteria you use aren't indisputable. And because they aren't indisuptable (can be drawn anywhere), there's no way for a person to argue for one or the other. You can advocate for one or the other, you can try to persuade someone to take one side or the other, but you can't ARGUE for it. Much in the same way that you can't make an argument about squaring a circle. And if it's not an argument, then why would a rational person be compelled…
/r/MGTOW29/03/18 08:35 PM
2

how about this for a deconstruction? each individual is his own class - then your condition for iterability makes no sense because each individual life is nonrepeatable and incommensurable with another for the point of constructing a universal moral system. i get where you're going - Kant and others got there first, but you can draw your class lines wherever - and whereever someone draws them will be a matter of perspective and taste. won't solve the frame problem and produce an "arguable" moral…
/r/MGTOW28/03/18 11:09 PM
1

I spent a long time in high finance. This isn't wrong. Those women are sharks. In fairness, most of the men are sociopaths, so they deserve each other. I only knew a handful of "nice" women in the business. One washed out, and the other pretty much only succeeded with my help. I'm glad I'm out of it.
/r/MGTOW28/03/18 08:50 AM
99

Here's the biggest question. Why should a man "man up?" I'm dead serious. I don't know what the price is for other men, but I "manned up" for over two decades and received nothing for it. I worked to make other people wealthy, other people safe, other people happy. The fruits of my labor going to pay for other men's children, to fight wars I disagreed with, to change the prevailing culture in ways I disagreed with, to push policies that I disagreed with. And that's just the state. And in the pri…
/r/MGTOW28/03/18 03:30 AM
15

I don't like the person I have to be in order to make things work. I just don't have a lot of patience for lies, even white lies. Women usually lie to me about things, and in some circumstances, they would rather you lie to them or avoid certain topics because it makes them feel bad. When I was much younger, I may have been willing to lie just to get sex, but that ended when I was a teenager. I then spent over two decades looking for a woman that would stick around even if I told the truth about…
/r/MGTOW26/03/18 08:33 AM
1

yeah, even a lot of men on this subreddit haven't really internalized the truth that male disposability and female preference isn't a social construct, but a biological one. blaming society, civilization, marxism, communism, feminism, the state, or countless other boogeymen is just the mark of a confused man. granted, various cabals and power groups may use natural facts to their advantage, but the ultimate cause is fundamentally mother nature itself. and if there is something that precedes the …
/r/MGTOW23/03/18 10:22 PM
1

I posted my reply. It's pretty straightforward.
/r/MGTOW01/03/18 02:37 AM
2

When it comes to reproduction and survival, survival is precedent to reproduction. Even if you don't get alpha genes this generation, you may get it 2 or 3 down the line. If a female doesn't reproduce, her line ends. Even without cuckolding, it's better for her to settle now, so that her genes have a shot at alpha after she's dead. Granted, this makes her a resentful piece of shit for a wife, though.
/r/MGTOW01/03/18 02:36 AM
-9

it does make sense. just because they know what people are feeling (superior empathy and reading of non-verbal cues) they just don't feel pity. they need to be empathetic because they have to care for infants and children - who often can't express how they feel. empathy serves them well from this standpoint. "gee i could put myself in his position and understand where he is coming from, but I'm not going to bother" - but that's not what I claimed. I claim that they DO put themselves in someone e…
/r/MGTOW17/02/18 06:09 PM
-14

These experiments have less to do with empathy and more to do with sympathy. Women are more empathetic than men, they just dont care about other people that much unless it benefits them. Empathy <> sympathy.
/r/MGTOW17/02/18 05:03 PM
4

Yes, i even know one my age. Gen X, sorta punched above his weight and got a lady that was hitting the wall because she needed a provider. Their relationship seems to be working well enough so far, but it's obvious to me she rode the cock carousel when younger. But it works for him because she needs him (for now), and maybe if that dependency lasts for 20-30 more years, he'll be able to enjoy his marriage. I'd never make that bet, though. However, before he met this woman, he had DECADES of awfu…
/r/MGTOW16/02/18 03:55 AM
2

More Peterson bullshit. "Men should prioritize a reciprocal relationship." For real? He's already gone on record about female hypergamy and said point blank on The Agenda with Steve Paiken that men will most likely have to bring "at least as much to the table as the women and probably more" to make a relationship work. Granted, reciprocity isn't the same as symmetry. So what this amounts to is basically saying that the man has to derive intrinsic benefit from giving more than his fair share - th…
/r/MGTOW16/02/18 02:52 AM
6

They admitted they needed men because they did need individual men. Now they don't. They are able to get the benefits of male labor through proxies like government without negotiation with individual men bilaterally.
/r/MGTOW15/02/18 07:21 AM
1

How did I miss this earlier? Well said.
/r/MGTOW14/02/18 06:55 AM
1

Sorry, I've written probably 20 pages on my thoughts about Jordan Peterson. I can't summarize it in 2 to 3 sentences. I couldn't even get less than 10000. If you care, you'll look it up, if not - then you won't. No sweat off me either way.
/r/MGTOW14/02/18 01:20 AM
1

No. I just tried to cut and paste everything I've written and i exceeded the 10000 char limit. Just look up my user name and filter through for posts about Peterson. Relevant stuff is usually in the top posts.
/r/MGTOW13/02/18 11:07 PM
3

Confused? Just go through my comment history - I've written at length about how MGTOW doesn't work with Darwinian Pragmatism and why his Jungian worldview is unhelpful for any man that has problems that put him outside of the "collective unconscious."
/r/MGTOW13/02/18 08:17 PM
2

Women reject men they aren't physically attracted to. that's 100% of the story. Any other explanation is bullshit rationalization. If she isn't physically attracted to you, you're beta bucks. If you're physically apex, your behaviors - whether confident, shy, smart, or stupid - will be rationalized by her as being "attractive" behaviors.
/r/MGTOW13/02/18 01:25 PM
5

he's not really wrong. ordinary human society is built for the promotion of women's interests - which mostly revolve around safety - as it pertains to reproduction and the raising of children. "society" has never really been a place for men.
/r/MGTOW04/02/18 08:45 PM
1

bingo. the actions are the same but the meaning is different. and honestly - this time may actually be different in that the meaning may have been completely changed/lost for men going forward. this means people will have to find a new way to live without relying on a surplus of male labor.
/r/MGTOW02/02/18 04:02 PM
2

Why do you disparage others for feelings? People can't control resentment anymore than they can control happiness or sadness. You can somewhat control actions - controlling emotions? Lol.
/r/MGTOW01/02/18 10:54 PM
2

Doesn't have answers for men who either can't go on the hero journey or will fail at the attempt. Those answers are out there, but they aren't in the hands of the people who are high in the dominance hierarchy.
/r/MGTOW01/02/18 10:51 PM
7

someone has read anatomy of female power.
/r/MGTOW01/02/18 04:12 PM
1

No - his support of monogamy is again - part and parcel of his Darwinian Pragmatism. If you could present him with either empirical evidence or a strong apriori argument that serial polyandry or widespread cuckoldry was more conducive to species survival and was a better way to avoid nuclear annihilation - he would change his position. Darwinian Pragmatism doesn't necessarily follow from athiesm - indeed, Peterson's support of a certain type of religious belief (not saying he's a theist) can be …
/r/MGTOW31/01/18 07:41 PM
1

Pretty sure that it wasn't sincere. Almost 100% sure, I'm at least 99% sure. It was given with qualification and the body language didn't seem right either.
/r/MGTOW31/01/18 09:12 AM
3

There's a 3rd possibility - which is being red-pilled about human nature but not blue-pilled about society. This possibility is that he's red-pilled about human nature and biology but practicing a form of realpolitik with respect to preserving civilization and human survival - which is that you need male disposability in order for this to happen - same as with any animal. Then the questions becomes whether this is a Platonic noble lie on his part, a sort of Straussian (as in Leo Strauss) fiction…
/r/MGTOW31/01/18 08:46 AM
1

Wrong. You haven't seen enough of his lectures - particularly the ones where he talks about the people he finds impossible to treat - which are the ones who by happenstance don't have the wherewithal to win the evolutionary contest. This has ALWAYS been the vast majority of males in the vast majority of species, and now it even includes a sizeable portion of females in the human ape as well. Because of this, no one can claim that he's just "helping" people. He is, very much as one poster put it …
/r/MGTOW31/01/18 08:34 AM
2

mostly true, except in at least one instance - reproduction.
/r/MGTOW29/01/18 07:09 AM
1

no, it's praying. it's because of the way they hold their front limbs.
/r/MGTOW28/01/18 03:19 PM
2

He's no exception. He doesn't believe that ideas serve Truth, but that ideas serve life. It's a sort of Darwinian epistemology ala William James. So, he's very much on the power train as everyone else. His original degree was in political science and he's admittedly flirted with the idea of becoming a politician many times in his life. Just sayin'.
/r/MGTOW25/01/18 06:44 AM
11

but dominance hierarchy station is one of the biggest determinants of emotional regulation and positive affect - in his own words. see my problem with his message is that he's not concrete about the fact that most men are going to fail at the very things that he encourages them to do - which is man up with respect to the traditional roles. the key difference between the dominance hierarchy and physical fitness is that you can, under certain limits - improve yourself relative to yourself. BUT - a…
/r/MGTOW25/01/18 01:31 AM
2

Exactly - one of the factors he laid out was "divorce." The other factors could basically be summed up as not being Chad. $150/hr to be told you're not Chad.
/r/MGTOW25/01/18 12:01 AM
3

It's more than this. The normal people - normal as in statistically normal people - that have ended up in his practice presenting symptoms of depression he's probably thrown in his "untreatable" and "ruined" bucket. His comments on the "ruined" men that he admittedly was "unable to help" are particularly revealing.
/r/MGTOW24/01/18 11:31 PM
2

Bingo - and not enough people are paying attention to your post. Have an upvote. You are 100% right that he doesn't care about you except that he needs people like you to BELIEVE that they can win in order for the species to survive. His moral position - which I don't feel like going into here because I've done it elsewhere - is that species survival trumps the individual - so there's nothing wrong with getting most men to fail in the contest as long as stability is maintained and the species co…
/r/MGTOW24/01/18 11:17 PM
19

How much of his stuff have you watched? Have you seen the videos where he talks about his treatment failures? The people who haven't responded to treatment? The people, who in Peterson's own words, didn't respond to his attempts to use "every trick in the book" to get them back on their feet? He then talks about the characteristics of those people, men and women. I find his description of the men particularly interesting. He reveals they are often divorced - sometimes battling health problems, o…
/r/MGTOW24/01/18 11:15 PM
1

No. Often when he's speaking about "most men" he's not talking about most men. Most men are utterly redundant and disposable, and he never addresses this issue directly. The men who can aspire to the types of things he talks about is an incredibly narrow slice of men.
/r/MGTOW24/01/18 11:04 PM
2

A point to consider. When he's using the words "most men" - it's not most men. Most men are evolutionary cannon fodder, strictly disposable. Most men hear him say "most men" and assume he's talking to them because men are biased about how important they are to the biological game and have a delusional sort of aspiration to be apex. When he's saying "Most Women," this is closer to being the aggregate that you're talking about. As I've said in previous posts, he's willing to throw most men under t…
/r/MGTOW24/01/18 11:00 PM
1

Both have their roots in biology. The biology precedes the culture. Women are more neurotic and more risk-adverse. As net consumer and net seller of risk, socialized anything (whether its democratic socialism or totalitarian communism) provides them with a lower price for insurance than if they would have to deal with men privately and bilaterally.
/r/MGTOW22/01/18 07:21 AM
2

There is no room for dealing with them at all. FTFY
/r/MGTOW22/01/18 05:35 AM
22

The MeToo Movement has revealed that there HAS NEVER BEEN trust between men and women. FTFY.
/r/MGTOW22/01/18 12:41 AM
1

It can succeed multigenerally ex post - doesn't plan. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
/r/MGTOW21/01/18 11:45 AM
2

This is too complicated. The mental software isn't that sophisticated. It's just as simple as the best option available, better to live than to die. It's just happens that survival now precedes survival later - her software isn't planning multigenerationally.
/r/MGTOW21/01/18 12:11 AM
3

There probably isn't another answer to the problem he wants to solve, but the thing is - people don't owe it to each other to solve each other's problems. If it's not worth it to the men, then let us walk away peacefully.
/r/MGTOW18/01/18 03:01 PM
2

I've read his book and watched most of his youtube comment. I understand him well enough. He's a self-identified Jungian as well as a self-identified Darwinian Pragmatist. He called MGTOWs weasels and issued a half-hearted apology. His epistemology and morality are built and constrained on reproduction. What am I getting wrong?
/r/MGTOW18/01/18 02:29 PM
14

Maybe a BIOLOGICAL holdover from MILLIONS OF YEARS ago - when species survival depended more crucially on male disposability. Fixed that for you. Society still runs on male disposability - it just kills men at 60 instead of 20.
/r/MGTOW18/01/18 02:43 AM
1

It is the ultimate reason/cause/motivation. I maintain that. To say otherwise is lying. I made no implication - if you saw one - it says more about you than about me.
/r/MGTOW18/01/18 01:50 AM
3

If we shared your values the world would be an even more fucked up place to live? Hardly. I trade with people fairly -quid pro quo. I let people have their own views - I don't aggress unless I'm transgressed on. And how is this more fucked up than what we have today? I fail to see it. Yes, views causing conflict is why we have politics. But politics are nothing more than violence legitimized by a veneer of "custom" and "culture." Even in the case of democracy, all it takes is 51% of the populati…
/r/MGTOW18/01/18 01:48 AM
19

Close. They have empathy by the buckets. They just don't sympathize. They are really good at detecting emotion. Not as good at inferring what may have caused that emotion, and complete shit at expressing sympathy when they don't benefit from it themselves.
/r/MGTOW18/01/18 01:24 AM
22

bingo
/r/MGTOW18/01/18 01:16 AM
3

farthole. lol. I'm going to use that. It sounds funnier than asshole.
/r/MGTOW18/01/18 01:15 AM
2

Your words, not mine. I never made that claim that it's lesser, and I never made the claim that the meaning of life is to reproduce. I made a different, and more modest claim, which is that competing in the dominance hierarchy is in the service of reproduction. I stand by this claim. I also made a stronger claim - which is that men often lie to themselves about the journey of self-improvement when they tell themselves it's not related to reproduction. If I could give an example that men on this …
/r/MGTOW18/01/18 01:02 AM
2

I'm firmly on the other side of the fence from you on this. I don't believe in society. I think society is a mental abstraction - slight of hand on the part of the human brain to reduce phenomena that is complicated to the point that it's beyond comprehension. Then people anthropomorphize their mental instrument, "society," like it has a will, agency, or the ability to have problems or solutions. Society doesn't have problems. People have problems. I don't speak for others. I don't seek control …
/r/MGTOW18/01/18 12:51 AM
3

Yes, I do - I think that was the fundamental motivation. Just like the bowerbird builds a nest. I think the proximal motivation/cause was self-improvement and positive affect (he did it because he liked doing it and it made him feel good). I think the ultimate cause was because he is biologically designed to climb the hierarchy in service of reproduction. Funny how so many things that men are passionate about relate to climbing the dominance hierarchy - but why is this? It's because it helps rep…
/r/MGTOW18/01/18 12:43 AM
3

as another reply - i actually AM biologically interested in women - and motivated to have children - I just choose not to act on those instincts. I also don't lie to myself about having those instincts, and I don't lie to myself about the negative affect that comes with having those instincts thwarted. BUT - I don't tell bullshit stories to other people to protect them from becoming the next Hitler or Columbine shooter. That's on those young men to figure out. It's not a social problem - it's a …
/r/MGTOW18/01/18 12:34 AM
3

That one falls, too. Nothing stays alright if it's material. Doesn't mean it isn't worth building, just means it won't be "alright," eventually.
/r/MGTOW18/01/18 12:28 AM
1

there is no such thing as competing in the hierarchy except for women. that's the biology of it.
/r/MGTOW18/01/18 12:20 AM
3

No. It won't. It will fall. All earthly kingdoms fall.
/r/MGTOW17/01/18 11:51 PM
12

If it makes you feel any better, most men don't. Most males in most species don't. And not just most 60%, most probably around the order of 90% or greater. They are just there as a buffer against environmental uncertainty - to take the risk so that the females can do their thing. Evolutionary cannon fodder. And it's this that Peterson never talks about - even though I'm almost certain that he knows it. He just thinks it's "better" to give men a livable narrative, hoping that some of them will wi…
/r/MGTOW17/01/18 11:19 PM
1

LOL. 100% wrong approach if you are dealing with a woman. She probably isn't going to think that being spiteful is bad thing - particularly if you are unattractive to her or unattractive to other women (which will probably make you unattractive to her). And if you are "bitter about not getting laid," then you were apparently "not good enough for other women." Ergo, you are "not good enough for her." Because she's "at least as good or better than other women." And because you "aren't good enough …
/r/MGTOW17/01/18 08:30 PM
33

you dont even have to dispute it. "so what, I'm bitter - so are many men. Does it matter to you? Does it harm you in some way? Is the world a worse place for you, knowing that there are men that are bitter? Why do you care about my bitterness? Why does a man's bitterness provoke your anger? Why does it get an emotional response out of you at all?"
/r/MGTOW17/01/18 05:10 AM
1

sure - just google Carol Gilligan and Lawrence Kohlberg. It won't solve the nature/nurture problem for you if that's your focus. Nothing will, but for me, it's case closed - when I consider the behavior of not just the human ape - but also the animal kingdom at large.
/r/MGTOW16/01/18 11:05 PM
8

100% wrong. Men are more willing to sacrifice for others and ideas in the abstract. Male morality focuses on the universal, where female morality focuses on class curation.
/r/MGTOW16/01/18 09:56 AM
17

i've dated women like this. trust me - without the contract - it's hypergamy on steroids.
/r/MGTOW16/01/18 02:36 AM
1

No - it's not morality. Men and women are just interested in different things. The morality of the sexes, different as you say, is another issue entirely. And as far as Gilligan's work in terms of trying to categorize it as care-based - I don't think that's right at all. From another perspective, female morality revolves around class curation and discrimination. In other words, carving up humanity into little classes that have separate treatment (whether you want to call this "care" or "neglect"…
/r/MGTOW16/01/18 01:32 AM
7

No. they just want power. FTFY
/r/MGTOW16/01/18 12:11 AM
4

they want the power to ruin you if you don't meet their standards. that's what they've always wanted. and for the most part, that's what they've always had - the power to decide which genes die off and which make it into the next generation. the power to kill their own children - born and unborn. the power of gods - the power of life and death.
/r/MGTOW15/01/18 11:13 PM
2

here's the deal. verbal consent isn't sexually satisfying for either sex. what is sexually satisfying is pre-verbal and primitive - because sex is pre-verbal and primitive. law is post-verbal and not primitive. you can either create laws to make sex verbal and unsexy, or you can leave it dangerous and unlegislated (and consequently, more sexy). men and women can't have it both ways. you can either satisfy the primitive urges and risk danger, or you can sterilize it and be safe. even if I were in…
/r/MGTOW15/01/18 11:02 PM
1

Society doesn't have a problem. Society doesn't have a consciousness, will, or agency. Society doesn't "have" anything. Do individuals have problems in modernity - yes. Is it overcrowding? Probably not. What the mouse experiment and other things indicate to me is that there's an abstract principle about maladaption. I think the types of problems that men often bring up here come about from the male ape living in an environment (in the broadest sense - physical, social, material, economic, spirit…
/r/MGTOW15/01/18 08:37 AM
1

Yes - I have gotten less lonely over time. No, nothing helped me deal with it. In fact, sometimes trying to deal with it had the opposite effect. I think the best medicine was just the changes in male hormones that happen as you age. But as I said in the subthread - with respect to MGTOW - it's not that I've made these choices to pursue happiness as to pursue "happier." The relationships that I've had with women have been very painful, sometimes even mind-wrecking - taking years of productive ac…
/r/MGTOW14/01/18 12:41 PM
1

this.
/r/MGTOW12/01/18 11:23 AM
1

mgtow isn't characterized except for one thing - which is walking away from conventional relationships with women. the spectrum that you refer to - the individual differences - are not part of MGTOW they are the part of those men's lives that aren't connected to MGTOW. The reason why MGTOW isn't a spectrum is because MGTOW is defined by the characteristic point of commonality NOT by the differences. No he doesn't believe that the species benefits from harmony between men and women as a class. If…
/r/MGTOW09/01/18 05:42 PM
0

He's not a TradCon. He's TradCon only as far as it supports the Darwinian Pragmatism. If you could convince him of an alternative that would support the reproductive health of the species over thousands of years and into the indefinite future - he'd adopt that view tomorrow - it's just that he sees certain traditions as the best chance for the species to avoid self-destruction. This isn't the same as being traditional for tradition's sake. I have plenty of issues with him, but if you're going to…
/r/MGTOW09/01/18 07:22 AM
0

MGTOW isn't a spectrum. MGTOW is very narrow. The lives of MGTOW men away from the MGTOW choice is a spectrum. He's a Darwinian Pragmatist. As far as I can tell, most MGTOW men are trying to find meaning outside of that paradigm.
/r/MGTOW09/01/18 06:50 AM
1

He has too many holes in his system of thought, even away from gender. He claims to hold the divine individual as sacred, but at the same time values democracy - which is rule of the mob. There is no both ways on that score - just like there's no both ways of gender. Either right and wrong is subject to a vote, or it's not. Many other posters on this board and I have already pointed out that democracy is inherently collective and once you give women the vote - inevitably gynocentric and anti-mal…
/r/MGTOW06/01/18 04:34 PM
18

I don't get past this. I'm still lonely. But for me, MGTOW isn't so much about happiness as it is about happier than otherwise. Yeah, I miss that feeling - but you know what I don't miss - the pain that comes with abandonment. That pain - and how it lingers. It's just not worth it to me. The highs aren't worth the lows.
/r/MGTOW05/01/18 10:52 PM
1

Disgusting. Absolutely disgusting. Men should be worried because robots will "outperform" men. There it is - in so many words. Men aren't human beings, but human doings. Affection contingent on performance - and not just performance - but outperformance. Only the top tier need apply. She's got one thing right - maybe the future is separate. But if that's the case - how about separate sovereigns - so male money doesn't end up getting taxed to support women that don't care about us.
/r/MGTOW05/01/18 10:49 PM
1

80/20 rule and genetic record begs to differ. If a guy gets rejected, he's probably not Chad - and even Chads get rejected occasionally for a Chaddier Chad. I'm making an abstract point here - which is the biological measure for success isn't life or death - it's reproduction. And from the standpoint of the type of conditions that create instinct - particularly the female selection instinct - the instinct to discard the male isn't really that different from the instinct to kill the male - and fr…
/r/MGTOW05/01/18 05:09 PM
0

Different perspective - if the discarded male doesn't reproduce - from an evolutionary standpoint - the two are the same.
/r/MGTOW05/01/18 04:18 PM
1

Not exactly. She's still AWALT, although you're right about Ayn Rand not being sexy. It took me decades to figure out what I felt was "wrong" about the way Rand described her egoism vs egotism. I've written this elsewhere. Although she's very much right that people do things in the service of ego, she's misleading when it comes to how that plays out in the world. Even though altruism is in the service of ego, some people feel good when helping other people who are genetically further removed. Wh…
/r/MGTOW05/01/18 03:19 PM
8

none of that means anything unless you also have the legal power to throw her out on the street at a whim and take the kids and leave her with nothing. psychological power is a distant second to legal power.
/r/MGTOW04/01/18 05:28 PM
1

Men aren't greedy because they want to hoard shit. They want to hoard shit because women value material resources. Men don't fight for status and live decadent lifestyles - except to attract women. Men (with a handful of sociopaths as an exception) don't seek out power to dominate other men - except to attract women. All those things that you list are proximal causes - the ultimate cause - the one foundational thing that causes all of that shit you mentioned - is the desire to reproduce. You're …
/r/MGTOW03/01/18 12:24 PM
2

You're assuming they care about society and civilization. They don't. People aren't just what their conscious brains are - but also what their instincts are. You don't see what people value by what they say, but what they do - and it's clear to me what women value. They rather live in mud huts and fuck Chad than live in safety and fuck Bob.
/r/MGTOW03/01/18 12:20 PM
1

Women are right. They don't need personal providers anymore. They can simply enslave men through the state. Every man is a cuckold through taxation.
/r/MGTOW03/01/18 12:18 PM
3

You're really close, but you're not far enough down the rabbit hole. They aren't taking themselves down with us - because in the event of collapse - they are preserved for breeding and shack up with the winners (admittedly it's not exactly pleasant) but the lower status men get absolutely shit on. Think about how the war bride phenomenon works. Anyway, from a purely instinctual/evolutionary standpoint - it isn't stupid at all - it just illustrates what they value - they rather live in a mud hut …
/r/MGTOW03/01/18 03:42 AM
2

that's really funny. sad, but funny. orwellian thot crimes
/r/MGTOW03/01/18 03:38 AM
6

"stay tuned" to see how you can win this "increasingly dangerous game" play stupid games - win stupid prizes. Sometimes, you just need a Great Flood.
/r/MGTOW03/01/18 03:15 AM
19

because women keep a collection of men for different jobs, sorta like a swiss army knife.
/r/MGTOW01/01/18 02:15 PM
2

Even if AWALT were 100%, it's not misogynistic. If 100% of rattlesnakes had poison, is it hate speech against snakes to say they are poisonous?
/r/MGTOW31/12/17 04:38 AM
1

lol, another "same as the feminists" concern-troll
/r/MGTOW30/12/17 11:16 AM
2

I had a similar experience in college after falling off of a bike. One of the female students didn't even ask if I was ok, just looked at me and walked on. It was really bad, too - endo - right over the handlebars.
/r/MGTOW30/12/17 11:11 AM
1

Some of the comments in this thread are absolute bullshit. Men do have the moral high ground if you think morality is about universal principles of behavior. In fact, men are pretty much predisposed to think about things that way - the research is done and dusted. Female morality is completely different. That said, you can argue that the two are incommensurable and neither is superior, but from the standpoint of the typical male, it's completely natural for him to think that female morality is f…
/r/MGTOW30/12/17 12:23 AM
1

Because people typically don't feel "good" when they are the same as other people - people feel good when they are getting a leg up. Ideas don't serve truth - they serve life. And to the extent that the dominance hierarchy and getting a leg up on others is key to creating and maintaining life (and it is - because of hypergamy and female neuroticism, i.e. the desire for high status for their mates and safety for themselves) - ideas, concepts, and even perceptions that aren't moving a person up ar…
/r/MGTOW29/12/17 10:54 AM
3

You don't know why they don't ban together? lulz. Let me explain it to you then. They don't care about each other. That make sense? See - even though a lot has been studied for in-group preference that women have - and I think it exists - I'm pretty confident that they haven't designed a lot of studies to test how much of this in-group preference could be explained by "self-preference." In other words - you'd need to design a 3 factor test - where instead of having ingroup and outgroup, you'd ha…
/r/MGTOW28/12/17 08:02 PM
6

It is cowardice. You could even freely admit it to him. The next question would be - who cares? Who benefits from your "bravery?" Why should you be "brave" if you aren't going to be rewarded for it? Tons of "brave" men fought for so-called "honor" and principles of society that were laid down by higher status men - enforced by the state and also in certain cases by women, who usually used shame on young men who weren't in war (white feather brigade.) These men died, or worse, came back mutilated…
/r/MGTOW28/12/17 07:52 PM
3

No it's not. It's well documented at this point that men and women have incommensurable moral systems. There's been work done comparing male and female morality. It's completely different. So yeah, some men have this problem - but that's not what this thread is about. What this thread is about is that women, as a class, use a completely different moral system than men do (as a class.)
/r/MGTOW28/12/17 07:44 PM
1

wrong by some standards, maybe, but not by the ones that they use for themselves or they WOULDNT DO IT.
/r/MGTOW28/12/17 07:42 PM
3

on one hand, it's good advice, but it's also a sorta backhanded insult. They don't mind the first move as long as it comes from Chad. If you hear this from a woman, then it could easily mean that you are marked for beta servitude.
/r/MGTOW28/12/17 07:40 PM
1

Oh you can win an argument with a postmodernist. You just probably aren't ever going to HAVE an argument with a postmodernist. You will be having a preargument or engaging in rhetoric - different things completely.
/r/MGTOW28/12/17 07:31 PM
2

Well, the Bene Gesserit are just the controlling and manipulative aspects of female nature ramped up to supernatural proportions...and the Tleilaxu are the other side of the coin.
/r/MGTOW28/12/17 03:24 PM
2

Yup. That's about right. I'm aware of a certain feminist science fiction writer who wrote a book about a covert female breeding program where the women had collectively pulled the wool over men's eyes in order to direct the longterm future of the race. Sorta shows you what's in their nature. That said, there is the occasional male that's awake to this stuff and writes about it - for instance, Frank Herberts Bene Gesserit.
/r/MGTOW28/12/17 03:23 PM
1

I'm willing to let that happen. I would rather people be free to choose and fail, than "kept in check."
/r/MGTOW27/12/17 01:45 PM
1

Laws that punish are one thing, laws that preempt or prevent are another things. Let the will be free, so that the good can be freely chosen.
/r/MGTOW27/12/17 01:23 PM
1

i firmly disagree with the idea that society should keep anyone in check. i hold that people should hold themselves in check, and if they can't, and the failure of individuals to do so causes us to go extinct, then we go extinct. An individual has to choose between the material and the spiritual - this world is materially broken and will always be that way. And this is where I probably differ from you - being a Christian - and moreover - a Catholic - in that I think the idea of creating paradise…
/r/MGTOW27/12/17 01:05 PM
2

They aren't oblivious to double standards. They just have different class definitions than men do. By separating things into two categories where a man would use one, it's no longer a double standard. It's a standard for one thing, and a different standard for another thing. And definitions are arbitrarily assumed. Male and female realities are incommensurable, but that's not the same thing as saying they are oblivious to double standards. That's a cheap out and ignores their essential nature.
/r/MGTOW27/12/17 10:51 AM
2

the traditional setups are just as bad from the standpoint of reciprocity and symmetry as the current ones. my brand of mgtow isn't about not liking "modern women," it's about not liking the assymmetrical nature of sexual relations across a wide variety of species, not just human. that assymetry is present even in the old setups. perhaps i could have been happy in the old setup had I never been made acutely aware of what civilization was keeping under wraps, and I was definitely more happy when …
/r/MGTOW26/12/17 09:54 PM
1

that's just scenario 1. female nature isn't changed, the hypergamy is just driven underground and corralled. and man is still chained to the wheel while his wife is comparatively better off.
/r/MGTOW26/12/17 08:34 PM
16

The only way that assortative mating "works" (and I mean works as in getting more men able to have a nuclear family - hypergamy is just toned down and many men still frozen out) for men and women as a class, is if men are simply higher status than women - as a class. What this means is that women, rightly or wrongly, will perceive themselves to be oppressed in a system like that. If women are closer in status to men, then you get egg freezing. Here are the choices - with their results. Tradition…
/r/MGTOW26/12/17 10:59 AM
5

100% right. it's a personal thing, not a social thing.
/r/MGTOW25/12/17 08:12 PM
12

the data are out there - for instance, divorce rates. When paternal custody was assumed and alimony was nowhere near the shit show that it is today, although divorces were close to 50/50 as proportion of men/women filing, the divorce rate was very small. Fast forward to today - divorce rate really high with women filing a lot. In other words, when men had more power in court and in society - they were VERY reluctant to abandon their wives and trade down to a younger model. It was a myth then and…
/r/MGTOW25/12/17 08:09 PM
9

they are right. you won't understand because you're not a girl. the mistake that men make is assuming that there is commensurability between men and women's values, perceptions, beliefs, lived experiences. There isn't. Beyond the bare bones of what it takes for us to survive and reproduce - men and women have COMPLETELY DIFFERENT DESIRES. Personally and politically - this can result in nothing but conflict between the two classes.
/r/MGTOW25/12/17 07:45 PM
1

probably not. just replace Hitler with the negative attributes of the archetypal "great father" (leave out the positive ones) and then swap Jews with ingroup/outgroup preference. Both tendencies almost certainly hardwired into human nature - and then you get the final stages of the tyrannical state - shitting on the people in the outgroup. Depends on what you mean by viable. Is it possible for you to love a state in the meantime, knowing that all the while the endgame for it is murderous resentm…
/r/MGTOW25/12/17 05:49 PM
9

Even if it gets to that crisis point, it won't matter unless something changes from crises in the past. What they'll do is simply shack up and breed with the biggest baddest guys on the block and they'll do comparatively well. The men will suffer the most. Women aren't willing to talk terms with men as a class. They are willing to fuck the top men and let the rest of the men die, and in a mad max scenario, that's precisely what they'll do.
/r/MGTOW22/12/17 03:33 PM
1

I still maintain that the larger construct is the wrong focus. If you want to predict behavior - predicting that someone will be selfish won't tell you what the behavior will be. You need to have a prediction about what that person considers to be in his or her interest. And although evolution makes us selfish - it doesn't make us selfish in the same ways. I don't care about that truth, although it's true, it's predictively poor - becuase it doesn't allow you to make granular prediction about hu…
/r/MGTOW21/12/17 11:53 PM
8

Yes, but some people's "self-interest" includes the interests of others. Others' self-interest is more narrowly focused on self. Saying all people advocate in their own self-interest collapses these two categories into the same bucket and is potentially misleading, particularly when there are differences across gender. Men include women's interest within their own interests. Women do not include male interests within their own interests. Men will sacrifice their lives for women, but women won't …
/r/MGTOW21/12/17 10:47 PM
10

Slight nuance. They aren't adverse to work. They are adverse to risk. Big difference. Women will work as long as outcomes are guaranteed.
/r/MGTOW21/12/17 09:19 PM
15

Not so much deconstructed as interpreted differently. This is something to think about. You guys think they are somehow tearing things down now - no. This is how their inner narratives always ran, it's just now they feel confident enough to speak clearly because they don't need men to keep them safe from the natural world. It's not so much as they are deconstructing your view so much as expressing theirs. It would still be their viewpoint even if it weren't compared to typically male ones. Never…
/r/MGTOW21/12/17 09:17 PM
3

In all fairness, reason doesn't solve the frame problem. Reason only settles arguments when common frameworks have been built, but axiomatic frameworks aren't argued for, they are assumed. Assumed in ways that are probably not freely chosen by the conscious mind but subconsciously motivated in service of Pathos. What that would mean is that Logos and Pathos are both dead ends and that there can never be anything but dead ends as far as picking the "right" axiomatic starting points. No way to cro…
/r/MGTOW20/12/17 07:19 AM
3

Or it's time to realize that women don't have the same motivations or tell the same stories. They never have. And if the stories can't be reconciled, perhaps men and women shouldn't be associating with each other.
/r/MGTOW20/12/17 07:15 AM
17

A guy I knew and respected took his wife's name and added it his, so they both had hyphenated names. Lost some respect for him.
/r/MGTOW20/12/17 06:25 AM
1

For reproduction and the care of children. That's it - full stop. If you are expecting reciprocity from a woman - then you don't get the joke. Men love women. Women love children and puppies. Children love puppies. Love is a one way street, not a two way street. If you don't like one-way deals, don't have relationships with women. Women can't love their mates. They mostly love their children, and sometimes even that biological software fucks up.
/r/MGTOW19/12/17 10:37 PM
3

You are 100% right. Many men here don't see it because they benefit from the state more than they are inconvenienced by it. But just because you benefit from something, doesn't mean it's morally right. And the state is 100% coercive violence - any political science 101 student knows this - the question then is whether it's ok to use the implicit threat of violence to keep other people in line or whether it's ok to only use violence in self-defence. IOW, aggression vs retaliation. Every taxpaying…
/r/MGTOW19/12/17 10:25 PM
14

it's been like this for the past 15 years or so, at least. i've even had sexual harassment courses that said that it was EXPLICTLY determined by the female's subjective judgment. they didnt hide it. it was actual POLICY. If the woman said it was harassment - it was. They said explictly said in the course that the woman's judgment WAS THE STANDARD.
/r/MGTOW19/12/17 01:14 PM
5

That's assuming that they need strategy to win. From a biological perspective, that doesn't seem certain at all. Seems rather the opposite. Seems being the reproductive bottleneck is more valuable than rational thought, as far as Mother Nature and evolution are concerned... Just looking around, I see a lot of things that survive without what we would call a consciousness. I also see an incredible amount of human males with developed rational capacities that fail to reproduce. Depends on what you…
/r/MGTOW19/12/17 10:59 AM
1

humans are the only being capable of complex RATIONALIZATION. there, fixed it.
/r/MGTOW19/12/17 10:32 AM
3

no - if anything - you need social indoctrination to come up with any interactions that AREN'T gynocentric. the natural impulses will be in the service of life, and unfortunately - that means putting the wombs first. I saw a video once with a mountain goat family, one of the kids fell into the stream and was in danger of drowing and being washed away - the male goat jumped in to save the kid, and meanwhile the female goat just watched - didn't even seem too agitated - tending to the rest of the …
/r/MGTOW19/12/17 09:42 AM
1

it's not indoctrination at all. just biology. in dimorphic species where the female is the reproductive bottleneck and the male is disposable, both halves are going to care more about female interests. has to be this way for the genes to get passed on. sick of people (including men on this sub) thinking that it's social indoctrination. no, it's social indoctrination because it's conditioned and precedes from a BIOLOGICAL INSTINCT.
/r/MGTOW19/12/17 09:13 AM
2

Thank you very much for writing this. It articulates some of the conclusions I've come to. Our gift to women is giving them recognition of their humanity, but this also means that the romances are impossible for most people. You're right - there is no balance. Just power. And i don't run that way - peace out.
/r/MGTOW16/12/17 10:43 AM
3

It's not a compromise if it's backed up by force. People are FORCED to compromise. The state means nothing if the laws aren't enforced with the threat of violence. Just because it "works," doesn't mean it's right. And that's the only compromise I see, people threatening force on each other just because it's "convenient" and it makes things easier.
/r/MGTOW13/12/17 04:06 AM
2

Actually, no. I was privately educated all the way through. And i do disagree with taxes, and I won't go live in the jungle. Care to try to make me? Through force? That's what you do everytime you cast a vote. People can get along without using violence, they just choose not to because it's easier to tax people than to negotiate - doesn't make it right.
/r/MGTOW13/12/17 02:45 AM
3

Lots of stuff. Bachelors paying for schooling of other people's children. Safety and protection from police that women need more, use more, and that often doesn't protect men anyway. Healthcare spending. A lot of spending that is in the "common good" isn't common at all - because if you gave the choice to those men - they wouldn't provide that money through charity or if they did provide it - it would be in different ways and through different services. (Maybe some generous low status guy rather…
/r/MGTOW13/12/17 02:08 AM
3

Women do force men to marry them, not individual men, but men as a class. With every vote they take at the ballot box in favor of policies that favor women de jure or de facto, or otherwise reallocates tax resources away from men and towards women, they steal from men and commit the very crime that you say is "not possible so whatever." It's just that they steal a smaller amount from every man - so instead of taking the resources from their preferred guy - they steal resources even from ugly men…
/r/MGTOW13/12/17 01:57 AM
1

You'll never know. And that is precisely the problem. You'll only know that it's working "so far." I don't make bets like that.
/r/MGTOW12/12/17 04:55 AM
2

there no such thing as "his woman." they do what they want and leave when they get a better option. if it's pleasant, it's only because you're her best option.
/r/MGTOW12/12/17 03:12 AM
7

not exactly a win. they say Johnny is OK because OTHER WOMEN said he is ok. not really a win for men. dangerous thing when the only thing that can save you from women is other women.
/r/MGTOW08/12/17 10:24 AM
8

GET A LAWYER RIGHT NOW.
/r/MGTOW01/12/17 10:12 PM
37

MGTOW isn't a "movement." It's just a collection of guys who've made a choice with respect to women. Healthy is subjective. Depends on how you define healthy, but if healthy is conventionally blue-pill, it would probably be difficult for you to go to a previous worldview. You don't have to stop chasing unicorns if you don't want to. No one is forcing you to do anything. If you find one and you live happily ever after, great, but if you end up trying and failing repeatedly - at least you probably…
/r/MGTOW01/12/17 09:27 PM
2

That's not how it works. When nature "does it's job," you get uncivilized, violent shitholes in a Hobbesian war of all against all. Hypergamous women won't "die" out in a state of nature, if anything, it doesn't matter because they are the reproductive bottleneck. Cuck men don't "die out" either. Each generation of cuck men is replaced by a NEW generation of cuck men that were sired by previous alphas. That's how male disposability works - the surplus to requirement males end up being freshly bo…
/r/MGTOW01/12/17 08:07 PM
3

bingo. but once you start recognizing that there are very big essential divisions between people along various characteristics - then it raises some other big questions - that are inarguable. For instance - if a category of people are stupider than another - should they be allowed political power over those other people's lives? Or - if some are more selfish than others - should they be allowed power? etc. the important values that people have can't be argued for - they are simply believed or no…
/r/MGTOW01/12/17 07:59 PM
2

You're only speaking for some MGTOW. I never cared about the legal inequality or the social inequality or any of the "social" stuff in abstract. I just don't like how the biology manifests itself and precedes, informs, and conditions those inequalities. So in your words, yeah - I dislike many aspects of female nature. In other words, the essential parts of women that make them women. That isn't the same as engaging them politically or personally or wishing them ill. I actually just don't interac…
/r/MGTOW01/12/17 06:52 PM
1

You're right. It sucks.
/r/MGTOW01/12/17 06:27 PM
3

No, that would be anarcho-syndicalist. Ancap is close enough, but I don't like the anarchist label. I'm certainly anti-state, but not necessarily anti-governance or anti-contract. I see all individuals as self-sovereign. So it's not so much that I'm anti - "archy", in the sense of being against order, just only in favor of an order that can be argumentatively defended. Why do you even care what categories MGTOW fall into? MGTOW is not political - any actions that MGTOW take for or against the st…
/r/MGTOW01/12/17 06:35 AM
4

MGTOW not political. MGTOW defined wrt relationships with women, not relationships with the state. FWIW, I'm not conservative, liberal, moderate, or even libertarian. My views on political power aren't really represented well by the mainstream, but if you wanted to take a shot at it - it would be a sort of completely privatized governance bounded by a deontological private property ethic rather than any sort of consequentialist public government. If you're concerned more about the politics than …
/r/MGTOW01/12/17 06:23 AM
7

No, MGTOW is not part of the MRM. MRM is political. MGTOW implies nothing about a man's political beliefs. A MGTOW can be a MRA, and vice versa, but you can also be one without the other. Personally, I'm sympathetic to what they are working towards - but feel there's little hope because gynocentrism isn't a societal construct, it's a biological reality.
/r/MGTOW30/11/17 08:00 PM
20

Feminism is just the political expression of the female subconscious. Even women who don't identify as feminist and who otherwise seem pleasant have this software running in the back of their mind when they select mates, they are Darwin's little eugenic soldiers - deciding who and what exists.
/r/MGTOW30/11/17 06:05 PM
3

Yup. 100% right. And many German women were totally on board with the Nazi breeding program. (The literal breeding program - where they served as broodmares for tall handsome blond men.) The history of Planned Parenthood... Anyway, women are very much Nature's literal eugenic soldiers. That's a big reason why any moralities or systems of thought that make an appeal to universality disgust them or confuse them. They are hardwired to discriminate - to create moral systems that are class-based or c…
/r/MGTOW30/11/17 05:17 AM
3

Yeah, I came to that conclusion myself. Most of those things they use to diagnose are common in females, in my book, but they had to draw the line somewhere.
/r/MGTOW30/11/17 04:56 AM
1

best post in this thread.
/r/MGTOW30/11/17 04:54 AM
10

They're all mercenaries. Move along, nothing to see.
/r/MGTOW30/11/17 03:56 AM
1

probably because people who self-select into that cohort aren't religious, and are try before you buy, etc. if you're like that - then you are hoping for the relationship to make you happy rather than getting into the marriage for other reasons which are probably going to be easier to accomplish than making people feel good. it's very stressful having an intimate relationship with one and dealing with the push/pull of another person's desires and points of view. the traditional reasons for doing…
/r/MGTOW30/11/17 12:42 AM
1

coincident but not causal. bigger reasons - changes in alimony rewards, no-fault divorce, female economic liberation, female sexual liberation (birth-control pill), abandonment of traditional religion. take your pick. cohabitation is a symptom of the shit, not a cause.
/r/MGTOW29/11/17 11:37 PM
5

Wrong, because that's assuming that they are going to play fair. You obviously haven't been to a sexual harassment course. I've taken more than I'd like. They made it clear that sexual harassment was NOT defined by objective standards and instead by the subjective feelings of the woman. So what will happen is that women will continue to seek high status males, and then when they have a reason - money, boredom, whatever, they just invoke their power to subjectively define harassment and then voil…
/r/MGTOW29/11/17 11:19 PM
6

Apex fallacy. She can't make the leap to how Joe Six-Pack might react because he doesn't exist to her. If she doesn't want to fuck him, then she doesn't acknowledge him. Better off dead or producing wealth to be taxed and redistributed to her, in her mind.
/r/MGTOW29/11/17 10:02 PM
6

If you ever encounter a woman that exhibits signs of having a personality disorder that would have been classed as "Cluster B" in the old DSM-IV, then fucking run. These types of women are really, really bad news. Far more dangerous than the typical woman that gets talked about here. It's the destructive aspects of female nature pumped up really high, and they often try to compensate with sex - so you sorta end up paying for sex with crazy. Really, really toxic stuff.
/r/MGTOW29/11/17 08:22 PM
6

Yes, clear thinking, but even she's an AWALT. Notice how she views men entirely as utility objects. It's not that men have value in her eyes as being men - it's that men have value in her eyes by making the world a better place for women. She's not a fan of men for their own sake. She's just a more sophisticated mercenary and far more intelligent rhetorician than most women. But let's be clear - she doesn't want or expect women to make reciprocal sacrifices for men, so from that standpoint - it'…
/r/MGTOW29/11/17 06:39 PM
4

It's not proof, but Vilar wrote the Manipulated Man well before the shitshow hit current standards, and she said point blank that said most men's lives are miserable hells. The Anatomy of Female Power was also written way before the internet. When you ask something like "whether this is our state of existence" or did free sex disrupt a culture, I'm not sure that's even the most relevant question. From the writings of many people, going back thousands of years - it's clear that this kind of thing…
/r/MGTOW29/11/17 04:31 AM
2

Some, and not many - and if those cultures had anything worth taking, they wouldn't be around.
/r/MGTOW27/11/17 02:58 PM
2

Nope. Case in point - inuits. They had families and practiced a lifestyle where these families were integrated into an overall tribal hierarchy - you don't need agriculture to precede family - if anything - it's the other way around - which is you need the private property structure in order to give man time and incentive to create tools for farming. But the tools for farming were probably preceded by other forms of capital investment - which were tools for war. And the wars would probably have …
/r/MGTOW27/11/17 01:02 PM
3

what you're talking about probably did happen, and then as soon as one tribe figures out private property and family - they overrun the more communal structure because men try harder when surplus is privatized rather than going to other men.
/r/MGTOW27/11/17 04:42 AM
19

Women have never been expected to support men - emotionally, financially, or whatever. Marriage was about creating an environment for children. A man shouldn't ever expect understanding and support from a woman, and if those are the things he's looking for - he's better off MGTOW because he isn't going to get them from her. The positive aspects of female nature only manifest when you are ticking all the reproductive boxes or if she doesn't have better options. If the hypergamy has a shot at some…
/r/MGTOW26/11/17 07:14 AM
2

Or it's just that men aren't as mercenary in their treatment of women. Men aren't hypergamous.
/r/MGTOW26/11/17 05:36 AM
1

I did, and this is why I wanted to know the point you are trying to make and the measure that you are trying to use - because back in the 1800s when the divorce rate was close to 50:50 in some countries, the divorce rate was extremely small. So when divorce was nowhere near as harsh on men, the divorce rate was small, and of the divorces, men were a much greater proportion. HOWEVER, when divorce favored women, divorce much higher, moving from single digits to double digits and high double digits…
/r/MGTOW26/11/17 05:18 AM
2

Would take a lot of preference in order to reverse the biological differences in behavior. I still maintain that even if the courts heavily favored men you wouldn't see 50:50 or even close to a majority of men filing divorce. Men just aren't wired that way. If you flipped a switch right now, and made it so that women were disadvantaged in court - you wouldn't see men filing for divorce more than women. It's not just about the courts - it's about inherent biological differences, like those that m…
/r/MGTOW26/11/17 04:56 AM
3

Can one of the mods zap this? Female concern-trolling.
/r/MGTOW26/11/17 04:46 AM
3

But how much lower? It's a matter of degree. And what's the relevant measure you want to use? Is it the percentage of men that file for divorce when divorce is filed or is it the percentage of men who file for divorce as a % of marriages in general? I'm almost positive that it wouldn't move the needle close to 2:1, much less 50/50. Women break up with men FAR more than the reverse, even when marriage and prizes aren't at stake. https://today.yougov.com/news/2015/06/09/breaking/ If anything that …
/r/MGTOW26/11/17 04:14 AM
6

But you posed a question. How many of the married guys would throw their wives onto the streets? Then you answered it with plenty. I'm saying NOT plenty. How much is "plenty" to you?
/r/MGTOW26/11/17 03:36 AM
16

Not true. There was a time that paternal custody was presumed - before the tender years doctrine was established. And I think you'd find that the rate of men throwing women out on the streets back then was significantly lower than the women throwing men out now. If you think that men and women have the same amount of compassion for the opposite sex, well - you're mistaken.
/r/MGTOW26/11/17 02:50 AM
6

Men who don't want relationships with women under the typical terms that most women want them. This is probably the biggest tent I can think of which would include marriage and associated legal risks there (alimony, loss of assets, cuckoldry) and the guys who don't want relationships with women because they don't like certain aspects of female nature. It also leaves room for the guys that just want to pump and dump and avoid LTRs. The problem with characterizing MGTOW is that MGTOW isn't a movem…
/r/MGTOW26/11/17 12:17 AM
1

No, it doesn't always do that. Sometimes it provides a venue where you discover that the people that disagree with you hold unarguable positions that you simply can't tolerate, and they feel the same about you - and neither position is "true." Which is precisely why we need to be able to secede from each other and create borders where we don't HAVE to interact with each other, socially, culturally, economically, or politically unless it benefits both sides and is voluntarily agreed to. Yes, thes…
/r/MGTOW25/11/17 08:14 PM
3

Well, I think there's a big problem with the whole melting pot of ideas - and that's the assumption that dialogue, argument, or even outright conflict produces desirable outcomes - however defined. Most of the low-hanging fruit in terms of personal disagreements has already been eaten. What people are disagreeing about now (at least the big stuff) is about the unproven and the unprovable. Axiomatic beliefs, declarations of faith, etc. that can't be resolved through argument (since argument presu…
/r/MGTOW25/11/17 08:03 PM
3

I'm going to borrow that. "Hypergamous grenade" should go into the MGTOW hall of fame.
/r/MGTOW25/11/17 07:32 PM
4

No he won't for reasons I've outlined in a lot of old posts. The TL;DR is that he's a Darwinian Pragmatist. His epistemology, philosophy, and morality are materially bound (in many meanings of the word "material") to reproduction.
/r/MGTOW25/11/17 07:06 PM
6

Then you are condemning large swaths of people from ever being included in your definition of "essential growth." The math of the game of life is just like that. The question then becomes whether or not you believe that "trying" is essential to growth even if it means failing. Where I differ from you, I suppose, is that although I have certainly changed as a result of my experiences (successes and failures) - I hesitate to call it growth. The word "growth" seems to presuppose a preferred state, …
/r/MGTOW25/11/17 05:52 PM
8

Perhaps - but sometimes that disillusionment in middle age and old age isn't worth the price paid in terms of sex and love when you're young. You don't know what side of the trade you're gonna come out on ahead of time - but if it's just about average odds, it's probably going to be the losing one. I don't need to elaborate on the odds because there's been a lot written on this sub already. Men just don't have leverage over women for many reasons, social, biological, psychological, material. Ove…
/r/MGTOW25/11/17 05:31 PM
9

Wrong, women aren't grateful. They ACT like they are grateful and then the male mind projects gratitude onto the behavior. Dollars to donuts that the right motivation is FEAR, and they aren't feeling gratitude but rather understand that if they don't LOOK like they are showing gratitude then the gravy train stops running. Ever fake an apology when you did something wrong? Ever tell a lie and someone believed it? Now imagine a woman doing this MOST of the time. Now granted, it may be easier to ac…
/r/MGTOW21/11/17 11:51 PM
2

by adopting a lifestyle that produces as little surplus to be taxed and redistributed as possible. produce as little as possible, consume as little as possible. that's on the economic front. on the social front, ghost. just disappear into the empty.
/r/MGTOW21/11/17 01:17 AM
1

that's why a lot of MGTOW also remove themselves from the social structures that provide for women's safety through statist resource redistribution.
/r/MGTOW20/11/17 10:52 PM
1

I actually don't mind it when people do that. Rationality has to proceed from somewhere, and those starting points are probably subconsciously motivated. Is it sophistry, or is it more that man isn't a rational animal but a rationalizing animal (as some other poster put it.)
/r/MGTOW20/11/17 04:02 PM
1

Perhaps, but I really don't think so. I think he has a pretty deep construct of certain things in the world. Unfortunately, the things he's got a handle on probably don't apply to MGTOW or to the class of people who seemed to have problems that he couldn't successfully treat in his practice.
/r/MGTOW20/11/17 03:38 PM
2

Disgust, schadenfreude, relief. I imagine that's what those people think. I'm not so sure that he's championing the system so much as that his Darwinian Pragmatism prevents him from seeing any alternative to the biology. And to be honest, I agree with him that the biology is the best solution if you can hack it, but there will necessarily be more losers than winners in that game. He hasn't gotten this quite worked out in his mind - the problem of how to deal with the losers. The best he has is s…
/r/MGTOW20/11/17 03:32 PM
1

and how did what you just say refute anything I said? I never claimed what his discourse on trauma was about. You said his discourse didn't mention trauma or pathological families. Now you backtrack and say that he does - but not in the way that you'd like. Fair enough, but lead with that in the first place then. and sorry, I do go to relativism, especially with things as subjective as mental health. i won't bend on that.
/r/MGTOW20/11/17 12:42 PM
1

His framework isn't shallow. It's incredibly deep, just narrow, constrained by Darwinian Pragmatism. Your point about the gay guy illustrates that in my opinion, but narrow and shallow aren't the same thing. Even if I conceded your point about it being shallow, which I don't, the validity of that point doesnt confirm or deny the validity of the mix of philosophical ideas that I mentioned. Even if he doesn't apply many of Nietzsche's ideas, he doesn't have to in order to be in the mix I described…
/r/MGTOW20/11/17 09:45 AM
5

It seems to me like most guys on this subreddit don't understand Peterson. He's got a sort of Darwinian Pragmatism going on. Not only is his whole morality based on survival/reproduction, but it's constrained by it. And it's not just his morality that's based on survival/reproduction but his take on epistemology and truth. A big reason why he brings forth the justification for following certain social norms (sacred or secular) is because to him, things are pretty close if not fully justified, if…
/r/MGTOW20/11/17 08:56 AM
3

It does compute, you just have to decompose men into separate classes. They want to dominate men who they find unattractive socially and economically. They don't want to dominate Chad.
/r/MGTOW20/11/17 02:03 AM
14

he's not a TradCon. He's a lot more complicated than that. He's a mix of Darwin/Jung/William James/Nietzsche/Heideigger. He would be in favor of replacing old social conventions if and only if the new norms were better than the old ones from the standpoint of species survival and reproduction. He wouldn't say that people owe their lives to society or anything. He doesn't have the answers for MGTOW (or for many people, men and women, who are unlucky enough to fall outside of his psychological/phi…
/r/MGTOW20/11/17 12:24 AM
3

Hate to break it to you, but you're sorta fucked. Because there are very few ways for men to physically or socially retaliate against women who wrong them. You could very easily get caught in a double bind if you played it wrong. If you tell her off - she could try to frame it as you being "insecure" somehow, implying that a "real man" wouldn't even be bothered by "girl talk," and if the sex life was any good, then she wouldn't have anything to complain about, etc. etc. etc. I agree that it's ou…
/r/MGTOW16/11/17 08:18 PM
1

For every fact, there are infinite whys. People, even MGTOW, don't live in the "real world." We live in the world that our minds create. The category of "real vs illusion" doesn't even make any sense to me for most things anymore. I had one narrative before, now I have a different one. But even for the current set of "facts" that I have, there are other possible interpretations. I think MGTOW have had experiences that crafted a new narrative - one that's inconsistent with the old ones and even t…
/r/MGTOW16/11/17 01:42 PM
1

No, it's not fiddling while Rome burns. MGTOW's Rome burned to the ground a long time ago. The people that are fidding while Rome burns are people who still have some sort of stake in the game. Most of the time MGTOW don't, and that's a big reason (but not the only reason) why they end up MGTOW.
/r/MGTOW16/11/17 01:14 PM
1

The grey matter is a big deal. Higher proportions of white matter (which women have) have been linked with pathological lying. No one seems to be thinking about this angle, but it was something I put together awhile back. Studies show women have less grey matter. Studies show pathological liars have more white matter. Uh, ok, so which scientist is going to be brave enough to test the next step?
/r/MGTOW16/11/17 06:26 AM
3

yes, when i got sick. it didn't end well. was a nasty breakup. everything kosher up to that point.
/r/MGTOW10/11/17 01:54 PM
1

an awful deal, but that's the way my grandfather did it, and my grandmother seemed happy.
/r/MGTOW07/11/17 12:08 AM
3

i own the langley books. tough reading, but useful to hear a woman's take. doesn't encourage optimism about LTRs, though.
/r/MGTOW06/11/17 04:41 AM
2

No, men weren't honored by "society" for taking it. They only thought they were. They were respected by some of the other men, but resented in secret by most of the women.
/r/MGTOW04/11/17 01:06 AM
1

Maybe not. They may have been the old religion. Some speculate that the western religions today had their roots in the overthrow of old fertility cults and maternal worship. There seem to be parts of the Bible that hint at it. Certain aspects of Gilgamesh seem to get at the nasty aspects of gynocentrism - particularly his rejection of Ishtar - who rode the celestial cock carousel like it was going out of style. Feminists and some of the new age pagan goddess worshippers put some stock in the ide…
/r/MGTOW02/11/17 09:30 PM
10

Once you start hitting irreducible axioms that precede empirical experience (and you may have hit that point with her), argument is impossible. Argument presupposes common axioms. When you are talking to someone with different axioms, you aren't arguing. Arguing is impossible - you are doing something else - rhetoric, a declaration of faith, bamboozling, persuasion, whatever. The deep disagreements that people have probably can't be solved with argument because if the axioms were already held in…
/r/MGTOW02/11/17 06:31 AM
2

more accurately, it evolved differently.
/r/MGTOW02/11/17 05:53 AM
3

in all fairness, there's some pretty rigorous treatment of this stuff by some of the deep feminist thinkers, and it revolves around a sort of epistemological barrier between groups. and this barrier probably does exist - not only between sexes, but between individuals in the most abstract sense possible. but by appealing to this barrier, it effectively makes argument about many things impossible because effective communication and argument as a subset of communication presupposes that you hold c…
/r/MGTOW31/10/17 10:03 PM
1

But not "consciously" developed - which is the crucial point. So what do you say to the person who tries and fails his whole life in his attempt to "create" the new values away from what he currently values in a way that YOU would define as an improvement or resentment removing? Would you say something like "at least you tried?" Not good enough for me, and not good enough for a prescription. And I'm glad you revealed yourself as a Darwinian/Jungian/reader of Peterson because at least I know wher…
/r/MGTOW30/10/17 03:43 AM
1

I dont think it defeatist at all. That presupposes a concept of victory that we don't share. Just because you don't feel good in life doesn't mean you did it wrong. You are the one placing the importance on improvement and removal of resentment. And people don't CHOOSE what they value, or what they think is improvement. You also don't CHOOSE your perspectives. Yes, what I'm getting at is the concept of a will that is only free to choose after the subconscious filters the world for it. I don't th…
/r/MGTOW30/10/17 03:25 AM
2

Freud didn't know as much about biology as we do today. We recognize and respond to station and position in the dominance hierarchy. Yeah, you can make yourself "better" by some sort of standard that you have or perhaps rationalized, but if it doesn't ping the chemicals associated with station as it pertains to reproduction, you are probably still going to feel negative affect. Absolute improvement matters much less to the chemical factory in your brain than relative station to other people. And…
/r/MGTOW30/10/17 02:44 AM
4

Not for nothing, but this is sorta the wrong sub for that. Many MGTOW don't have children, so the "future" for them ends with their own deaths.
/r/MGTOW29/10/17 11:45 PM
8

Yes. And women have pulled the "I feel scared." and the "you intimidate me" around me. Interpreted in the wrong context, this could very easily have turned into bad news for me, either through state-intervention or the white-knighting of other simps.
/r/MGTOW28/10/17 06:22 PM
19

I simply disagree. I went back through some of your posts. Your reasons for MGTOW aren't mine. I am serious in most aspects of my life. In general, I see things in terms of loyalty, promises, contracts, punishments, etc. I'm not a hedonist, and I'm not MGTOW because of "freedom." I'm MGTOW because I don't like the way many things are constituted.
/r/MGTOW17/10/17 05:55 PM
43

which is why I'm MGTOW. i have no interest in casual sex, casual friendships, or casual anything, really. I just don't "do casual."
/r/MGTOW17/10/17 04:02 PM
80

yup, you put it in an nutshell. if you care, it won't work, but if you don't care, why are you there? so the only relationships worth having are ones that don't work, and the ones that work aren't worth having.
/r/MGTOW17/10/17 02:39 PM
2

It might not have been what you expected because your previous concept wasn't nuanced enough. Maybe something like this predicts better: a woman will band together with other women to get something out of someone higher on the status tree, but when she's higher status herself - then she doesn't feel the need to share. Looked at this way - it shows her sticking together isn't sex solidarity at all, but just naked self-interest in either case.
/r/MGTOW12/10/17 10:36 PM
3

That's funny. I have someone exactly in mind when I read those rules.
/r/MGTOW12/10/17 10:35 AM
1

I hear what you saying, and I can recall similar instances. I think what you are describing though is a lack of female sympathy for men. The psychologists say that females test higher in the ways that they can measure empathy, and I can believe this because it would be a useful non-verbal communication trait in dealing with infants. However, they do seem to be very short on sympathy. Florence Nightingale said something along the lines of she couldn't find a sympathetic woman and her experience w…
/r/MGTOW12/10/17 10:34 AM
1

Well, I am an owner. I've done well, I'm going to be selling shortly. But a lot of it depends on location. I'm downsizing my life and my expenses and taking a lot of risk off the table, however. I'm taking an early retirement, so I my risk tolerances are a lot lower than they were when I was working. So I'm betting against housing, but not because of a directional view on housing prices, but more of a view on house price volatility and whether I can stomach the risk. At this point in my life, it…
/r/MGTOW11/10/17 06:54 PM
1

Going to offer some different advice than the other guys here. And I was a Wall Street pro for around 17 years. Renting and buying are both speculative acts. You are making a BET, no matter which one you choose. If you buy, especially if you use a mortgage, you are making a BET that the house price is going to go up more than the opportunity costs of what you could have done with your capital otherwise AND the ongoing costs of the mortgage payment. If it doesn't, or if the house price goes down,…
/r/MGTOW11/10/17 01:33 PM
3

Tested young, INFP. Tested a bit older, INTJ.
/r/MGTOW10/10/17 05:32 PM
1

because i don't always throw babies out with bathwater. conscience is the seat of God. And orthodoxy has too much of an eastern flavor for my taste.
/r/MGTOW09/10/17 02:14 PM
4

Catholic here. Yeah, this is spot on, but probably no going back. The New Rite and a lot of the changes since Vatican II made the Mass less hierarchical (or for the feminists, "patriarchal") and more communal. Although it's one thing for there to be community in the congregation, it's dangerous and misguided to presume too much of a "personal" relationship with God in the traditional Catholic sense. This was one of the big sticking points between Catholics and Protestants. Some of the Protestant…
/r/MGTOW09/10/17 11:10 AM
2

MGTOW don't need an argument. They don't need a reason. They just leave the room. It's not even about the statistics. It's about a man's lived experience and avoiding bad shit. Even if the odds were a lot better than what blue-pillers and tradcons believe (which they aren't), a MGTOW doesn't need the average odds (which incorporates all states of the world for all men). It's more than sufficient reason if a man determines that FOR HIM, the odds aren't good enough for him. That's all. Even if the…
/r/MGTOW06/10/17 07:10 PM
3

Let it be a lesson. Women are the same pretty much everywhere, and the things that women hold in common with each other in the human ape are often held in common with females from other mammals and even other non-mammalian species. Take a look at biology if you want to go further down the rabbit hole.
/r/MGTOW05/10/17 09:21 PM
11

No, women see things from the standpoint of others pretty well. They are especially good at recognizing other people's emotional states. Even though they are long on empathy, they are short on sympathy - particularly for men. Don't confuse knowing what other people are thinking and feeling with giving a shit about it. Look up Florence Nightengale's thoughts on female sympathy - and she was a woman.
/r/MGTOW05/10/17 08:27 PM
1

I hope not, but you may be right. I would lose my remaining respect for him if so.
/r/MGTOW05/10/17 07:51 PM
2

Is that cucumber-head fuck or cucumber head-fuck? lol
/r/MGTOW05/10/17 06:50 PM
1

Thanks
/r/MGTOW05/10/17 06:45 PM
8

That's an interesting classification, and I'm not holding my breath as well. I used to be a big fan of Peterson, and I know a lot about him, but one thing I realized after long reflection is that he really doesn't understand a lot about female consciousness (although he's getting closer.) For instance, in his New Year's Message to Milennials, or maybe it was New Year's Message to the World, I can't remember, he made a lot about identifying with the hero's journey and other types of personality t…
/r/MGTOW05/10/17 06:26 PM
6

No, that's not what he believes in. His viewpoint is a little closer to what I wrote in my reply to the OP. He would rather that men suffer and fail and then identify their failure with the hero's journey for the greater good. He's gone on record as saying that women treat most men like crap, although he never says it like that and all it once. What he'll do is say things in different places with sentences something like this: "Women hate weak men - they like to pick them apart," "Male confidenc…
/r/MGTOW05/10/17 06:16 PM
10

Very much disagree. Men at the top of the dominance hierarchy and incels know more about female nature than those "aspirers" in the middle. Men at the top are exposed to women's monkey branching and "loyalty" (because they are fucking other guy's girlfriends all the time) and the guys at the bottom see the negative aspects of female nature constantly. The tryhards are the middle are likely to be the most confused about what women are.
/r/MGTOW05/10/17 04:44 PM
31

There has been detailed analysis of his Darwinian Pragmatist/Jungian worldview elsewhere on this subreddit. We've already beaten it to death. For those that care, he's already gone on record in one of his Toronto lectures as saying there are people in his clinical practice that "can't be helped," that are, in his own words - "ruined." You have to read between the lines, but in this group, he includes - men who were acrimoniously divorced, particularly if they went through an unfavorable result i…
/r/MGTOW05/10/17 04:36 PM
6

Yeah, I have a feeling that it's probably reflexive/instinctive as well. That's one of the big reasons why I drifted away from MRA (although I'm sympathetic) and more towards MGTOW. To me, they are chasing windmills - the gynocentrism they try to pin on social artifacts is embedded in people's biology - the same shit that makes men jump in front of bullets for women is the same shit that makes men create laws and environments that benefit women. And as far as the feminists 'blindness' towards ma…
/r/MGTOW03/10/17 06:32 PM
11

end of the article - she's not a hero... exactly. not a huge sacrifice - just one of time. not the same as dying for a stranger - which men are more likely to do.
/r/MGTOW03/10/17 03:07 PM
1

No, I'm not. I think the agency remained pretty much the same, the power and leverage that the sexes have has changed. Slight nuance, but in general, I think people do as much as they can get away with.
/r/MGTOW03/10/17 12:22 PM
8

100% correct, and stuff like this is hinted at in lysistrata. women inevitably will make the world a worse place for the lower 80% of men, men who qouldn't qualify for elite station (tyrant/oligarchy). it's what they prefer to do, they want to organize the world that way, materially and politically, and it's dangerous for men as a class to let them do so.
/r/MGTOW02/10/17 02:27 PM
2

depends on what your definition of "improve." if improvement is defined as picking the top of the dominance hierarchy (which presumably is best locally adapted to the current "environment" in the broadest sense of the word), then it does that. what it doesn't do, is take into account what the world is going to look like tomorrow, value judgments on the quality of existence (whether survival of the fittest is morally good or bad), or lots of other things. but I think you're being way harsh on the…
/r/MGTOW02/10/17 02:22 PM
2

Because people are biologically programmed, for the most part, to interact with each other in a dominance hierarchy - mostly towards an eye towards reproduction. Station matters. In order for a person to above someone else, they have to push the other person down. We're not that different from chimps or chickens, or anything else with a pecking order.
/r/MGTOW25/09/17 08:42 AM
6

Men are being aggressed on everyday by the democratic social welfare state. Women and their interests drive laws, and resources will continue to be reallocated from men to women in service of their biological imperatives - safety, individual risk aversion, insurance, and reproduction. You don't need to go looking for trouble or declare war against them. They've already done it against you. And I think you're making a grave category error in separating women from feminism. Women actively seek out…
/r/MGTOW13/09/17 05:14 PM
5

it's not about laws. It's not about divorce. it's about biology. The point is that men are willing to sacrifice themselves in ways that women won't reciprocate. The most extreme example is death. For instance, in some dimorphic species like the praying mantis, the male sacrifices his life for a shot at reproduction. Closer to home, how many men die for their wives and girlfriends and how many the other way around? A few years ago when that shooter lit up the movie theatre for the Batman movie in…
/r/MGTOW06/09/17 03:07 AM
1

rabbit hole is deeper than this. paternity has been unknown until recently...so the male has often bonded with and supported children that werent his. maternity always certain. what this means - is that the manifestation of protection, provision, and care is more generalizable in the male case where in the female case is specific to offspring. and even men who werent sacrificing for offspring were sacrificing for tribe. anyway...taking the principle further...the more generalizable love that men…
/r/MGTOW18/08/17 04:29 AM
18

She admits that she takes what she wants when she says "I could have sworn that I had that hidden." "I don't even know what respect is honestly." Wow, I have someone in mind when I read this sentence...so tired. I'm just so tired of them.
/r/MGTOW31/07/17 01:42 PM
6

funny. whoever posted that reply doesn't realize the situation most men are in. "go talk to another girl" - except that there are hardly any unicorns out there. if you are a guy that has been repeatedly treated badly by women the odds that another girl will treat you poorly are overwhelmingly high. so yeah, just keep getting rejected over and over again. In other words, the guy doesn't give a shit about men suffering - he just doesn't want them to talk about it publicly.
/r/MGTOW31/07/17 12:34 PM
1

I'm done. I've stated my case. You've stated yours. We've reached a fundamental disagreement. Readers can decide.
/r/MGTOW30/07/17 01:50 PM
7

Story: I live in a part of the country with a very dense population of high IQ people, both men and women. Was at a super bowl party years ago where a bunch of smart men and smart women were there. (TBH, some of the women there were smarter than most men on this subreddit.) I was talking with some guys, and then all of a sudden all of the women stopped talking. SILENCE. David Beckham was on the big screen TV, and the women in the place were TRANSFIXED. Literally TRANSFIXED. One of the guys I was…
/r/MGTOW30/07/17 01:34 PM
1

You picked a bad example. Active money management usually no better than dart-throwing, and I spent a career in high finance. But yes, I'm am speaking philosophically. That was my point. Sorry if it insulates me from your viewpoint, but that doesn't make me wrong.
/r/MGTOW29/07/17 08:04 PM
10

no.
/r/MGTOW29/07/17 04:11 PM
1

No, actually it doesn't mean you are no worse off flipping a coin - because never see the counterfactual. It could mean, or it could not mean. That's the point of what I'm saying - there's no way to evaluate it except purely subjectively. Fine, a person can act in a way that they think is better after writing pros and cons, but it doesn't in any way mean it IS better from the standpoint of an omniscient observer. And actually, i disagree with you about your last point - I was making a point that…
/r/MGTOW29/07/17 02:42 PM
9

There's a lot to unpack here, dude. A lot of it has to do with variance of human ability and how that manifests across dimensions. Take something like IQ. Depending on the study, mean intelligence is pretty close across the sexes, maybe men are a titch higher but nothing too significant. What is far more interesting is that the variance in IQ in the male sex is far greater. So even though you have more male Mozarts, you also have more male idiots. Make sense? You have more male CEOs, but you als…
/r/MGTOW29/07/17 02:25 PM
1

Without getting too deep into epistemology, I don't think there is a way to figure out what the "right move" is for "right now." If "right"ness is determined by "working out," in that a particular goal is reached, and that satisfaction of that goal is current satisfaction and future satisfaction - then you never have ANY conclusive evidence that the choice "worked" even if it worked so far. From an evolutionary standpoint, the brain works well enough on a "so far so good" principle, because tria…
/r/MGTOW29/07/17 01:55 PM
3

No offense, but I think the transcendent is definitely in a different category than the mundane, and I see no contradiction in my version of MGTOW and the religion I practice. Considered letting it go, and didn't.
/r/MGTOW28/07/17 12:08 AM
1

I always intended to not remarry if ever divorced, with the understanding that the legal elements were different from the religious elements. Just because the law let's you break a contract, doesn't mean it's right under God. I think there's a certain type of marriage in the Catholic Church where you are separated (for whatever reasons), but you're supposed to be celibate if you can't make the marriage "work." In other words, you may live in separate houses, but you're not released from your vow…
/r/MGTOW27/07/17 11:44 PM
14

hypergamy. women don't mate down. they'd rather mate up and get a nanny if they are relatively wealthy themselves.
/r/MGTOW26/07/17 09:51 PM
18

"I wanna look at my partner with hunger and pride on my eyes, I wanna be so damn proud that he's my man." translation: I want my hypergamous software to be satisified. I need my man to be high on the dominance hierarchy.
/r/MGTOW25/07/17 01:01 PM
8

Yeah, it was this idea that broke my mind awhile back. Those aren't the laws of society - those are the laws of nature. And then the realization that all my relationships in the past were one-sided in favor of the woman. And then the realization that hypergamy dictates that any future relationship would likely be the same, otherwise the woman would walk away with it. And THEN the realization that in the 2nd half of life, when the Wall has hit and women lose leverage, although the man might final…
/r/MGTOW25/07/17 11:56 AM
3

I understand you're only 17, but there's rules on the sidebar. No concern trolling, no tone policing, and no virtue-signalling. With all that said, I'll give you something to think about. Your claim: extremists are cancer for people trying to find there [sic] way. Prove it. Logical argument, at least traditionally - divides things into black and white, is or isn't. Yes or no. A and (not A). Your claim itself is an extreme position insofar as it claims to be true and that alternative positions ar…
/r/MGTOW24/07/17 11:23 PM
1

But that's what I'm saying - I have a feeling men wouldn't be marrying for companionship as much as they'd be marrying to have children and a nanny. It very well could be that what's going on now will just unravel the illusion of "companionship."
/r/MGTOW24/07/17 06:58 PM
3

Don't have justifications. Probably don't have answers to your questions, but as far as I'm concerned - I have resolved those problems to my satisfaction. Don't know what else to tell you except that fewer assumptions, occam's razor, empiricms, scientism, doesn't really square things for me. Probably a difference in constitution. We're different.
/r/MGTOW24/07/17 03:49 PM
1

And what does any of this have to do with my original post? Lul. Call me what you want. You don't know what I want. And even if I were to accept your framing, which I don't, you can accept hierarchy even if you don't end up benefitting from it in the way you would probably define "benefit" - but what you'd need is a different value system - but I reckon you probably don't know where I'm coming from, I'm not sure, I'm not you - and that's fine - and precisely illustrative of why it's important fo…
/r/MGTOW24/07/17 03:45 PM
3

I feel the same way. I just keep my eyes peeled on things that attract my attention, occasionally trying new things even if nothing attracts my attention. Maybe at the end of my road I will find out that nothing captures my attention the way the unicorn did. But at the end of it - I'm not just my conscious awareness - I'm also my unconscious processes - and apparently it's worth it to me (in total) to be here more than not or I'd have died in my sleep already. So in that, I have an absurd faith …
/r/MGTOW24/07/17 03:12 PM
1

You don't know what I want. I don't desire or prescribe equality of outcome. I fully expect hierarchies across all dimensions, which is why I think people need to be free to leave them or interact with them on limited terms. And MGTOW separation doesn't have to be inhumane. Like I said, you don't need to share beliefs to interact or trade. It's more inhumane, in my opinion - to threaten violence against someone when they want to disassociate - which most states (whether left or right) almost alw…
/r/MGTOW24/07/17 02:52 PM
2

but that's precisely my point - why don't they want sex to be commoditized? Why define equality in one way and not another? Why define commodity on one domain and not another? Why use words one way and not another? Why have one perspective and not another? I agree that MGTOW's natural home isn't necessarily the right wing - I actually think its natural home is in a form of hyper-individualism. That said, if you wanted to create a leftist community - you would be free to secede with like-minded p…
/r/MGTOW24/07/17 02:28 PM
2

Actually, people in general, women as a subset, and feminists as a smaller subset, ARE discussing it. They have voiced their opinions and prescriptions precisely by their silence or their shame. It's interesting, at least to me, to think about the operative range of topics on which the feminist (or female, if you prefer) seems to apply Marxist market analysis. They seem to be big fans of arguing for redistribution and collectivism when it comes to the production of material goods, but they seem …
/r/MGTOW24/07/17 02:07 PM
33

so looks like "male gaze" is another instance of female projection. They assume men look at women the way women look at men. sigh.
/r/MGTOW24/07/17 11:56 AM
2

No. they wouldn't BE like pleasing companions. They would conceal their nature and ACT like pleasing companions. big difference.
/r/MGTOW24/07/17 11:01 AM
4

Even if you make the laws equal, you won't change hypergamy. The relationships between men and women will be unstable unless hypergamy is satisfied or economic dependency becomes real again. Granted, more men would get married if laws were equal, but that doesn't mean that those marriages would last. I doubt that they would. I think they would migrate into 18-20 year contracts, instrumental for the purposes of child-rearing and no more.
/r/MGTOW24/07/17 10:42 AM
1

Not enough upvote here. I've read Farrell's book, and there's a line in it (not sure if it's still in the current edition but I own one of the older ones) where he says something like - if these tendencies are shown to be more biological than cultural, then culture should step in to curb them. It kinda shows you where he is - he used to be a feminist after all, and he's still on the social constructionist train. And if that's ever proven wrong, well he'd just use society to shoehorn thing back i…
/r/MGTOW23/07/17 06:12 PM
2

If you know a little about economics and math, particularly "operations research" and are good with matrix algebra, the airlines need help with pricing, yield management (fuel vs seats vs price vs plane cost), also with route optimization and scheduling. Actually aviation has tons of opportunities for people who are good with numbers and economics.
/r/MGTOW23/07/17 02:22 PM
1

Then what type of power were you referring to when women "struggle for power?" Define power.
/r/MGTOW23/07/17 10:56 AM
5

You already have the words, I think. I always thought it was a form of projection. Maybe I'm wrong. Doesn't really matter in my opinion - I know what you're talking about.
/r/MGTOW22/07/17 09:31 PM
2

I didn't misinterpret it. You are talking about power/status/dominance/hierarchy, etc. Even with what you just said, most men aren't really good at at one thing. Talent just isn't distributed like that. Most men are going to be below excellent at all aspects of their lives. Your argument, as far as I understand it, is something like - women struggle for power because they don't have it themselves. Fair enough, but most men don't either. And I don't even think that's a good description of why wom…
/r/MGTOW22/07/17 08:07 PM
11

that's you. for me, loyalty is more important than sex.
/r/MGTOW22/07/17 06:55 PM
2

close, but no cigar. It's just not true that men lead in our own fields. Some men lead, most men don't. In the subset of the men that don't, some follow, and others refrain from interacting too much with the local dominance hierarchy. Just speculating, but men seem to have a way to size up the pecking order with minimal fuss - probably as an evolutionary strategy to avoid unnecessary violence. (Someone has to lead, but do we have to kill each other finding out?) Men struggle for power as well, i…
/r/MGTOW22/07/17 04:09 PM
3

40 this year.
/r/MGTOW21/07/17 11:54 AM
3

that's assuming that intelligence in the way you're thinking about it is adaptive and useful. It may not be. It could be that the development of the male consciousness in certain directions is maladaptive from an evolutionary standpoint. Certain feminists like Germaine Greer actually put this forth, in my opinion. Perhaps not directly, but in her criticism of Otto Weiniger. On some days, I'm inclined to agree with her. For the most part, the male brain is designed to solve engineering types of p…
/r/MGTOW19/07/17 03:08 PM
1

Christian here. I think that God calls men to different things. It's perfectly possible that God calls some men to celibacy. Plenty of examples of this, priests, monks, etc. I don't know enough to say about what God is calling "men" in abstract to do. I do think it's important for men that identify as Christian to try to live lives that are right with God. I'm not so sure that this means 1% MGTOW, 99% MGTOW, or 0.001% MGTOW. But for an individual, that's not important - he would probably best be…
/r/MGTOW14/07/17 09:36 AM
0

i think they do, but I don't think that's what you're asking. You seem to be questioning whether the moral/spiritual injunctions are the same, or maybe you are wondering whether a different injunction implies a lack of soul. There's no reason to assume that men and women have the same moral injunctions, and there's also no reason to assume that differing moral injunctions implies an absence of spirit for one side or the other. That said, it's my personal opinion that male morality and female mor…
/r/MGTOW11/07/17 08:06 AM
7

It's awful. Fucking awful. I actually can't stand it when I see this. You realize that the emotions are completely instrumental, subconsciously driven by her brain to get her the best the result. It's not even that the emotions are fake, they are probably real enough - but instrumental - with strategic purpose.
/r/MGTOW11/07/17 06:10 AM
2

I can't give you any concrete suggestions. It's up to you, and you may not end up succeeding. I hope you do. But if it helps, I don't get very much social interaction (partly by choice, partly by circumstance) but the body still does what it does - it still wants to live. You're not just your consciousness - you're also the subconsciousness. And even though your conscious brain may tell you everything is shit, apparently you're still alive - which means that as far as HOW YOU ACT - how your body…
/r/MGTOW11/07/17 12:37 AM
2

Pay close attention to himself and the world, looking for things that attract his attention. Putting particular emphasis on stuff that seems to make living worth it - despite his ugliness. No one can see all the world at once or everything in it. Someone make think there's nothing worth living for - but another way to look at that is - there's nothing that I've found SO FAR. Fair enough, so maybe keep looking - and even if at the very end of it - after perhaps a lifetime of trying - maybe nothin…
/r/MGTOW11/07/17 12:21 AM
3

He doesn't. He has his own path in life to walk.
/r/MGTOW11/07/17 12:11 AM
1

Actually, it isn't a man's choice. A lot of how people's brains work is hard wired. What tastes good, what tastes bad, what you're interested in, what is boring. I'm not completely a biological determinist, but when it comes to values - I think they are most innate and subsequently revealed - not chosen. You ever hear of blindsight? The brain can recognize emotional states of faces in people with certain types of blindness even though they have never "seen" a face in their lives. What this means…
/r/MGTOW10/07/17 11:32 AM
23

The ability to self-sacrifice in the interest of a male mate in the way that a man is willing to sacrifice for his female partner. They are generally willing to sacrifice for their children, but not for their male partner. My ideal of a relationship was something like that in the short story "Gift of the Magi." Sadly, that story written by a man, projects male qualities onto the female. I have done the same in the past, but I do so no longer. There isn't a symmetry in the way men and women love …
/r/MGTOW10/07/17 11:12 AM
16

a deeper message here. literally the only men that women deal with ARE men that are thinking with their dick - because men that don't find a woman attractive enough to deal with all the other negatives are self-selecting out of interactions with her.
/r/MGTOW09/07/17 08:43 PM
1

Her friends didn't plant the seeds of hypergamy in her head. They were already there - and they were the reason she was with you in the first place. Hypergamy was the reason she left you. Like they said - she was never yours - it was just your turn.
/r/MGTOW09/07/17 08:16 PM
1

Unlike what one poster says, MGTOW is about women in a sense. It's a stepping away from traditional relationships with women - particularly marriage. If you want to get traditionally married, then MGTOW doesn't have a lot to offer you. If you want to know what MGTOW advises - MGTOW doesn't advise anything. It's a collection of men who have walked away from women for their individual reasons.
/r/MGTOW09/07/17 08:14 PM
1

well - i dont think a society can be built on mutual respect. all the evidence points against. so your choices are - no society or bad society if mutual respect is what a good society is.
/r/MGTOW09/07/17 07:46 PM
7

f you're not a woman under thirty, your opinion about marriage and family formation is irrelevant. bingo.
/r/MGTOW09/07/17 07:45 PM
2

I've dated an 8. I even was with a girl that was borderline 9, probably could have done some modeling with her makeup done right. it's all the same. The second one I didn't even try to get sex from - she just basically came up one night and offered it to me. I fucked her numerous times, but can't say I really enjoyed it. I didn't respect her at all - I thought she was a piece of shit. And needless to say, that turned her on even more. Unfortunately, it took many years after this before becoming …
/r/MGTOW09/07/17 07:07 PM
4

Your last point doesn't get enough notice here on the subreddit. part of the reason why the Greatest Generation had it so good is because so many other men died. We look at the survivors, but not the guys that were blown up or mutilated for life. One thing that guarantees stability in your relationships with women is violence towards other men - and that's the way they want it.
/r/MGTOW09/07/17 07:03 PM
2

That's not the way good societies were built in the past. They weren't built on mutual respect. They were built in clear dominance hierarchies. Respect flowed upward, beneficience flowed downward. Mutual respect was reserved for equals and rivals. But in the vast majority of social relations, mutual respect wasn't traded. It was respect vs beneficience. That was what marriage 1.0 was, and I'm not arguing for it - I'm just telling you how it was and how soceity was. Superiors in any bilateral rel…
/r/MGTOW09/07/17 06:57 PM
1

Tell that to the short guy. Tell that to the disabled guy. Tell that to the stupid guy. No - they don't allow the women to shame them - the women freely offer shame and hate to these men on the daily. Unless you mean these men should lock themselves away from female contact in general - is that included in your definition of "allow?" I don't blame women, but I refuse to blame men. Both sides are acting out the biology. And I personally don't care in solutions because a solution to the biology is…
/r/MGTOW09/07/17 06:03 PM
1

If you think this sub is filled with woman hate, then we have a different idea of hate. My hate is usually backed up with violence. I doubt that most men here hate women. Dislike? Possibly. Not the same as hate. And you didnt answer my question. Would you rather have men cope peacefully, or violently burn things to the ground out of resentment?
/r/MGTOW09/07/17 05:59 PM
1

Allusion isn't the same as spelling it out. And he doesn't actively tell the men that they are going to be pittied against other men IN THE CLASSROOM the men right in front of him. He couches it in more abstract language instead of making it CONCRETE. When I received a talk about the male dominance hierarchy when I was 14, it was very much the latter. The person speaking said very clearly that I was going to be pitted against the boy to my left and to my right, and losers were going to be elimin…
/r/MGTOW09/07/17 05:56 PM
1

Would you rather have men cope peacefully or cope violently?
/r/MGTOW09/07/17 08:00 AM
1

I think the 50th percentile man faces an inelastic supply curve for casual sex at quantity zero. I think the effect you describe probably only kicks in around 70th percentile. Although we would need accurate reporting to figure this the cutoff, hypergamy alone would rule out Mr. 50th percent.
/r/MGTOW09/07/17 04:57 AM
1

but your initial claim was that the market price for sex fell. I still maintain that this is wrong when you consider the total cost of sex (time, money, etc.) It rose for most men, and fell greatly for some. (that is, If we're excluding regular old cash prostitution - strangely that market seems to be similarly priced across geography even - almost an example of Purchasing Power Parity.) Then you claimed that the average guy was getting more sex now, and you seem to agree with me that's he's not…
/r/MGTOW09/07/17 04:46 AM
3

Not true. It's actually much harder for the average man to get sex now. (Or at least at a market clearing price for him.) You don't know what average is. In a woman's eyes, average is significantly higher than median because Chad pulls the average up, but I'm guessing you mean median. 50th percentile. It's significantly harder for 50th percentile guy to get sex now because his former route was through marriage. Go look up the work that the dating websites have done or some of the formal research…
/r/MGTOW09/07/17 04:32 AM
4

Yeah, but the rest of the story isn't told. Most men here on the subreddit should get the joke about female hybristophilia. Women don't like harmless men, but they also don't necessarily like men who can do harm. What they DO like - and this is the nuance that he doesn't explicitly go into - is women like men who have the ability to harm OTHER men, dominate the material world, but NOT be harmful to the women and her offspring. THAT is her ideal. So it's about a very CONDITIONAL kind of danger. W…
/r/MGTOW09/07/17 04:21 AM
3

True, but why the need to shame? As I've written elsewhere, because you can't have those lower status men "giving up" or else the game at large fails. Civilization itself is a dominance hierarchy - supported by the people at the bottom. At times, it's been slaves, then serfs, then eventually the working poor. If we're not going to have slaves anymore, then you need to have a reason for men to play - and since the birth control pill has come along and women are economically independent - lower st…
/r/MGTOW09/07/17 04:05 AM
7

Actually, the market price for sex didn't plummet across the board. After beta provisioning was made obsolete by material abundance and socialized assistance, women didn't need to strictly trade sex for resources anymore. Then the trade became sex for tingles, which meant price discrimination - one price for Chad, another for everyone else. If you're gonna use economic language, at least get the nuances right.
/r/MGTOW09/07/17 02:56 AM
1

I do. In the sense that women don't throw themselves in front of bullets for their children or their mates in the way that men do. Love, as I see it, almost needs to have a element of male disposability - which is precisely why women can't love. Love, in my definition, and one that I don't think I need to elaborate to you or anyone else on this subreddit - is related to self-sacrifice.
/r/MGTOW05/07/17 01:44 AM
1

i dont think it is. the question for me is - even if the laws were what they were before would I want to be involved? the answer is no. if i need to shackle a woman with various material and social constraints; whether those are social shame, religion, legal rights, economic deprivation, presumed paternal custody, or patriarchy with stronger force than the world has ever known; I don't want the relationships with women. All that stuff is just a veneer over the ruthlessly Darwinian software that'…
/r/MGTOW04/07/17 10:38 PM
2

that's not his point, and not the point of many on the subreddit. it's not about the laws, it's about female nature.
/r/MGTOW04/07/17 07:31 PM
3

This comment doesn't get enough upvote. At the end of the day, the male condition is far more difficult than it is for the other side - and men aren't doing other men any favors when we just act out the dominance hierarchy software on autopilot - whether that's shame, violence, or measuring men through reproductive success.
/r/MGTOW29/06/17 11:10 PM
2

Not "trained" to hop on conquering strange. It's an evolved instinct, selected for by millions of years of evolution.
/r/MGTOW29/06/17 10:51 PM
1

actually no. there's not. there's far greater differences between MEN. if you care to look it up, jordan peterson found some political leanings that were almost completely predicted by gender, and assymetrically, i.e. being female predicted a type of political correctness in a way that hadn't been seen in other types of psychometric work. that said - and even in the cases where you are correct, and there are fields of human action to which your statement is true - those aren't the places that MG…
/r/MGTOW29/06/17 10:47 PM
2

Agreed, but you miss something. A lot of times a man has concern for people other than himself and his children within his own self-interest. that is, he's biologically compelled, by his own selfishness, to do something for someone else. women, have this too - but only for their children. It's you that don't get the joke. Men aren't the same as women.
/r/MGTOW28/06/17 10:02 PM
1

My personal issue is that women, as a class, are not biologically equipped to self-sacrifice on behalf of their mate as men are for their female partner. Women tend to reserve their care and self-sacrifice for their children. That's fine, but that's not good enough for me. You can flip through the newspaper and find stories of men dying for women, but almost never the other way around. The deal is fundamentally one-sided, and it's not just that way for humans, but pretty much any animal that spl…
/r/MGTOW26/06/17 05:22 PM
3

Wrong use of economics here. The issue here is that women's supply curve for men who don't satisfy their hypergamy is also similarly inelastic - at quantity supplied zero. Doesn't matter what a demand curve looks like if the supply curve looks like that.
/r/MGTOW26/06/17 10:18 AM
1

Yeah, but what about this question: how much male disposability and suffering has it created in the meantime?
/r/MGTOW26/06/17 10:14 AM
2

Needs more nuance. You don't need the rules to be fair for the game to be played. The players need to feel like they are getting more out of it by playing than by not playing. That is the sufficient condition. You can actually have UNFAIR rules in a game - where different rules apply to different players - and still have a viable game.
/r/MGTOW24/06/17 08:45 AM
5

it does mean disposable. because nature wastes what's abundant and conserves what's scarce. economics comes after the biology.
/r/MGTOW20/06/17 06:01 PM
5

the reason why men went hunting instead of gathering is because we're disposable. it starts with the dimorphism, the dimorphism conditions the evolutionary paths, which then manifest itself in behaviors. you're putting the cart before the horse - and male disposability is a fundamental part of how dimorphic species evolve.
/r/MGTOW20/06/17 04:30 PM
38

They don't notice because they don't need to notice. Most of the time violence isn't going to be directed towards them because they are preserved for breeding. Men have evolved a sense of danger because we're disposable.
/r/MGTOW20/06/17 03:03 PM
1

Yeah, but what I'm trying to do is generalize patterns. I don't speak in terms of exceptions. On balance, women trade up more than men. Anecdotes support this. My personal experience supports this. Psychologists and sociologists that study this stuff have confirmed it. As a generalization, women have more power in the sexual relationship than men. As a rule, females have more power in the sexual relationship across most dimorphic species. For fucks sake, when you even see people pointing out an …
/r/MGTOW20/06/17 08:18 AM
1

Not the point. The point is that "ism' isn't the same as bad, controlling, manipulative behavior on the part of some over others.
/r/MGTOW20/06/17 08:11 AM
3

Every WOMAN wants to trade up. Fixed it for you. Plenty of men who would have been satisfied with their ex-wives and ex-gfs if they hadn't left.
/r/MGTOW19/06/17 02:29 PM
10

can you share the link or the url? appreciate it.
/r/MGTOW19/06/17 01:33 PM
1

reply to the thread, not to me, plz.
/r/MGTOW19/06/17 01:31 PM
3

realism.
/r/MGTOW19/06/17 09:27 AM
1

"However, blaming an entire gender or an institution for one’s poor relationship choices is hardly justified" Agreed. HOWEVER, blaming the vast majority of an entire gender IS justified. Women sat idly by while the old social norms were dismantled and masculinity was castrated. Then, and even now, there are plenty of male sympathizers for female concerns. Where is the female sympathy for the male condition? No women marching for men's rights. No political action undertaken by women to improve me…
/r/MGTOW18/06/17 08:47 AM
2

my response. it's not a boycott. it's a giving up. incel to me is trying and continuing to fail. i think the analogy doesn't hold - unless the beggar you mention is subconsiouslly raising funds for the rolex. if they relinquish the attempt - at that moment - it's voluntary. it's that simple. but that's not for me to believe - that's for the guys to make that transition - if they want to make it. but I'm not going to make it more difficult for them by shaming them for their previous failures. in …
/r/MGTOW16/06/17 07:16 PM
3

You can willfully leave the market, stop being incel, and be volcel. You're only incel as long as you keep trying.
/r/MGTOW16/06/17 05:07 PM
8

because from an evolutionary standpoint, the stuff they needed to do for survival and reproductive success needed deception more so than the male.
/r/MGTOW15/06/17 09:32 AM
3

bar bar, thinking-ape (stardusk)
/r/MGTOW14/06/17 09:12 AM
2

depends on whether you're Chad.
/r/MGTOW12/06/17 06:55 AM
2

Again, Peterson. Again, I have to fix it. No, he hasn't come the conclusion that women mate for life. In fact, he is predisposed to blame men for not being good enough when women monkey branch. You think that he cares about happily everafter? No - he has developed a form of Darwinian Pragmatism that is flavored with emulation of Jungian archetypes. He doesn't "argue" from the standpoint of good for individuals - he argues from the standpoint of continuation of the species - which is the bedrock …
/r/MGTOW11/06/17 10:14 AM
1

LOL, nice throwaway account you have there. Just saying that it's still an open question - how much our conscious brain matters and whether the project of civilization would ultimately trump certain animal instincts. There are tons of reasons why democracy doesn't work. I'll give you another one - democracy doesn't produce excellent decisions - it produces average decisions - and the more people that vote - or influence public policy (by having politicians pander to their vote) - the more certai…
/r/MGTOW11/06/17 08:58 AM
6

"it's not normal for a mother to kill her children." Bunch of abortion clinics beg to differ. Away from the human ape, tons of animals kill their young under certain circumstances. It wouldn't surprise me if women carry similar instincts that are operative under the right triggers.
/r/MGTOW11/06/17 12:25 AM
1

I think PUA is mostly crap, and the parts that do work lay the groundwork for psychopathy and sociopathy.
/r/MGTOW10/06/17 03:11 PM
2

I'm saying frame doesn't matter. If you pass the mustard, women rationalize your behavior positively. If you don't, then they rationalize it the other way. Acting like your in charge of your domain runs the risk of having her lose her shit and create a false allegation against you - particularly if there's some other guy that she's going to monkey branch to. Why are you even here? The stuff I'm talking about is red pill 101, and what you're talking about is relationship strategy. Many of the men…
/r/MGTOW10/06/17 01:55 PM
2

You don't get it, do you? Acts of dominance mean nothing if her subconscious hasn't already OK'd you. You try that shit on a woman who isn't into it, and you get a trip to jail. And even if her subconscious IS into it, there's just the not small chance she's conscious enough to think that it's not cool to be bossed around, and she has the law on her side. There are men on this sub who have been on the wrong side of the law with women - there are also men who have been assaulted. And there's also…
/r/MGTOW10/06/17 10:01 AM
9

concern-trolling. read sidebar or get lost. yeah, try asserting dominance over the government when she claims that you abused her when you were trying to "assert" yourself or "put her in her place." sorry, shit doesn't work that way anymore. women have the power, even the veiled ones. you think you are putting her in her place, or are you just a house nigger that does a better job of serving his master by being stronger?
/r/MGTOW09/06/17 07:11 AM
1

Depends on what you mean by "constucted." I mean constructed in a Piagetian sense, not necessarily willfully constructed. He has definitely constructed it - motivated subconsciously but also in certain instances, consciously constructed. Babies have to build mental constructs on how to use their bodies - even though this isn't necessarily "contrived."
/r/MGTOW07/06/17 11:03 PM
4

you're totally misinterpreting things. there's a difference between folliwng a rule and labeling something as a rule. he doesn't say that people follow rules - he's actually saying that people behave in certain ways and then call them "rules" later. that's different than following a rule. when you follow a rule - you follow a rule BECAUSE it's a RULE. not because you are compelled by some sort of subconsicious thing. just because you can name something doesn't mean you can engage with the newly …
/r/MGTOW07/06/17 03:46 AM
1

Plenty is irreparable as far as the mind is concerned. Workarounds can sometimes be created, but that's a very different thing than restoring old function or creating a workaround that is better than what existed previously. No offense, but I have personal experience of lost functionality - not just mental but also physical. Some things just don't get better.
/r/MGTOW06/06/17 09:54 PM
3

In fairness, I have a problem with him. I think that his prescriptions for men only work for a very small subset of men - and that he should think a little more about the guys in his clinical practice that he's admittedly failed to help. He's a smart guy - he should be able to piece some things out about whether or not the things that make those guys hard to treat in his practice are out there with enough frequency to make his prescriptions valid. And that's giving him the benefit of the doubt, …
/r/MGTOW06/06/17 09:54 PM
4

I do think it's bad - and that's probably where my motivation for MGTOW differs from yours. I think that people's lives aren't stable enough for the type of interactions that I want to succeed, so I've opted out. I don't have a problem with the legal system - the legal system is that way for a reason - society is that way for a reason - and the reason why society manifests itself the way it does - is because PEOPLE PREFER IT THAT WAY. Society is not an agent. It does not have will. It does not a…
/r/MGTOW06/06/17 09:49 PM
1

I disagree that anyone can step outside biological structures, at least how I define them. Perhaps if the transhumanists are right, but at least for now - even the male tendency to push outside of boundaries - is part of a biological structure.
/r/MGTOW06/06/17 09:45 PM
2

Thoughts on self-actualization: men are different enough that the process that one man goes through to improve himself is likely not to be helpful to another. Best to figure it out in small steps for each guy on his own. That isn't to say the guy can't ask for help, but it probably needs to be motivated on the guy's own part - to the specific issues he's working on at the time.
/r/MGTOW06/06/17 03:22 PM
11

He did not. The apology was also not an apology. It was a partial recant, and only admitted that MGTOWs have a point about the legal system. I'm pretty sure that he remains convinced that the MGTOW subreddit is a bad influence on lower status men.
/r/MGTOW06/06/17 02:18 PM
19

yeah. it means that a man can never have a comfortable relationship with a mate. he's always one misfortune away from something bad happening, cuckoldry, betrayal, abandonment, losing his kids, etc. i'm pretty sure that this recognition was one of the reasons why cultures that figured out patriarchal civilization had a survival advantage over matriarchal societies and basially ground them into the dust through conquest, but the cost was a lot of male suffering.
/r/MGTOW06/06/17 02:15 PM
1

I know what Nietzsche's ideas are. I think the idea of the ubermensch is crap. I think that Mother Nature is not a designer but a tinkerer, repurposing old structures for different stuff, but rarely discarding what worked before. No. I'm not suggesting anything for you. As for what I'm doing personally. I'm not doing anything. I've opted out. I'm out of the game - including doing anything for anyone's future. I also have a dim view on transhumanism.
/r/MGTOW06/06/17 01:56 PM
49

i'm embarrassed to say this, but the trauma of having my blue pill dreams shattered at a young age left me with nightmares and negative affect for over 20 years and still continues today. The lies that I was fed about human nature, and female nature in particular, have literally damaged my mind in ways that are probably irreparable. the idea that I was told these lies - in order to nudge me towards contributing to the "greater good" and the wellbeing of others who weren't friend or kin makes me …
/r/MGTOW06/06/17 10:15 AM
1

No you can't. the human was the same all the time. only the behavior changed because what family and religion did was "change the environment." Not to get all deterministic, but that's the way I lean. just because people ACTED differently doesn't mean they changed somehow for the better. and honestly, now that you know something about human nature, you think you'd be satisfied slaving under the old system, knowing that it's all just a bullshit veneer over the animal that we all carry inside? wha…
/r/MGTOW06/06/17 09:01 AM
2

No, he didn't apologize. He issued a half-hearted partial recant, and this is because he still thinks that MGTOW is a bad influence on young men. the only argument for MGTOW that he has publicly accepted is legal risk/divorce rape. I suspect he still thinks that the Hero's Journey - flavored with a little Darwin is the best shot for modern man. Well if you don't become the hero, you live long enough to become the villain.
/r/MGTOW06/06/17 08:23 AM
1

No, but I'm familiar with his work and read his book. I think his social prescription for men, however - is WAY off target. I've offered extended criticism of his take on MGTOW and what I think is the disastrous idea of using Jungian archetypes and Darwinian Pragmatism to make psychological prescriptions to young men who will likely fail the reproductive tournament. When he speaks out on MGTOW, I don't think he's just speaking as a clinician but also as a social commentor - and a selfish one at …
/r/MGTOW06/06/17 06:40 AM
1

no. all i'm saying that nothing in life will make things the best they can be or perfect - and pain, suffering, betrayal, sickness, and ultimately death is in store for us all. so the criterion for choice isn't does it remove these things - because those things are inevitable - but does it make those things less than they would be otherwise, or if that's impossible, does it make those things easier to bear - despite not making them less. man's natural inclination is to solve problems - particula…
/r/MGTOW06/06/17 06:14 AM
2

unlikely. probably an evolutionary hangover. slutty women are bad bets for individual men to have their genes passed on. it increases the likelihood of being cucked for resources.
/r/MGTOW06/06/17 05:47 AM
5

No one deserves respect from ANYONE else along any dimension. If you want respect from someone, you have to give him what he finds worthy of respect on HIS TERMS. it's like the Louis CK joke. You don't get to decide if you are an asshole, OTHER people decide if you're an asshole. It's one of those concepts that is socially constructed, not individually constructed. You can't be an asshole if you aren't interacting with others. Respect is similar. Respect isn't defined unilaterally.
/r/MGTOW06/06/17 05:42 AM
7

You're making a mistake if you think MGTOW is going to save you. The grave waits for everyone, and suffering waits for everyone. Eventually something bad is going to happen to you. the question is whether MGTOW is a better alternative than not being MGTOW. It's a mistake to think that MGTOW is going to someone save you from being "screwed."
/r/MGTOW06/06/17 05:34 AM
6

that assumes that our thought processes aren't just really reactive but only independent in illusion. our will isn't completely free, and probably less free than most think
/r/MGTOW06/06/17 05:31 AM
4

Nietzsche absolutely wrong on this, and precisely illustrative of the folly of thinking that society and education and social control can overcome the biology. Introduce the birth control pill and a little resource abundance, and bam! Game over. There is no such thing as men or women living in a type of homeostatis with the environment in a steady state unless the environment is pushing back on man. Evolution has selected man for his ability to beat back nature - well when you beat it back to th…
/r/MGTOW06/06/17 05:06 AM
8

This. It's a kind of "double bind." Women are very good at this. It's why communication witih them is often unpleasant, and sometimes infuriating. Double binds are complicated, and there are a lot of them, but one type that women use is the confirm/deny sort of thing. In this case, if you affirm the statement or remain silent - you accept that men have fragile egos. If you deny that men are weak, it's used as proof that men have fragile egos. Another double bind - "not taking charge" vs being co…
/r/MGTOW03/06/17 08:39 PM
5

that hypothesis is consistent with some work they've done on female arousal and pornography. You can dig up the paper online if you look hard enough. Anyway, the researcher, who was female if i recall correctly, surmised that her results indicated that women were more interested in gratifying themselves during sex (self-love) while men were more interested in their partner (love of other). this would suggest that anyone who says that men are as narcissistic as women is full of shit. but even a p…
/r/MGTOW02/06/17 02:21 AM
2

I'm going to put forth something that's probably going to be unpopular - which is that the same standards of behavior and thinking don't need to be applied to the sexes in the same way. Although a lot of these can be mapped to female nature, so what? Perhaps these things are really indicative of criminal behavior when present in a man, but not so much a woman unless she actually has the courage to overcome her natural anxiety and commit crime. I'm tired of people using the human ape or the human…
/r/MGTOW02/06/17 12:31 AM
1

I don't. I'm guessing, but I think it's a good guess. There's very little that anyone knows for certain.
/r/MGTOW01/06/17 10:12 PM
2

None. Because of biology. And even with legal, social, and financial incentive sfor them to do otherwise, they STILL wouldn't. They would only be ACTING like they would because of the incentive. You're asking about hope about changing what their inner psychology values - which is a different thing than their behavior - there's no hope changing what biology has made her value. At best you can corral her behavior, which I have no interest doing.
/r/MGTOW01/06/17 05:28 PM
1

I know exactly what a shit test is. You use sloppy language. Your words: women are programmed to be subservient to men. You're changing your claim, and you won't even acknowledge that you're doing it. What your claim seems to be - women are programmed to be subservient only to SOME MEN. That is a very different statement than the one you made, and I quote: "women are programmed to be subservient to men." And I'm not even sure that it's subservience. It could just be testing for a better slave, t…
/r/MGTOW30/05/17 05:46 AM
2

uh - not quite right. counterexample: all PUAs and MGTOW are red pill aware, but not all PUAs are MGTOW and not all MGTOW are PUA. this means that there are red pill aware men in both MGTOW and PUA that don't overlap with each other.
/r/MGTOW30/05/17 04:22 AM
1

no, i do know what arbitrary means. again - you put words in my mouth. the choice to use a non-arbitary yardstick is arbitrary. your choice to value things differently than another person - woman or man - is arbitrary. I'm making the point that all you did was make a sophisticated complaint that other people don't have the same values that you do. It just so happens that in this instance, a lot of them happen to be women, but it could easily have been a bitch session about the aesthetics of usin…
/r/MGTOW29/05/17 11:35 PM
1

No. that's not where i agree with them but it says something about the way you see the world in that is what you assumed I must think. I'm actually a MGTOW ghost. I don't interact with them at all - even as friends. Where I agree with them - is that their arbitrary yardstick of value is just as arbitrary as yours. You cut the world into qualitative vs quantitative measures of value, but from another perspective - your quantitative measures of value are also qualititative - in that you subjective…
/r/MGTOW29/05/17 11:15 PM
1

read much? no, seriously. do you read what others write? let me repeat. I never said that I knew what's best for you. I said that no one knows what's BEST for anything. People don't see all possibilities, because they don't - the possibility remains open that a road taken would be better or a choice not explicitly considered when taking action would be better. I'm not telling you what to do. I'm NOT telling you what's best for you. I'm telling you that you are using imprecise language. Assigning…
/r/MGTOW29/05/17 10:29 PM
1

You're missing my point. In order to settle the dispute with women, you have to get them to agree to use the same yardstick that you want to use. You can come up with a measure, but they're not going to agree with it - and the reason they won't agree with it is because it doesn't measure what they think is important - which is how they feel about something. And on this point - i agree with them. You are doing the same thing that they are - you just think other things are important and place diff…
/r/MGTOW29/05/17 10:12 PM
1

Sorry, I don't think you do. And I'm not going to honor your request. You don't get to decide when others speak, what they say, or how they to decide to judge you. You are free to block me, though. I suggest you do so - because I maintain that you don't 100% KNOW what the absolute good is - for yourself or anyone else.
/r/MGTOW29/05/17 10:09 PM
1

No - you don't. You make a guess about what's best for you, and hope it turns out that way. And if it does, you rationalize it one way, and if it doesn't you rationalize it another way - but you don't see the infinite possibilities that could unfold nor do you rank all of them simultaneously and pick. People's brains don't focus on the absolute good, by necessity - it then logically follows that people don't know what's BEST - because that would be what would be ABSOLUTELY GOOD, ABSOLUTELY BEST …
/r/MGTOW29/05/17 09:31 PM
2

You need to tell the rest of the bonobo story to avoid misleading. Bonobos lived in an area that faced less competition for resources than the chimps - it's likely that their social structure is conditioned by abundance. If they evolved in an area where they were fighting for food with gorillas, odds are - they end up creating a patriarchal structure like chimpanzees. It's a myth that the Bonobos are completely peaceful as well. There have been instances of high ranking bonobo females gnawing th…
/r/MGTOW29/05/17 09:29 PM
1

Depends on what you mean by magnitude, and good luck constructing a common yardstick between the sexes when you are talking about both sides' perception of magnitude rather than something objectively physical - like the measure of a yard.
/r/MGTOW29/05/17 08:25 PM
2

I don't know that anyone knows what's best for themselves, much less what's best for anyone else. People are finite creatures, not gods, not blessed with full knowledge of the good. For the most part, men and women just muddle through life making guesses. But hey, if you comfortable showing people what's best for them - more power to you.
/r/MGTOW29/05/17 08:12 PM
6

sorry. I'm not interested in putting women in their place. They are free to do what they want, as am I. If I have to "assert dominance" in order to live that dream, I pass.
/r/MGTOW29/05/17 07:51 PM
109

red pill is awareness of female nature, male disposability, and gynocentric society which comes from the biological instinct of both sexes to put female welfare ahead of male welfare. choices after red pill awareness are MRA, PUA, and MGTOW, not that the 3 are exclusive categories.
/r/MGTOW29/05/17 06:56 PM
1

yes, but I think the men here need to hear the other side - so they don't label themselves as pathological when the magic of time doesn't work. some wounds, both physical and mental, are simply not curable and not treatable, and not numbable. they are simply borne or not borne. speaking of the cup being half full does a disservice to the men who have to choose to live (or not to live) with a cup that's at best half-empty and probably not even that much.
/r/MGTOW29/05/17 07:49 AM
3

yes, that's an option. not open for all - and probably not for most.
/r/MGTOW29/05/17 07:43 AM
1

ok - fine time is not a natural anesthetic or numbing agent for all things. not for the diseases i mentioned, not for other diseases i didn't mention, and probably not for certain diseases of the mind or soul that MGTOW carry.
/r/MGTOW29/05/17 07:42 AM
8

No - that isn't the problem at all. The conformity isn't a cause so much as an effect. They are programmed to recognize and pursue the top of the dominance hierarchy (across various dimensions and various hierarchies.) Because the top is crowded, they are necessarily pursuing the same thing. It's not conformity for conformity's sake, it's conformity because the set of what they seek is small. Is this a problem? It's only a problem for the guys who aren't top of the dominance hiearchy - and yes, …
/r/MGTOW29/05/17 07:05 AM
17

this this and this. if the guy was high enough on the dominance hierarchy and did the appropriate monkey tricks, maybe he buys himself a life where he can live the pleasant delusion that his wife loves him. but one false move, or one unfortunate circumstance, and you bet your ass that snake bares its fangs pretty quick.
/r/MGTOW29/05/17 06:53 AM
1

No it doesn't. Time doesn't heal all wounds. Time doesn't heal ALS. It doesn't heal LUPUS. It doesn't heal leprosy. People make this assumption that the body and mind can heal itself given enough time. I don't think this is always the case.
/r/MGTOW29/05/17 06:39 AM
1

are you retracting your claim or not? my claim is that if women were programmed to be subvervient to men, and those were your words, then why - when men do not actively control them through strict social control - do women try to usurp men? And to say that it's modernity is absolute horseshit. The reality of women refusing to yield to men is as old as the written word and probably older than that - ever hear of Lilith? I refuse to accept your claim, unless you can square the repeated manifestati…
/r/MGTOW29/05/17 06:10 AM
4

i am standoffish. if you're not here to sway me, then I have no obligation to listen to you. You don't speak for a anstract 3rd person point of view. you speak for a single person's point of view - your own. what you think is irrelevant is also irrelevant to me. go fuck yourself, or not.. jump off a bridge. or not. whatever.
/r/MGTOW29/05/17 06:04 AM
2

Fair enough. I don't care what bothers you. I heard your complaint, disagree - and will continue to generalize. I hear your claim that's unhealthy - i disagree - and will continue to behave the same way. Now that the line has been drawn - you going to do anything about it to MAKE me behave in the way that you want? I'm letting you know right now words won't do it.
/r/MGTOW29/05/17 05:53 AM
2

i'm going to add some counterweight to all the shame I see in this thread. The same thing happened to me. I'm 40 years old. It was traumatizing enough to give me nightmares and negative affect for OVER 20 YEARS. And no, therapy did not help. Nothing helped, and nothing does help. it's just something I carry with me. And for those men who are able to bounce back quickly - even other MGTOW - good for you. Not every man can do that.
/r/MGTOW29/05/17 05:51 AM
3

This a MGTOW subreddit. Many men on this subreddit have walked away from women. I for one, don't care about interacting with women, and I imagine many here feel the same way. the men who are more on the pump-dump or marriage-strikers and still dating aspect of MGTOW may care, but I doubt they are ever going to bring up MGTOW or AWALT in their conversations with women anyway- at least - they probably won't if they want to get laid.
/r/MGTOW29/05/17 04:56 AM
1

the point I'm disputing is whether or not women are PROGRAMMED to be subverient to men. Are they or are they not? You made a claim. I think there's more than enough proof that that they are NOT. As soon as strict social controls are released, they do everything they can to consolidate power over men - as evidence by the last 150 years of feminism, and even by other proto-feminist movements seen in the Ancient World. do you retract your claim, or do you not?
/r/MGTOW29/05/17 04:38 AM
9

Nah. You're assuming they aren't aware of how selfish they are. They are very aware. She won't admit that he's a good dad because it makes it harder to get things she wants from other people.
/r/MGTOW28/05/17 10:05 PM
5

Make it not a schism. Decide what's more important to you - not being awkward or not being disgusted. Then it's no longer a schism - one thing is more valued than the other. What do you do when you can't have the cake and eat it? You decide to either have the cake and not eat it, or you eat the cake and not have it.
/r/MGTOW28/05/17 08:36 PM
3

There's already been a ton of criticism on Peterson. No - he does understand the plight of the modern man. He also understands evil. He also understands biology, psychology, and dominance hierarchy issues more than the VAST majority of men on this subreddit. I understand the confusion and outrage that men here feel towards him, particularly the ones who don't take the easy way out and say Peterson is an idiot, but the other ones who realize that he's sees the same issues we do and yet still thin…
/r/MGTOW28/05/17 08:01 PM
2

Absolutely they would be interested in conquering shit. The same way that chimpanzees are interested in territorial dominance. And as far as killing rival tribes and being violent? There is a hybristophilic instinct that is in the female subconscious. They choose violent men. They PREFER violent men. http://sheddingoftheego.com/2016/06/04/hypothesis-on-the-female-attraction-to-violence-and-risk-taking/ the noble savage idea was put to rest a long time ago. if anything, our ancestors were a lot m…
/r/MGTOW28/05/17 05:36 AM
3

Really? You think so? Why do you think Aristophanes wrote something like Lysistrata if women were "programmed to be subvervient to men." I'm going to be borrow a line from "womencantlove" If women were physically bigger and stronger than men they would dominate us thoroughly. They would brutally rape us on a whim, they would murder us even as children, if we inconvenienced their irrational feelings they would crush us, they would beat us into literal slavery all while laughing mercilessly at our…
/r/MGTOW28/05/17 05:31 AM
5

Until a rival tribe came along that had the marriage technology and greater male investment and technological edge and wiped out the more primitive tribe. Wash, rinse, repeat until forward progress is impossible, blow it up and start it again. I'm convinced that we can't exist in equilibrium with our surroundings. We seek to change things. We move forward until we can't, and then it breaks down.
/r/MGTOW28/05/17 05:02 AM
9

There ARE no halfway decent women. There are only women who manifest themselves as being pleasant when you check off enough of her boxes and are her best option. As soon as you don't meet criteria or she finds a monkey branch, her behavior will change. Every woman is pleasant, and every woman is nasty. Which side manifests depends on where you sit in the dominance hierarchy - but your character, your personality, your dreams, your goals? Those don't mean fuckall to determining whether you see Me…
/r/MGTOW28/05/17 04:49 AM
2

a common sentiment here, but wrong. they know how to read emotions non-verbally, and they also know how to recognize the dominance hierarchy and pick from the top - both key things for reproduction. the first is necessarily for dealing with infants, who can't speak. it's not just folk wisdom - they've tested it with pictures of faces and stuff like that.
/r/MGTOW28/05/17 04:45 AM
3

agree except with the part about the "how little we require." It's really not that little. It's asking for a biological reversal of the female's role of genetic filtering. It's fucking HUGE. They instinctually know they are in the position of power from that standpoint, and that's why they rage against anything that tries to shackle it. That "little" is basically 100% of the power that the women bring to the table - which is the reproductive power. So to them - it's not a little thing at all. Th…
/r/MGTOW28/05/17 01:28 AM
2

only in the upper classes. there were still lower class men getting married. men without a lot of properties and titles. and these men were still getting shit on by their wives even back then. I think men were even publicly shamed by the villagers if it was found out that he was being cuckolded by his wife. What men have had to do just for a sniff of reproduction just boggles the mind. Basically it pretty much cost a man's life to create a new one.
/r/MGTOW28/05/17 01:19 AM
4

well maybe it means that humanity (as in male and female) isn't ready for "civilization." i personally don't think it's worth it to keep the other side in chains just to have a functioning "society." if it doesn't work through people cooperating voluntary - then it doesn't deserve to exist, imho. and if people can't make things work without resorting to nudging, incentives, and hard and soft coercion, then people don't deserve to exist. or at least - a being with sort of consciousness. (channeli…
/r/MGTOW27/05/17 10:20 PM
11

well - the controls were pretty tight on women. a lot of times male custody of children was presumed, and there was almost a forced dependency on male resources for female survival. So at least on those points, the feminists aren't wrong. But modernity has revealed that when women aren't constrained like that, they are very quick to abandon their mates. But would you honestly want to mate with someone who's always looking to money branch? Things are never settled with them. There's always a new …
/r/MGTOW27/05/17 09:48 PM
14

yeah this is all right, but it leaves a question unasked - which is - would men have done it in the past if they thought their wives secretly resented them? and they almost certainly did. I don't know the answer to this. Either they did it out of a sense of duty, and social shame, or they did it because they generally received positive affect from the women in their lives. Not sure if it was the carrot or the stick. The older writings were a hell of a lot more red pill than the ones today. I'm g…
/r/MGTOW27/05/17 07:15 PM
8

why have none of you commented on the little bit of the article where the author gives away the female fantasy - basically "CONTROLLING" (her words) the kids, the money, and the man. This is the female subconscious LAID BARE for all of you to see - and an absolute DAMNING of one form of tradcon argument - the argument of a loving relationship between man and wife. No, the man will love the woman, but the woman will only pretend to love the man as a means of control. The only remaining tradcon ar…
/r/MGTOW26/05/17 05:51 PM
1

we're not still so animal-like. we have always been animals, and we still ARE animals. We just think a little better.
/r/MGTOW26/05/17 05:33 PM
17

biology. in sexually dimorphic species, especially ones that are tournament or quasi-tournament - usually the males are disposable, competing in the dominance hierarchy while the females sit on their butts and wait for the winner to emerge. it has to do with risk/variance and adaptation to environments. more genetic and epigenetic variation in males, so if the environment changes, at least some males will be suited for the new environment and then they monopolize the breeding. that's how evoluti…
/r/MGTOW25/05/17 10:24 PM
57

He broke frame. Should have lifted more, bro.
/r/MGTOW24/05/17 05:28 PM
21

bed. made. lie.
/r/MGTOW23/05/17 05:40 PM
3

Close, but no cigar. Not mine, but worth repeating. A man belongs to himself. Women belong to the species. Think hard about this, gentlemen.
/r/MGTOW23/05/17 04:15 PM
2

probably different definitions. I use "alpha" to mean top of dominance hierarchy. It differs by time and place. Sometimes it's strength, sometimes its smarts, sometimes its look, sometimes it's money.
/r/MGTOW22/05/17 06:12 PM
3

ah, now that would make sense. I totally missed that. there may be something in that the hemline is the way that women compete. and to the extent that a booming economy concentrates resources in the alpha, they have to try harder. it's still doesn't seem to be a direct link to hypergamy to me, but I need to think about this more.
/r/MGTOW22/05/17 04:40 PM
8

Probably wrong - assumes that the factor is resources on an absolute level. When it comes to hypergamy - it's about resources on a relative scale. If everyone lives modest lives, then the man with only slightly more is top of the dominance hierarchy along the dimension of wealth. If i remember right, there are animals whose fertility and mating calls and stuff are modulated by resource availability. This could be what's going on here, but that's not hypergamy that's something else.
/r/MGTOW22/05/17 02:39 PM
39

Probably just not women. Probably everyone. When people are younger, their life experiences are closer together, and what's in their head is similar because there's just less in it, and you need certain things (like what they teach you in elementary school) to get by. Unfortunately as people develop, they also get more different - which sometimes means it's harder to relate to them. Unless you want to fall back on the things that are held in common - which, if they are at a previous stage of per…
/r/MGTOW22/05/17 02:30 PM
1

"Maybe it is that my unconscious think that since I've had no girls, I'm not good enough." Yeah, that's probably it. Hate to break it to you, but you're an animal. If you're like most animals, you're wired for reproduction. If you're like most MALE animals, then positive affect and certain feel-good chemicals are going to be triggered by your position in the dominance hierarchy - which your brain is going to interpret or infer from your interactions with others - unless you're some sort of autis…
/r/MGTOW21/05/17 11:15 PM
1

I'm not one to judge, but I have a funny story. I used to live in a "transitional" area in a large midwestern city. The apartment building was a bit rundown, and there were all types of characters in there. there was a tall transvestite, or possibly transsexual, black prostitute that would occasionally come to the door when I was close to the lobby to greet her tricks. I remember one being this dumpy little older white guy. Who knows what sort of kinky shit he was into. lol
/r/MGTOW21/05/17 05:30 PM
2

If you have noticed "men" naturally try in their minds to "project male values" onto "humans that's aren't male" so they can relate to it better... lol
/r/MGTOW21/05/17 05:27 PM
5

bingo
/r/MGTOW21/05/17 05:24 PM
1

If that were the really the case, most blue pill men wouldn't exist.
/r/MGTOW21/05/17 04:08 PM
5

Then you don't need it. You also don't sound like you particularly care for other men who could need it. That's fine, but you're not the type of person I was writing about.
/r/MGTOW21/05/17 12:30 AM
3

If you have a problem that you can't fix - the thing to talk about is realizing that you can't fix it. (For instance, lots of young guys that are pretty much doomed to have little success with women spend a huge chunk of their lives failing at the attempt, and accumulating a lot of toxic baggage along the way.) And also to the extent that not being able to solve the problem relates to a core part of what has conventionally considered to be masculine virtue, i.e. failing to be strong, failing to …
/r/MGTOW20/05/17 11:43 PM
2

feels MRAish to me. don't care about social solutions. I have a personal solution already.
/r/MGTOW20/05/17 08:41 PM
1

LoL. That's not what I was writing about. I was writing specifically about 1 v 1 sessions, like you have in the traditional 1-hr treatments.
/r/MGTOW20/05/17 07:30 PM
5

Therapists aren't supposed to fuck their clients. That's a pretty clear violation of professional standards. Even indicating physical attraction is unprofessional.
/r/MGTOW20/05/17 07:20 PM
3

Let's hear it for malpractice.
/r/MGTOW20/05/17 07:10 PM
13

I'm not sure if it's "accepting" or rather "open to acceptance." You don't want an echo chamber in a session. It's not so much that the therapist needs to believe or even accept the patients point of view so much as the therapist needs to keep his own shit out of the way. That's a big problem that men have with conventional sessions. The man could be seeing things in the world and developing a world view that just doesn't match anything that the therapist knows or believes in. This doesn't mean …
/r/MGTOW20/05/17 06:42 PM
39

I know a little bit about psychology, and I know a little bit about psychologists. This article isn't 100% crap, but only gets a little right. Yes, there are a ton of feminists in clinical practice and psychological research, but even if there weren't, the field of study has always had a gynocentric bent. Why is this? Well - the early psychologists were dealing mostly with female problems - namely neuroticism/anxiety. It's well documented that women test higher on trait neuroticism. Early psycho…
/r/MGTOW20/05/17 04:42 PM
1

You're not arguing. You're using rhetoric.
/r/MGTOW20/05/17 01:41 PM
1

In all fairness, some tradcons don't make it out to be a paradise. The argument is that the suffering that you undergo in a marriage is for a greater good than the suffering that you would undergo outside of a one. Whether you share that belief is another story, but many tradcons don't argue from the standpoint of happiness but from duty.
/r/MGTOW20/05/17 06:01 AM
2

women don't care about society. it's a long-term male construct. i don't project my values onto them or expect them to care about what i care about. I also have no interest in corralling them by either legal or social constructs into my own personal idea of the greater good, which may not be the same as others, and often conflicts. i don't think either sex has access to objective reality except through certain cause/effect relationships that can be verified by repeated trials in a controlled env…
/r/MGTOW20/05/17 04:00 AM
1

Irrelevant to the argument you've been trying to make. Anecdotal.
/r/MGTOW20/05/17 03:12 AM
1

I agree with you that subjectivity is limited. I just don't agree that objectivity applies to the situations you described. The two things are mutually exclusive.
/r/MGTOW20/05/17 02:39 AM
1

I wouldnt try. I would simply try to kill you first. And no you can't leave everything to subjectivity. We weren't talking about everything. We were talking about morals and circumstances.
/r/MGTOW20/05/17 02:28 AM
5

Well, as long as we're telling stories. I have one. A few years ago I visited a friend who I hadn't seen in probably 18 years. He had gotten married and a few kids. Two daughters if I remember correctly. Anyway, the older one was probably just on the verge of having her hormones kick in, and she kept peering around the corner and doing the hairflip thing - showing off. sigh. She could tell that at least between her father and myself, I was higher on the dominance hierarchy, and goddamnit if that…
/r/MGTOW19/05/17 11:15 PM
6

Cool story. I have another one. Two kids - one wants to eat the M&Ms today and the other wants to delay gratification till next week. Both die in a car accident the next day. Looks like the kid that ate the M&Ms was "smarter." Well not really, just so happened that his short-term orientation ended up fitting circumstances a bit better. We can cherry pick empirical examples to rationalize our viewpoints all day. In what you wrote - "cope like an adult" - "immiment pain down the road" you seem to …
/r/MGTOW19/05/17 11:02 PM
4

I'm sympathetic to that person's desire to feel good. That's all. I don't expect women to have the same desires as men, respond to criticism the same as men, respond to assistance the same as men. In fact, I don't expect them to do a whole lot the same as men. This doesn't mean I cater to them - I just simply recognize that they do things differently than I would in ways that often make me uncomfortable. But I do sympathize with their desire to avoid suffering and pain.
/r/MGTOW19/05/17 06:25 PM
2

Someone with your point of view can't justify, but perhaps, if you could actually inhabit her head (not that you'd want to) - things might seem a lot different. Who knows? It's subjective. And actually, I don't really believe in standard human decency. I've been in too many different places and been with too many different people who all have different rules and different standards. I dont have a working definition of standard human decency. I work things out with people on a bilateral basis - m…
/r/MGTOW19/05/17 06:23 PM
3

Depends on what you mean by "need." Depends on what you mean by a good argument. Strangely enough, it's not clear that the person who is offering help is actually being "helpful." Maybe the person doesn't want help, or maybe that person thinks "feeling good" is more important than being "helped." Maybe it is - maybe it's not. Maybe it depends. You can't look in someone's mind and figure out what's best for them. That said, that person probably doesn't know either. I'm just saying that we throw t…
/r/MGTOW19/05/17 05:55 PM
3

Depends on what you mean by right and wrong. I'm not trying to be a dick, but people, men in particular, tend to think about right and wrong as descriptors of a value hierarchy that applies to people as a class. There are other ways to think about it. For instance, you can think about right and wrong in terms of sub-class. If you were to think about a bee society, for instance, behavior that was "right" for the queen, wouldn't be "right" for the drone. Maybe what's "good" for the goose isn't nec…
/r/MGTOW19/05/17 05:28 PM
1

Depends on what you mean by self-awareness.
/r/MGTOW19/05/17 05:20 PM
16

You're not a woman. They feel bad about different things. They feel good about different things. Men and women aren't the same.
/r/MGTOW19/05/17 04:20 PM
31

Really? Think about it from an evolutionary standpoint. Men are cheap doers, and women are risk-adverse valued egg layers. For women, sympathy IS their problem solving. The way that they solve problems is to have someone else solve it for them. Men manipulate the material world, and women manipulate the social world.
/r/MGTOW19/05/17 03:59 PM
40

I've come to this conclusion myself, but I'm a bit more sympathetic to their plight. One of my failed romances told me (in the middle of our breakup) that despite my intelligence, she didn't want my insights. That is, she wants to feel good. (Don't we all?) And things that I told her about the world made her feel bad. Well, I don't want to make her feel bad. I didn't, and I still don't. But at the same time, I also don't want to be in a situation where I have to censor my thoughts and speech aro…
/r/MGTOW19/05/17 01:22 PM
17

This ideology isn't an ideology. It's just men who've decided to walk away from conventional relationships with women, for their own reasons. You are sort of young to be here, and you probably don't have the life experiences that will make you understand what the men have gone through. A lot of the guys here have 1. been divorced, 2. been abused, 3. had tons of relationships with women and seen the full manifestation of female nature, 4. had no relationships with women for years and were treated…
/r/MGTOW19/05/17 04:26 AM
1

No. that's the reason why SOME MGTOW exist. These are usually the marriage-strike variety of MGTOW - guys that are opting out because they prefer how society used to be and would go back to the old roles were they able. But there are others here: men that don't like female nature, men who have been abused (physically or psychologically) by women, burnt-out PUAs, incels, etc. There are many men here with a different axe to grind than you.
/r/MGTOW19/05/17 02:29 AM
12

The 2nd point is more relevant than the first. The issue is that women are only as loyal as their options - and they couldn't be anything but - millions of years of evolution saw to that. So even if we could turn back the clock, would you want to? I wouldn't. I couldn't in good conscience be in a relationship with a woman that was bound to me strictly because I was the best option to satisfy the hypegamy. Too conditional. If that condition ever changes, boom - she's gone - and anything that had …
/r/MGTOW18/05/17 03:57 PM
14

I wasn't. I wanted to get married, and girls/women really liked me when i was teenager early-twenties. I actually tried to seek out and maintain those 50/50, equal-partnership relationships that I'd been brainwashed into believing worked. (3rd wave feminism was just sort of kicking off) I'm 40 years old now. As I got older, the stakes got higher - the women kept looking upwards, hypergamy. Then I got a run of unfortunate luck that pushed me down the dominance hierarchy. So I have a wider range o…
/r/MGTOW18/05/17 02:35 PM
5

shows you what they think though. fuck the man's hopes, his dreams, whatever that thing is called a "consciousness." the lens that they see men through is focused solely on productive utility. They aren't worried about men - they are worried only about the work that men do.
/r/MGTOW17/05/17 09:57 PM
5

it does make sense. men aren't the limiting agent in reproduction - women are. women seek quality, men seek quantity. (pure animal instinct - omitting cultural constraints) The reason why men aren't picky is because men don't have a 9 month gestation period. He can simply fuck them all - and eventually some of the offspring will survive.
/r/MGTOW16/05/17 04:02 PM
0

Not hard to predict using evo psych. Men are more willing to mate with a woman who has a health problem than the other way around. Wash, rinse, repeat for a 100 million years, and voila.
/r/MGTOW16/05/17 02:05 PM
4

I think of him that way.
/r/MGTOW16/05/17 02:04 PM
1

Exactly - and that's precisely why a decision on his part to walk away - if he made one - would not make him a "weasel."
/r/MGTOW15/05/17 11:05 AM
2

Close, but no cigar. They usually help their children, just not their mates.
/r/MGTOW14/05/17 09:10 PM
13

So Mr. Jordan Peterson, what is "wrong" with this man - in that the negative aspect of female nature manifests to him? What "sacrifices" does he need to make in order to not get treated this way? What mistakes has he made? None in my book. He's just short. And this is likely to happen not only with women who are taller, but women who are slightly shorter even.
/r/MGTOW14/05/17 06:38 PM
1

exactly - and also the reason why equal relationships from men and women aren't on the cards. the man has to take care of himself and his wife, and the wife takes care of the kids. there's a fundamental asymmetry there.
/r/MGTOW14/05/17 02:17 PM
4

yeah, but you have to read between the lines. And what does a woman consider "manly?" Answer: A man that she likes. It's a tautology. If you're not Chad, and but you act in ways that Chad acts - she'd rather you fuck off at best, and call the cops at worst.
/r/MGTOW14/05/17 10:37 AM
15

Not to throw cold water on this, but it's probably wrong. Look up the war bride phenomena, where women actively seek out and mate with the conquerers of their land. Happened in France where French slept with Germans - happened in Germany where Germans fucked Allied troops.
/r/MGTOW13/05/17 07:48 PM
3

In fairness, I don't think your characterizing his pragmatism correctly. He does care about society, but he doesn't care about society as much as he cares about species continuation. He values society to the extent that it avoids genocides and holocausts, but not so much that he wouldn't accept its breakdown and replacement by a society that was more adaptive to the environment for the purposes of reproduction. And I like I said in the post, his problem with MGTOW probably isn't so much the civi…
/r/MGTOW13/05/17 10:58 AM
5

It's also important to note that with a viewpoint like that - despite his verbal protestations about "honest communication" - his communications can't be "honest" about the Truth, but honest only about his motivated "pragmatic truth." Although he'd cringe at the suggestion, since he hates postmodernism and Marxism, that line of thinking has some parallels with the trains of thought that there are no truths - just language power plays. If it's "true" that his speech is motivated (and it is), and …
/r/MGTOW12/05/17 05:05 PM
2

wrong. the math of hypergamy means that the only societies that "work" from the standpoint of the traditional female/male relations are ones where women's sexual leverage is balanced by man's economic leverage. We're not poisoning minds. Many are just pointing out biological realities - realities that Peterson agrees with by the way. Peterson comes from the standpoint of Darwinian Pragmatism. Not everyone lives in his world or has his morals. And if the youth cant square the social norms with th…
/r/MGTOW12/05/17 12:07 PM
1

the only other subs I frequent besides this are a few video games subs, but I intentionally don't give enough info to be doxxed. I created account4189 specifically to post on this board. But hell, I'm a bit of a hermit anyway, so no one gives a fuck. :)
/r/MGTOW12/05/17 11:41 AM
6

I don't shame men for walking away, no matter what their reasons are, but meanwhile, I also don't expect them to walk the same way with me after that. It's hard to boil Peterson's criticism of those other types of MGTOW to just one thing. There are lots of things at play, and I've written at length elsewhere about his philosophy, his influences, and his prescriptions. But I can say something new about that. Men generally don't have sympathy for other men. He would agree with that. Men tend to lo…
/r/MGTOW12/05/17 10:46 AM
1

You're right about this. I don't care much about sexual strategy in relationships, but it's true. You can't retain dominance in the face of that legal risk. For my own part, I don't like being shit-tested and exerting dominance over women. It's not that I can't do it, and I have done it - both professional and personally - but it feels manipulative to me - so I leave it to other men who actually enjoy doing it.
/r/MGTOW12/05/17 09:51 AM
13

mods are slipping.
/r/MGTOW11/05/17 11:51 PM
3

I'm pretty sure he's not projecting. It's just that he has a different prescription for the male condition. It would be fair to say that he's not an egalitarian, and he is very much on record as saying that male/female relationships don't work if the hypergamy isn't satisfied. Strangely enough, that's one of the reasons (among many) that I ended up a bachelor. I actually tried to have those 50/50 unicorn relationships. Didn't work. The women that were on my level wanted more, and the I didn't wa…
/r/MGTOW11/05/17 11:32 PM
2

Haha. I meant to write "thread." I just changed it. Full disclosure - I read his book, watched years of his lectures, even tried integrating some of the Jungian ideas into sessions that I had with a therapist for a few years. I was being treated mostly for trauma - but from what I suspect was more of a Freudian standpoint than a Jungian standpoint, but I wasn't ever really able to pull it off. I only really made a "breakthrough," if you could call it one - by realizing that I would have to throw…
/r/MGTOW11/05/17 11:17 PM
1

It didn't work back then either. Check out divorce rates after the introduction of the birth-control pill. Marriage has steadily fallen for a long time now. As women have become more economically independent, the marriage bond is less stable - which means that women were never interested in the male personality so much as they were interested in resources for themselves and children.
/r/MGTOW11/05/17 11:12 PM
2

Bonusfruit answered your question already. He values civilization over individual male lives. His answer to male disposability is for each man to embrace it because it's for some ill-specified greater good. So hey -even if you are miserable - at least other people were made less miserable and the world didn't blow up because you pulled an Eliot Rodgers. I'm being flippant here, but you probably get the idea. He would rather see men destroy themselves on Darwin's altar than opt out and possibly c…
/r/MGTOW11/05/17 11:10 PM
2

Why - because it was a thread about Peterson? LOL. Of course. I really like his work on religion. I just don't like his social prescription for men, particularly for men that would end up on a MGTOW sub.
/r/MGTOW11/05/17 11:01 PM
1

No. It's not that either. And not all men here have been slighted by women. Actually one of the best ways to have insight into female nature is to be successful with women and compare yourself to valued male friends who aren't successful. And MGTOW don't necessarily always support each other - particularly if the reasons for stepping away from women differ. And no offense, if you can't figure it out from what I've said and what's on the sidebar - then maybe you just don't get it.
/r/MGTOW11/05/17 10:44 PM
4

different mgtow do different things. it's not a movement.
/r/MGTOW11/05/17 10:40 PM
3

No that's not what he says. He says that you one you have to fix yourself first. And if you are prevented from "fixing" yourself - by situations like I describe than you are "impossible to help" using the tools that he uses in his private psychological practice. (Some examples of men that he openly admits that he can't help are men who've been ruined in family court or people (male/female) that can't find a life partner because of illness and other circumstances.) That's almost a verbatim quote …
/r/MGTOW11/05/17 10:20 PM
10

go through the old posts. it's just a bunch of men that have taken the decision to step away from the marriage contract. that's the smallest thing that the men here have in common - but apart from that - the REASONS for the men to do that vary a lot. And some of the different reasons create some acrimony even on the sub. For instance, some of the marriage strikers that are concerned mostly with the legal risk look down upon the guys that take umbrage with female nature. There are also incel guys…
/r/MGTOW11/05/17 10:13 PM
9

the sad truth is that many of the those men will continue to be unsuccessful despite any sacrifices or self-improvement they make. the vast majority, even. That's the math of hypergamy. Do some of these men demonize women - yes, but in all fairness to them - and in language that someone like Peterson would understand - only the negative aspects of female nature manifest themselves to them because they aren't high up enough in the dominance hierarchy. His argument isn't NAWALT. His argument is th…
/r/MGTOW11/05/17 10:03 PM
6

it's not a movement.
/r/MGTOW11/05/17 09:49 PM
29

Again - "undue influence" over bitter, resentful young men. Seriously? Well, what would could possibly make a young man bitter and resentful? Oh - I don't know - maybe he's low status and his brain his constantly giving him negative affect. Peterson's psychological prescription - work harder and don't be low status - either that - or find some way to "restructure" your personality so that you don't feel bad about your suffering. But from a neuroscience standpoint, he's also been on record about …
/r/MGTOW11/05/17 07:53 PM
1

The issue is the kind of things that both sides are getting out of the trade. Men value things that women did in the past, and even value women if they don't do anything. Women ask what have you done for me lately? So strictly speaking, both parties are trying to get something out of the trade, but the female end is far less stable, which is what he was getting at.
/r/MGTOW11/05/17 01:17 PM
1

It's the biology. If you need proof, just look at the animal kingdom away from humans. Same dynamics are there. Momma bird sits on the eggs, daddy bird fetches twigs for the nest while momma bird chirps at him. The specifics differ, but the themes are the same. Usually its a tournament of sorts of the males, most males fail, the females pick off the winners. Male disposability is in the fabric of nature. it's not a social construct.
/r/MGTOW10/05/17 11:25 PM
1

Fair enough, but I still think it's not "first blush." He understands the issues even deeper than a lot the men here on the subreddit. it's just that MGTOW doesn't square with the "map of meaning" that he's spent 30 years building. I'd put the mortgage on him not being able to reconcile the "hero's journey" that goes on here with either his formal academic research or his clinical practice - because it steps outside of Darwin, and it steps away from Jung.
/r/MGTOW10/05/17 11:08 PM
2

Even if I change your initial claim to "And the reason you're not interested is because your very survival doesn't depend on it. That is quite a new development in human civilization," it still doesn't wash. One - because I think I fall outside of your rules. Two - even if I were a typical male - my survival 1000 years ago wouldn't have depended on my station as much as my chances for REPRODUCTION would. All I would need to do to survive would be to generate enough resources to not be a drain on…
/r/MGTOW10/05/17 09:57 PM
2

it doesn't matter if it's an exception. You are applying the rule to ME. I'm asking you not to. You probably don't know what my motivations are or anything else about me besides what I've written in this sub. You also don't understand what "exception" means in the context of evolutionary history that extends millions of years. Because marriage has been exception in evolutionary history, not the rule. Increased access to the nuclear family has ALSO been the exception, and not the rule. Most males…
/r/MGTOW10/05/17 09:38 PM
2

Not necessarily, and please don't speak for me. And it's not a new development in human history. There were men in monasteries for one, and even St. Paul recommended that men stay bachelors and only marry if they were having trouble with the desire for coitus and reproduction.
/r/MGTOW10/05/17 09:18 PM
5

No, he did not. He has followed the PUA scene for far longer than MGTOW, and considers PUA tactics as psychopathic. The weasel comment comes from his desire to have men fulfill their biological role - with all the male disposability that comes with it. And he would consider men who were unable or unwilling to do this as being fundamentally "impossible to help" (his exact words) with respect to any mental issues that they would have. In other words, he would class men that are depressed (for inst…
/r/MGTOW10/05/17 09:08 PM
2

If that's what you think - you don't understand his philosophy. Have you read his book or watched his lectures? His worldview is a flavor of Darwinian Pragmatism - where the biological imperative to survive and reproduce - precedes, constrains, and informs everything else. Viewpoints that exist outside of that would be either pathological or self-deceptive in his mind. He wants men to compete in the dominance hierarchy, despite the long odds of success. He thinks it's immoral not to compete. And…
/r/MGTOW10/05/17 08:56 PM
6

I'm disinterested. I'm not MGTOW because of the laws. I just don't like spending my life increasing or preserving my station in the male dominance hierarchy in order to satisfy hypergamy.
/r/MGTOW10/05/17 08:39 PM
5

I don't think it's possible to characterize why men come here except for a desire to not have certain relationships with women. The why's are up to each man. As far as rights and laws - political action is not really part of that stepping away from women. That's a step towards something else. It's post-MGTOW. If anything characterizes MGTOW, it will be the smallest subset of common things - which is the step away from women. As soon as you get away from that - you get into things that are differ…
/r/MGTOW09/05/17 11:34 PM
38

not necessarily marriage even. i traded 18 months of happiness for 20 years of trauma, and we weren't even married
/r/MGTOW09/05/17 04:52 PM
8

Men feel less often, but feel more - if that makes sense.
/r/MGTOW09/05/17 04:50 PM
4

that's hypergamy and briffault's law. they dont come around unless they are getting more than they give.
/r/MGTOW09/05/17 04:42 PM
2

and sometimes it destroys you. and sometimes it creates men like eliot rodgers - who opens fire on a bunch of innocents out of resentment because he wasn't able to do the things that you do. I understand what you're saying - but I think it's dangerously prescriptive. I think a lot of men that are on the lower end of the dominance hierarchy are more likely to lose their shit than be able to make the personality transformation that you made. Nietzsche had it wrong - it's not a matter of whatever d…
/r/MGTOW09/05/17 03:33 PM
1

self-actualization with respect to young incels - only if incels need to have a relationship in order to self-actualize. If sex with women isn't part of self-actualization, then how is MGTOW an escape from self-actualization for an incel? It almost sounds like you're encouraging men to throw themselves into the meat grinder - particularly if they are incel. If a man is really INCEL - then I think it's better that he comes to terms with that and walks away - rather than beating his head against a…
/r/MGTOW09/05/17 03:07 PM
1

Disagree. Many would here. There is a thing called learning from someone else's mistakes.
/r/MGTOW09/05/17 03:02 PM
2

And I do, and have no problem with it. I don't expect people to adhere to my rules, in fact, I expect them to think the way you do - which is why I don't interact.
/r/MGTOW09/05/17 03:02 PM
1

it's a matter of risk. hypergamy means that most relationships will fail. that's the math. sure make your case. it's up to men to decide if the risk is worth the reward - and right now it looks like it's not. marriage rates are falling through the floor in developed countries, and it's not just western civilization - but also in the East. but if someone wants to put their hand on the stove, by all means - I'm not going to stop them. the failure is precisely the issue - men don't need to try to c…
/r/MGTOW09/05/17 02:29 PM
1

No. He understands the social and biological issues far more than the main stream. He just thinks that men should accept their biological determined disposability for the "greater good" of social stability and continued human existence - which would be identified in his mind as being close to the greatest good. If it's not the greatest good, then at least a good that precedes other goods, that is - you can't have other goods without a human subject that can experience them. And he's gone on reco…
/r/MGTOW09/05/17 11:25 AM
5

That's exactly his "argument," and silive's response is the appropriate MGTOW take. But I have a more sophisticated response that uses his own Darwinian Pragmatism against him. Societies are subject to the same evolutionary pressures that biologies are. If a society doesn't give its men a reason to live without tricking them or making them buy into a noble lie, then maybe that society is "maladaptive" and should go extinct and replaced by something else or nothing at all - true to Darwin.
/r/MGTOW09/05/17 11:18 AM
4

Here's a hypothesis - because being a productive member of society is more likely if you DON'T know about the true nature of female psychology.
/r/MGTOW09/05/17 11:12 AM
2

FWIW, I have a moral problem with the whole idea of maintaining frame and strategic interaction in the context of a romantic relationship. It's MANIPULATION. If I have to be consciously pushing someone's buttons - whether it's a friendship, a romance, or even a work situation with a colleague - then I take my leave. I don't like when people manipulate me, and to keep from being a hypocrite - I try not to do that to other people. If I have to "manage" a relationship, then I refuse it. If I have t…
/r/MGTOW09/05/17 09:26 AM
0

pay what dues and to whom? to society? to the cosmos? that's crazy talk. no one has to necessarily get their hand burnt to watch others get their hand burnt and learn from the experience. all a young guy has to do is look at the situation, look at himself, and think hard about how likely he is to eat a shit sandwich.
/r/MGTOW09/05/17 09:17 AM
2

The hierarchy that "biology" decided on long before you were born. It works that way for most sexually dimorphic species. Men compete and die while the females pick of the winners.
/r/MGTOW08/05/17 12:57 PM
1

yeah it's still around. it's under "bar bar" at youtube. "better" is hard to talk about without knowing what you think makes things good, but his channel is more about male vs. female biology and male sovereignty rather than being centered around the legal risks of marriage.
/r/MGTOW08/05/17 12:54 PM
11

tl;dr attractiveness to women isn't an absolute standard. it's relative to other men - graded on a curve, where most fail. Hypergamy dictates that the vast majority of men who've ever lived and ever will necessarily be "ugly" to women.
/r/MGTOW08/05/17 11:56 AM
2

That's right. The only way you get around that subjectivity is through explicit agreements, like the game that mathematicians play - or the game that lawyers play. (With the caveat that things are fully understood by both and voluntarily agreed to)
/r/MGTOW08/05/17 11:00 AM
2

logic is black and white. that's what logic is. that's what argument is. haven't you ever done a math proof? there's no room for imperfection in a logical argument. I've been trying to argue. You've been trying to persuade. The claim was that there's no way to map individual subjective preferences into a concept of overall social welfare without a fatal flaw, like leaving an individual preference unmapped, or having a difference in the value hierarchy that's going to cause a conflict. I didn't s…
/r/MGTOW07/05/17 08:18 PM
6

tl;dr - men's and women's lived experience is different to the point where mutual understanding ranges from difficult to impossible. Only works if there are coincidental goals - like reproduction and survival.
/r/MGTOW07/05/17 10:31 AM
3

"I'm sick of being treated like a piece of meat by men" (that I'm attracted to.) There - fixed it. There are many men that would like to have equal relationships with women. Hypergamy prevents these relationships from working.
/r/MGTOW07/05/17 10:28 AM
1

No. They have empathy in buckets. It's been tested as far as it can go as far as neuroscience and psychology. They just don't have sympathy for men. They need empathy in order to read the emotional states of others without using words - particularly useful when raising infants. You might mean sympathy when you say empathy. Granted, their are some women that have mental disorders that would have been Cluster B in the old DSM4, but your run of the mill women knows what men are feelings - she just …
/r/MGTOW07/05/17 09:49 AM
2

I don't think that's the case at all. His working model is actually pretty complicated. Because it's based in Darwinian Pragmatism, it's a sort of meta-model which allows the spontaneous emerging of competing models underneath. The issue is spoken language. Language is necessarily limited. When you speak of one thing - you necessarily don't speak of alternatives. When you give something a definition, you necessarily exclude things not in the definition. It's really hard to completely explain a s…
/r/MGTOW07/05/17 08:00 AM
2

i'm not being overly black and white in my thinking, I'm being logical. All I'm saying is that a rational construction of social welfare is theoretically impossible. Any empirical example of a cooperative framework doesn't disprove that - all it shows is that the point of disagreement hasn't been revealed yet - unless you assume that there are no differences between people's subjective value hierarchies. You are completely deflecting from my point and mischaracterizing what I say. Either that, o…
/r/MGTOW07/05/17 07:48 AM
1

well - I'm not willing to throw them all under the bus. I have had diagnosable trauma, and I did find going to see a therapist helpful. But it wasn't cheap, and it wasn't quick. It also took a lot of time for the shrink to see things from a MGTOW perspective, and it probably would have taken him longer if he weren't gay. I think one of the big dangers that psychologists get into when they start speaking publicly is that they start using language that's necessarily limited - and prescriptive in a…
/r/MGTOW06/05/17 08:02 PM
5

LOL. Could be for some, but probably not for him. I've wrote at length about what motivates him in my old posts. But he's gone on record saying that he had affective nightmares about nuclear annihilation for many years when he was younger. A lot of his work has been an investigation into the types of things that create totalitarian states and institutionalized deception and violence. One of his conclusions was that these things come from people not taking on individual responsibility for the hor…
/r/MGTOW06/05/17 07:04 PM
2

doesn't matter if you think it's not helpful - it's precisely the issue. but no society anywhere - even societies of two - can operate on universal agreement if there's even ONE difference in their hierarchies of value. as soon as there's a disagreement - then by definition - there is a conflict. you are assuming that there's a resolution by agreement - i'm pointing out that you don't have any way to integrate a dissenter into an aggregate map of value. what do you do with the dissenter? violenc…
/r/MGTOW06/05/17 06:22 PM
1

no. i'm saying it doesn't work in theory. hasn't worked. and impossible to make it work. you can't go from subjective to objective without unanimous agreement (whether it's agreement between 2 or agreement between all). if you have dissention, then someone's welfare is getting stepped on - then you need to have a way to weight importance, but that would imply some objective map of value, that no one has access to - because their own maps of value are subjective. so it doesn't work in theory or i…
/r/MGTOW06/05/17 06:11 PM
9

this is one of the best posts I've seen. it's precisely the issue - a handful of men get the prize and most suffer.
/r/MGTOW06/05/17 05:32 PM
1

that's not a constructive definition of "greater good" or social welfare. there has never BEEN one that hasn't had some sort of fatal flaw. values are subjective, not objective, inner states are inferred and not observed. there's no way to go from individuals subjective values - to a concept of objective social welfare. particularly because society has no will and no motivation. and the divide between subjective and objective. the small scale thought experiments in your mind or anyone's mind - t…
/r/MGTOW06/05/17 05:12 PM
3

so it doesn't work for SOCIETY. it only works to expand the reproductive vision of 51% of it. you dont get to make social prescription disguised as individual prescription unless you can clearly map the benefit of the aggregate to the individual. and NO one in the history of the world has been able to do that successfully. it's horseshit. what he should do is come out and say that men should willingly suffer so women and children can benefit. but he DOES not say that and he WONT say that. he'll …
/r/MGTOW06/05/17 04:41 PM
3

It's worse than what you said - because he's making SOCIAL prescription - which means that what he has to say has to work for men as a CLASS - and not just select individuals.
/r/MGTOW06/05/17 04:09 PM
57

wrong, wrong, wrong again by Peterson. And it's amazing that he can continue to get it wrong. He knows about the 80/20 rule. He knows about r/k selection. He knows about hypergamy. What that means is MATHEMATICALLY - the majority of men will always be undesirable to women because it's not graded on an absolute scale but GRADED ON A CURVE. ' How does a college professor not get this? Has he never experienced a grade curve or used one in his own classes? Female rejection doesn't mean you are unpre…
/r/MGTOW06/05/17 11:05 AM
5

Ok, how about using his own Darwinian Pragmatism against him? In his own framework, societies exist to serve the biological imperative of the individuals. Societies that do not further the biological imperative of enough of its men to support reproduction and meaningful lives are maladaptive and won't persist - instead being replaced by other modes of social organization. MGTOW not good for society? Don't make me laugh. MGTOW not good for HIS idea of a society - which may not even be fit to exis…
/r/MGTOW06/05/17 07:25 AM
2

I'm really not angry, but there's a cost. The cost was losing a sense of agency about a lot of things. If anything, I would say the anger was replaced by a lingering sadness that the logical, rational, problem-solving part of the male brain really isn't suited for solving social problems. It's pretty much suited for solving physical engineering problems, in my opinion. Where I think I got it wrong for decades, and where I think many men get it wrong, is overestimating the size of the operative f…
/r/MGTOW05/05/17 06:55 AM
5

I simply don't get angry anymore. I'm more philosophical about it than anything. When I was younger, I used to believe in something called "objectivity." Well, I still do, but I think that the domain of objective truth is a lot smaller than I thought it was before and that most of the time people don't operate in it - particularly about things that they really care about. The way you see the world is subconsciously motivated. If you walk into a room and you're hungry, you see the food first. If …
/r/MGTOW04/05/17 09:46 AM
33

women seldom argue. they persuade. argument is a particular type of game. women don't play it if they think they're going to lose. men argue to settle things without using violence. there's deep biology at work here. the sooner you realize that women don't use words the way men do, the better off you'll be.
/r/MGTOW03/05/17 08:57 AM
3

who is this "we?" i speak for myself.
/r/MGTOW03/05/17 06:29 AM
10

the problem with experienced women is that you're more likely to be cuckolded or abandoned for another man. Sex isn't for pleasure - sex is for procreation. The reason why it's fun is to give you incentive to breed. that's why inexperienced women are more attractive - because your less likely to waste your time and money raising another man's child. it's not about the sex - it's about the reproduction - and there's a lot of other things that fold into that than just coitus. fun sex is a lot less…
/r/MGTOW02/05/17 12:03 PM
1

maybe awareness isn't a good thing. maybe it's better to let men search for MGTOW when they have a reason to search for MGTOW. it is possible to traumatize someone by introducing knowledge that doesn't fit with their personal experience. (that said, if they can - they get wisdom, but it's not clear which way it's going to go before you make someone aware)
/r/MGTOW02/05/17 09:16 AM
1

This is more men's rights territory. And I think Warren Farrell is in this picture somewhere (seriously). There's some overlap between people that identify as MGTOW and MRA, but MGTOW isn't a social movement - it's a personal project for the man going his own way.
/r/MGTOW02/05/17 09:10 AM
3

It's not the laws. It's the biology of both sexes. Start a revolution, tear stuff down, what ends up getting rebuilt will just redo the same problems between men and women eventually - because the instincts are hardwired. A lot of men are MGTOW because of the social structures. I'm MGTOW because i realize society is a bogeyman - the social problems are an inevitable consequence of the evolutionary biology.
/r/MGTOW02/05/17 08:17 AM
4

Yeah, that's a big problem - and also an evolutionary problem. They've biologically evolved to use the social structures to satisfy their needs where men have had to vie with each other in the dominance hierarchy, produce MORE than their own needs, with the surplus going to the group if they wanted to reproduce. And because this was the cost of admission for reproduction, it became biologically reinforced over time. It's for this reason that I don't think you can build a society that fixes the p…
/r/MGTOW02/05/17 08:07 AM
3

You're not refuting my point. Even if a society is culturally and racially homogenous on a historical time line, eventually they'll probably exhaust the low-hanging fruit, and the individuals will want to satisfy abstract goals that are different - and that's when things break down. It's like a diminishing returns argument in economics.
/r/MGTOW02/05/17 08:03 AM
3

You may have unintentionally strengthened my point rather than refuted it. I maintain that more homogenous countries are ones that operate on Maslow's lower rungs. Once people get more satisfied, the diversity in their unmet needs becomes revealed. It's a matter of causality. My taxonomy wouldn't be around diversity - because diversity would be CAUSED by goal satisfaction.
/r/MGTOW02/05/17 07:01 AM
6

sometimes it's not about being happy, it's about being less miserable than you would be otherwise. if you feel bad when you're alone - consider that you may feel a lot worse being surrounded by people that make you FEEL alone. That ignore you, that lie to you, that mistreat you, etc. I've been in a relationship with a woman that was FAR FAR worse than any pangs of loneliness that I've felt. I'll take loneliness over mistreatment any day. Neither makes me happy, but one is worse.
/r/MGTOW02/05/17 05:23 AM
20

Want to really fry your noodle? Maybe people didn't agree on as much as you thought they did before. Ever see Maslow's hierarchy of needs. It's easy to agree to work on stuff that's at the bottom. Once those get satisfied - you probably get a lot more difference in the abstract thoughts than you do in the basic survival needs. It could simply be that civilization growth doesn't create dissolution so much as it exposes the irrreconcilable differences between people once the simple desires are met…
/r/MGTOW02/05/17 05:11 AM
3

For the handful that take place, the guys are either ignorant or they think they can beat the odds. Some will, most won't. When you're young, you don't think about the times when you might lose your job, get sick, get older, have your woman make more money than you, become less attractive than a male rival, etc. I sure didn't. I've been top and bottom of the dominance hierarchy - believe me - women simply manifest differently to those two classes. It's easy to think the world is rosy when things…
/r/MGTOW01/05/17 09:21 AM
2

This is going to be a bit of a philosophical answer, but people have different views on things. The problem with language is that it necessarily limits its perspective to something to the exclusion of other things. When you ask - how is it a dystopia - the question is probably better phrased - how is it a dystopia to others and not to me? The answer is simple - because other people don't see the same world that you do. Unfortunately - once you make that leap - it will probably become harder to r…
/r/MGTOW30/04/17 07:58 AM
2

you're mischaracterizing this forum. this forum isn't trying to get guys to do anything. it simply explains some things about society and female nature, and the rest is up to that man. you may see certain choices that men here have made, and these usually have to do with rejecting women. this doesn't necessarily make them "happy" as it probably makes them HAPPIER than they would be otherwise. that's a big distinction to make. also the reasons why men have made these choices will be conditioned o…
/r/MGTOW29/04/17 03:54 AM
1

shocking. it's just biology. people are attuned to status - women especially so.
/r/MGTOW29/04/17 02:17 AM
3

Sigh. Very well put, and too true. Should be stickied somewhere.
/r/MGTOW29/04/17 01:30 AM
1

irrelevant? hardly. different axioms are the primary source of conflict - usually resolved by violence - even if that violence is directed by a majority vote.
/r/MGTOW29/04/17 01:25 AM
1

still talking sideways from my point. you can't argue with people who have different axioms, but you're welcome to keep trying to hijack it away from the point.
/r/MGTOW28/04/17 02:31 AM
1

it doesn't NEED to prove anything. if a man doesn't like those aspects of female nature, then he doesn't have to interact with them. you dont get to decide the reasons why MGTOW go MGTOW or how they judge women. you also don't get to decide what's appropriate or inappropriate for anyone in this world but YOU.
/r/MGTOW28/04/17 02:03 AM
5

MGTOW is NOT a societal solution. It's a personal solution. Men do it for themselves, as individuals. For every man here who thinks they are undermining society, there's another who just wants to protect himself.
/r/MGTOW27/04/17 10:53 PM
6

You can drive out nature with a pitchfork, but she keeps coming back.
/r/MGTOW27/04/17 06:34 AM
10

you aren't in control of your emotions. you aren't in control of your biology. some mgtow go their own way despite the biology. I am one. The biology hurts everyday. I don't ignore it, but I'm just at the point where I realize that I would be hurting myself more by trying to solve the problem than by living with the pain. I sorta see it as a chronic illness. Sometimes you can't cure things, you have to bear them.
/r/MGTOW27/04/17 03:52 AM
1

it's one thing to not be fan. it's another to shame, mock, and prescribe to others how to live their lives. he's free to not be a fan, but when he insults people in an attempt to get them to do what he thinks would be better for the greater good that he attracts flak. I get it - he's in the business of prescription - but that doesn't fly here. and if you don't understand why he's getting that flak here - well - I don't know what to tell you. the point is that all he has is ad hominem because he …
/r/MGTOW27/04/17 02:56 AM
28

women only want constant communication from Chad. if you're not chad - then "not ghosting" is being "too clingy."
/r/MGTOW27/04/17 01:37 AM
1

you just illustrated my point, not disputed it. if something starts with "it depends" then a person can't ARGUE with someone who starts with a view on the other side of the "depends." you can disagree with them, but not argue with them. in the specific case, someone can just say - i dont care about what's bad for civilizations, and voila - you have no argument anymore. or someone can say - short run more important than long run. "define bad" etc. regardless, no argument possible without agreed u…
/r/MGTOW27/04/17 01:33 AM
2

Well, it's a normative question about whether things are "bad" culturally. Those can't be settled by argument. (Well I take that back, there are a handful of norms that are presupposed by argument, but aside from those - the rest aren't able to be settled.) I have a feeling the kind of thing that Peterson is shooting for is something like an awareness of the biology and a discussion about biology and civilization leads to voluntary adoption of a culture that solves those problems. (In other word…
/r/MGTOW26/04/17 11:29 PM
7

His whole worldview is circumscribed by Darwinnian Pragmatism. Of course he's going to say that. You might want to read some of the detailed criticism of that viewpoint that's been posted here for the last few months. That said, the thwarting of biological urges is a big source of suffering for both men and women. What he never has a solution for - is how do you solve that problem for men who aren't top of the dominance hierarchy if you allow women to be economically independent. That's because …
/r/MGTOW26/04/17 09:54 PM
1

No - because if it's possible to show them to be in error - then they aren't axiomatic - in the sense - that it's possible to confirm, deny, or show a contradiction. i'm talking about irreductible axiomatic starting points, immune to empirical or logical refutation.
/r/MGTOW26/04/17 12:55 AM
1

axiomatic beliefs that can be refuted empirically are in principle, not axiomatic - in the sense that they can be reduced to something else. i'm talking about unfalsifiable, unconfirmable axioms.
/r/MGTOW26/04/17 12:54 AM
2

Axiomatic truths that fail obviously weren't axiomatic. The types of things I was talking about are a priori assumptions - not able to be confirmed or falsified by any empirical evidence. Stuff like values, etc. It's easy to have an argument over phenomenon and facts. It's impossible to have an argument over different value assumptions. You can have a disagreement over axioms, but you can't have an ARGUMENT about axioms because argument presupposes axioms.
/r/MGTOW25/04/17 04:48 AM
2

yeah, but she'll happily take wealth redistribution through her proxy agents in government. she'll also kindly take the bennies of living in male-built civilization.
/r/MGTOW25/04/17 01:09 AM
16

It's hard to put together a logical argument against MGTOW. It's hard to put together a logical argument about anything. Most people don't have problems with each other because of bad logic. It's because logic doesn't produce a result across people when they don't have the same axiomatic beliefs.
/r/MGTOW24/04/17 11:22 PM
5

very well put.
/r/MGTOW24/04/17 10:57 PM
1

My advice to you would be to stop telling one-sided stories with respect to risky outcomes. You have to qualify prescriptions with likelihoods of outcomes and effects of outcomes - especially when it comes to anything health related. As far as men who have experienced trauma at the hands of women, if they can't find a good therapist that is comfortable dealing with MGTOW-minded men (and as you say, that's not likely), then they have to spend some time thinking about their trauma and whether avoi…
/r/MGTOW24/04/17 10:19 PM
1

Bad advice. Very one-sided. Yes, you're absolutely right about the avoiding behavior patterns - there's also another word that fits that - it's called TRAUMA. You are right that mastery and practice helps you get over trauma, but you don't tell the flip side of the story - which is that repeated exposure without mastery RETRAUMATIZES and confirms the brain patterns. Attempts to use voluntary exposure to get over trauma that don't result in mastery are actually REALLY DANGEROUS to the individual.…
/r/MGTOW24/04/17 09:50 PM
2

just biology. same thing happens with lots of farm animals. males don't tend to fight each other unless there are females around.
/r/MGTOW24/04/17 04:14 AM
17

Change feminists to "women." Feminism is just a political manifestation of women's nature. Women don't see anything but the top tier of men - apex fallacy.
/r/MGTOW22/04/17 11:25 PM
24

more gynocentrism. it's all about the women - nothing about giving men what they want.
/r/MGTOW22/04/17 05:15 AM
3

Because they are more risk-averse than men - blame evolution. Sticking to a course of action and keeping promises sometimes means that you end up being a lot worse off than you would be if you flaked. Because sperm is cheap and eggs are rare, the species has a better shot at survival if the men take the risks (i.e. commit to courses of actions with uncertain outcomes) and women wait to see which risks pay off and ignore the losers. If you're still thinking about things in terms of society and no…
/r/MGTOW21/04/17 07:12 AM
11

very interesting post. suggests that there's something in human nature behind all of this. too many parallels.
/r/MGTOW20/04/17 09:53 PM
7

Sure, just like the female fantasies manifested in books like "Fifty Shades of Grey" and "My Secret Garden" are placed in women's minds by the patriarchy.... I'm sorry you have to receive such shitty instruction.
/r/MGTOW19/04/17 07:27 PM
2

Have you even read fate of empires? it's only 26 pages. All i'm saying was that there was mention of a feminist movement in one of the old caliphates where women started to push into male spaces where they had previously never been. Of course - it was only after the empire was seasoned, wealthy, etc. Similar patterns in Rome. You're just story-telling. So am I. This isn't a math proof or a controlled experiment in a lab. That's one of the problems with "historical" proof - it's no proof at all -…
/r/MGTOW18/04/17 07:41 PM
10

exactly - a female perspective. misses out on hypergamy. misses out on the idea that the vast, vast majority of men are NOT practicing serial polygamy but rather that most women are practicing serial polyandry. She totally gets it backwards. Apex fallacy - the men lower than 80th percentile are invisible to her. Also, she advocates harnessing the male sex drive for female ends (safety, security, and provision). She doesn't even make an attempt to hide it. For real? I couldn't even get a boner fo…
/r/MGTOW18/04/17 07:20 PM
1

Counterexample: Feminism's rise in one of the old Muslim caliphates. (See Fate of Empires). Guess what - that was a long time before Marx and unlikely to have been orchestrated by anyone Jewish (considering it was in a Muslim empire.) Alternative hypothesis: observed phenomena manifested as a consequence of innate human nature - across the species as a whole.
/r/MGTOW18/04/17 07:04 PM
41

i know this look. it's the thousand-cock stare.
/r/MGTOW18/04/17 06:51 PM
1

that's probably right. look how long it took rome to fall. On the other hand, the guy that wrote fate of empires seemed to map about 250-300 years of empire life. So if you consider the U.S. around 240 years old, then there probably are some guys here who will live to see the end of U.S. hegemony and the rise of some other power. I spent some time in the UK, and there's very much a memory of the glory days of the British empire. I reckon there will be some younger guys here that end up having th…
/r/MGTOW18/04/17 12:51 AM
1

You aren't control of your feelings. You are somewhat in control of your actions. Not getting what you want makes you feel bad. That's unavoidable. HOWEVER - you can stop feeling guilty about feeling bad. And getting rid of the 2nd part - guilt about feeling bad - will probably make you feel better.
/r/MGTOW17/04/17 09:16 PM
4

Exactly - as long as the game is graded on a curve, with only a small portion given high marks, there's no way for most men to win that game. Along those lines, the men who shame the other men are just doing it to get their own dopamine fix by shitting on someone lower in the dominance hierarchy. I'm not blaming them for doing it - but that's what it is - mostly reflexive behavior. Although it's hard to do for the low guy on the totem pole - it might help to realize that a lot of the posturing a…
/r/MGTOW17/04/17 08:42 PM
3

Yeah. That was a hard pill to swallow, but it's undeniably true. Unfortunately, I really don't want a relationship with a woman that's one sided like that - conditional on my provision and station within the dominance hierarchy. And if there were kids, and I slipped up and fell? Then the kids suffer too. The dream is dead.
/r/MGTOW17/04/17 08:23 PM
7

Interesting taxonomy. Particularly the disappointers - better to be ignored than mocked and mistreated. I've never thought about it like that before.
/r/MGTOW17/04/17 08:02 PM
2

I think they went from dating to hookup culture because under hookup culture they have a better chance of chad spawn. Not saying any of this is conscious thinking, probably biologically reflexive in a resource abundant environment.
/r/MGTOW16/04/17 12:38 AM
1

This. He doesn't take the math of the biology out to its conclusion. His only prescription is "try harder." That answer isn't good enough because the game is graded on a curve. That means that you need a justification of "try harder" for men that know they will almost certainly fail (by the same Darwinian pragmatism that he espouses) - but he hasn't given a justification. He doesn't have one - and can't have one. Because the selfish gene doesn't want to play when there's little chance of winning…
/r/MGTOW14/04/17 10:13 PM
4

Strictly speaking, you aren't arguing. You're story telling. And that's fine, but it's not an argument. You need common a priori assumptions for an argument to proceed - those are rare in a community as diverse as this. The question then is whether anyone finds your story compelling - but to be clear - it's a story, and not an argument. I'm not telling you to stop story telling, though, I'm just pointing out that you aren't doing a math proof (which is a formal arugment). What you are doing is c…
/r/MGTOW14/04/17 09:58 PM
1

Buttarang, I don't know if you are still around - but listen to zombocom. I think there may be something to it, talk to someone in the Church about your experiences.
/r/MGTOW13/04/17 10:40 PM
1

It doesn't have to be an excuse for to live like nothing matters, but that's not what MGTOW is about. And if you are tempted to live like nothing matters and you don't LIKE that about yourself, well that's your own problem to fix. And besides, even if one guy figures it out for himself - how likely is that solution going to work for someone who's a different race, creed, age, political bent, etc.? If you end up coming up with a good way to solve society's problems or come across one - then hey -…
/r/MGTOW13/04/17 03:36 PM
1

I think she's onto something. Perhaps not that her whole theory was correct, but her criticism of Kohlberg's work as being androcentric is probably right. Depending on how you would define "morality," I think you end up with something like men and women might have incommensurable moral development and moral systems. That might make it difficult to make "moral" appeals across gender - for obvious reasons.
/r/MGTOW13/04/17 01:06 AM
3

Nice try. I don't expect you to worry about my feelings and I certainly wouldn't try to place an obligation on you. But your jump to ad hominem seems to justify my suspicion about the subtext. See ya.
/r/MGTOW13/04/17 12:37 AM
1

I humbly disagree. Your reply came across as condescending. Whether or not you think it was - isn't as important to me as how it came across. And even if you consciously thought it wasn't - it could easily have been so subconsciously. So I felt obligated to return the favor - consciously.
/r/MGTOW13/04/17 12:29 AM
3

Yeah - BarBar is still very important and relevant, even though he rarely puts out stuff for the community anymore. And that in itself is ALSO important. Once you've looked at the situation enough - and really internalized it all - there's no reason to keep visiting the old theories again unless there needs to be a refinement. From there it's just about going forward as best you can under the new perspective. But the reddit portal tends to be a place that has a lot of people very much in the "fi…
/r/MGTOW13/04/17 12:03 AM
9

because it's not, and some people think it is and try to say it is. It's just a group of men making a decision about rejecting conventional relationships with women for their own reasons. Even these reasons very HUGELY across the men in the subreddit and in the wider MGTOW community away from the subreddit. Some men care most about the legal risk, while other men don't like certain aspects of female nature, other men take umbrage with the biological realities of male disposability. And although …
/r/MGTOW12/04/17 11:51 PM
2

Uh, it's not my duty. Thanks for the concern-troll, though.
/r/MGTOW12/04/17 10:20 PM
6

social market value with respect to reproduction, unless the man is a rapist, means being "attractive to women." Is that hard to understand? By "on their terms" - I'm not talking about what women say - I'm talking about what their unconscious instincts lead them to desire in men, and we know what those things are. And it's a man's awareness that he falls short in those categories that often makes him miserable - not that he "isn't doing what women say." Men can often dismiss women's stated terms…
/r/MGTOW12/04/17 10:00 PM
3

I'm not making one. I'm also not making a counter-argument. If you care about it, then you need to figure it out yourself. MGTOW only encompasses a small section of a man's life, the rest of it after that is your personal project - that may have little in common with other MGTOW.
/r/MGTOW12/04/17 09:37 PM
11

I honestly don't think this is possible to the extent it's not driven by society but rather by biology. Think about it - men that really didn't care about pleasing women on their terms (over millions of years of evolution) didn't breed. I think men need to relax some assumptions about the agency they have in their own lives. Just as the female has a tendency towards a perception of hypoagency, the male has one towards hyperagency. Maybe men need to learn how to FORGIVE themselves for falling sho…
/r/MGTOW12/04/17 09:29 PM
7

THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT I'M SAYING. Both men and women just didn't understand what was going on before. And despite being nostalgic for tradcon culture (and I'm probably one of the few men in this subreddit that actually lived it), it just can't be done anymore without the necessity being recreated. The turn-back-the-clock folks think it was people believing in the culture, choosing the culture, voluntarily accepted social norms. And if this were true, then it would indeed be as "simple" as just …
/r/MGTOW12/04/17 09:00 PM
2

I think she's genuine, and I learned a lot by surfing her site. I think her stuff is more useful for men that are still actively seeking LTRs, however. I think a lot that she has to say is useful for a man healing from intimate partner abuse, but after that - a lot of it might not be relevant for many MGTOW. But it's not one size fits all, the "marriage strike" variety of MGTOW might have a lot to gain by watching her, but MGTOWs that lean more to the monk/ghost side won't get a lot out of it in…
/r/MGTOW12/04/17 08:41 PM
5

Well here's the problem along those lines. The sexual differences across all dimensions seems to imply incommensurable moralities across men and women - to the extent that you want to try to link up shoulds and shouldn'ts to what people will actually do from a biological standpoint. (Not being an is/ought fallacy if you take a constructionist viewpoint and try to build a morality that should at least be one that is able to be accomplished by most people voluntarily - but not necessarily easily) …
/r/MGTOW12/04/17 07:52 PM
1

I've said this before, but it's worth repeating for the lurkers. Women don't argue. Most people don't argue, but women especially don't like to argue. Debate/argument is a particular type of game that has particular rules, and most importantly - an agreement on some foundational truths on which deduction can proceed. Without any of that - you aren't arguing. You may be persuading, lying, disagreeing, inquiring, exploring the possibility of consensus or compromise, or a zillion other speech acts,…
/r/MGTOW12/04/17 05:39 PM
12

You're asking too much of MGTOW. MGTOW doesn't encompass ANY of a man's choices besides the decision to go AWAY from women. The rest of it is an individual choice for each man. It's a PERSONAL project. It's unrealistic to expect concrete life recommendations out of a MGTOW forum, and that's what this is. MGTOW isn't a movement, so there's no direction about where to go after that step AWAY. And all you see here are a collection of men who have made that choice for very different reasons and have…
/r/MGTOW11/04/17 04:01 PM
3

Stop thinking you're in control of your feelings. You're also not even 100% in control of your actions. Do what you can, forgive yourself for the things that you can't. I'm not necessarily advocating a sort of Buddhism, asceticism, or Stoicism - although those seemed to have helped for many men, I'm just saying that if you really look at yourself closer - you'll probably find your consciousness awareness is along for the ride on a lot of things. Then you can start rethinking about how much agenc…
/r/MGTOW09/04/17 06:54 PM
2

No - there is no such thing as a risk-free option. Not just with women, but with everything. You have to decide whether things are worth it on a case-by-case basis.
/r/MGTOW06/04/17 05:07 PM
15

Here's an excerpt of the last time a woman probed for information in my life. Her: Are you interested in relationships? Me: What kind of relationships? Her: Dating. Me: I'm not gay, but I've found that I'm not offering them what they want, and they're not offering what I want. And that ended it, and I didn't lie - but I also didn't have to go into details.
/r/MGTOW04/04/17 01:33 AM
2

You're not getting what I'm saying. Ethical theories have to be argumentatively decisive in order to be used in ARGUMENT. I'm not disputing their use - I'm disputing that they are used in argument. People use them in the context of different speech acts. Persuasion, rhetoric, bamboozling are all useful to people - but it's not argument. And all it takes is one flaw - one counterexample - to make something useless for argument. It's useful for storytelling, but it's not going to settle the issue …
/r/MGTOW04/04/17 12:52 AM
2

And that's precisely the point. They all suffer from weaknesses - which means they don't settle the issue. And if they don't settle the issue - then it's not an argument. It's rhetoric and drum-beating. Use my definition pretty-please or we'll have to fight, etc. Well maybe I'm being harsh - it could be simply attempting to find an argument - but it's still not the same as argument. And regardless - that indeterminacy doesn't allow you argumentatively settle a norm conflict with someone NOW.
/r/MGTOW03/04/17 07:56 PM
4

No, that's not the only place where the gap lies. It's that certain types of stories that are important to people aren't falsifiable by ANY experiment - which means that you aren't doing experimental science when you tell the stories. You are doing something else - closer to rhetoric or declarations of religious faith. For instance, appeals to the "greater good." No one has come up with a hardcore, constructive definition of it - yet people seem to tell stories about it all the time. (A lot of t…
/r/MGTOW03/04/17 04:57 PM
3

I'm actually going to use his mythological framework to come up with a different story for that very objection - if that is indeed one of his motivations (along with the fear of nuclear holocaust and totalitarian states). If it turns out that a less tolerant society ends up bullying out the civilization that he cares about so much, maybe it means that his society was maladaptive from the standpoint of Darwinian pragmatism and that maybe it's time for some of these less tolerant places to have a …
/r/MGTOW03/04/17 01:59 PM
10

It's not on me to make choices that make you feel good. And strange that you are speaking for the entirety of the subreddit instead of speaking for yourself. You aren't having a dialogue with me - what you're doing is telling me a story and hoping I go along with what you want me to do. Fair enough - I have other stories - but you aren't getting me to do what you want without violence.
/r/MGTOW03/04/17 01:29 PM
8

Just because you trade with someone doesn't mean you need to have the same beliefs as someone. You don't need to be part of the same society or be part of the same religion to enjoy the economic benefits from trade. When you trade with someone in another country you AREN'T part of their society and you are probably not a part of their culture. Even when you interact with someone next door - there are plenty of differences between you and your neighbor. But in order for that to work - you need fe…
/r/MGTOW03/04/17 01:12 PM
42

I've already spilled a lot of ink on some of the problems with trying to apply a Jungian/Darwinian/Phenomenological viewpoint to MGTOW in particular, or even more broadly (people that are going to lose the Darwinian game and that he would consider untreatable with the tools that he uses in his private practice). But I thought it would be helpful to flesh this out for some others (take it if it helps - throw it away if it doesn't). Once you start getting outside of theories that can be falsified …
/r/MGTOW02/04/17 04:14 PM
2

Nah. Men are attracted to sluts - or else they wouldn't BE sluts! No men would be sleeping with them. LOL In my younger days, I could appreciate a good slut. But your point is probably more that a man doesn't want to tie up a lot of resources in sluts - and that's absolutely right.
/r/MGTOW02/04/17 01:24 AM
7

Because men tend to manipulate the material world to get what they want out of life, and women tend to manipulate the social world to get what they want out of life. It may help you (or not) to think about different types of speech acts. Sometimes when people are speaking - they aren't necessarily making a claim about anything - the speech is MOTIVATED - trying to get some sort of goal apart from communication. Lying is one type of this speech - but there's tons of others. So when you hear someo…
/r/MGTOW02/04/17 12:53 AM
3

Yes, there's youtube channels and forums away from this sub. This sub is just a piece, and maybe not even the biggest piece. I was pretty much able to put a lot of pieces together using everything BUT this subreddit. There are a lot of different flavors of MGTOW, but I learned a lot from Stardusk and Barbarossa. I used to lurk on the old MGTOW Forums and its descendents. I've also read a lot of bachelor resources. I read a lot of the material on the sidebar before I ever read or posted anything …
/r/MGTOW01/04/17 06:12 PM
3

The point is that failure is a reality. Failure has to be real in order for success to mean anything. And no - he doesn't get to make the excuse when he's a public figure that he's not "talking to everyone" - a psychologist who isn't public and only operates a private practice gets to make that excuse. You don't get to make that excuse for him and have it wash with me or probably any other man with a brain. He is talking to everyone in the sense when he's giving lectures and making social prescr…
/r/MGTOW01/04/17 04:58 PM
3

That's a big part of it. But it's just not the legal - there are social and biological problems as well - but it's easier to see the legal. But solving the legal won't turn back the clock at this point because the biology has been unleashed.
/r/MGTOW01/04/17 11:42 AM
2

Of course it's not true that it's beyond one person's power to climb the dominance hierarchy. But it is beyond ALL men's power to climb the dominance hierarchy because the game is graded on a curve - relative to each other. Just like in an algebra class - you can't give everyone A's if you grade on a curve. Few people here make the claim that it's beyond the power to climb. It's about whether it's WORTH it and how stable any particular rung is. The thing about Jordan Peterson's WHOLE worldview i…
/r/MGTOW01/04/17 10:49 AM
2

I think that any man that is in any relationship (friendship even - not just marriage) with any woman that exhibits the signs of a Cluster B disorder in the old DSM-4 should FUCKING RUN. Don't walk, but RUN. Run - block the number - go no contact. There's a lot more at risk than the types of stuff that MGTOW usually talk about. These types of people are enough to damage your sanity - perhaps permanently - and an intimate relationship with one is dangerous.
/r/MGTOW01/04/17 03:34 AM
7

Here's the thing - even if girls understood the above concepts it wouldn't change their instincts. Conscious awareness doesn't always overpower the subconscious - especially on things that are as primordially deep as sex. No amount of effective communication or respect for others is going to get that girl's vagina wet for a guy that doesn't check off her subconscious boxes. Just sayin'
/r/MGTOW01/04/17 03:06 AM
1

As much as I would like to agree with you on the science/tech part, it's unlikely. History suggests that men aren't as productive when they don't have a reproductive stake in the game. That said, I don't think it's worth sacrificing men's lives just to increase GDP.
/r/MGTOW01/04/17 03:03 AM
24

I can give you some numbers from my own life if we want to talk about the "worth of memories" that I've created with women. I had around 18 months of happiness from one relationship that left me with over 20 years of trauma, and we weren't even married. Do the math there. You're damned right that the purple-pill view is a false narrative. It's just more "man up" shaming. There's always more status to be earned, another rival to be fought off, more threats to be averted - IT NEVER FUCKING ENDS. A…
/r/MGTOW01/04/17 02:55 AM
7

I'm 40. I used to work on Wall Street. I've been seeing people stab each other in the back for over 20 years. Occasionally, even friends do it. I've even seen "friends" work to get other "friends" fired - even when that "friend" has a family to support. I don't think MGTOW have any special way to deal with betrayal. When it comes to infidelity, I would say that MGTOW would tend to expect infidelity from women going into a relationship in the first place. Then it's up to you whether you want a re…
/r/MGTOW01/04/17 02:38 AM
4

Here's my take: there's no such thing as NAWALT. There's just AWALT. There IS such a thing as conditionally NAWALT. What would happen if your brother developed a disability? What would happen if your brother lost his job? What would happen if he became disfigured? What would happen if a man of much higher station started to move in on your brother's girlfriend? What held a lot of relationships together in the past (when I was growing up) wasn't so much that the bond was strong as much as it WASN…
/r/MGTOW01/04/17 01:07 AM
1

Oh there are too many to list. But I grew up as Midwestern Catholic. I attended sex-segregated schools. Traditional gender roles were strongly encouraged at home and in the community. I personally experienced the continuity of male wisdom that stretched back 1000s of years on the daily. I mean - I had a living experience of it - I could almost touch it with my hands. I would walk into buildings and see dust on the books surrounded by pictures of older men and feel connected to the past. Although…
/r/MGTOW31/03/17 11:34 PM
8

Particularly non-criminal boys. I'm just theorizing on the fly, but I think it would go something along these lines. The boy, using innate dominance hierarchy software, accepts his father as authority. As long as his father was the primary interface between society and the household and the boy saw that his father seemed to be voluntarily submitting to the rules of culture, then his brain would abstractly make the leap that "the culture" was higher up the dominance hierarchy than his father - an…
/r/MGTOW31/03/17 02:36 PM
11

There's something to this, I think. I'm no expert in child development - but I reckon that men are precisely the ones who are supposed to be doing cultural transmission, discipline, and instruction to children after infancy and early childhood - at the point in life where they don't need mom's physical affection as much and are starting to learn how to confront the world and other people.
/r/MGTOW31/03/17 01:40 PM
4

Not all of this is right, but that doesn't mean that all of it is wrong. I think Tesla got the spirit right, but some of the details are off. For one, we know things about IQ that he didn't - the variance in male general intelligence is higher than that of female intelligence - despite averages being pretty close (depending on which studies you use). So even though the median man has similar general intelligence (but NOT similiar motivation and interests) to the median woman, the top 5% of men a…
/r/MGTOW31/03/17 01:34 PM
2

FWIW, I'm actually fine with the idea of "the divine individual" and individual sovereignty - but those ideas are inconsistent with the idea of government (of any form) that can shit on the individual and back it up with a "legitimized" use of violence. Although he relies on the individual to push the group in the "right" direction - I don't think there's a strong a priori argument for this to happen. People get led down disastrous paths by mob thinking and they get led down disastrous paths by …
/r/MGTOW31/03/17 10:58 AM
1

Depends on what you mean by "better" - I already responded to you in another post - but I can probably anticipate where you'll disagree - and that's not a criticism - just a difference in world view. I think sometimes the stories (to the extent that they aren't directly refuted by fact) matter MORE than just a fact. When you have a collection of facts - that you can tell a bunch of different stories about - then it's not just about the stories that are simple - but the ones that seem to be usefu…
/r/MGTOW31/03/17 10:28 AM
3

It's only feasible when resources are easy to come by. Resource availability is also tied to the modes of social organization that we call "matriarchy" and "patriarchy." One of the few things that gives men leverage with women is having resources that the women can't access on their own without trading for it with a man (private property is an important part of patriarchy). And the sixteen bachelors absolutely start feeling left out - which is at least one big reason why the types of progress th…
/r/MGTOW31/03/17 10:12 AM
2

Getting to the harem story isn't just about DNA studies - it's also thinking about historical instances of harems, concubines, and even the casual plate spinning - among other things. Back when I was a teenager - I used to be able to spin multiple girls easily. I went to an all-male school so none of the girls knew about each other - but at least some suspected and didn't seem to care too much. There are often tons of possible explanations for many external phenomena - not just CHAD. And when it…
/r/MGTOW31/03/17 09:58 AM
13

Here's another way to think about it - use it if it helps. The NAWALT isn't the woman who gets the CHAD. She only manifests herself as conditionally NAWALT to CHAD as long as CHAD stays CHAD. If CHAD gets ousted by CHAD PRIME, then she ditches CHAD for the sequel - which means that she had always been AWALT in the most general case. And then CHAD is left scratching his head and the NAWALT turned AWALT, but meanwhile CHAD PRIME thinks he found a NAWALT. The issue for men is that they don't get to…
/r/MGTOW31/03/17 12:26 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter