We've all seen the endless arguments of:

"AWALT!"

"NAWALT!"

"AWALT!"

"NAWALT!"

​

I'm throwing EWALT into the mix: "ENOUGH Women Are Like That". It addresses the concept that we can acknowledge that there can be outliers in the characterization of women's motivations and behaviors, but that this doesn't change the end philosophy.

For the purposes of MGTOW, we're mostly looking at methods of avoiding the real potential harmful results of long term relationships with women, especially marriage / cohabitation. "EWALT" addresses the Existence of Unicorns dilemma. Maybe they do exist. However, the costs to TEST whether the woman you've found is a unicorn is still way too high. Is this fine-seeming woman a unicorn? All I have to do is house her, feed her, marry her, pay for her clothes, pay for her travel, and deed her half of my belongings, AND THEN WAIT TEN OR TWENTY YEARS, and I'll have my answer.

There's at least a 50% chance she's not. When we say "The juice isn't worth the squeeze" that actually isn't saying that the juice is worthless: it's saying that the value gained is not worth the effort and risk you have to supply to get the juice. The risk is too great.

So EWALT addresses the "NAWALT!" argument by shortcutting to the final result: it doesn't matter whether literally 100.00% of women are like that... ENOUGH of them are like that to cause the risk/reward calculations to result in GYOW.

Are ten percent of women unicorns? Or one percent? Maybe 0.01 percent? Don't know. And... don't care, because EWALT.

This isn't a new thought within this community, but for those folks new here having the concept crystallized in this manner might help you avoid getting into dumb arguments where someone is supplying statistically irrelevant anecdotal counter examples. Remember that alimony laws, child custody laws, and all of those things are all still in place.