Socialist Feminist author cedes that one of the core analyses of MGTOW is correct & needs addressing

T0000009 · 2017-07-24T03:43:47+00:00

I really love how they always assume that all of us are weak willed beta boys who could never get some action and are stomping our feet over it like children.

Getting some ass was NEVER my problem, and while some here might be in the "cant get any" camp there are plenty who easily could and have simply chosen not to.

That's their go to accusation... You cant get laid??

Bitch, I don't WANT what you have, learn the difference retard.

mgtowguynow · 2017-07-24T05:11:54+00:00

THE BOYIM KNOW

SHUT IT DOWN!

exit-stage-right2 · 2017-07-24T04:47:18+00:00

Again with the sex card. It really is the only power women have and the only thing they talk about. Good thing I've past that lure and no woman locked me up. I should thank Chad.

801735 · 2017-07-24T03:30:58+00:00

Nobody ever wonders what the 'forbidden fruit' tastes like.

Ever!

OR ELSE!

WHERE ARE YOU ALL LEAVING TO?!?! COME BACK!

Come baaaaackkkk!!! Ueee Ueeee Ueeeee! But we have... we have running water. :(

What? What do you MEAN "we don't have running water, the guys who kept it running went with them"?!??! Fuck you, losers, I'm a woman and I'm going with those guys, you don't even have running water! (points in random direction, but let's be real here, it's difficult to navigate if one does not understand what North stands for)

rovad_ · 2017-07-24T12:31:49+00:00

She is right, a lot of us are in the "we didnt choose this life, but this is how we cope" boat, myself included. Its a shitty boat but it wont sink :)

lonewolf-chicago · 2017-07-24T05:28:07+00:00

Could give a shit what they think and what they address.

account4189 · 2017-07-24T14:07:28+00:00

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 to refuse to argue for a similar collectivism when it comes to the sexual marketplace - probably because this would mean that female sexual labor would be widely distributed to all in the way they want men's surplus material productivity redistributed to all.

Why pick just the material market for goods to the exclusion of the sexual market and reproductive labor? The answer is probably something along the lines of the brain selfishly picking a frame of reference before it hits conscious awareness in the survival and reproductive interest of the individual. In this, men and women are probably alike, but different in the sense that the frames of reference are necessarily unalike and incommensurable to the extent that they reflect the differences in biological roles as they pertain to survival and reproduction.

But in the absence of a common frame of reference (common definitions for words, common axioms and beliefs), there can be no argument. There can also be no "discussion." There can only be PRE-discussion, or PRE-argument - where both sides try to come to agreement about how to "analyze the same phenomenon," as she puts it.

But how is this agreement on the appropriate frame of reference to be reached? Logical argument is precluded because common frameworks are precedent to such an argument. And in the event that an agreement was reached, since logical argument was precluded, then other possibilities need to be considered.

Among these - was agreement reached because of some sort of emotive rhetoric or instrumental speech? This seems to be dishonest, and indeed - "controlling the narrative" is a preferred tactic for those of a certain post-modern mindset. On the other hand, perhaps the pre-argument isn't manipulative on either side and ends up being harmonized by the respective subconscious of each side after taking in new information from the opposite. Possible, but optimistic in my opinion. Anyway, if it occurred - it would probably only happen if the synthesis served the survival and reproductive interest of both sides. But since the biology, reproductive roles, and sexual strategies of men and women remain different - this synthesis would necessarily be an incomplete synthesis - not just because of unrevealed conflicts inherent in the biology but also because of the finiteness of perspective-making and language, in particular. Any synthesis would not be a complete peace, but a detente - and probably a delicate one.

And this brings me to what I think would be the most likely outcome of the types of discussion that Angela probably has in mind - which would be "no agreement." It could very easily be that the low-hanging fruit in perspective synthesis (or "culture-making" if you prefer) has already been eaten, and the only things left to discuss are precisely the areas where agreement is impossible to reach - finally reflecting the areas where the survival and reproductive interests are most in conflict.

As an aside, this is where I part ways with the idea that open and honest dialogue will solve problems between people and particularly between the sexes. (People like Jordan Peterson put their faith in the logos, but I think the faith in rationality, and honest speech is misplaced.) Even if rational speech, discussion, argument has worked for certain cultures so far - the assumption that it would continue to work in the present or the future is just naively empirical. In my opinion, the types of speech acts that Peterson or Nagle have in mind are a good first pass, and definitely preferable to violent conflict, but it shouldn't be assumed as a matter of faith that such talk will necessarily create an acceptable detente.

If you don't want to be violent, and agreement can't be reached, there's only one other option - and that's disassociation.

Disassociation, in various forms, is precisely the point that I think MGTOW have reached. A man doesn't have to be 100% integrated into a particular culture in order to interact with it. When you trade with someone in another country, there's benefit from mutual trade, even if the person speaks another language and has different values.

And if a particular hierarchy, social or sexual, no longer serves an individual (man or woman) - why does he or she need to contribute to it - particularly if he or she is "at the bottom of the pile?" Let individuals secede from the hierarchies that do not serve them and create new hierarchies and new communities, even if these are only communities of one.

We can then associate on our areas of common interest, and refuse to interact in areas of inevitable conflict. (Failing this, violence is the only other recourse.)

SnapshillBot · 2017-07-24T03:21:24+00:00

Archived for your convenience

Snapshots:

This Post - archive.org, megalodon.jp*, snew.github.io, archive.is
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r8... - archive.org, megalodon.jp*, archive.is

^{I am a bot.} ^(Info ^/ ^Contact)

Title	Socialist Feminist author cedes that one of the core analyses of MGTOW is correct & needs addressing
Author	timeout400
Upvotes	14
Comments	21
Date	July 24, 2017 3:01 AM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MGTOW
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MGTOW/comments/6p5reb/socialist_feminist_author_cedes_that_one_of_the/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MGTOW/socialist-feminist-author-cedes-that-one-of-the.570415 https://theredarchive.com/post/570415

Comments