Thoughts?

throwdawah · 2015-09-30T11:09:09+00:00

The things I think the article got right: It describes MGTOW accurately, in particular explaining they are not a movement that aims to motivate a large group towards a collective goal unlike feminism etc, but rather a group of individuals who have decided to change their own direction in life externally to what ever their environment is. It brings together various facts in a useful way to inform the reader about MGTOW. I praise the writer for digging around and finding out about past mens movements (he mentions the mythopoetic men's movement which I had never heard of for example), and giving a historical perspective and talking about a 'reactionary cycle' that has occurred through time. Despite this he fails to encourage the reader to empathise with how people might have felt in the world before feminism or why such movements may be required; and makes sure not to imply that he might be empathising with them either.

What I think is bad about the article: The author, who it is worth noting is a man, makes sure he upholds what he considers to be the current politically correct narratives all through out the article.

note how he says "those gosh-darn prevalent false rape accusations" and contains within that a a link to an article about how being concerned about false rape accusations is bad and generally supports the female victim narrative. He's trivialising and poking fun at the concerns of many MGTOWs concerning being falsely accused of rape. If the author is in anyway up to date with the facts about the rapidly expanding definition of the word rape etc he should at least have some line in their along the lines of 'fair enough, they're worried about that'. But no, just makes fun of it.
Quite subtle: "...to them, the feminist movement has all but ruined our society...". He's not just saying 'they think that feminism has ruined society' as a neutral observer, he is revealing that for him and his readers this concept is alien, to him feminism has not ruined society and by telling you about these strange MGTOW guys who do think so, you the reader and him are on the same page in finding this so bizarre.
similar is his presentation of the redpill terminology to the reader. He just states some of the terms with light explanation, so you can read this and have a bit of a chuckle, rather than going through the more useful exercise of trying to see the world through the eyes of someone who uses these terms in ernest.

In Summary I think it's a good article for us to read, if only to know what the rest of the world might be thinking about MGTOW and redpill and so on. But be very careful to identify the motives of the author in maintaining certain narratives.

psyflux · 2015-09-30T10:48:32+00:00

Vice is just another media company, just like Resignation Media, and especially like Gawker Media. Their sole purpose is to be a profit generation machine powered by clickbait articles written by penny-per-word freelance/guest journalists.

Disregard, find a better source for your information.

VasiliyZaitzev · 2015-09-30T12:11:58+00:00

Many people define a man's worth by his SMV with women. Men who take themselves out of the SMP are therefore, by definition, losers.¹ Thus the condescending/snotty tone of the article: anything that does not serve the female imperative is wrong and therefore must be shamed.

Nothing to see here, move along....

¹ While I am not MGTOW myself, I do not look down on them; people are (or should be) free to choose what is right for them.

Eyelemon · 2015-09-30T14:28:03+00:00

There wasn't much subtlety to the language at all:

While the MRA's victim complex parlays itself into a loud and screechy anger, a MGTOW's anger is quiet and seething.

The author's bias is clearly showing in all the parenthetical asides:

They preach using their lives for "productive pursuits" (work, I guess?)

or

The old adage "You don't pay for the sex, you pay them to leave" is a rather popular (and gross) sentiment on the forums.

While there's some decent overview information in the article, especially for the uninitiated, it's wrapped in a lot of not-so-coy judgement and no serious attempt is made to explain the legitimacy of the ideas.

Lastly, the author couldn't find a quote without a syntax or grammatical error in it, necessitating the frequent use of [sic]. This is a subtle dig writers can use to indicate quotes come from people who are less educated or intelligent. It's not hard to find far more compelling and persuasive quotes about the subject that are also grammatically correct. But that wouldn't serve his bemused tone or agenda.

It's an ineffectively written puff piece that, had the author invested a little time to understand the topic and presented it without such one-sided positional bias, could have been far more entertaining. But let's face it, he's writing for an audience with a 9th grade education and he probably feels his clever condescension spices the writing up.

edit: fixed some grammatical errors of my own

Title	Thoughts?
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	3
Comments	4
Date	September 30, 2015 10:23 AM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/askTRP
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/asktrp/comments/3my6tr/thoughts/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/askTRP/thoughts.154527 https://theredarchive.com/post/154527

Comments