# Any MGTOW furries?



## Frugando (Sep 30, 2018)

MGTOW: Men Going their Own Way (self-based ideology based on 'going your own way'. Generally when gathered together, give advice/ warnings, express what they beleive to be unfair to men in society, as well give criticism towards others)

Just curious if they/ you exist in this fandom or ever came across a self proclaimed  MGTOW?

If so, what are your thoughts about them in general or them existing in the fandom?

Keeping my personal beliefs to myself, I personaly have seen them here in the fandom. Very few, and very quiet.


----------



## Dancy (Sep 30, 2018)

_are you really using your first post to hawk incel ideology?_​


----------



## CertifiedCervine (Sep 30, 2018)

I don’t get what people’s obsession with randomly coming out of nowhere, and making their first and only posts *on a furry forum out of all things* about their political beliefs, and then fading into oblivion...
Strange, isn’t it?


----------



## Dancy (Sep 30, 2018)

TacomaTheDeer said:


> I don’t get what people’s obsession with randomly coming out of nowhere, and making their first and only posts *on a furry forum out of all things* about their political beliefs, and then fading into oblivion is...
> Strange, isn’t it?


_it is curious._
_and it is always hate politics. _​


----------



## Frugando (Sep 30, 2018)

TacomaTheDeer said:


> I don’t get what people’s obsession with randomly coming out of nowhere, and making their first and only posts *on a furry forum out of all things* about their political beliefs, and then fading into oblivion...
> Strange, isn’t it?



Where did I state "my political beleifs" I'm literally just asking for your opinion and experience???


----------



## CertifiedCervine (Sep 30, 2018)

Frugando said:


> Where did I state "my political beleifs" I'm literally just asking for your opinion and experience???


It’s just, this isn’t the best place to ask these sort of things, a lot of folks here will just try and pick an arguement as soon as they see stuff like this, as for your question, no I have not seen or had any experiences with this group your talking about


----------



## Frugando (Sep 30, 2018)

Dancy said:


> _are you really using your first post to hawk incel ideology?_​



 How am I "hawking" "incel ideology"  Incels are a whole nother area.

Wasn;t expecting you all to be so hostile and accusory by asking a simple question.


----------



## Frugando (Sep 30, 2018)

TacomaTheDeer said:


> It’s just, this isn’t the best place to ask these sort of things, a lot of folks here will just try and pick an arguement as soon as they see stuff like this, as for your question, no I have not seen or had any experiences with this group your talking about



okay.


----------



## Dancy (Sep 30, 2018)

Frugando said:


> Where did I state "my political beleifs" I'm literally just asking for your opinion and experience???


_your op implies it._
_you could be potentially keeping your personal beliefs to yourself because you know you'll get flak for being an incel, you claim to have had some form of contact with them, and you act like you're familiar with them._
_maybe you're not an incel, but you can understand our suspicion. _​


Frugando said:


> Incels are a whole nother area.


_academically, they're grouped by motivation and philosophy alongside the men's rights advocates and MGTOW, both of which you tagged. so they're not that dissimilar. _​


Frugando said:


> Wasn;t expecting you all to be so hostile and accusory by asking a simple question.


_you asked for our thoughts about them in general.
i'm giving you mine.
i'm a woman.
i'm a feminist because i like to have rights.
how do you think i feel about them?_​


----------



## Filter (Sep 30, 2018)

FGTOW: Furries Going Their Own Way


----------



## Frugando (Sep 30, 2018)

Dancy said:


> _your op implies it._
> _you could be potentially keeping your personal beliefs to yourself because you know you'll get flak for being an incel, you claim to have had some form of contact with them, and you act like you're familiar with them._
> _maybe you're not an incel, but you can understand our suspicion. _​
> _academically, they're grouped by motivation and philosophy alongside the men's rights advocates and MGTOW, both of which you tagged. so they're not that dissimilar. _​
> ...



No, it does not. You're just throwing around accusations when all I genuinly want to know if this is a thing in the fandom.

Or I'm (was) keeping my beliefs to myself because they aren't relevant to the questions I asked, but seems I can't do that can I? I don't even identify as male.

I  have  had contact with them and I am familiar with them, how is that in itself "suspicious"?  I don't avoid everyone I disagree with or dislike, and be curious to who they are, I have, you know, converstaions and arguments, and you learn from that, and from my experience they act and are very different from most incels, expecially the ones on youtube 

You could of answered my questions in the first place, but instead were motivated to throw accusations.

Okay? I just want to know because it is and could be a potential growing issue or concern. kind of sad you dissmiss it so easily because of your presumptions. I shoulnd't have to defend myself.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Sep 30, 2018)

Dancy said:


> _are you really using your first post to hawk incel ideology?_​





Dancy said:


> _academically, they're grouped by motivation and philosophy alongside the men's rights advocates and MGTOW, both of which you tagged. so they're not that dissimilar. _


I would be very careful about conflating MGTOW and incels (or ROK, or WHtM, or MRAs, or any other group that gets lumped in there). While there is overlap between some of the groups, and people who consider themselves part of more than one of them, there are a lot of underlying differences that you have to willfully ignore in order to reach the conclusion that they (on a whole-group level) are ideologically aligned on more than a highly superficial level.

I mean, I assume you wouldn't be particularly happy if people accused you of hawking TERF/SWERF ideology for calling yourself feminist? And those are at least people who all use the same term ("feminist") to refer to themselves, while you won't find a ROK member call himself an MRA or vice versa (unless he's actually part of both groups, though that's pretty unlikely).


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 30, 2018)

TacomaTheDeer said:


> I don’t get what people’s obsession with randomly coming out of nowhere, and making their first and only posts *on a furry forum out of all things* about their political beliefs, and then fading into oblivion...
> Strange, isn’t it?



I suspect there is a concerted effort at the moment to contaminate us furries with far right political ideas.
Many of us furries are young men who aren't completely sure of our place in society and are maybe a little bit naive, so these people view us as potential recruits to their weird causes. :\ 

Regarding the idea of 'MGTOW', the whole idea of women being so poisonous that men would be better off disengaging from any relationships with them at all is obviously pathetic. It's built around this horrible idea that, if men can't control women, that it's not worth interacting with them. 
For anybody attracted to MGTOW, just take a moment to stop and consider that the mother who risked her life to bring you into this world, such is her love for you, is a woman.


----------



## ItsBrou (Sep 30, 2018)

This thread:

Gross men who don't work on themselves enough to be appealing to the other sex

VS

Gross metropolitan women who drive them crazy

FITE


----------



## Dancy (Sep 30, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> I would be very careful about conflating MGTOW and incels (or ROK, or WHtM, or MRAs, or any other group that gets lumped in there). While there is overlap between some of the groups, and people who consider themselves part of more than one of them, there are a lot of underlying differences that you have to willfully ignore in order to reach the conclusion that they (on a whole-group level) are ideologically aligned on more than a highly superficial level.
> 
> I mean, I assume you wouldn't be particularly happy if people accused you of hawking TERF/SWERF ideology for calling yourself feminist? And those are at least people who all use the same term ("feminist") to refer to themselves, while you won't find a ROK member call himself an MRA or vice versa (unless he's actually part of both groups, though that's pretty unlikely).


_i'm sorry for the late reply here; i wasn't in the headspace to answer this last night._
_mgtow, mra, whm, and rok (which i really thought was a blog) have some variances in their philosophies, but the unifying factor at the core of their ideologies is that women are the perceived cause of their lack of a relationship and social status. these groups shift responsibility for their own circumstance from themselves to women in order to justify what is, at best, soft sexism and, at worst, unambiguous misogyny. all of these aggressively sexist movements buy into concept of women being a restrictive and repressive force in their lives and actively slander women with false stereotypes. furthermore, like you said, it isn't unreasonable to suppose these groups share some overlap in membership and goals since they occupy some ideological common ground._

_i'd add too that terfs and swerfs only represent a small segment of feminism. feminism isn't writ large a discriminatory movement trying to hinder the rights of a particular group or blaming that group for all their ills. feminism is overwhelming a positive, progressive movement dedicated to achieving equality for women._​


----------



## TrishaCat (Sep 30, 2018)

I always thought of MGTOW people as being people who dislike women and gave up trying to be with them. Correct me if I'm wrong OP or if there's more to it but it always seemed somewhat sexist ideologically to me.

I don't really like the ideology and people who say they're that make me very concerned. I've not run into any in this fandom but I imagine they're out there


----------



## quoting_mungo (Sep 30, 2018)

Dancy said:


> the unifying factor at the core of their ideologies is that women are the perceived cause of their lack of a relationship and social status. these groups shift responsibility for their own circumstance from themselves to women in order to justify what is, at best, soft sexism and, at worst, unambiguous misogyny. all of these aggressively sexist movements buy into concept of women being a restrictive and repressive force in their lives and actively slander women with false stereotypes


You come off as having learned about MRA ideology from, well, people who don't like MRAs. While there are areas where they are pretty much obligated to say "feminists got this wrong" (because feminists were the direct cause of the current situation), their focus is gendered issues that negatively impact men for the reason that they are men. While I doubt any group working for _any_ cause gets things 100% right 100% of the time, most of the issues I see brought up by MRA groups are entirely reasonable if you look at the policy/practices/statistics they're founded in. 
If anything they're probably the closest to being the odd man out of the groups named.

For the other groups mentioned, well... ROK I certainly have no love for, though last I checked their brand of sexism was less "women are at fault" and more "traditional gender roles and alpha male behavior ftw"; they're pick-up artists longing for some imagined glory days where men had their pick of women and women didn't sleep around. MGTOW in my admittedly limited understanding (I have little own exposure, but have discussed the group with others who've read more of their discourse) run the gamut from "it's not worth the bother to chase after relationships" to "fuck women, they're all bitches", with the common thread of focusing on the self first. And that's why you'll see some, but very far from all, members of these groups being members of more than one. (MRM and ROK being a highly unlikely combination, as ROK has a pretty low opinion of MRAs, but people sometimes do deeply illogical things, so I'm not entirely discounting the possibility.)



Dancy said:


> _i'd add too that terfs and swerfs only represent a small segment of feminism. feminism isn't writ large a discriminatory movement trying to hinder the rights of a particular group or blaming that group for all their ills. feminism is overwhelming a positive, progressive movement dedicated to achieving equality for women._


Even by the most generous interpretation possible, I don't think it's fair to paint feminism as exceedingly positive while painting men's rights in shades of black. This post is a couple years old by now, but contains a few sourced examples of feminists, feminism-informed policy, and women's activists being actively detrimental to men as a group, as well as my own observations of inappropriate behavior in the name of feminism. Given that some of the examples are _national_ _policy_/law, I'm not sure how much larger you need the scale to be. I'm happy for you that your experiences with feminism have been so positive, but unfortunately that's not going to be the case for everyone.

That aside, the point is more that if you wouldn't like to be lumped in with TERFs/SWERFs or other blatantly gross portions of feminism, lumping together the male-dominated groups under discussion and assuming the worst of them is pretty shitty. It doesn't matter if the shitty feminists are a small segment in that context - it's still not ideology decent people would be very pleased to be accused of trying to spread.


----------



## Frugando (Sep 30, 2018)

Battlechili said:


> I always thought of MGTOW people as being people who dislike women and gave up trying to be with them. Correct me if I'm wrong OP or if there's more to it but it always seemed somewhat sexist ideologically to me.
> 
> I don't really like the ideology and people who say they're that make me very concerned. I've not run into any in this fandom but I imagine they're out there



  I like to think there's 3 different 'sides' to 'MGTOW', so to say and from what I've encountered. We'll split it into two groups first: The ones who gather as a community, and the ones who are  by themselves or rarely ever interact with other proclaimed MGTOW, they just follow the philosophy. The grouped ones seem to make up the majority, and yes, a lot of them are rather bitter.
And then, they split again. Some will claim MGTOW is a movement, and others will claim it's more about individuality and just passing along advice and information.

Overall, it's supposed to be about self ownership, not needing others or relationships to define you, 'going your own way'.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 30, 2018)

I think 'self ownership' is a much too positive spin on this. 

If a community held a philosophy that sexual relationships are facile and that we can reach enlightenment through abstinence from the pleasures of the flesh, then fair enough. 

But such a community would be* open to women too*.


----------



## Slytherin Umbreon (Sep 30, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> If a community held a philosophy that sexual relationships are facile and that we can reach enlightenment through abstinence from the pleasures of the flesh, then fair enough.


 Buddhism - Wikipedia
I like these guys.
They know what they're doing.


Fallowfox said:


> But such a community would be* open to women too*.


But that defeats the purpose of feeling defeated.


----------



## churio (Oct 1, 2018)

Oh my god this a thread? Are we serious here? I thought furries were often times introverted people who often had social problems trying to come out of their shells. I guess not. I guess it's a place to re-enforce that idea and keep ourselves locked out from the outside world. MGTOW and MRA ideology is fucking toxic. They can claim to care about all these issues but at the end of the day all they ever do is sit on reddit and get into circle jerks about how much they hate women. The difference between MGTOW and incels is that MGTOW are men who had abusive relationships with women (guess who the abuser is) and when the woman reject them they get into online circle jerks. Incels on the other hand are just out-right virgins with rage. There's your difference. Either way I thought online communities were meant to connect people. But it seems a number of individuals happen to disagree. I recommend said people get the hell out.


----------



## Rabbtit (Oct 1, 2018)

churio said:


> Oh my god this a thread? Are we serious here? I thought furries were often times introverted people who often had social problems trying to come out of their shells. I guess not. I guess it's a place to re-enforce that idea and keep ourselves locked out from the outside world. MGTOW and MRA ideology is fucking toxic. They can claim to care about all these issues but at the end of the day all they ever do is sit on reddit and get into circle jerks about how much they hate women. The difference between MGTOW and incels is that MGTOW are men who had abusive relationships with women (guess who the abuser is) and when the woman reject them they get into online circle jerks. Incels on the other hand are just out-right virgins with rage. There's your difference. Either way I thought online communities were meant to connect people. But it seems a number of individuals happen to disagree. I recommend said people get the hell out.



you're my hero


----------



## Ramjet (Oct 1, 2018)

Yes we're out there, real mgtow's don't go out of there way to advertise or flaunt it though...
See it no differently as a women who chooses to stay independent and avoid relationships.


For the haters, lets play devils advocate...
If all mgtow's were a bunch of misogynist women hating dirtbags, wouldn't you like the fact that these toxic people go out of their way to stay away from women?‾\_(ツ)_/‾

Be like bitching to you plumber after he/she unclogged your sink...


----------



## Alondight (Oct 1, 2018)

MGTOW is just the mirror image of radical feminism.


----------



## churio (Oct 1, 2018)

Ramjet556 said:


> Yes we're out there, real mgtow's don't go out of there way to advertise or flaunt it though...
> See it no differently as a women who chooses to stay independent and avoid relationships.
> 
> 
> ...


That's not helping your case at all. That's like saying "if the KKK are racist then why do they not hang around any black people". The fact you're avoiding being in contact with the opposite sex suggests you have something very wrong with you. You are avoiding around 50% of the population for no good reason. There's being single and then there is being out-right anti-social.


----------



## Ramjet (Oct 1, 2018)

churio said:


> That's not helping your case at all. That's like saying "if the KKK are racist then why do they not hang around any black people". The fact you're avoiding being in contact with the opposite sex suggests you have something very wrong with you. You are avoiding around 50% of the population for no good reason. There's being single and then there is being out-right anti-social.




I don't treat women any differently then a man in public or in private...The fact that I choose to stay single and avoid relationships is neither your's or the public's business, its mine...

Your KKK example is more then LOL, thanks for that btw...

Comparing a racist group who actively promotes hate against a race vs a methodology of self ownership by avoiding relationships is just a bit of a strawman to say the least....


----------



## quoting_mungo (Oct 1, 2018)

churio said:


> The fact you're avoiding being in contact with the opposite sex suggests you have something very wrong with you.


1) @Ramjet556  said nothing about personally avoiding being in contact with women, only that he prefers to not pursue a romantic relationship.
His argument was that _if_ MGTOW spent all their time bitching about women on Reddit, that means they're not spending that time trying to pick up women, which should arguably be welcome if they're such misogynists, since it would mean the women don't have to deal with them.

2) Whether you intended it or not, your remark comes off pretty acephobic.



churio said:


> You are avoiding around 50% of the population for no good reason. There's being single and then there is being out-right anti-social.


I'll point out that it's pretty common to see women talking about avoiding men they don't know. They generally get sympathy.

(Also, avoiding people is not automatically or even commonly anti-social; you're probably thinking of "asocial", which is a completely different thing. I have social anxiety and avoid close to 100% of the population for no good reason on a regular basis.)


----------



## churio (Oct 1, 2018)

Ramjet556 said:


> I don't treat women any differently then a man in public or in private...The fact that I choose to stay single and avoid relationships is neither your's or the public's business, its mine...
> 
> Your KKK example is more then lol, thanks for that btw...
> 
> Comparing a racist group who actively promotes hate against a race vs a methodology of self ownership by avoiding relationships is just a bit strawman to say the least....


A methodology which involves actively avoiding other human beings. Very healthy. You know you can just talk to people and not form relatonships with them. That is possible.


----------



## Ramjet (Oct 1, 2018)

Alondight said:


> MGTOW is just the mirror image of radical feminism.



I actually agree somewhat...

Choose your poison when it comes to the minority vocal one's about it...

Women bitching on the internet that men are the source of all their problems.

Vs

Men bitching on the internet that women are the source of all their problems.


----------



## Ramjet (Oct 1, 2018)

churio said:


> A methodology which involves actively avoiding other human beings. Very healthy. You know you can just talk to people and not form relatonships with them. That is possible.




I do that all the time with men and women...

I just have no interest in a romantic relationship with them.‾\_(ツ)_/‾


----------



## churio (Oct 1, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> 1) @Ramjet556  said nothing about personally avoiding being in contact with women, only that he prefers to not pursue a romantic relationship.
> His argument was that _if_ MGTOW spent all their time bitching about women on Reddit, that means they're not spending that time trying to pick up women, which should arguably be welcome if they're such misogynists, since it would mean the women don't have to deal with them.
> 
> 2) Whether you intended it or not, your remark comes off pretty acephobic.
> ...


"If all mgtow's were a bunch of misogynist women hating dirtbags, wouldn't you like the fact that these toxic people go out of their way to stay away from women?"

Seems to suggest he does actually avoid women. I honestly don't care if you want to be romantic or not just talk to people of all genders, sexes, races, ethnic groups (etc) and you are fine. And I can assure you those women avoiding males are endemic of a wider problem. A problem that should be fixed.


----------



## Ramjet (Oct 1, 2018)

churio said:


> "If all mgtow's were a bunch of misogynist women hating dirtbags, wouldn't you like the fact that these toxic people go out of their way to stay away from women?"
> 
> Seems to suggest he does actually avoid women. I honestly don't care if you want to be romantic or not just talk to people of all genders, sexes, races, ethnic groups (etc) and you are fine. And I can assure you those women avoiding males are endemic of a wider problem. A problem that should be fixed.



Yes, I avoid women who push at more then just a working/plutonic relationship...

It might be hard for you to come to terms with it, but there are actually some men that really have no interest in relationships...

Don't see how you'd find that a problem...
What do you advocate?
Forced relationships at gunpoint?


----------



## quoting_mungo (Oct 1, 2018)

churio said:


> "If all mgtow's were a bunch of misogynist women hating dirtbags, wouldn't you like the fact that these toxic people go out of their way to stay away from women?"
> 
> Seems to suggest he does actually avoid women. I honestly don't care if you want to be romantic or not just talk to people of all genders, sexes, races, ethnic groups (etc) and you are fine. And I can assure you those women avoiding males are endemic of a wider problem. A problem that should be fixed.


Doesn't suggest anything of the sort. See the word "if" at the start of the section you quoted? That's important. Since it's _not_ true that all MGTOW are misogynist woman-hating dirtbags, the whole thing is very much a hypothetical. It's even explicitly flagged as a devil's advocate argument. And none of it says anything about what he personally does. You appear to be jumping onto conclusions based on negative preconceived notions more than anything.

If it's okay for those women to avoid men, it's damn well hypocritical for you to rag on Ramjet over your (erroneous) conclusion that he avoids women as a matter of course.


----------



## churio (Oct 1, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> Doesn't suggest anything of the sort. See the word "if" at the start of the section you quoted? That's important. Since it's _not_ true that all MGTOW are misogynist woman-hating dirtbags, the whole thing is very much a hypothetical. It's even explicitly flagged as a devil's advocate argument. And none of it says anything about what he personally does. You appear to be jumping onto conclusions based on negative preconceived notions more than anything.
> 
> If it's okay for those women to avoid men, it's damn well hypocritical for you to rag on Ramjet over your (erroneous) conclusion that he avoids women as a matter of course.


No there's this thing called nuance that you're not applying here. The reason a lot of women avoid men is because they feel unsafe due to fear of things such as harassment and things of the like. This is because a lot of men happen to be disrespectful assholes (and this is really simplifying things). Men on the other hand do not face such widespread attitudes of disrespect toward them and thus have absolutely no excuse.

And actually no the way the sentence is set up in a way that acknowledges that MGTOW and other online scum happen to avoid women a lot due to their own strange beliefs regarding people of the opposite sex.


----------



## Ramjet (Oct 1, 2018)

churio said:


> Men on the other hand do not face such widespread attitudes of disrespect toward them and thus have absolutely no excuse.





No excuse for what?

Seems to me like your avocating the old system of societal pressure on a men to financially support a women...

How in your mind does that actually help women?
When today a women can very much support herself if she so chooses to do so...


----------



## churio (Oct 1, 2018)

Ramjet556 said:


> No excuse for what?
> 
> Seems to me like your avocating the old system of societal pressure on a men to financially support a women...
> 
> ...


In what way do you mean financially support? Are we talking about child support or just buying things for your spouse? I think you need to be a bit more specific. If we're talking about buying stuff for your spouse for the sake of it, no I don't support that at all. In fact I'm actually against it. Placing money as something to attract a mate is testament to a really fucked up society. In fact it's increasingly common for heterosexual couples to split bills on meals and have the women buy gifts for the man (although this may still be limited due to the gender pay gap but that's a whole other issue). If we're talking child support then yes give the woman money for the kids. If you breed them you still have responsibility over them so yeah you should pay.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Oct 1, 2018)

churio said:


> And actually no the way the sentence is set up in a way that acknowledges that MGTOW and other online scum happen to avoid women a lot due to their own strange beliefs regarding people of the opposite sex.


Can I ask that you please not devolve into namecalling? Especially since you know that someone in this thread to some degree identifies with that group? It's really disrespectful, both towards me as a conversation partner and against him.

Your reading of the sentence is colored by your disdain for the group. The reading you suggest is not the only possible one, nor IMO the most natural one. The way it is worded (along with context in general) suggests that _if_ the negative things that have been suggested about the group are true, _then_ that would also mean that the men in question stay out of women's hair in general.



churio said:


> No there's this thing called nuance that you're not applying here. The reason a lot of women avoid men is because they feel unsafe due to fear of things such as harassment and things of the like. This is because a lot of men happen to be disrespectful assholes (and this is really simplifying things).


As someone who identified as female for significantly longer than you've been alive, and who doesn't feel a need to avoid men because of the small minority that _might_ catcall or make inappropriate comments, I will have to disagree with your assessment. Disproportionate fear of a group due to innate qualities of that group (such as sex, skin color, age, etc), based on the actions of a few members of that group, is not something that needs to be justified or encouraged.

There have been very few situations in my life where (specific) men have given me reason to feel unsafe around them - and them only. There have been countless situations in which I've been encouraged to fear men/strangers due to being female (passing), despite the situations in question being perfectly safe. More than anything it's a cultivated culture of fear.

So no. I maintain that it's hypocritical to be supportive of one sex avoiding the other but not the other way around.


----------



## Ramjet (Oct 1, 2018)

churio said:


> In what way do you mean financially support? Are we talking about child support or just buying things for your spouse? I think you need to be a bit more specific. If we're talking about buying stuff for your spouse for the sake of it, no I don't support that at all. In fact I'm actually against it. Placing money as something to attract a mate is testament to a really fucked up society. In fact it's increasingly common for heterosexual couples to split bills on meals and have the women buy gifts for the man (although this may still be limited due to the gender pay gap but that's a whole other issue). If we're talking child support then yes give the woman money for the kids. If you breed them you still have responsibility over them so yeah you should pay.




I'm stating the system of old, as in a women needing a man for financial reasons to keep a roof over her head...

That no longer applies as women can go their own and support themselves if they so choose...

You seem to have no problem with women avoiding relationships and going their own way, but scorn at the fact a men would choose to do the same?

Is it your belief that the sole purpose of a man is to financially support a woman?


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 1, 2018)

Regarding 'isn't it great that MGTOWS, holding misogynist views, automatically keep themselves away from women?'

You could represent this as a silver lining, but I feel the best solution for everybody is that they abandon misogynist ideas that drive this behaviour in the first place. Those attitudes aren't helping straight men who end up denying themselves potentially fulfilling relationships and love with women, and while these guys may not be in relationships with women, misogynist attitudes continue to harm women _whether or not _the men who hold them are in relationships. 

And this_ is_ misogyny, because this isn't about abstinence from sex but abstinence from _women_, on the grounds that their influence in men's life is some form of contamination.


----------



## churio (Oct 1, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> Can I ask that you please not devolve into namecalling? Especially since you know that someone in this thread to some degree identifies with that group? It's really disrespectful, both towards me as a conversation partner and against him.
> 
> Your reading of the sentence is colored by your disdain for the group. The reading you suggest is not the only possible one, nor IMO the most natural one. The way it is worded (along with context in general) suggests that _if_ the negative things that have been suggested about the group are true, _then_ that would also mean that the men in question stay out of women's hair in general.
> 
> ...


Actually after doing a bit of research I can conclude that no your claims that's it's just "culture of fear" that occurred on it's own is not true:

http://westerncriminology.org/documents/WCR/v04n3/article_pdfs/scott.pdf

This was based on a survey of 12,300 women from the mid 90s which shows that upwards of 60% admitted to receiving unwanted attention from a stranger. This kind of stuff is very common (I would know my sister and mother have both had similar experiences) and shows that the issue is the behaviour of men towards women. This is not a question of people just being paranoid for the sake of it. This is a clear issue of male behaviour. The solution in this situation is not on women to just avoid strangers less. It is to make men more respectful toward women. Now if you can show me any evidence that men face a similar issue (beyond anecdotal experiences) then I think it's safe to conclude that my idea is correct as evidence is very clearly on my side.


----------



## churio (Oct 1, 2018)

Ramjet556 said:


> I'm stating the system of old, as in a women needing a man for financial reasons to keep a roof over her head...
> 
> That no longer applies as women can go their own and support themselves if they so choose...
> 
> ...


If people do not wish to form romantic relationships that is fine with me. However I will note that it is harder for women to get by due to the gender wage gap. And no I do not believe men should be responsible for a woman's financial well-being. In fact considering the decline of the traditional nuclear family and the fact that more mothers are in work then ever I think it's safe to say that society is increasingly agreeing with you. Albeit in a better world finance wouldn't exist at all but that's besides the point. Again a relationship with a woman does not mean she will become financially dependent on you (the days where that was even possible are long gone anyway).


----------



## Ramjet (Oct 1, 2018)

To give a better understanding of this double standard I will give you an example that happened to me last month...

I used to drive cab full time, and my old boss asks me to drive every once and a while to cover when I'm on days off...

That night shift I had a (intoxicated) chick that literally refused to leave the cab without my number...I refused at first, but knew it was going to be more trouble then it's worth (had three other calls to go to).So I ended up giving her "a" number

Now for me it was hilarious and just plain annoying at the time, but if the shoe was on the other foot though, what do you think?

Young women cab driver working alone, harrassed by intoxicated man late at night and refusing to leave without her number...

My tear filled interview would be broadcast nationwide


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 1, 2018)

I wouldn't describe women who are cautious about reducing their risk of becoming abuse victims as 'avoiding men' or imply that their experience is symmetric to MGTOW anyway. 

Obviously men who are part of MGTOW aren't avoiding walking through dark streets at night because they are worried that gangs of young women will molest them.

The story is more likely to be that they regard women as insidious parasites who only want to marry them in the first place so that they can get half of everything in a divorce settlement.


----------



## churio (Oct 1, 2018)

Ramjet556 said:


> To give a better understanding of this double standard I will give you an example that happened to me last month...
> 
> I used to drive cab full time, and my old boss asks me to drive every once and a while to cover when I'm on days off...
> 
> ...


Then why didn't you call the police? Pretty sure you can call out the police for that. I mean I guess it depends on how strict your employer is. This just seems like too personal a case to really draw any conclusions about societal attitudes from.


----------



## Ramjet (Oct 1, 2018)

churio said:


> Then why didn't you call the police? Pretty sure you can call out the police for that. I mean I guess it depends on how strict your employer is. This just seems like too personal a case to really draw any conclusions about societal attitudes from.




Because I'm not a SJW crybaby...
I dealt with it and moved on like a big boy should.

It was more funny then anything else really (if I wasn't pressed for time that is)...
She was like, "what do you mean no!!!???" "Men don't do that!!"

LMAO


----------



## churio (Oct 1, 2018)

Ramjet556 said:


> Because I'm not a SJW crybaby...
> I dealt with it and moved on like a big boy should.


Ok so 60% of women are all just SJW cry babies.


----------



## Ramjet (Oct 1, 2018)

churio said:


> Ok so 60% of women are all just SJW cry babies.




Nice virtue signaling...

I didn't feel threatened whatsoever with violence, so no need to call the police over something so obtuse and petty IMO...

Women/men who feel legitimately threatened should do whatever they need to do to protect themselves, whether that be self defence of life and limb, or calling the police...


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 1, 2018)

I feel like I'm going to have to be captain obvious about why women have the attitudes they do.

Men tend to be a lot stronger than women.
Spurning a potentially aggressive man's unwanted advances can have serious consequences for a woman, and the situation isn't symmetric to a man turning down a woman's unwanted advances.

Basically, men don't avoid going down dark allies at night because they're worried that women might rape them.


----------



## churio (Oct 1, 2018)

Ramjet556 said:


> Nice virtue signaling...
> 
> I didn't feel whatsoever threatened with violence, so no need to call the police over something so obtuse and petty IMO...
> 
> Women/men who feel legitimately threatened should do what they need to do to protect themselves, whether that be self defence of life and limb, or calling the police...


"Virtue signalling". Ignoring what a dumb concept that is to begin what virtues am I signalling. That my ideas are based in science and yours aren't? And I'm pretty sure the police would have been happy to remove the woman from the car. People call the police over noise complaints and such. Hell where I am it's illegal to be loud past 11 at night I think. And self-defense, really? That's the kind of world you want people to live in? Where you're so scared of your neighbour that you take a knife out with you at night. And that's not even ignoring the biological side of this issue (that being women's tendency to be smaller and weaker then their male counterparts).


----------



## Ramjet (Oct 1, 2018)

churio said:


> "Virtue signalling". Ignoring what a dumb concept that is to begin what virtues am I signalling. That my ideas are based in science and yours aren't? And I'm pretty sure the police would have been happy to remove the woman from the car. People call the police over noise complaints and such. Hell where I am it's illegal to be loud past 11 at night I think. And self-defense, really? That's the kind of world you want people to live in? Where you're so scared of your neighbour that you take a knife out with you at night. And that's not even ignoring the biological side of this issue (that being women's tendency to be smaller and weaker then their male counterparts).



Self defence is a human right,
has nothing to do with living in fear...
Its like putting on a seatbelt...Not because of an irrational paranoia that your going to have an accident that day, it's just good policy...

Self defence is more vigilance of environment then kinetic action BTW...
In public, retreat to safe location first if you can, kinetic force if absolutely necessary...


People that call the police over petty things really says alot about that person to me...
Someone who can't be trusted really...
Neighbors being loud?Like really?
Maybe go talk to them before calling the fuzz and making a scene...

So off topic...


----------



## churio (Oct 1, 2018)

Ramjet556 said:


> Self defence is a human right,
> has nothing to do with living in fear..No different then putting on your seatbelt not because of an irrational paranoia that your going to have an accident that day, it's just good policy...
> 
> People that call the police over petty things really says alot about that person to me...Someone who can't be trusted really...
> ...


There is a huge difference between a car and human interaction. The chances of a car accident due to a lapse in judgement on one or both parties in a car accident is something that can be held down to human error rather than intention on the part of the person (that's in the vast majority of cases). Sexual harassment on the other hand is purely down to human intent and is completely accountable to the perpetrator. The fact that this kind of stuff happens on such a wide scale suggests that there is something cultural in it and that steps can be taken to stop people developing these mentalities. This approach creates a much nicer planet based more on mutual trust that everyone benefits from. Rather then just having someone wield a knife at all times (and that is again not even mentioning the biological aspect of women being smaller than men).


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 1, 2018)

There are people who need to be coaxed very gently to realise factual errors.  To some people, the suggestion that they don't accept science is probably something that they'd wear proudly as a badge of honour. 
So convincing a man who believes that society is corrupted by feminism, or what ever else is doing the rounds these days, that his ideas might not be right can actually be  more about managing his emotional responses than discussing evidence. 

The biggest challenge is that, to the man who thinks that, if he does accept that he's wrong, he essentially has to admit he's a horrible person. I suppose we need to convince people that realising mistakes is an important part of being a good person, and that we don't expect people to be infallible in the first place. 
Finding out you have a misogynist idea, and getting rid of it, doesn't mean that your soul is forever blackened.


----------



## Ramjet (Oct 1, 2018)

churio said:


> There is a huge difference between a car and human interaction. The chances of a car accident due to a lapse in judgement on one or both parties in a car accident is something that can be held down to human error rather than intention on the part of the person (that's in the vast majority of cases). Sexual harassment on the other hand is purely down to human intent and is completely accountable to the perpetrator. The fact that this kind of stuff happens on such a wide scale suggests that there is something cultural in it and that steps can be taken to stop people developing these mentalities. This approach creates a much nicer planet based more on mutual trust that everyone benefits from. Rather then just having someone wield a knife at all times (and that is again not even mentioning the biological aspect of women being smaller than men).



It's a case in point of wrong time wrong place...The intent has nothing to do with it, as either situation can happen to anyone...

To get back on topic...
What is your true issue with men that decide to avoid relationships with women if they so choose that lifestyle?


----------



## Infrarednexus (Oct 1, 2018)

To form a large movement about being independent and going your own way seems paradoxical. :V


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 1, 2018)

By the way guys. I do worry that teenagers are going to read this discourse about women's rights and that we risk giving them the wrong impression. 
Some comments risk implying that women worried about sexual abuse are just being silly. 



Infrarednexus said:


> To form a movement about being independent and going your own way seems paradoxical. :V



Maybe they're part of the non-conformists association too? ;3


----------



## quoting_mungo (Oct 1, 2018)

churio said:


> This kind of stuff is very common (I would know my sister and mother have both had similar experiences) and shows that the issue is the behaviour of men towards women. This is not a question of people just being paranoid for the sake of it. This is a clear issue of male behaviour.


More accurately, the issue is over-generalization. If I take a thirty minute walk to the local coffee shop and back home I stand to come into close proximity of at least a dozen men, provided I take my walk at a relatively quiet time of day but not at stupid o'clock at night or something (my city is ikkle - 4 am walks usually mean meeting a maximum of five other people _maybe_). If I were to join boyfriend on his commute to work, I'd probably run into some hundred men if not hundreds. On most days, a given woman does _not_ receive unwanted attention, or the numbers in the paper you cite would be way higher, but unless she's even more of a shut-in than I am, she meets a whole pile of men on a daily basis. The percentage of men that engage in the behavior is _tiny_. To avoid all male strangers on the basis of the actions of one or two is not rational. Understandable, _maybe_, if in the recent aftermath of being victimized, but not rational. But these stories are passed on and inflate the level of perceived danger to women out alone. 

The paper also notes specifically that there _are_ effects of fear of strangers being taught in childhood persisting into adulthood, as well as observing that restricting one's activities for perceived safety correlates with higher levels of fear. This is hardly surprising to me; if you are at all familiar with the psychology of anxiety you'll know that generally, taking action to avoid whatever makes you anxious will, in the long run, only reinforce that fear. So while women reducing their "safety behaviors" (within reason - obviously taking risks for the sake of it isn't a good idea) won't change the behavior of the small subset of strangers who would accost them, it _would_ likely over time reduce their perceived level of fear. Because they'd take the last bus home and _nothing would happen_. 

Women are _taught_ to fear. I have literally been offered cab money by a female friend who didn't want me to take a 30 minute walk at maybe 10-11 pm on well-lit streets. My mother damn near had a litter when I went for a jog in a park like two blocks from home around dusk. Neither of these situations were at all dangerous. They were perceived as such because of cultivated cultural fear.



Fallowfox said:


> I feel like I'm going to have to be captain obvious about why women have the attitudes they do.
> 
> Men tend to be a lot stronger than women.
> Spurning a potentially aggressive man's unwanted advances can have serious consequences for a woman, and the situation isn't symmetric to a man turning down a woman's unwanted advances.
> ...


No, they avoid going down dark alleys at night for fear of getting robbed. Which frankly is a more realistic worry. :V

Yes, there is sexual dimorphism in the human species; good on you for acknowledging that. Yes, the worst-case scenario, unless there are weapons involved, is somewhat grimmer for women (on average) as a result. 

That doesn't justify the double standard of saying women who choose to avoid contact with men are acting in self-preservation and beyond reproach, but men who choose to avoid contact with women "have something very wrong with [them]." That is far out of proportion with the actual strength disparity etc, even before weighing in that it should be up to each person who they want to interact with. I object to the double standard of making personal attacks based on an assumed behavior that would be considered acceptable if the roles were reversed, and the general assigning of negative characteristics to another forum member based on preconceived notions. It's rude.


----------



## DimskyTheOwl (Oct 1, 2018)

Ramjet556 said:


> Because I'm not a SJW crybaby...
> I dealt with it and moved on like a big boy should.
> 
> It was more funny then anything else really (if I wasn't pressed for time that is)...
> ...




This is a complex situation. Not only is the situation going to vary heavily, but so is the reaction between both people.  It's not neccesarily uncommon to hear of a woman getting raped, murdered, or physically hurt for rejecting someones advances.

It's not really about being an "sjw" or a "crybaby, but that both sexes face different issues when it comes to stuff like this.


----------



## Ramjet (Oct 1, 2018)

Infrarednexus said:


> To form a movement about being independent and going your own way seems paradoxical. :V



Yup, could never understand why someone who abides by this lifestyle has a need to flaunt it with a labeled group...Human nature I guess...¯\_(ツ)_/ ¯

I was mgtow before I even knew it was a thing


----------



## churio (Oct 1, 2018)

Ramjet556 said:


> It's a case in point of wrong time wrong place...The intent has nothing to do with it, as either situation can happen to anyone...
> 
> To get back on topic...
> What is your true issue with men that decide to avoid relationships with women if they so choose that lifestyle?


Well no it is completely within the control of the harasser. And statistically speaking if you are a woman you are a LOT more likely to experience this.

And if you choose not to form relationships out of pure personal preference then that's fine. However basing it in stereotypes about a whole category of people (again 50%) is where things become not only harmful to yourself but to society at large. If you spread that toxic and factually incorrect idea you will inevitably encourage more people to follow it and limit a lot of people who would otherwise be very happy. I know people who were MGTOWs and they say that it's miserable and pretty much deprives people of healthy relationships by consistently re-affirming to each person within it that these ideas are actually correct.


----------



## Ramjet (Oct 1, 2018)

DimskyTheOwl said:


> This is a complex situation. Not only is the situation going to vary heavily, but so is the reaction between both people.  It's not neccesarily uncommon to hear of a woman getting raped, murdered, or physically hurt for rejecting someones advances.
> 
> It's not really about being an "sjw" or a "crybaby, but that both sexes face different issues when it comes to stuff like this.




I agree somewhat...

For me personally I didn't feel threatened in this instance, I know a few women who wouldn't have been at all bothered by this exact situation either...

Depends on the person and the circumstance.


----------



## Ramjet (Oct 1, 2018)

churio said:


> Well no it is completely within the control of the harasser. And statistically speaking if you are a woman you are a LOT more likely to experience this.
> 
> And if you choose not to form relationships out of pure personal preference then that's fine. However basing it in stereotypes about a whole category of people (again 50%) is where things become not only harmful to yourself but to society at large. If you spread that toxic and factually incorrect idea you will inevitably encourage more people to follow it and limit a lot of people who would otherwise be very happy. I know people who were MGTOWs and they say that it's miserable and pretty much deprives people of healthy relationships by consistently re-affirming to each person within it that these ideas are actually correct.




I'm not responsible for anyone's actions except for my own...

I would expect everyone to have that expectation of everyone else of adult age...


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 1, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> No, they avoid going down dark alleys at night for fear of getting robbed. Which frankly is a more realistic worry. :V
> 
> Yes, there is sexual dimorphism in the human species; good on you for acknowledging that. Yes, the worst-case scenario, unless there are weapons involved, is somewhat grimmer for women (on average) as a result.
> 
> That doesn't justify the double standard of saying women who choose to avoid contact with men are acting in self-preservation and beyond reproach, but men who choose to avoid contact with women "have something very wrong with [them]." That is far out of proportion with the actual strength disparity etc, even before weighing in that it should be up to each person who they want to interact with. I object to the double standard of making personal attacks based on an assumed behavior that would be considered acceptable if the roles were reversed, and the general assigning of negative characteristics to another forum member based on preconceived notions. It's rude.



Exactly. Men like me _don't_ have to worry about being the targets of sexual harassment, in a lot of situations where women would have to worry about that. So the comparison wasn't symmetric in the first place. 
I don't think it's a comparison we should make anyway because I don't want to risk giving young users who are reading this thread  the impression that women who are afraid of being hurt by men are prejudiced against men or that they would typically abstain from relationships with men. 
That's my main concern; that there are teenagers reading these comments and that a lot of them can be very easily misinterpreted. 

So I think we should all put our personal feelings of whether we're being represented in a fair light aside for a second, and deal with that. Do you think that's reasonable?


----------



## churio (Oct 1, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> More accurately, the issue is over-generalization. If I take a thirty minute walk to the local coffee shop and back home I stand to come into close proximity of at least a dozen men, provided I take my walk at a relatively quiet time of day but not at stupid o'clock at night or something (my city is ikkle - 4 am walks usually mean meeting a maximum of five other people _maybe_). If I were to join boyfriend on his commute to work, I'd probably run into some hundred men if not hundreds. On most days, a given woman does _not_ receive unwanted attention, or the numbers in the paper you cite would be way higher, but unless she's even more of a shut-in than I am, she meets a whole pile of men on a daily basis. The percentage of men that engage in the behavior is _tiny_. To avoid all male strangers on the basis of the actions of one or two is not rational. Understandable, _maybe_, if in the recent aftermath of being victimized, but not rational. But these stories are passed on and inflate the level of perceived danger to women out alone.
> 
> The paper also notes specifically that there _are_ effects of fear of strangers being taught in childhood persisting into adulthood, as well as observing that restricting one's activities for perceived safety correlates with higher levels of fear. This is hardly surprising to me; if you are at all familiar with the psychology of anxiety you'll know that generally, taking action to avoid whatever makes you anxious will, in the long run, only reinforce that fear. So while women reducing their "safety behaviors" (within reason - obviously taking risks for the sake of it isn't a good idea) won't change the behavior of the small subset of strangers who would accost them, it _would_ likely over time reduce their perceived level of fear. Because they'd take the last bus home and _nothing would happen_.
> 
> Women are _taught_ to fear. I have literally been offered cab money by a female friend who didn't want me to take a 30 minute walk at maybe 10-11 pm on well-lit streets. My mother damn near had a litter when I went for a jog in a park like two blocks from home around dusk. Neither of these situations were at all dangerous. They were perceived as such because of cultivated cultural fear.



It notes it as A factor but that still doesn't account for the 60% number. If you understand how phobias are formed you will understand that one incidence is enough to trigger a life-long fear. Take me for example. I have a fear of dogs. This is based on the time when I was around 10 years old and a dog nearly chased me into a busy road. Since then a dog of any size coming near me does make me quite anxious. You can call fears irrational all you want but it's there and you have to deal with it. So women experiencing forms of harassment is likely to trigger a similar response to that of a phobia due to such an incident (also not sure how you can claim it's a tiny minority of men if it's upwards of 60% of women experiencing this). Now compare that to MGTOW. Men who by and large had one bad (and non-threatening) experience with a woman and on this basis dismisses them all as worthless (note average MGTOW does not experience any kind of fear of women). Can you tell me the two are still comparable?


----------



## Ramjet (Oct 1, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> More accurately, the issue is over-generalization. If I take a thirty minute walk to the local coffee shop and back home I stand to come into close proximity of at least a dozen men, provided I take my walk at a relatively quiet time of day but not at stupid o'clock at night or something (my city is ikkle - 4 am walks usually mean meeting a maximum of five other people _maybe_). If I were to join boyfriend on his commute to work, I'd probably run into some hundred men if not hundreds. On most days, a given woman does _not_ receive unwanted attention, or the numbers in the paper you cite would be way higher, but unless she's even more of a shut-in than I am, she meets a whole pile of men on a daily basis. The percentage of men that engage in the behavior is _tiny_. To avoid all male strangers on the basis of the actions of one or two is not rational. Understandable, _maybe_, if in the recent aftermath of being victimized, but not rational. But these stories are passed on and inflate the level of perceived danger to women out alone.
> 
> The paper also notes specifically that there _are_ effects of fear of strangers being taught in childhood persisting into adulthood, as well as observing that restricting one's activities for perceived safety correlates with higher levels of fear. This is hardly surprising to me; if you are at all familiar with the psychology of anxiety you'll know that generally, taking action to avoid whatever makes you anxious will, in the long run, only reinforce that fear. So while women reducing their "safety behaviors" (within reason - obviously taking risks for the sake of it isn't a good idea) won't change the behavior of the small subset of strangers who would accost them, it _would_ likely over time reduce their perceived level of fear. Because they'd take the last bus home and _nothing would happen_.
> 
> ...


----------



## DimskyTheOwl (Oct 1, 2018)

churio said:


> It notes it as A factor but that still doesn't account for the 60% number. If you understand how phobias are formed you will understand that one incidence is enough to trigger a life-long fear. Take me for example. I have a fear of dogs. This is based on the time when I was around 10 years old and a dog nearly chased me into a busy road. Since then a dog of any size coming near me does make me quite anxious. You can call fears irrational all you want but it's there and you have to deal with it. So women experiencing forms of harassment is likely to trigger a similar response to that of a phobia due to such an incident (also not sure how you can claim it's a tiny minority of men if it's upwards of 60% of women experiencing this). Now compare that to MGTOW. Men who by and large had one bad (and non-threatening) experience with a woman and on this basis dismisses them all as worthless (note average MGTOW does not experience any kind of fear of women). Can you tell me the two are still comparable?




   I'm curious to where you're getting this from? a lot of MGTOWs will claim they got screwed over in marriage one way or another or have faced false accusations in some way shape or form. No doubt there are some who jump in on the band wagon (a good example being the ones who gather on reddit)
Those are still experiences that would make you cautious in the future and probably just as concerning to them.


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 1, 2018)

I mean, the reasons for individual men's subscription to 'MGTOW' are perhaps irrelevant to the problem that such a group poses anyway. 
The problem is that MGTOW is expressly a group for men only, complaining about women only. 

It's not a group of divorcées of mixed sex who have vowed to never marry again, and it's not really about gay guys, is it?  It's certainly not a group for men who have realised that maybe _they _were responsible for some of their relationship troubles. 

To put things coarsely, it feels like the over-arching narrative is that women are so awful that they're not worth putting up with in order to have sex.


----------



## Ramjet (Oct 1, 2018)

DimskyTheOwl said:


> I'm curious to where you're getting this from? a lot of MGTOWs will claim they got screwed over in marriage one way or another or have faced false accusations in some way shape or form. No doubt there are some who jump in on the band wagon (a good example being the ones who gather on reddit)
> Those are still experiences that would make you cautious in the future and probably just as concerning to them.



It's well recognized that abuse both physically and emotionally happen to men as well...

www.mayoclinic.org: It happens to men, too: Recognize signs of domestic violence

Is it a good enough reason to write off relationships?
Depends on the person really, and their willingness to move on if they so choose too or not...

No one would tell a women just to get over it and move on.
I really don't understand why society chooses not to give the same of level of respect for men?


----------



## DimskyTheOwl (Oct 1, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> I mean, the reasons for individual men's subscription to 'MGTOW' are perhaps irrelevant to the problem that such a group poses anyway.
> The problem is that MGTOW is expressly a group for men only, complaining about women only.
> 
> It's not a group of divorcées of mixed sex who have vowed to never marry again, and it's not really about gay guys, is it?  It's certainly not a group for men who have realised that maybe _they _were responsible for some of their relationship troubles.
> ...




Well I certainly agree their reactions aren't exactly acceptable or entirely reasonable, just sort of.. understandable for at least some of them. They have pertty much turned into a 'boys only club' and from my experience aren't very open to chat.

No one's go-to reaction should be to shun and shame the opposite sex or treat them as an enemy, but unfotunately it takes some people a while to grow out of that, if ever.

I also find it rather concerning that they are growing and spreading certain potentially harmful ideologies.


----------



## Ramjet (Oct 1, 2018)

As far as sex goes for people that avoid relationships, they be plenty of women out there that feel the same about relationships that want no strings attached sex...

Why do you think Tinder's a thing?


----------



## DimskyTheOwl (Oct 1, 2018)

Ramjet556 said:


> It's well recognized that abuse both physically and emotionally happen to men as well...
> 
> www.mayoclinic.org: It happens to men, too: Recognize signs of domestic violence
> 
> ...



It really does depend, it's still understandable if someone remains cautious or decides to not pursue relationhips at all. Some remain in a state of fear which almost inevitably leads to hatred, and others will seek help or try to find a more positive mindset to move on.


I wouldn't say 'no one', It may not be as widespread, though it really happens. Some people just dissmiss this topic overall as well as those who have experienced it.
Yeah, there's still a lot of stigma around male abuse in general, especially the very fact men don't have as many options to seek help in times of crisis or recovery. It's kind of sickening, especially how some people treat it.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Oct 1, 2018)

churio said:


> If you understand how phobias are formed you will understand that one incidence is enough to trigger a life-long fear. Take me for example. I have a fear of dogs. This is based on the time when I was around 10 years old and a dog nearly chased me into a busy road. Since then a dog of any size coming near me does make me quite anxious. You can call fears irrational all you want but it's there and you have to deal with it.


And you appear to be aware that your fear of dogs is disproportionate and irrational, much as I am aware that my social anxiety largely feeds my brain garbage and sometimes I just have to do things even though they got misfiled into the "OMFG dangerous" box. If/when you decide to seek therapy to treat your phobia, a large part of the process will be exposing yourself to the trigger (dogs) without anything bad happening, to retrain your brain so that it tones down or loses that fear response. 



churio said:


> So women experiencing forms of harassment is likely to trigger a similar response to that of a phobia due to such an incident (also not sure how you can claim it's a tiny minority of men if it's upwards of 60% of women experiencing this).


Caveat: for simplicity, I'm going to use the 60% figure to explain what I'm talking about.
6 in 10 women have _at some point_ experienced this. There isn't really enough data available in the paper to say how many times. I'm 33 and can off the top of my head think of five incidents where a man made me feel threatened or did something that it would have been quite reasonable for me to find threatening (as my threshold for threatening behavior is pretty high, anxiety aside); I am going to completely arbitrarily assume, for the sake of this argument, that a rounded rate of once per seven years is typical for those 6 women. This also jives reasonably well with the paper's figure for women victimized in the last year, so it seems like a good enough ass-pull figure for now. So let's look at the life of one of those 6 women:

As you have repeatedly noted, we have pretty close to a 50/50 split of men/women in society. 50% is accurate enough for our purposes. I can't offhand find data for how many people a person might encounter in 7 years, but assuming that they hold down a job, eat out for lunch, and go shopping three times a week, a conservative estimate might be, say, 500 "impressions" a week - I suspect the real number would be considerably higher. That gives us 500x52x7 people in 7 years, and half of that would be 91000 men. Out of the 91000 men our hypothetical woman crosses paths with in seven years, _one_ gives her some form of unwanted attention. Most of the rest probably don't pay her any special heed at all, and she probably doesn't much notice them either. And this is ignoring the 40% of women who don't report any such experience at all - that further lowers our estimated percentage of creeps.

Obviously this is very crude, estimatey math, but it does well enough to illustrate my point. Even if a portion of those 91000 men are really repeat encounters, you'd still be looking at thousands of men who didn't victimize our poor lady.



Fallowfox said:


> I don't think it's a comparison we should make anyway because I don't want to risk giving young users who are reading this thread the impression that women who are afraid of being hurt by men are prejudiced against men or that they would typically abstain from relationships with men.


It was never intended to be a straight comparison so much as a very loose parallel.

While I agree with you to a point, I also think it's important to make clear that these fears that "all women" have (a claim I've seen far too often in various discourse) are not mandatory. Being aware of what the actual risks are in your particular area and avoiding taking unnecessary risks, yes, that's generally a good idea. But that doesn't mean you have to tie yourself in knots worrying about things that are statistically unlikely to happen. I'm not a fan of fearmongering, and I've seen far too much of it in my days. If you (gen) have a legitimate fear (in the sense that "this thing genuinely is something I'm afraid of" - no implications about whether the fear is "justified" or not), I feel bad for you, because being afraid fucking sucks. But no one is obligated to have that fear on account of having tits (or whatever).


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 2, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> It was never intended to be a straight comparison so much as a very loose parallel.
> 
> While I agree with you to a point, I also think it's important to make clear that these fears that "all women" have (a claim I've seen far too often in various discourse) are not mandatory. Being aware of what the actual risks are in your particular area and avoiding taking unnecessary risks, yes, that's generally a good idea. But that doesn't mean you have to tie yourself in knots worrying about things that are statistically unlikely to happen. I'm not a fan of fearmongering, and I've seen far too much of it in my days. If you (gen) have a legitimate fear (in the sense that "this thing genuinely is something I'm afraid of" - no implications about whether the fear is "justified" or not), I feel bad for you, because being afraid fucking sucks. But no one is obligated to have that fear on account of having tits (or whatever).




If we do have that discussion at some point, I feel it would be best to have it separately from a discussion about 'MGTOW'; you know, as part of a discussion that didn't fundamentally begin under a pretext that many women would feel is misogynistic and designed to exclude them.

Try to be aware of who is supporting these posts you're making about the circumstances women face; it's mostly young men.




whyt31 said:


> No, there aren't MGTOW furries...
> and why did you bring this up?



Given that the thread was created by a new user, who _immediately_ began posting about MGTOW and has_ only_ posted about MGTOW, I suspect that this is the alternative account of a banned user.
I think their interest in bringing MGTOW up is probably related to the rest of the anti-feminism and topics related to the alt-right that have been posted on this forum.

I think users who are participating in this discussion should take a moment to think about this; somebody is trying to 'red pill' you guys.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Oct 2, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> If we do have that discussion at some point, I feel it would be best to have it separately from a discussion about 'MGTOW'; you know, as part of a discussion that didn't fundamentally begin under a pretext that many women would feel is misogynistic and designed to exclude them.
> 
> Try to be aware of who is supporting these posts you're making about the circumstances women face; it's mostly young men.


You're welcome to bring up the discussion elsewhere. I have no attachment to it being in this thread.

My speaking up here started because groups and users were unfairly maliced. I don't particularly care about MGTOW - as previously mentioned my exposure is very limited (mostly secondhand) and I readily acknowledge that means I don't have sufficient data to speak authoratively on them as a whole - _however _it's pretty clear that they are not the same as incels, and neither is the same as MRAs or eg RoK-ers (_or_ redpillers, since you indirectly brought them up). They are separate, distinct groups with some individuals existing in the overlapping areas of the Venn diagrams or just plain happening to be members of more than one ("overlapping areas" I might compare to furries and bronies, while "happening to be members of more than one" is more akin to being interested in both furries and model trains - analogies grabbed out of thin air because I run on metaphors). I find it troubling when people are so eager to conflate the lot. It casts legitimate concerns about men's rights in an undeserved negative light. 

Similarly, Ramjet has said nothing negative about women as a group in this thread, yet has been ascribed with negative qualities (implied to be misogynist) because he is a man attracted to women who doesn't choose to pursue a relationship. I don't know his reasons, and he's not obligated to share them, but assuming they are misogynist in nature out of thin air is asinine and rude. As previously mentioned suggesting that something is wrong with him because he's not pursuing a relationship _also_ is (probably unintentionally) at _least_ borderline acephobic. 

I _will_ own to the tangent about fear culture being, well, a tangent, and one that in hindsight has probably taken up more space in the thread than it should have. I was (and still am, to some degree) tired and cranky and in pain last night, and being told what I feel (or should feel) because I am nominally female is a bit of a bullfighter's flag to me. With a more level head I would likely have said "this is all off topic and not sufficiently related to the point I was making" sooner.



Fallowfox said:


> I think their interest in bringing MGTOW up is probably related to the rest of the anti-feminism and topics related to the alt-right that have been posted on this forum.


Maybe, maybe not. Worth acknowledging is that "disenfranchised(-feeling) young men" (such as MGTOW, but certainly not limited to them) are considered good targets for radicalization and recruitment by alt-right groups. I've seen accounts that appeared fairly credible of how misogyny and xenophobia is deliberately planted by such elements (coming in from the outside with an ulterior motive) in order to make the group more receptive to further radicalization. Which, yanno, is a shitty thing to do.


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 2, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> You're welcome to bring up the discussion elsewhere. I have no attachment to it being in this thread.
> 
> My speaking up here started because groups and users were unfairly maliced. I don't particularly care about MGTOW - as previously mentioned my exposure is very limited (mostly secondhand) and I readily acknowledge that means I don't have sufficient data to speak authoratively on them as a whole - _however _it's pretty clear that they are not the same as incels, and neither is the same as MRAs or eg RoK-ers (_or_ redpillers, since you indirectly brought them up). They are separate, distinct groups with some individuals existing in the overlapping areas of the Venn diagrams or just plain happening to be members of more than one ("overlapping areas" I might compare to furries and bronies, while "happening to be members of more than one" is more akin to being interested in both furries and model trains - analogies grabbed out of thin air because I run on metaphors). I find it troubling when people are so eager to conflate the lot. It casts legitimate concerns about men's rights in an undeserved negative light.
> 
> ...



So this might be a discussion for another time, but I suspect that phenomena such an 'incel', 'MGTOW' and 'Red pill' are all different manifestations from the same root stock of ideas.  Maybe we can discuss that later or in private. 

I think you're bang on the money about disenfranchised men being prime targets for recruitment. I suspect that the thread's opening poster is using that as an opportunity to find people who will be receptive to those ideas.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Oct 2, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> So this might be a discussion for another time, but I suspect that phenomena such an 'incel', 'MGTOW' and 'Red pill' are all different manifestations from the same root stock of ideas. Maybe we can discuss that later or in private.


I think that depends a lot on how you define your taxonomy of ideas. To me it feels disingenuous to try to dismiss one on the basis that another one of them sucks. Either way I have no objections to civil discussions on the matter.



Fallowfox said:


> I think you're bang on the money about disenfranchised men being prime targets for recruitment. I suspect that the thread's opening poster is using that as an opportunity to find people who will be receptive to those ideas.


All the more reason to not do their job for them by jumping down people's throats over things they never said, then, far as I'm concerned. *shrug*

There was a very good Twitter thread about alt-right recruitment tactics targeting individuals perceived to be more receptive and/or have less of a social safety net, a while back, by a man who'd found himself targeted and partly pulled in by such tactics. I know I've linked it on other threads here in the past.


----------



## churio (Oct 2, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> And you appear to be aware that your fear of dogs is disproportionate and irrational, much as I am aware that my social anxiety largely feeds my brain garbage and sometimes I just have to do things even though they got misfiled into the "OMFG dangerous" box. If/when you decide to seek therapy to treat your phobia, a large part of the process will be exposing yourself to the trigger (dogs) without anything bad happening, to retrain your brain so that it tones down or loses that fear response.
> 
> 
> Caveat: for simplicity, I'm going to use the 60% figure to explain what I'm talking about.
> ...



What? What is your justification for using a seven year interval? Of course the numbers are gonna seem smaller if you spread out the space of time that much. Your study sample of six people would never go through in an actual study on the subject. And for that matter your example of someone commuting to work isn't really consistent with the study as they also interviewed women in education who may or may not be going to areas with that high a population density (that is unfamiliar people). They didn't even mention the methods of transport used (there was some references to parking habits and if you are in a car you're not likely going to be in a situation in which men can harass you in public). All you are doing is trying to deny the study by putting everything down to micro scale. This whole "not all men" argument doesn't hold up when you are trying to draw conclusions using the scientific method.

The usual standard for studies like these is in the ball park of 1,000 to 2,000 participants. Not to mention that there was no description given of the individual incidences. It doesn't measure if it was a gang or an individual it just measures how many people have experienced this in some capacity or another. If it's high enough to reach 60% of the female population it's high enough to be considered a clear issue among the male population. Your whole methodology is completely flawed and would never pass a peer review.

And your claims about phobia left out one vital aspect of curing one. These exposure processes need to be done in a controlled environment where the the thing you fear is guaranteed not to harm you in any way. Going up to people in the street is far too risky as you may well come into contact with those same people who caused the issue in the first place. Unless you have the money to be able to afford such a controlled setting in the first place then it's on the men who are doing this to change their own behaviour.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Oct 2, 2018)

@churio I'm done discussing this. Fallow has a point in that it goes outside the scope of the thread topic to some degree, and I frankly don't need the headache of explaining to you how 60% and 6 in 10 are the same damn thing if you can't figure it out on your own. Everything you asked was explained in my post; I have clearly indicated where I've made assumptions due to a lack of readily available data and what I based those assumptions on. 

If you are hell bent on shitting on your own sex, fine. Go ahead. 

I'll be over here doing actual academic work.


----------



## churio (Oct 2, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> @churio I'm done discussing this. Fallow has a point in that it goes outside the scope of the thread topic to some degree, and I frankly don't need the headache of explaining to you how 60% and 6 in 10 are the same damn thing if you can't figure it out on your own. Everything you asked was explained in my post; I have clearly indicated where I've made assumptions due to a lack of readily available data and what I based those assumptions on.
> 
> If you are hell bent on shitting on your own sex, fine. Go ahead.
> 
> I'll be over here doing actual academic work.


Right and then come to conclusions based on those assumptions. You don't see how that would be a problem? And might I ask if you have any actual credentials in such areas?


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 2, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> I think that depends a lot on how you define your taxonomy of ideas. To me it feels disingenuous to try to dismiss one on the basis that another one of them sucks. Either way I have no objections to civil discussions on the matter.
> 
> 
> All the more reason to not do their job for them by jumping down people's throats over things they never said, then, far as I'm concerned. *shrug*
> ...



So I'd like to establish that viewing, say for example, the incel movement as misogynistic isn't the same as telling a user who identifies as an incel that they must be a terrible person.
Even if somebody holds misogynistic views, they can re-evaluate those perspectives and, even if they are beyond reason, criticising their views can help prevent other people from being persuaded into the same traps.
I think it's important we start off by acknowledging this, because otherwise it becomes impossible to levy honest criticisms at these online movements without being accused of 'doing the recruiter's job for them'. 

Do we agree there?

Anyway, I think that ideas such as 'Red pill', 'Incel', MGTOW' and 'MRA' come from the same rootstock because all of these ideas fall under the remit of the 'manosphere'.
They share a common thread of ideas and use similar language to express those ideas which attests to those ideas having a common source.
Manosphere - Wikipedia
Of course, I don't think that an idea being popular in the manosphere means that it's automatically a bad idea. Some of them oppose routine circumcision of infants, for example, and I definitely agree there.
I think that the good ideas are best expressed in a context _outside_ of manosphere subcultures though, hopefully it's obvious why. x3


----------



## quoting_mungo (Oct 2, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> So I'd like to establish that viewing, say for example, the incel movement as misogynistic isn't the same as telling a user who identifies as an incel that they must be a terrible person.
> Even if somebody holds misogynistic views, they can re-evaluate those perspectives and, even if they are beyond reason, criticising their views can help prevent other people from being persuaded into the same traps.
> I think it's important we start off by acknowledging this, because otherwise it becomes impossible to levy honest criticisms at these online movements without being accused of 'doing the recruiter's job for them'.
> 
> Do we agree there?


Obviously you need to be able to criticize movements for the faults they actually have. It becomes a problem when either the criticism concerns problems that are not endemic to the group in question but rather another group the speaker considers to be associated with it, or the criticism is turned into a personal attack instead, particularly when it's taking wild leaps to unflattering conclusions. This is not saying that you, personally, have done so, but it has happened in this thread, and it damn well is a problem that deserves being pointed out. _That_ is what I feel is pushing people into the arms of unsavory people. 

If you (gen) want to convince someone to change their opinion, categorizing that opinion with value-loaded words that are widely accepted as being strongly negative ("sexist," "misogynist," "racist," etc) is typically a very risky approach. When possible, avoiding that language may make the difference between a defensive and a receptive audience.



Fallowfox said:


> Anyway, I think that ideas such as 'Red pill', 'Incel', MGTOW' and 'MRA' come from the same rootstock because all of these ideas fall under the remit of the 'manosphere'.
> They share a common thread of ideas and use similar language to express those ideas which attests to those ideas having a common source.


The commonality in ideology/motivation is IMO far too tenuous to draw the conclusion that the groups have a meaningful relationship (as groups - this is not saying anything about individuals who might find themselves identifying with more than one) on any kind of ongoing basis. Of the websites described in any detail in the Wikipedia article linked, you've got two PUA sites (at least one of which on multiple occassions has published articles that pretty thoroughly put down MRAs) and one site for people who're disappointed the PUAs can't get them laid. The latter may well have a pretty strong crossover with incels as a group, but I wouldn't hold it for likely that they'd share many members with eg MGTOW. 

There are people who don't do their movement many favors, that much is true, but that'll be true for practically any organization or movement. There are groups within this loose set of groups (given the manner in which the Wikipedia article describes/illustrates it, I'm not entirely comfortable with "manosphere" as an umbrella term) that no doubt are going too far in one way or the other. Very loosely, I see at least three distinct categories that these groups fall into:
- seeking sex; this category could be separated further into those who make their success into part of their identity (PUAs etc) and those who make their lack of success into part of their identity (PUAHate, incels, etc)
- forgoing companionship (MGTOW etc); as noted by @Ramjet556 this does not _have_ to mean being celibate, the defining factor would more be the not seeking a relationship
- seeking rights (MRAs etc); the focus here, ideologically, is largely _not_ on the individual's social life, but on larger matters of policy and men collectively

Cross-pollination may obviously occur, but conflating groups, especially across those loose divides (with allowances for groups possibly fitting into more than one category), is IMO not a sign of engaging in good faith. And if you're going to engage, I would hope you'd do so in good faith; anything else and you're just being a bag of feces.



Fallowfox said:


> Of course, I don't think that an idea being popular in the manosphere means that it's automatically a bad idea. Some of them oppose routine circumcision of infants, for example, and I definitely agree there.
> I think that the good ideas are best expressed in a context _outside_ of manosphere subcultures though, hopefully it's obvious why. x3


So who do you propose should poach the MRM's laundry list of legitimate issues? :V
I don't necessarily agree with the approach taken to all of the issues (eg for routine infant circumcision, incremental improvement where the immediate priority is to make sure that the infants receive adequate anaesthesia, while ending the practice altogether remains as a longer-term goal, seems to me to be more likely to lead to a positive change sooner, even if it's not the ideal outcome), but I can see value in having issues men face gathered onto a single list. And that's just matters of public policy and other... administrative stuff. Access to shelters and support hotlines for abused men, custody matters, the use of the Duluth model for arrests on domestic disturbance calls, etc all fall under this header, as well, I just can't think of an appropriate collective term for it right now.

When it comes to purely social matters (which may be legitimate concerns but are a lot more nebulous since humans are not a monolith and common or aggregate patterns of behavior won't apply to everyone, so are harder to observe/quantify/confirm, especially when motivations are concerned)... I think there's a lot of cruddy baggage from times past that we all need to work out.


----------



## Simo (Oct 2, 2018)

TacomaTheDeer said:


> I don’t get what people’s obsession with randomly coming out of nowhere, and making their first and only posts *on a furry forum out of all things* about their political beliefs, and then fading into oblivion...
> Strange, isn’t it?



Yeah it is odd. They have no other posts, no profile information and not even a recent post here.

But one sees this trend:  new user with no real interest in the fandom or profile info posts some or other inflamatory topic or a user who has not appeared in years acts similarly.

Drama ensues.

It gets old fast.


----------



## Simo (Oct 2, 2018)

Also without my reading glasses and on my phone I had no idea what mgtow furries were.

I thought maybe it was gonna be about Mega Cow furries or something more fun.


----------



## AsheSkyler (Oct 2, 2018)

Likewise, Simo. I've been here going "Dafuq is a Mogtow furry?? A muggle in a towel?" I can deal with a furry in a towel. Most of the community would probably prefer they bend over for the soap relatively soon, but I'd rather enjoy the mystery of guessing what's behind the towel.


----------



## Simo (Oct 2, 2018)

AsheSkyler said:


> Likewise, Simo. I've been here going "Dafuq is a Mogtow furry?? A muggle in a towel?" I can deal with a furry in a towel. Most of the community would probably prefer they bend over for the soap relatively soon, but I'd rather enjoy the mystery of guessing what's behind the towel.



Yeah dealing with furries in towels wether muggles or mega cows would be a lot more fun than these threads...that's for sure!  Wish there were more threads that were not so baity and contentious. I do try to make such topics when I think of 'em.


----------



## AsheSkyler (Oct 2, 2018)

Simo said:


> Yeah dealing with furries in towels wether muggles or mega cows would be a lot more fun than these threads...that's for sure!  Wish there were more threads that were not so baity and contentious. I do try to make such topics when I think of 'em.


It's not too late for us to take over this one with more benign banter!

So, what do you think of naked bulls in towels going their own way? Preferably with their backs turned so we can admire their glutes and triceps?  (I would mention their calves, but that gets a bit creepy when bulls are the subject matter.)

Along those lines, what the heck is the group-neutral term for cattle!? Is it "cow"? It doesn't seem right since cows are the ladies and usually the ladies have unique names, until you get to water fowl where ducks and geese are the general term for the animal and ladies, and drakes and ganders are the gender-specific counterparts. Ungulates in general tend to have a him, her, and neutral title, like stallion/mare/horse, buck/doe/deer, and ram/ewe/sheep.


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 3, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> Obviously you need to be able to criticize movements for the faults they actually have. It becomes a problem when either the criticism concerns problems that are not endemic to the group in question but rather another group the speaker considers to be associated with it, or the criticism is turned into a personal attack instead, particularly when it's taking wild leaps to unflattering conclusions. This is not saying that you, personally, have done so, but it has happened in this thread, and it damn well is a problem that deserves being pointed out. _That_ is what I feel is pushing people into the arms of unsavory people.
> 
> If you (gen) want to convince someone to change their opinion, categorizing that opinion with value-loaded words that are widely accepted as being strongly negative ("sexist," "misogynist," "racist," etc) is typically a very risky approach. When possible, avoiding that language may make the difference between a defensive and a receptive audience.
> 
> ...



So I don't think I am being a 'bag of faeces'. ;3

I view online subctultures like MGTOW, Incels and Red pillers as related just because that's my honest impression.
Just like somebody might view French, Italian and Spanish as related. It's not a value judgement.

I do have value judgements about these groups, but they're not predicted on them simply being similar to one another.

As a man, I think the broad idea of a 'men's rights' movement finds itself too often concerned with promoting antifeminism, or associating with right wing politics and racism. So I don't think it is an effective vehicle to achieve changes such as ending unnecessary and unconsented circumcision, either done routinely (as in countries like the USA) or in religious contexts.

Reasonable enough?


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Oct 3, 2018)

So, I'm a man.

I definitely don't feel or want the involuntary celibates, men's rights activists, Men Going Their Own Way, or Return of Kings speaking on my behalf. These groups, though their philosophies do vary, undoubtedly embrace sexist ideas and view women in a pejorative light. How these groups and individual decide to act on those views can vary as well, but it isn't up for debate that have and promote negative views of women as a group. I'm especially hesitant associate with these groups or have them in the fandom because I'm a conservative and conservatives get pigoen-holed at times as subscribing to the wackier far-right shenanigans some choose to engage. I also don't abide by groups that hold to unsavory, discriminatory opinions about entire categories of people. So my hat is off to everyone in this thread setting the record straight about these groups.


quoting_mungo said:


> So who do you propose should poach the MRM's laundry list of legitimate issues? :V


If you want to see what a real men's rights movement, there are a few men's advocacy groups that genuinely promote equal rights for both men and women. The Good Men Foundation is prime example of an organization that promotes activism on men's issues, supports charitable foundations such as boys' and girls' clubs, and even publishes an online magazine dealing with men's issues that also acts as a forum for dialogue between feminists and men's rights advocates. The foundation focuses on criticizing traditional male gender norms and roles, father's issues, social factors affecting at-risk boys in the urban areas, as well sex and health concerns.

The Good Men Project - The Conversation No One Else Is Having

Of course none of the above stops the sexist groups this thread is about from decrying the good work an actual men's rights advocacy group is doing. To them, the Good Men Foundation is just kowtowing to women and the feminists. 

https://angloamerica101.wordpress.c...s-its-ok-for-women-to-assault-and-injure-men/

whatmenthinkofwomen.blogspot.com:    WMASAW: What Men Are Saying About Women..: The Mangina Awards©..


----------



## SSJ3Mewtwo (Oct 3, 2018)

AsheSkyler said:


> It's not too late for us to take over this one with more benign banter!
> 
> So, what do you think of naked bulls in towels going their own way? Preferably with their backs turned so we can admire their glutes and triceps?  (I would mention their calves, but that gets a bit creepy when bulls are the subject matter.)
> 
> Along those lines, what the heck is the group-neutral term for cattle!? Is it "cow"? It doesn't seem right since cows are the ladies and usually the ladies have unique names, until you get to water fowl where ducks and geese are the general term for the animal and ladies, and drakes and ganders are the gender-specific counterparts. Ungulates in general tend to have a him, her, and neutral title, like stallion/mare/horse, buck/doe/deer, and ram/ewe/sheep.



Please keep the discussion on topic.  I don't mind political and social discussion threads at all, and would more encourage people to honestly participate in them.  Attempting to deliberately derail the topic is not good forum conduct.


----------



## AsheSkyler (Oct 3, 2018)

SSJ3Mewtwo said:


> Please keep the discussion on topic.  I don't mind political and social discussion threads at all, and would more encourage people to honestly participate in them.  Attempting to deliberately derail the topic is not good forum conduct.


Alright then, fine. I think all this gender/sexuality squabbling is bullshit and the more people focus on it the less likely it will ever be resolved.


----------



## SSJ3Mewtwo (Oct 3, 2018)

AsheSkyler said:


> Alright then, fine. I think all this gender/sexuality squabbling is bullshit and the more people focus on it the less likely it will ever be resolved.



Which is fine.  Just keep the discussion on topic.  If you genuinely do not like the topic, then it's best to just not participate in the thread.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Oct 3, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> I view online subctultures like MGTOW, Incels and Red pillers as related just because that's my honest impression.
> Just like somebody might view French, Italian and Spanish as related. It's not a value judgement.


And you can view them as related. I'm not denying they are related, some more than others - which doesn't automatically mean they all pour their ideology from the same spring. There is a problem only if you (figuratively) start talking about how Spanish sucks because French contains too many silent letters. Saying "I see similarities between these groups" is not conflating the groups. Referring to one group as another or judging it by the actions and attitudes of the other _is_. And sure, it's a lot _easier_ to dismiss one of the less vitriolic groups if you can point to the egregious examples of poor behavior from the more hostile ones. But it's not an act of good faith. And I should hope no one here genuinely feels that bad faith discussion is something that belongs on _any_ forum.



Fallowfox said:


> As a man, I think the broad idea of a 'men's rights' movement finds itself too often concerned with promoting antifeminism, or associating with right wing politics and racism. So I don't think it is an effective vehicle to achieve changes such as ending unnecessary and unconsented circumcision, either done routinely (as in countries like the USA) or in religious contexts.
> 
> Reasonable enough?


Largely; I'd personally make a point of specifically differentiating between anti-feminism for its own sake and justified criticism of feminism, such as pointing out the role it has had in the establishment of situations that directly and unfairly disadvantage men (eg the Duluth model for determining predominant aggressor, which is directly based on feminist theory).

It's also important to note that the single issue you mention is one of a larger number. As I said I feel there is value in gathering them in one place; if the only quibble they had was circumcision then, sure, it wouldn't much matter who was pushing it, but if there's a handful of issues and they're all pushed by separate entities, there is a real risk that the bigger picture is lost as a result.



Unicon said:


> So, I'm a man.
> 
> I definitely don't feel or want the involuntary celibates, men's rights activists, Men Going Their Own Way, or Return of Kings speaking on my behalf.


I feel you. While pushing policy on behalf of a group (in the sense that "this group will benefit from the policy we're pushing") is a legitimate and often admirable activity, far too many groups that do so have a bad habit of forgetting that just because they feel that their efforts will improve the situation of a demographic group, that doesn't mean they can speak for the individuals that make up that demographic without consent. No group or individual should be pretending to speak on the behalf of anyone but themselves-the-activists. It's sometimes a tricky balance, as you also need to be able to boost the voices of groups who might not otherwise be heard, but using qualifiers is often a good start. (Eg "many men" instead of just "men".)

Part of my irritation with feminism as a movement is the pretense of speaking on my behalf while saying things I just don't agree with. So I absolutely get not wanting whatever group hijacking your voice.



Unicon said:


> The Good Men Project - The Conversation No One Else Is Having
> 
> Of course none of the above stops the sexist groups this thread is about from decrying the good work an actual men's rights advocacy group is doing. To them, the Good Men Foundation is just kowtowing to women and the feminists.
> 
> https://angloamerica101.wordpress.c...s-its-ok-for-women-to-assault-and-injure-men/


First off, thanks for the link!

Second, while I can't 100% confirm the accuracy, since it's basically a repost of a Good Men article that was pulled to Reddit and no archived versions of the original still seem to exist (over four years later), I did find what alleges to be the text of the article under scrutiny here. The AVFM article you link might be a touch harsher in its criticism than I would, and I definitely think drawing the conclusion that the site is misandrist from it is harsher than warranted, but the Good Men article discussed, provided the Reddit copy is accurate, is... not exactly what I would call good work on behalf of men's rights.

Not saying the site is not doing good work overall, but criticizing _that specific article_ I would have to say is justified. I don't think there was any malicious agenda to it, but it isn't exactly great advice to be giving men in potentially abusive relationships. (As I believe I mentioned earlier in the thread, no one is at the top of their game all the time, so I don't consider the publication a particularly big deal if it was an isolated incident, especially not as it was apparently pulled fairly shortly after publication.)


----------



## Simo (Oct 4, 2018)

Mainly I find these MGTOW and related groups to demonstrate that Freud---though living in a different time and cultural background---still has much more relevance than we think.

I wonder how many of them had issues arising early on with their mothers or other maternal/formative figures; my guess is that it would be quite high.

The more I look at these groups the more I think they would benefit from therapy than banding together in such odd clusters of victimized feeling loons self perpetuating their own dysfunctionality.


----------



## Judge Spear (Oct 4, 2018)

dumb thread


----------



## ThunderSnowolf (Oct 4, 2018)

I'm pretty sure MGTOW is notorious for being sexist against women, sometimes other men as well. 
I've had personal experiences with them too, calling me a pervert for making gay couples when I didn't even fetishize them, they're just a gay couple.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Oct 4, 2018)

Let me clarify where I stand on MGTOW.

I don't want my words being used as a shield for arguments and motives I don't agree with.

As a man, I find the MGTOW "movement" disturbing for many reasons and very much unsuited for any serious advocacy on men's issues.

MGTOW is an offshoot of the men's rights movement, another morally repugnant and sexist movement. MGTOWs espouse the rhetoric of men's rights activists, but instead of trying to address the supposed issues, they have sworn to either stay away from women altogether or stop dating and marrying women and having children. So basically this is a fringe male separatist movement. The "going their own way" part is framed not just as masculine self-preservation, but as a strike that is supposed to punish women.  In the opinion of too many MGTOWs, women seduce men in order to exploit them, but are unable to live without men's support. This is undeniably sexist.

The fact that they view their ostracism of women as a strike depriving women of their male company and sustenance speaks volumes about how much these men overestimate their importance to society. It is also telling that despite professing to 'go their own way' MGTOWs seem completely obsessed with women on their internet forums.

I gave the example of the Good Men Foundation for what a men's rights movement should be like, and with a few oversights, it largely advances men's issues while occasionally and constructively collaborating with groups that focus on women's issues. However, I'm extremely hesitant to primarily focus on men when women face far more injustices worldwide than men. While men do face legitimate issues in modern society, women undoubtedly face far more resistance and obstacles their personal and professional lives, especially if we're talking about the United States where they approximately make 75 cents for every dollar a man makes. That is a staggering financial disadvantage to overcome. In terms of women's health issues in the United States, they are all too often determined by men, with minimal or no input women. Look at the tone deafness of some of my fellow conservatives when it come to defunding woman's health programs such as Planned Parenthood or attempting overturn Roe v. Wade. Both would greatly and adversely affect the health of women in this country.

It's also worth noting that there are countries where women are legally considered second-class citizens with reduced rights and freedoms.

Some MGTOW advocates have even promoted the idea of cutting off all ties with the outside world and living a life of solitude which they call "going ghost". Others have interpreted "going ghost" as literally committing suicide to spite women. Say what you will about some of the negative aspects of feminism, but I have not heard of any feminist group, organization, or movement promoting such a destructive activity among its members.

https://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/...suicide-as-a-badass-way-to-stick-it-to-women/

I just wanted to say where I stand on all this, especially to the users who are women. They've got a right not to have this drivel, dressed up as a debate, thrown in their face

I'd also like to point out that the OP is conspicuously MIA now, so I'll hazard a few guesses and say they were looking to link up with MGTOWs here and start another far-right dumpster fire. But maybe I'm just jaded.


----------



## Ramjet (Oct 4, 2018)

Actually is really suspicious that the OP would decide to make this his first thread and ghost out

My take,

I can imagine plenty of them fall under the category of rage quitters, especially the one's that feel the need to community up via forums 
(incels moonlighting as mgtows imo)...

Alot fit under the category though of just men not interested.That imo (for me anyway) comes from a state of low sexdrive and a non interest in wanting to cohabit with someone else.

I'm 31 and have been on both sides of the fence...
Almost married and cohabited twice.
It just isn't for me.
Looking though my history book is an easy indicator as to when I actually did really good vs when things just never really went good at all (never really felt right during the relationship either)...
For me it's a no brainer, I would never advocate this for anyone else though, unless they of course wanted it for themselves...

The herbivore men in Japan are another interesting subsidiary on this topic...Work pressure to succeed and a very competitive culture have left many to opt out and focus on themselves...

BTW I'd be hesitant to bring up Sigmund Freud especially on a forum with LGBTQ...
The guy was a coke head fiend who viewed female homosexuality as a gateway to mental illness.
Most if not all of his work is discredited nowadays...


----------



## Shadowprints (Oct 8, 2018)

I've struggled with this ideology. As someone who was single until like 20, I got a lot of stuff done, and was more productive, and probably a better person. In a relationship for 4 years now, and while I love it, I definitely find myself a little more relaxed and comfortable, which in turn means i get less done and I'm less productive / motivated, etc.

In the other hand of the MGTOW movement, a lot of guys have been dealt shit hands by women, and a lot of women out there are scumbag bitches. I understand the ideology and why people would support it, but me.. In the end I want a family n stuff, and that's just a personal thing, MGTOW doesn't need or want a family, and that's fine too.

Best of luck to you guys who are part of MGTOW. I know you'll do good for yourself.


----------



## An-Honest-Pie (Oct 9, 2018)

I think forming a movement about it is stupid and counterproductive, and when the time comes, they could easy blacklist words like "MGTOW" on all social media and their ideology would be brushed in the trash.

I don't like most people in general, men and women have their flaws and they're both rather bad in nature and society lets both go uncecked. The only think I like about MGTOW and some Red Pill ideologies is self improvement and spotting red flags, too bad it comes from trashy people.


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 9, 2018)

Yeah if there's anything that really needs to be pointed out, it's that weird cults on the internet don't have a monopoly on self-betterment.  They prey upon people's insecurities about self worth because they want something out of you. 

Quacks have been doing _that_ for decades.


----------



## ScrewLoose (Oct 9, 2018)

They need to grow up.
Theres more women than men in this world.
I do a man's job everyday. And it's a job thats fit for men but I'm not scared of women. I think mgtow is a bunch of manchilds too scared to grow up and realize that theyre just compensating for there tiny testiculars.


----------



## Ramjet (Oct 9, 2018)

ScrewLoose said:


> Grow up boy.
> Theres more women than men in this world.
> I do a man's job everyday. And it's a job thats fit for men but I'm not scared of women. I think mgtow is a bunch of manchilds too scared to grow up and realize that theyre just compensating for there tiny testiculars.




Some have calculated cautiously to understand which lifestyle fits best for them.

Not everyone fits in the wanting/needing a relationship camp.


----------



## ScrewLoose (Oct 9, 2018)

Ramjet556 said:


> Some have calculated cautiously to understand which lifestyle fits best for them.
> 
> Not everyone fits in the wanting/needing a relationship camp.


Yeah but that don't mean women exist to torture us and 
de-testicularize us. That's a load of BS.


----------



## Ramjet (Oct 9, 2018)

ScrewLoose said:


> Yeah but that don't mean women exist to torture us and
> de-testicularize us. That's a load of BS.




Your absolutely right about that, they aren't...

Like any label it has it's radicals...
Like I said on a previous post, choose your poison between the ones blaming men for all their problems vs the ones blaming women for all their problems...
Two wings, same bird.

I take from the ideology of self ownership and independence over the toxic shit...

YMMV


----------



## Yakamaru (Oct 9, 2018)

Meh, MGTOW's. Men who don't want to commit to a serious relationship because of bad experiences with women, some of them having been fucked over in a divorce due to how the system favors women in around 60-75%(around there somewhere) of the time.

Not my cup of tea really, considering I am not going to let a few bad experiences ruin my interactions with the rest of a gender. 

MRA's are welcome tho.


----------



## An-Honest-Pie (Oct 9, 2018)

Bud, the world in general favors women over men. It's disgusting.


----------



## Dancy (Oct 10, 2018)

_wow, wow, wow._
_let's not get crazy here._
_can i maybe say something since no other woman has commented on this new page yet?_​


Ramjet556 said:


> Some have calculated cautiously to understand which lifestyle fits best for them.
> 
> Not everyone fits in the wanting/needing a relationship camp.


_it's fine if there are men who feel a relationship isn't for them right now or ever._
_there are women who feel the same way for themselves._
_foregoing a relationships isn't problematic._
_foregoing relationships based on sexist toxic rhetoric blaming for all of your and society's ills is very problematic._
_mgtows have a real problem with taking the bad experiences they've had with certain women and painting all women as being innately duplicitous, conniving, swindling, and withholding. _
_if the mgtows were really just about men separating themselves from intimacy with women, they wouldn't constantly troll and attack women at any given opportunity because they choose to keep to themselves._
_obviously, and this thread is probably proof, that isn't happening._​


ScrewLoose said:


> Yeah but that don't mean women exist to torture us and
> de-testicularize us. That's a load of BS.


_THANK YOU!_
_actually most of us are quite nice once you get to know us._
_we're not part of some matriarchal conspiracy out to emasculate men._
_take the time to and maybe your relationships will fare better. _​


Ramjet556 said:


> Like any label it has it's radicals...
> Like I said on a previous post, choose your poison between the ones blaming men for all their problems vs the ones blaming women for all their problems...
> Two wings, same bird.


_this i have a problem with because historically men have generally had it easier than women in the states._
_white men had the right to vote well before women did here._
_men make much more than women across most industries because of the gender gap._
_men don't have to worry nearly as much about reproductive rights as women do._
_men are statistically more likely to believed about sexual harassment and sexual assault than women are._
_men are far more successful at obtaining parental leave. _
_think of giving birth then having to go back to work shortly thereafter._
_and all of what i just listed is the cherry on the cupcake of problems women face._
_think of what you'd face as a woman in, say, saudi arabia._​


Ramjet556 said:


> I take from the ideology of self ownership and independence over the toxic shit...
> 
> YMMV


_it's a shame more men don't. :/_​


Yakamaru said:


> Meh, MGTOW's. Men who don't want to commit to a serious relationship because of bad experiences with women, some of them having been fucked over in a divorce due to how the system favors women in around 60-75%(around there somewhere) of the time.


_if this was all they were, they would get far less criticism from women and men all around._
_but like i've said, they're a movement that vigorously seeks to slander and undercut women, similar to how MRAs use the excuses of "muh men's issues" and "misandry" to promote policies to negate the gains women have made in society. _

_and i would definitely like to see the source for that divorce statistic._​


Yakamaru said:


> MRA's are welcome tho.


_so you can sort of tolerate a movement that covertly works against women and welcome one that overtly pushes an anti-feminist reactionary agenda that seeks to disadvantage women._
_why am i not surprised?_​


----------



## Ramjet (Oct 10, 2018)

Dancy said:


> _wow, wow, wow._
> _let's not get crazy here._
> _can i maybe say something since no other woman has commented on this new page yet?_​
> _it's fine if there are men who feel a relationship isn't for them right now or ever._
> ...



I don't think anyone here including me in this thread is attacking women to be honest...

I've stressed firmly that I'm of the camp of non-interest when it comes to committed relationships.It just works better for me in my life via goals and lifestyle choice.

I take from the MGTOW philosophy of self ownership and independence of self, that to me works in my world...

As far as men's rights go...They do go under the radar, and are just as valid as women's rights issues being all things should be equal imho..


----------



## Dancy (Oct 10, 2018)

Ramjet556 said:


> I don't think anyone here including me in this thread is attacking women...


_this is literally from a page ago:_​


Shadowprints said:


> In the other hand of the MGTOW movement, a lot of guys have been dealt shit hands by women, and a lot of women out there are scumbag bitches.


_as for the rest of what you said ..._​


Ramjet556 said:


> I've stressed firmly that I'm of the camp of non-interest when it comes to committed relationships.It just works better for me in my life via goals and lifestyle choice.


_i already acknowledged that this is non-problematic._​


Ramjet556 said:


> I take from the MGTOW philosophy of self ownership and independence of self, that to me works in my world...


_but why do independence and self-ownership have to be attached to the mgotw philosophy?_
_why not just say you believe in being independent?_​


Ramjet556 said:


> As far as men's rights go...They do go under the radar, and are just as valid as women's rights issues being all things should be equal imho..


_contributing active shooters who regularly wind up as media stories ain't exactly flying under the radar.
and men enjoy a far more privileged position in society than women and have far less to contend with in the sociopolitical arena._​


----------



## Ramjet (Oct 10, 2018)

Dancy said:


> _this is literally from a page ago:_​
> _as for the rest of what you said ..._​
> _i already acknowledged that this is non-problematic._​
> _but why do independence and self-ownership have to be attached to the mgotw philosophy?_
> ...




#1 Yup, he's right...
They're be alot of scum bag (abusive/violent) women out there that are nothing but toxic in the relationships their in.
Just the same as their are alot of scum bag dickhead (abusive/violent) men that are equally the same...

#2Cool

#3 "Ramjet556 said: ↑I take from the ideology of self ownership and independence over the toxic shit..."

#4 Ummmmm, school shooters?
I literally can't take this question seriously


----------



## Dancy (Oct 10, 2018)

Ramjet556 said:


> They're be alot of scum bag (abusive/violent) women out there that are nothing but toxic in the relationships their in...Just the same as their are alot of scum bag dickhead (abusive/violent) men that are equally the same...


_but did he have to call them bitches?_
_that was overboard and very illuminating._​


Ramjet556 said:


> #3 "Ramjet556 said: ↑
> I take from the ideology of self ownership and independence over the toxic shit..."


_you did say you took it from mgtow philosophy:_​


Ramjet556 said:


> I take from the MGTOW philosophy of self ownership and independence of self, that to me works in my world...


_and..._​


Ramjet556 said:


> #4 Ummmmm school shooters?
> I literally can't take this question seriously...


_believe this._
_a few were school killings, if you feel like nitpicking._
_www.washingtonpost.com: Inside the ‘manosphere’ that inspired Santa Barbara shooter Elliot Rodger_
_http://observer.com/2014/05/hating-the-players-elliot-rodger/_
_www.splcenter.org: "I laugh at the death of normies": How incels are celebrating the Toronto mass killing_
_Security guard who stomped man to death blames involuntary celibacy | The Star_
_www.latimes.com: How Elliot Rodger went from misfit mass murderer to 'saint' for group of misogynists — and suspected Toronto killer - Los Angeles Times_
_www.nbcnews.com: After Toronto attack, online misogynists praise suspect as ‘new saint’_
_www.nytimes.com: What Is an Incel? A Term Used by the Toronto Van Attack Suspect, Explained_​


----------



## Ramjet (Oct 10, 2018)

Dancy said:


> _but did he have to call them bitches?_
> _that was overboard and very illuminating._​
> _you did say you took it from mgtow philosophy:_​
> _and..._​
> ...




I guess y'all really just need a good derogatory term for us for equality

Yup, I do take what I find relevant from the mgtow philosophy of what you just quoted me on yes.

The difference of incels vs mgtow has been intensively covered in this thread already...


----------



## Dancy (Oct 10, 2018)

Ramjet556 said:


> I guess y'all really just need a good derogatory term for us for equality


_or we could respect each other like adults rather than slinging slurs at each other._
_if you want to be serious._​


Ramjet556 said:


> The difference of incels vs mgtow has been intensively covered in this thread already...


_the movements aren't that removed from each other, really._
_in practice, the mgtows just advocate separation from relationships with women while the incels still actively pursue them, but both groups share the same sexist antipathy toward women. _

_also, if you want to be specific, the stoneman douglas shooter was member of the mgtow movement. _​


----------



## quoting_mungo (Oct 10, 2018)

Dancy said:


> _foregoing relationships based on sexist toxic rhetoric blaming for all of your and society's ills is very problematic.
> mgtows have a real problem with taking the bad experiences they've had with certain women and painting all women as being innately duplicitous, conniving, swindling, and withholding. _


While I'm sure some of them (possibly a large number, I wouldn't know, but it's clearly not universal) are being sexist and placing the blame on women, I think it's naive to ignore the influence of dating/courtship culture on the matter. Which is not the same as saying "women are all bitches"; it's a fine line but throwing your hands up because societal expectations related to dating are full of bullshit I think is pretty understandable. There's a lot of stupid, archaic mumbo-jumbo involved in the social blueprint for how dating "should be done", and if you don't see having a partner as a strong positive, navigating that may look like more trouble than it's worth.



Dancy said:


> similar to how MRAs use the excuses of "muh men's issues" and "misandry" to promote policies to negate the gains women have made in society.


Pray tell what are these policies you're talking about? The only policy shifts I've seen reference to in connection to MRA rhetoric should have minimal if any impact on "the gains women have made" - unless you count "being able to beat your boyfriend to get him sent to jail because he's bigger and stronger than you so clearly he must have been the instigator/predominant aggressor" :V 
The only matter of policy I could see coming into question is affirmative action - and affirmative action in university admissions was axed here _because it turned out to be disadvantaging women more than men_.


----------



## LuxerHusku (Oct 10, 2018)

I left this site for like 2 or 3 months and this is what I see what's currently trending, now I'm back?

...Can someone please tell me what the hell is going on here?


----------



## Yakamaru (Oct 10, 2018)

LuxerHusku said:


> I left this site for like 2 or 3 months and this is what I see what's currently trending, now I'm back?
> 
> ...Can someone please tell me what the hell is going on here?


Don't bother. It's the same pointless drivel that's been going on for years. People are sick of this crap. 

Another day, another pointless topic people don't agree on.


----------



## LuxerHusku (Oct 10, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> Don't bother. It's the same pointless drivel that's been going on for years. People are sick of this crap.
> 
> Another day, another pointless topic people don't agree on.


Nice hearing from you again, Yakamaru! It has been awhile. Didn't know if we've talked in the past.


----------



## ZeroVoidTime (Oct 10, 2018)

Ehhh I am somewhat apathetic to this philosophy, and insecure men? Yeah what else new men needing compensate due to their own insecurities with being able to find a women to date. The reason why this philosophy exists is that men due not want to feel responsible for being rejected by potential girlfriends. Hell scapegoating happens regardless of gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc. The most important thing is to recognize the behavior and improve upon not resorting to blame another person due to ones own personality flaws as a reason for being rejected.


----------



## Pipistrele (Oct 10, 2018)

So, it's basically a whole group of people being so insecure with their life choices regarding sexuality, they have to invent a whole new philosophy to validate their decision. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, of course...


----------



## Simo (Oct 10, 2018)

An-Honest-Pie said:


> Bud, the world in general favors women over men. It's disgusting.



Of all the assertions I have heard here, this one, offered without one scintilla of proof, is easily the most outrageous.

~

Also, what's with all these 'sock-puppet' accounts, suddenly appearing, out of the blue, mainly focusing on:

~'MGTOWS'
~'Female artists that fetishize homosexuality?'
~and artists that don't reveal their gender....and other similar sentiments about how nefarious, evil and 'out to get' men women are. It seems more than a bit of a coincidence.

All created about the same time, by users with no real profile information, or posting history...


----------



## Yakamaru (Oct 10, 2018)

Simo said:


> Of all the assertions I have heard here, this one, offered without one scintilla of proof, is easily the most outrageous.
> 
> ~
> 
> ...


My advice: Stop taking the bait. This is an advice for everyone.


----------



## Yakamaru (Oct 10, 2018)

LuxerHusku said:


> Nice hearing from you again, Yakamaru! It has been awhile. Didn't know if we've talked in the past.


Long time no see, man. How ya been?


----------



## DimskyTheOwl (Oct 10, 2018)

Simo said:


> Of all the assertions I have heard here, this one, offered without one scintilla of proof, is easily the most outrageous.
> 
> ~
> 
> ...


 
Where exactly in my post did I even state or sugguest that "men are evil and nefarious"? Please don't throw me in this, thanks. I also already stated my opinion here.


----------



## Simo (Oct 10, 2018)

DimskyTheOwl said:


> Where exactly in my post did I even state or sugguest that "men are evil and nefarious"? Please don't throw me in this, thanks. I also already stated my opinion here.



Got carried away using hyperbole as a rhetorical device, nothing personal...apologies if it came across that way.


----------



## Infrarednexus (Oct 10, 2018)

This is primarily the reason I hesitate to support many of these men's rights movements I come across.

The fact that I've seen people in them promote distaste for the opposite sex rather vocally, shows me that some people in charge of them are not solely set on making the world a fairer place for both sexes, but more interested in encouraging harmful beliefs and treatments towards women. Many of these men's rights groups seem appealing and altruistic at first, but tend to show their ugly side really quick when you hear what some of them say. It does not surprise me, considering I've seen the same things occur in some feminist groups as well.

There are things men struggle with in society, and there are unfair systems that we have to deal with, but at no point does that justify fostering spiteful beliefs about women.


----------



## Dancy (Oct 10, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> While I'm sure some of them (possibly a large number, I wouldn't know, but it's clearly not universal) are being sexist and placing the blame on women, I think it's naive to ignore the influence of dating/courtship culture on the matter. Which is not the same as saying "women are all bitches"; it's a fine line but throwing your hands up because societal expectations related to dating are full of bullshit I think is pretty understandable. There's a lot of stupid, archaic mumbo-jumbo involved in the social blueprint for how dating "should be done", and if you don't see having a partner as a strong positive, navigating that may look like more trouble than it's worth.


_the fact that mgtow members blame women for their relationship failures is literally in their own name._
_the name refers to MEN going their own way._
_if their main contention was that dating and courtship culture are the reason for their unsuccessful relationships, then they could have chose a much better name and created a movement that also allowed WOMEN foregoing romantic relationships to join them. _
_this would've been a much more convincing statement, don't you think?_
_and if you aren't certain about the exact proportion of the mgtow movement that has sexist motivations and inclinations, maybe it would be very wise not to inadvertently provide cover for a movement with a reputation for being sexist since while you are quibbling over how many of them really protesting societal expectations surrounding dating, there are obvious mgtow members who will use what you say to hide their true sexist motives._​


quoting_mungo said:


> Pray tell what are these policies you're talking about? The only policy shifts I've seen reference to in connection to MRA rhetoric should have minimal if any impact on "the gains women have made"


_i said they promoted policies that undercut women._
_i never said they've had actual, tangible policy victories._
_it is worth noting that the mgtows and mras have been cheering some of the most pronounced anti-feminist aspects of the current administration here in the states, including its protection of proven male of abusers like rob porter and the president himself, its attacks on female victims of sexual assault, and the defunding of women's health programs like planned parenthood. _

_you should also note that mras like to claim that:_

_1.) the “pay gap” only exists because men work far more hours at high-stress jobs they hate with longer commutes, less flexibility, more physical risk, just to be breadwinners and feed their families, only to die younger and get bashed for “earning more." (it cannot be effectively argued that it has diminished to such a point where it is irrelevant anywhere.)_

_reports.weforum.org: Global Gender Gap Report 2016_

_http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/...?itemId=/content/chapter/factbook-2013-106-en_

_www.infoplease.com: The Wage Gap: A History of Pay Inequity and the Equal Pay Act_

_2.) mras support a philosophy where if women have the right to abort with or without their consent, men have the right not to pay for the child. they believe men do not have any right to force a woman to have an abortion, or carry the child to term. however, because women hold this right in full, men must have a right to declare a desire to opt-out of child support. (this is yet another thread posted by a user with no history on the forum.)_

_3.) mras claim that marital rape laws are misandrist because the wife automatically consents to sex whenever the husband desires as part of the marriage contract. _

_you should know too that mras are known to exploit the stories of male rape victims for their own agenda of promoting the notion that men are the really oppressed ones. they lure in insecure men into their movement. in the mra movement, there exists also a noticeable culture of homophobia._
_mull that over._​


DimskyTheOwl said:


> Where exactly in my post did I even state or sugguest that "men are evil and nefarious"? Please don't throw me in this, thanks. I also already stated my opinion here.


_respectfully, nobody mentioned you._
_simo certainly didn't._
_you just came back and commented._
_no one accused you of anything._​


Yakamaru said:


> Don't bother. It's the same pointless drivel that's been going on for years. People are sick of this crap.
> 
> Another day, another pointless topic people don't agree on.


_i'd agree with you that some of us are sick of this crap._
_i'll also point out that some belong to groups that are targeted by this crap, which you deigned to offer your support for on this page:_​


Yakamaru said:


> MRA's are welcome tho.


_if some of us are vocally against it, it's because we actually have skin in the game._​


Yakamaru said:


> My advice: Stop taking the bait. This is an advice for everyone.


_you are one the last people to be giving advice like this._

_thanks to the people who actually are concerned about this shit. <3_​


----------



## DimskyTheOwl (Oct 10, 2018)

Dancy said:


> ​
> _respectfully, nobody mentioned you._
> _simo certainly didn't._
> _you just came back and commented._
> _no one accused you of anything._​



*My *post was mentioned and clearly being thrown in as something bad, therefore I'm defending myself. I don't let this stuff slip by me nicely.


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 10, 2018)

An-Honest-Pie said:


> Bud, the world in general favors women over men. It's disgusting.



I think you must be living in a different world to the rest of us.


----------



## FeministFoxFelicia (Oct 10, 2018)

Gosh these people seem rather unpleasant, are there any of them in our community? I can’t say I’ve ever really met one personally but I hope I never do as they would probably hate me. Do they use Tumblr?


----------



## churio (Oct 10, 2018)

FeministFoxFelicia said:


> Gosh these people seem rather unpleasant, are there any of them in our community? I can’t say I’ve ever really met one personally but I hope I never do as they would probably hate me. Do they use Tumblr?


You can find just about anything on tumblr so yes. Although they are more active on reddit (because of course).


----------



## FeministFoxFelicia (Oct 10, 2018)

churio said:


> You can find just about anything on tumblr so yes. Although they are more active on reddit (because of course).



Oh goody, I would never use Reddit so hope they stay there. I know those Incel people have their own crazy forum, they should have one too where they can all gather together and blame us girls for everything. That way we’ll never have to encounter them.


----------



## catscom (Oct 10, 2018)

My personal problem with this is that it became more venomous than it needed to be.  Men's Rights Activism didn't need to become the mess that it did, but undue misogynistic ideas did spread and gain prominence.  MGTOW could have just been a way for men to bond without turning into what it did.


----------



## churio (Oct 10, 2018)

FeministFoxFelicia said:


> Oh goody, I would never use Reddit so hope they stay there. I know those Incel people have their own crazy forum, they should have one too where they can all gather together and blame us girls for everything. That way we’ll never have to encounter them.


I've been to their website and it's a shit show. Their reddit is too. To be fair reddit as a hole is a shit show but that's besides the point. I remember some articles on their website justifying domestic abuse (or was that MRM?). I don't get why they weren't shut down for that.


----------



## LuxerHusku (Oct 10, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> Long time no see, man. How ya been?


I have been well. Practicing on art and stuff mostly.


----------



## FeministFoxFelicia (Oct 10, 2018)

churio said:


> I've been to their website and it's a shit show. Their reddit is too. To be fair reddit as a hole is a shit show but that's besides the point. I remember some articles on their website justifying domestic abuse (or was that MRM?). I don't get why they weren't shut down for that.



That’s awful, why would people be like that? They must have real prejudices against women, it makes me really scared to be around men to be honest.


----------



## Kiaara (Oct 10, 2018)

Hoh boy... I think this thread should be locked and buryed


----------



## CertifiedCervine (Oct 10, 2018)

KiaraTC said:


> Hoh boy... I think this thread should be locked and buryed


Like all the other flamewars :V
We get one a week now :/
OP has also been MIA for awhile now


----------



## Kiaara (Oct 10, 2018)

TacomaTheDeer said:


> Like all the other flamewars :V
> We get one a week now :/
> OP has also been MIA for awhile now


Someone tag mewtwo in this :/


----------



## CertifiedCervine (Oct 10, 2018)

KiaraTC said:


> Someone tag mewtwo in this :/


While locking it would be nice, wouldn’t another one just pop up?


----------



## Kiaara (Oct 10, 2018)

TacomaTheDeer said:


> While locking it would be nice, wouldn’t another one just pop up?


Eh, fuck it. It's like one of those things if you cut one head off, two more pop up


----------



## Yakamaru (Oct 10, 2018)

LuxerHusku said:


> I have been well. Practicing on art and stuff mostly.


Good to hear, man. 

How much art have you been doing?


----------



## CertifiedCervine (Oct 10, 2018)

KiaraTC said:


> Eh, fuck it. It's like one of those things if you cut one head off, two more pop up


It’s also kinda strange how a lot of the starters of these threads go MIA after it heats up


----------



## LuxerHusku (Oct 10, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> Good to hear, man.
> 
> How much art have you been doing?


AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH........

Not that much...only just a few sketches...


----------



## Kiaara (Oct 10, 2018)

TacomaTheDeer said:


> It’s also kinda strange how a lot of the starters of these threads go MIA after it heats up


Yes, it's like someone feeds off the controversy and then leaves..


----------



## CertifiedCervine (Oct 10, 2018)

KiaraTC said:


> Yes, it's like someone feeds off the controversy and then leaves..


Yeah, it’s kinda annoying tbh, while I don’t mind a discussion about something, most here turn into heavy debates :/


----------



## Kiaara (Oct 10, 2018)

TacomaTheDeer said:


> Yeah, it’s kinda annoying tbh, while I don’t mind a discussion about something, most here turn into heavy debates :/


What if someone traced the IP and it's just the same person trying to start shit?


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 10, 2018)

KiaraTC said:


> What if someone traced the IP and it's just the same person trying to start shit?



I think you're right. I think it's a few people and their friends _continually _making alt accounts.


----------



## CertifiedCervine (Oct 10, 2018)

KiaraTC said:


> What if someone traced the IP and it's just the same person trying to start shit?


Probably is, but trolls can change ips sometimes


----------



## Kiaara (Oct 10, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> I think you're right. I think it's a few people and their friends _continually _making alt accounts.


Maybe it's a group of anti-furries trying to wreak havoc...


----------



## CertifiedCervine (Oct 10, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> I think you're right. I think it's a few people and their friends _continually _making alt accounts.


Wonder if there will be a day where we can quickly identify what troll made what alt
Hello (Insert name) back so soon?
Creep them out lol


----------



## Simo (Oct 10, 2018)

Maybe it can be a new foum game: What's my alt?


----------



## CertifiedCervine (Oct 10, 2018)

Simo said:


> Maybe it can be a new forum game: What's my alt?


We could all just secretly prank an alt by only responding in a certain way


----------



## Paolite (Oct 10, 2018)

TacomaTheDeer said:


> Wonder if there will be a day where we can quickly identify what troll made what alt
> Hello (Insert name) back so soon?
> Creep them out lol


I'm sure it can be done... but it's not legal for privacy and that kind of stuff.


----------



## CertifiedCervine (Oct 10, 2018)

Paolite said:


> I'm sure it can be done... but it's not legal for privacy and that kind of stuff.


I was more meaning of mannerisms and such, I’m no FBI agent :u


----------



## churio (Oct 10, 2018)

FeministFoxFelicia said:


> That’s awful, why would people be like that? They must have real prejudices against women, it makes me really scared to be around men to be honest.


I mean I would reassure you that these people constitute a minority (and they are) but other aspects of their ideology are very prevalent among men. I would know.


----------



## FeministFoxFelicia (Oct 10, 2018)

churio said:


> I mean I would reassure you that these people constitute a minority (and they are) but other aspects of their ideology are very prevalent among men. I would know.



Oh my gosh really? I don’t want to pry but if you feel like sharing I’d be more than happy to x


----------



## quoting_mungo (Oct 10, 2018)

Dancy said:


> if their main contention was that dating and courtship culture are the reason for their unsuccessful relationships, then they could have chose a much better name and created a movement that also allowed WOMEN foregoing romantic relationships to join them.


Not necessarily; if the issue they have with dating culture is the role it casts men in, they don't have much to commiserate about with women who have beef with _their_ casting. But yes, there are absolutely better paths that could have been taken in many movements. The point is more that there is a wider framework to it than just "I got turned down; women are bitches" or whatever. If we don't acknowledge the existence of that cultural expectation, we're just making our own job of changing it harder.



Dancy said:


> _i said they promoted policies that undercut women.
> i never said they've had actual, tangible policy victories._


And I asked you to back up your claim that they do this by mentioning what policies they promote. Just so we're clear.



Dancy said:


> _1.) the “pay gap” only exists because men work far more hours at high-stress jobs they hate with longer commutes, less flexibility, more physical risk, just to be breadwinners and feed their families, only to die younger and get bashed for “earning more." (it cannot be effectively argued that it has diminished to such a point where it is irrelevant anywhere.)_


And the truth likely lies somewhere in between. There certainly are studies that show women (in aggregate) have a tendency to value other things higher than the size of their paycheck. Men absolutely _are_ overrepresented in most high-risk jobs (and high-risk jobs _should_ come with high pay to compensate). The 7579 cents to the dollar figure that gets waved around is not adjusting for hours worked, type of job, etc:


> The wage gap is expressed as a percentage (e.g., in 2014 women earned 78.6% as much as men) and is calculated by dividing the median annual earnings for women by median annual earnings for men.


Should people get paid the same amount for the same work? Of course. But the wage gap calculation described in your third link doesn't say anything about that, it just makes the comparison across the board. On the subpage going further into the wage gap they even argue that women working fewer hours over their lifetime due to both shorter hours in general and eg unpaid maternity leave _increases_ the gap.

It's been too long since I saw it and I would want to look it over again, but I seem to recall seeing a summary of a paper to the effect that the difference in income that can't be explained by other factors (eg hours worked, choice of field, etc) was in the low single digits.



Dancy said:


> 2.) mras support a philosophy where if women have the right to abort with or without their consent, men have the right not to pay for the child. they believe men do not have any right to force a woman to have an abortion, or carry the child to term. however, because women hold this right in full, men must have a right to declare a desire to opt-out of child support. (this is yet another thread posted by a user with no history on the forum.)


That is oversimplifying a complex issue that frankly does not have any good solutions, just some that are less awful.
Two of the salient points that you're not touching are that 1) as it stands, child support is broken; there is no obligation to tell the father of the child that you're pregnant (and if you're planning on raising the kid without his involvement, I'm not saying you should have to, but it's kinda shitty to drop the news when time comes to ask for money), child support can be awarded retroactively, and there have been cases where perpetrators of statutory rape later got awarded child support from the teens they had sex with. This should _obviously_ not be possible. And 2) most or all US states have some sort of safe haven laws in order to prevent infanticide, where women can leave babies at hospitals and churches to be taken into state custody, without facing legal repercussions. So women _also_ have the option of shifting their parental obligations to the state, on top of having the choice to terminate the pregnancy. It's not about outing out of _child support_, it's about opting out of _parenthood_.

It's something that gets ugly because reproductive disagreements _cannot_ be resolved with everyone getting their way. If one person wants a baby and the other one doesn't, _someone_ is going to be disappointed. There isn't exactly room to compromise and _half_ have a baby.



Dancy said:


> _3.) mras claim that marital rape laws are misandrist because the wife automatically consents to sex whenever the husband desires as part of the marriage contract. _


This is not a MRA issue I've ever seen raised. If you have a source for it I'd be interested in seeing it.

(It's also, as a tangent, not a men's _rights_ issue IMO; while I do consider the _ability_ to have sex, in the sense of access to things like ED medication, to be a reasonable quality of life matter on par with a "right" when living in a society where it's available and effective, consent from your partner is still mandatory, and access to a sex partner is _not_ a right.)


----------



## Dancy (Oct 11, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> Not necessarily; if the issue they have with dating culture is the role it casts men in, they don't have much to commiserate about with women who have beef with _their_ casting. But yes, there are absolutely better paths that could have been taken in many movements. The point is more that there is a wider framework to it than just "I got turned down; women are bitches" or whatever. If we don't acknowledge the existence of that cultural expectation, we're just making our own job of changing it harder.


_my point is that sexist regard for women is a core part of their philosophy, even if some may other motivations for joining mgtow. i would also again point out that yourself have stated you aren't certain how many hew toward the sexist leanings of the movement. i want to add that even if there hypothetically are those who joined for other reasons that aren't sexist, they still willingly associate themselves with the movement and its message. while we can indeed acknowledge that certain social circumstances such as dating culture and courtship may have pushed some members toward the mgtow movement, we need to remember that there are many more men have not chosen that path for themselves. we should reserve sympathy and concern predominantly for those mgtow prey on like vulnerable men susceptible to their message and the women the movement regularly denigrates. _
_i don't understand this trend i see on the forum sometimes of fixating on the sympathy for the perpetrators of hate while ignore their victims._​


quoting_mungo said:


> And I asked you to back up your claim that they do this by mentioning what policies they promote. Just so we're clear.


_I listed several areas they focus on politically in my last post namely their positions on the gender pay gap, child support, reproductive rights, and marital rape. _​


quoting_mungo said:


> And the truth likely lies somewhere in between. There certainly are studies that show women (in aggregate) have a tendency to value other things higher than the size of their paycheck. Men absolutely _are_ overrepresented in most high-risk jobs (and high-risk jobs _should_ come with high pay to compensate). The 7579 cents to the dollar figure that gets waved around is not adjusting for hours worked, type of job, etc:


_i agree partly, though i would point out that men's rights activists cite the reasoning i initially listed, not some less sexist middle ground rooted in facts and figures. it needs to be noted that women are closing the over-representation gap in the high-risk jobs in the developed world. i also want to redirect you to the fact most men and women in the workforce don't have high-risk jobs and are generally on an even keel in terms in work responsibilities and hours, yet women still make less than their male counterparts. look at this study of lawyers in the United States which found that women with no children still earned significantly less than their male partners at the same practice._

_The Wage Gap Puzzle in the Legal Profession: Why Women Lawyers Still Earn Less Than Men & What Can Be Done About It | The Glasshammer_

_how many workplaces is this playing out in?_​


quoting_mungo said:


> That is oversimplifying a complex issue that frankly does not have any good solutions, just some that are less awful.
> Two of the salient points that you're not touching are that 1) as it stands, child support is broken; there is no obligation to tell the father of the child that you're pregnant (and if you're planning on raising the kid without his involvement, I'm not saying you should have to, but it's kinda shitty to drop the news when time comes to ask for money), child support can be awarded retroactively, and there have been cases where perpetrators of statutory rape later got awarded child support from the teens they had sex with. This should _obviously_ not be possible. And 2) most or all US states have some sort of safe haven laws in order to prevent infanticide, where women can leave babies at hospitals and churches to be taken into state custody, without facing legal repercussions. So women _also_ have the option of shifting their parental obligations to the state, on top of having the choice to terminate the pregnancy. It's not about outing out of _child support_, it's about opting out of _parenthood_.


_it's debatable whether forced child support is good or bad in the general case -- whether the freedom for a father to choose not to have to pay child support is worth having the child grow up poorer if the mother doesn't abort. it is something that isn't studied nearly as much as it should be. however, one must note that the largest burden for childcare, in terms of time and money, is on women when there is an unwanted pregnancy. if a woman feels compelled to have the child for religious or social reasons, that child was still the product of two persons, and the simple fact that she can "opt-out" (whether she chooses to or not) does not abdicate a man's responsibility. while a truly reliable, temporary male birth control is not yet available, men do have options, including using condoms and getting vasectomies (however, condoms do fail sometimes, so that is an important factor as well). 

that said, there are a very, very few cases where a woman stole a man's sperm and impregnated herself with it; and in at least one of those cases, the man was then forced to pay child support. there are also documented instances of women becoming pregnant by committing statutory rape, and in one case that other courts in the united states have cited as precedent a panel of judges held a 12 year old whose babysitter molested him responsible for child support. in those cases, at least, the man certainly should have some form of protection or choice; but they are rare outliers and shouldn't affect the debate much. 

adoption is thornier issue, since that raises concerns such as parental fitness, so those cases should be decided on a case-by-case basis. _​


quoting_mungo said:


> This is not a MRA issue I've ever seen raised. If you have a source for it I'd be interested in seeing it.


_ask and you shall receive: 

http://lndavout.blogspot.ca/2006/10/dangerous-canard-of-marital-rape.html

there used to be a summary of their outlook on this on antimisandry.com , but that got shut down. i wonder why._​


----------



## Dancy (Oct 11, 2018)

_i forgot to add that when it comes to pregnancy, i as a mother would definitely want a say over whether to bring a child to term or not. it is my health and life on the line during the pregnancy and i should certainly have an overriding say over the father of my child on the final decision. respectfully, he won't be the one to potentially die in childbirth. i will. that should be respected for every woman._​


----------



## idkthough120 (Oct 11, 2018)

Wow... this thread blew up...


----------



## Yakamaru (Oct 11, 2018)

Dancy said:


> _i forgot to add that when it comes to pregnancy, i as a mother would definitely want a say over whether to bring a child to term or not. it is my health and life on the line during the pregnancy and i should certainly have an overriding say over the father of my child on the final decision. respectfully, he won't be the one to potentially die in childbirth. i will. that should be respected for every woman._​


Indeed. And the man should be able to opt out of child support if he's been backstabbed by the woman. 

Note: Should be able, as in the option should be available.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Oct 11, 2018)

Dancy said:


> ask and you shall receive:
> _
> http://lndavout.blogspot.ca/2006/10/dangerous-canard-of-marital-rape.html
> 
> there used to be a summary of their outlook on this on antimisandry.com , but that got shut down. i wonder why._​


The blog seems to be locked to random viewers, but I did some wayback machine magic and dug around. Nowhere on his blog could I find any indication that he's an MRA - he seems to identify as antifeminist first and foremost, as well as being strongly anti-abortion, largely sex-negative (particularly, but not solely, in regards to women's sexuality - the bigger beef for him seems to be casual sex), and having "traditionalist" values like wanting his hypothetical female partner to be a homemaker. He also shits on egalitarianism. (Which are not stances typically associated with the MRM.) If I missed something, you're welcome to point me to it. The reasoning in the post you linked seems to be founded in his attachment to traditional gender roles, not any notion of men's rights in the sense that the MRM uses it.

Antimisandry overall, based on the little I can garner from the wayback machine (it doesn't play very nice with forums), doesn't seem to as a site share or promote Davout's views. I'm not sure if he was the referent of your "they", though?
The forum antimisandry points to in its "closing statement" seems, according to its FAQ (since most actual posts are locked to non-members), to combine features of civil discussion and a men's safe space for venting. According to this page, those forums were also the place where MGTOW first started, and not in the form or with the purpose you're riling against. (I may have other quibbles with some of what NiceGuy says, as a sidenote, but he's not all about hating on women.) Things change over time and place (FAIK the MGTOW Reddit for instance has/had a different tone from the Mancoat Forums, based on the limited information I can garner about the latter), and as previously mentioned in this thread, when it comes to groups of disenfranchised-feeling men, there's some evidence to suggest that radicalization was deliberately provoked by outside bad-faith actors. Inserting a quote from your post here for context:



Dancy said:


> _my point is that sexist regard for women is a core part of their philosophy, even if some may other motivations for joining mgtow. i would also again point out that yourself have stated you aren't certain how many hew toward the sexist leanings of the movement. i want to add that even if there hypothetically are those who joined for other reasons that aren't sexist, they still willingly associate themselves with the movement and its message. while we can indeed acknowledge that certain social circumstances such as dating culture and courtship may have pushed some members toward the mgtow movement, we need to remember that there are many more men have not chosen that path for themselves. we should reserve sympathy and concern predominantly for those mgtow prey on like vulnerable men susceptible to their message and the women the movement regularly denigrates. _
> _i don't understand this trend i see on the forum sometimes of fixating on the sympathy for the perpetrators of hate while ignore their victims._


You talk about extending sympathy to those preyed upon. Given what we know of alt-right recruitment tactics, I think it's prudent to at least entertain the notion that these people were preyed upon themselves, provoking the radicalization you feel is endemic to the movement.

I make clear that I don't have good demographic figures in the interest of honesty and clarity. You're willing to assume the worst of the lot, while having @Ramjet556 in this thread explaining his relationship with the movement and notably _not_ living up to the picture you paint. Again, as a feminist I'm sure you're aware that every large, decentralized movement will have a portion of members who take things too far. What others can do about this is the kind of thing that Mancoat has done in explicitly and clearly prohibiting eg calls to and promotion of violence against women. Something that eg Jezebel doesn't seem to even be trying... I'm not saying this to be like "look at the bad feminists!", but rather to show how you seem to be willing to judge one group by their worst, and applying that equally everywhere would make more or less everyone in the world look bad.

I had a discussion with someone who has had more exposure to MGTOW than I have, yesterday, and based on his observations I will concede that to some degree, the movement has a problem with men transferring their frustration with dating rituals and/or specific relationships to generalized frustration with women. It's hardly something isolated to them. The most vocal members of a fringe group will, sadly, often be the most extreme. Sometimes, association with a group boils down to "I'm not alone" and/or "oh, there's a _word_ for what I'm feeling?"



Dancy said:


> while a truly reliable, temporary male birth control is not yet available, men do have options, including using condoms and getting vasectomies (however, condoms do fail sometimes, so that is an important factor as well).


I don't think raising vasectomies as a serious option is fair, any more than it would be fair for pro-lifers to suggest women should get their tubes tied instead of having abortions. Reversible in theory doesn't always mean reversible in practice, and raising pressure for _anyone_ to get sterilized is honestly kind of skeevy - I am all for easy and affordable access to the procedures for those who want/need them, but they should be considered a permanent decision. Reliable male contraception on par with contraceptive shots or implants for women would be an excellent way of evening out the playing ground in this area, as would improvements in sex ed in regards to condom usage. (Things like "why you should use lube with a condom" and what lubes are and are not condom safe, proper fit and disposal, etc.) Even when only used for STD prevention (one or both partners sterilized) or hygiene (some clinics recommend using condoms for certain sex acts regardless of fertility or STD/fluidbonded status), not knowing what products can and cannot safely be used together with a condom increases the risk of breakage manifold.



Dancy said:


> whether the freedom for a father to choose not to have to pay child support is worth having the child grow up poorer if the mother doesn't abort. it is something that isn't studied nearly as much as it should be.


There's a reason I brought up safe haven laws and stressed that it's not about opting out of paying, but opting out of parenthood. The model I've seen suggested and am in favor of would shift the father's financial burden to the state, not the mother. The only thing the child would be missing out on would be having a father (provided the mother doesn't have a new partner that picks up that role), and that's not something child support would change.



Dancy said:


> in those cases, at least, the man certainly should have some form of protection or choice; but they are rare outliers and shouldn't affect the debate much.


I'm glad you agree on at least that much. Whether they're relevant to the discussion/debate depends on what the exact discussion _is_. Being outliers does not prevent them from being a good illustration of there being flaws in how court-mandated child support is currently structured. The whole reason legalese is often so convoluted is to close up loopholes and exploits.



Dancy said:


> _i forgot to add that when it comes to pregnancy, i as a mother would definitely want a say over whether to bring a child to term or not. it is my health and life on the line during the pregnancy and i should certainly have an overriding say over the father of my child on the final decision. respectfully, he won't be the one to potentially die in childbirth. i will. that should be respected for every woman._​


Absolutely. Undermining a woman's (or other fertile, potentially child-bearing person, including myself before I got fixed a couple years back) right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy is not something I am at all interested in. Nor should (as in, I don't find anti-abortion stances to be defensible) anyone else be, regardless on their stance on fathers' rights. The absolute farthest it's reasonable to reach in the direction of restricting abortion (and this is not really restricting anything) is acknowledging the emotional impact it may have on a man who does want the child when a woman aborts. Basically, afford him the space to be upset and/or grieve, as long as he doesn't cross the line into attacking her.

Obviously, should a time come where we have science fiction stuff like artificial wombs in the style of fetus-growing vats, it's possible some or all of this would need to be revisited in light of advances in technology. If hypothetical harvesting of the fetus poses no more risk than an abortion, that shifts the picture considerably. (Of course, by the time if ever such is a reality, one would hope we have developed better birth control than what we have today, to the point where abortions for non-medical reasons would be a rarity.)


----------



## Simo (Oct 11, 2018)

Then, we have this classic scene on abortion, excerpts of the John Water's film, "Polyester", that I am reminded of in reading all this: 






Oddly, I know somebody, who had a part in this film


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 11, 2018)

It's dumbfounding that there are men who think they should have the right to sign a document to abandon their children and any responsibility of being a parent or providing any support to the spouse they're leaving to shoulder the entire responsibility. 

Such men are _not_ men. They are shadows of men.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Oct 11, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> It's dumbfounding that there are men who think they should have the right to sign a document to abandon their children and any responsibility of being a parent or providing any support to the spouse they're leaving to shoulder the entire responsibility.
> 
> Such men are _not_ men. They are shadows of men.


I suppose you feel the same way about women who give their children up for adoption, then? :V

Attacking someone's "manhood" is lower than I expected you to sink, Fallow, and is tapping into the shadier side of machismo. I am disappointed. An unwilling parent is not going to be a very good parent to grow up with in many cases. Trying go shame them into that role won't make them resent parenthood (and by extension, potentially their children) less.


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 11, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> I suppose you feel the same way about women who give their children up for adoption, then? :V
> 
> Attacking someone's "manhood" is lower than I expected you to sink, Fallow, and is tapping into the shadier side of machismo. I am disappointed. An unwilling parent is not going to be a very good parent to grow up with in many cases. Trying go shame them into that role won't make them resent parenthood (and by extension, potentially their children) less.



I thought about adoption before making the post and decided it wasn't a symmetric comparison.
The situation would be symmetric if a woman gave her child to the father, and then refused to have any responsibility for the child's well being. 

And yeah. My message to these guys is that being a grown man entails taking responsibility for the consequences of your actions. Call that toxic masculinity if you want.


----------



## ZeroVoidTime (Oct 11, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> It's dumbfounding that there are men who think they should have the right to sign a document to abandon their children and any responsibility of being a parent or providing any support to the spouse they're leaving to shoulder the entire responsibility.
> 
> Such men are _not_ men. They are shadows of men.


Okay what happens if a women stops taking the pill just to get pregnant on purpose so she keep her boyfriend from breaking up with her? Is it fair for man to pay for child support for a women who lies to her partner about not taking the pill? Personally this can cause resentment from unwilling man who never wanted to have a child in the first place.


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 11, 2018)

ZeroVoidTime said:


> Okay what happens if a women stops taking the pill just to get pregnant on purpose so she keep her boyfriend from breaking up with her? Is it fair for man to pay for child support for a women who lies to her partner about not taking the pill? Personally this can cause resentment from unwilling man who never wanted to have a child in the first place.



Of course it's not fair. Taking responsibility often involves transcending such feelings.


----------



## ZeroVoidTime (Oct 11, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Of course it's not fair. Taking responsibility often involves transcending such feelings.


The problem is *THIS SITUATION WAS CAUSED BY THEIR PARTNER FROM LYING TO THEM!* *IN OTHER WORDS THE MAN BECAME FATHER DUE TO CIRCUMSTANCES OUTSIDE OF THEIR OWN CONTROL!* Also if the father is unfit to be a parent and the mother is exploiting child support payments to sate her own spending habits and ignoring her child she brought into the world. This cannot be a healthy environment for child to be raised in and the child will suffer dearly for having shitty parents.


----------



## Yakamaru (Oct 11, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> It's dumbfounding that there are men who think they should have the right to sign a document to abandon their children and any responsibility of being a parent or providing any support to the spouse they're leaving to shoulder the entire responsibility.
> 
> Such men are _not_ men. They are shadows of men.


If a man doesn't consent to having a child he should be within his rights to do so.

Imagine growing up in a household where your father
a) Didn't want you
and/or
b) Your father just doesn't care about you/love you
and/or
c) Your father utterly despise you

Can you even imagine the amount of psychological damage it can cause to the child, not to mention the potentially toxic environment in the household it could easily create?

You are basically forcing a parent to take responsibility they didn't want in the first place. It does nothing but promote a toxic and potentially traumatic and negative atmosphere for not only the parents, but the kid as well. Key word on this: *Consent*. In this case, consent to wanting a child.

There is nothing worse for a child growing up knowing they are not wanted by either parent. It can quite easily cause very deep emotional and psychological scars. I've met a couple of these people. On the outside they seem fine, but on the inside it feels as if there is something major having been broken. Something that can't be healed unless you spend a lot of time on it. If it even CAN be healed.


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 11, 2018)

ZeroVoidTime said:


> The problem is *THIS SITUATION WAS CAUSED BY THEIR PARTNER FROM LYING TO THEM!* *IN OTHER WORDS THE MAN BECAME FATHER DUE TO CIRCUMSTANCES OUTSIDE OF THEIR OWN CONTROL!* Also if the father is unfit to be a parent and the mother is exploiting child support payments to sate her own spending habits and ignoring her child she brought into the world. This cannot be a healthy environment for child to be raised in and the child will suffer dearly for having shitty parents.



So if a parent is spending money intended to feed and cloth a child on frivolous self-indulgence that's child neglect. That's a crime and legal architecture exists to deal with that situation. So that's a separate discussion, right?

When men have sex with women, they should accept there is always going to be a risk of an unexpected pregnancy. So complaining that it is 'outside of your control' is, well, a peevish response. Taking responsibility for the situation, if you're unfortunate enough to be confronted with it, means transcending that peevishness.



Yakamaru said:


> If a man doesn't consent to having a child he should be within his rights to do so.
> 
> Imagine growing up in a household where your father
> a) Didn't want you
> ...



If you have sex with a woman, you're open to the risk that there could be an unexpected pregnancy. 

The woman _doesn't_ require your consent to keep that child. 
and being a grown man means that you may be expected, even if you're not present in their family life, to provide economic support towards the well-being of that child. 


If you're not comfortable with this possibility, unlikely though it is, you don't need to have sex with women. 
and of course, vasectomy is an option available to men who know they don't want any children.


----------



## ZeroVoidTime (Oct 11, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> So if a parent is spending money intended to feed and cloth a child on frivolous self-indulgence that's child neglect. That's a crime and legal architecture exists to deal with that situation. So that's a separate discussion, right?
> 
> When men have sex with women, they should accept there is always going to be a risk of an unexpected pregnancy. So complaining that it is 'outside of your control' is, well, a peevish response. Taking responsibility for the situation, if you're unfortunate enough to be confronted with it, means transcending that peevishness.


I understand that child neglect can be a separate issue, but this issue overlaps with what you were saying. The main problem is child abuse is not always obvious so cases can always slip beneath the cracks. Also it is more responsible for the unexpected father to have a choice if they feel that they cannot be a good parent, and it prevents child support payments from being exploited.


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 11, 2018)

Just, basically I want to grab hold of you guys and shake you.

You need to talk to people in real life about what they think about men who try to avoid child support payments. Society _doesn't _regard them as reasonable characters who were all unfairly tricked by scoundrel wenches.



ZeroVoidTime said:


> I understand that child neglect can be a separate issue, but this issue overlaps with what you were saying. The main problem is child abuse is not always obvious so cases can always slip beneath the cracks. Also it is more responsible for the unexpected father to have a choice if they feel that they cannot be a good parent, and it prevents child support payments from being exploited.



Men who pay child support are often not custodial parents, so whether they are a 'good parent' isn't a factor in your example where the man doesn't want 'to be a parent'. 

Maybe you need to read more about child support payments.


----------



## ZeroVoidTime (Oct 11, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Just, basically I want to grab hold of you guys and shake you.
> 
> You need to talk to people in real life about what they think about men who try to avoid child support payments. Society _doesn't _regard them as reasonable characters who were all unfairly tricked by scoundrel wenches.
> 
> ...


I understand and agree that men who do not pay child support are scum. At the same time my fears are that the child might be lied to by the mother by saying "Your Father *insert reason he is not there presently* and always loved you." when in truth the father hates and resents them for existing to pay for a hypothetical gold digger. That would be psychological damaging to the child that they are basically brought into this world by horrible people who despise one another.


----------



## Dancy (Oct 11, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> Indeed. And the man should be able to opt out of child support if he's been backstabbed by the woman.
> 
> Note: Should be able, as in the option should be available.


_if the man didn't know the woman had the child, then maybe there is some room for an excuse. however, if you engage in sexual intercourse with a partner, you should exercise basic responsibility such as using birth control, whether you are a man or a woman. that said, if you are a man who is engaging in sexual activity with a woman, it is generally wise and safe practice to use a condom, at the least. if you choose not to use a condom and woman decides to carry the child to term either for religious or other reason, you bear part of the responsibility for that child's care. if you can play, you can pay._

_if you do know the woman is having your child or you walk out on them once the child is born, then you have no excuse. you need to meet your parental responsibilities and obligations to provide for that child. i would think that given your political leanings, you would buy into the concept of personal responsibility. on that note, i would also said the state shouldn't have to pick up the slack because a man, or even a woman, decides they don't want to pay child support. _
_everybody has responsibilities as a parent and a citizen. _

_i'll add that you should also be smart to get know your sexual partner well enough to know if they'll have religious or other objections to having an abortion._​


Yakamaru said:


> If a man doesn't consent to having a child he should be within his rights to do so.
> 
> Imagine growing up in a household where your father
> a) Didn't want you
> ...


_this is an argument for why you should practice safe sex in the first place._
_what you said doesn't address why a man shouldn't have to pay child support._​


quoting_mungo said:


> Attacking someone's "manhood" is lower than I expected you to sink, Fallow, and is tapping into the shadier side of machismo. I am disappointed. An unwilling parent is not going to be a very good parent to grow up with in many cases. Trying go shame them into that role won't make them resent parenthood (and by extension, potentially their children) less.


_fallowfox is entitled to his free speech and people shouldn't be so offended. ;V_
_i just put that line in there because i noticed the "hate speech is free speech" crowd really liked that particular comment of yours. seriously speaking, though, parents should live up to their basic obligations. no one likes to pay taxes, but we do it anyway because otherwise society wouldn't function. in the case of parents, there is always adoption if they can't or don't want to raise the child, assuming both parents are unable to. but child support can still be paid by a parent who doesn't want to be their child's life. _

_i'd also like people to spare me the lectures about the pain of being unwanted by one of your parents because i was raised by a single parent. they did a good job and i love them for it._​


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 11, 2018)

ZeroVoidTime said:


> I understand and agree that men who do not pay child support are scum. At the same time my fears are that the child might be lied to by the mother by saying "Your Father *insert reason he is not there presently* and always loved you." when in truth the father hates and resents them for existing to pay for a hypothetical gold digger. That would be psychological damaging to the child that they are basically brought into this world by horrible people who despise one another.



Well, it looks like we've reached an agreement about this then. Can we conclude people should not be allowed to sign a declaration that frees them from the responsibility of paying child support if a pregnancy comes to term?


----------



## Dancy (Oct 11, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> I make clear that I don't have good demographic figures in the interest of honesty and clarity. You're willing to assume the worst of the lot, while having @Ramjet556 in this thread explaining his relationship with the movement and notably _not_ living up to the picture you paint.


_i highlight this because i am very familiar with this movement through the women's groups i belong to. i'll also ask you read @Ramjet556 's snide responses in this thread and borderline trolling before you hold him up as a hypothetical egalitarian mgtow member acting in good faith debate here. take a look at his comment regarding the slur "bitch"._​


----------



## ZeroVoidTime (Oct 11, 2018)

Dancy said:


> _i highlight this because i am very familiar with this movement through the women's groups i belong to. i'll also ask you read @Ramjet556 's snide responses in this thread and borderline trolling before you hold him up as a hypothetical egalitarian mgtow member acting in good faith debate here. take a look at his comment regarding the slur "bitch"._​


True but I tend to ignore those posts or any other troll posts by users. *sigh* I did not know he used the word bitch and I admit that is very tacky. (Though I do like the UK English word wench as it sounds exotic in comparison.)


----------



## Ramjet (Oct 11, 2018)

Dancy said:


> _i highlight this because i am very familiar with this movement through the women's groups i belong to. i'll also ask you read @Ramjet556 's snide responses in this thread and borderline trolling before you hold him up as a hypothetical egalitarian mgtow member acting in good faith debate here. take a look at his comment regarding the slur "bitch"._​




I've literally left this subject to the wind, why the fuck are you mentioning me on this again when I didnt reply to you last time?
Who's trolling?



ZeroVoidTime said:


> True but I tend to ignore those posts or any other troll posts by users. *sigh* I did not know he used the word bitch and I admit that is very tacky. (Though I do like the UK English word wench as it sounds exotic in comparison.)



I wasn't the user who used the word bitch either....


----------



## quoting_mungo (Oct 11, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> And yeah. My message to these guys is that being a grown man entails taking responsibility for the consequences of your actions. Call that toxic masculinity if you want.


When you phrase it as "you are not men", it is absolutely tapping into the ugly side of machismo. If what you want to say is "being a responsible adult entails taking personal responsibility for the consequences of your actions", say _that_, and don't drag whether or not someone is a "man" into it. 



Dancy said:


> i just put that line in there because i noticed the "hate speech is free speech" crowd really liked that particular comment of yours.


If I were to make a guess, I'd say it's more about schadenfreude at seeing Fallow called on something, TBFH. 
Given that I am strongly in favor of hate speech legislation, it's not like I agree with the principle you're mocking.



Dancy said:


> in the case of parents, there is always adoption if they can't or don't want to raise the child, assuming both parents are unable to. but child support can still be paid by a parent who doesn't want to be their child's life.


The way Fallow phrased it was easily readable as being an absent, child-support-paying figurative sperm donor (though IIRC there's also been child support cases against _actual_ sperm donors, which is fucking ludicrous) _also_ makes one less of a man. While I don't think that was his intention, it's the kind of reading someone who is vulnerable to that kind of argument is likely to do, and then you have someone feeling like leaving the mother of their child would be unmanly. Guilting or shaming someone into parenting is not cool, regardless of sex/gender.

(The flip side of the child support issue is non-abusive men who get ordered to pay child support without visitation rights when they do want to be part of their children's lives. Also not cool.)



Dancy said:


> _i highlight this because i am very familiar with this movement through the women's groups i belong to. i'll also ask you read @Ramjet556 's snide responses in this thread and borderline trolling before you hold him up as a hypothetical egalitarian mgtow member acting in good faith debate here. take a look at his comment regarding the slur "bitch"._​


"Women's groups" are not going to be a good source for information on the topic; they've generally got some heavy bias going. I'm also hardly surprised. In fact, I called it in my second post in the thread. Given that you've repeatedly conflated different groups as though they were interchangeable, and demonstrated a willingness to label people MRAs based on factors other than self-identification or participation in actual activism, you're not coming off as particularly familiar with anything but the way the groups get portrayed by their detractors.

"Bitch" is a word that has slur status in some circles, and not in others. You clearly feel strongly about it; I personally don't. Most or all the people I interact with on a regular basis don't. Language-wise, it has a lot of potential meanings and which one you interpret a given instance as will often depend on your overall attitude towards the word. His comment might not have been in the best taste in hindsight, but from the outside it looks more like you two talked past each other and he made light of it without full understanding of the nature of your offense ("it was mean" vs "it's a slur" are pretty different as reactions to an insult go). This is a side effect of how language works.

Ramjet has also been a lot better behaved than some people have been towards him, and has not given any indication that he's in any way driven by misogyny. He's certainly not lived up to the bugaboo picture you paint of the movement. He doesn't need to be a saint for that. He's human. 



ZeroVoidTime said:


> True but I tend to ignore those posts or any other troll posts by users. *sigh* I did not know he used the word bitch and I admit that is very tacky. (Though I do like the UK English word wench as it sounds exotic in comparison.)


He didn't. Someone else did.


----------



## Dancy (Oct 11, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> When you phrase it as "you are not men", it is absolutely tapping into the ugly side of machismo. If what you want to say is "being a responsible adult entails taking personal responsibility for the consequences of your actions", say _that_, and don't drag whether or not someone is a "man" into it.


_this admonishment could be saved for someone who is actually sexist and believes in toxic masculinity. i doubt someone who has actually spoken up against the mgtow movement needs to lectured on the subject. whereas you seem keen to act as an apologist for a movement most experts, and even yourself, has called fringe._

_let's see what wikipedia has to say about them. i'll include the footnote links for your edification:_​


> *Men Going Their Own Way* (*MGTOW* /ˈmɪɡtaʊ/) is a mostly pseudonymous online community[2][3] of men supported by websites and social media presences[4] cautioning men against serious romantic relationships with women, especially marriage.[5][6]
> 
> The community is part of what is more broadly termed the manosphere.[7] MGTOW have "...vowed to stay away from women, stop dating and not have children".[8] MGTOW focuses on men's self-ownership rather than changing the status quo through activism and protest, making MGTOW distinct from the men's rights movement.[9] *The Southern Poverty Law Center has identified MGTOW as a fringe supremacist group*.[10]


_well damn, that's damning._

_Men Going Their Own Way - Wikipedia_​


quoting_mungo said:


> Given that you've repeatedly conflated different groups as though they were interchangeable, and demonstrated a willingness to label people MRAs based on factors other than self-identification or participation in actual activism, you're not coming off as particularly familiar with anything but the way the groups get portrayed by their detractors.


_perhaps it is because i choose to focus on the actual atrocious record of these movements rather than the hypothetical positive qualities you seem to see. the mras and the mgtows are both movements in the sexist manosphere. in fact, most compendiums of information on these groups often mention and place them in the same categories when it comes to antifeminism and sexism. if actual academics and experts feel they link these groups as fellow travelers of the same poisonous, how can you presume to know better than them? _​


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Oct 11, 2018)

My eyes hurts with all this centered pink text. :V


----------



## Infrarednexus (Oct 11, 2018)

Suggestion,

I think an apology towards @Ramjet556 for accusing him of using the slur "bitch" would be appropriate in all of this, considering it's been shown he never did that. It would also eliminate most animosity that might still linger between users.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Oct 11, 2018)

Dancy said:


> this admonishment could be saved for someone who is actually sexist and believes in toxic masculinity. i doubt someone who has actually spoken up against the mgtow movement needs to lectured on the subject.


By "believes in toxic masculinity" I presume you mean "subscribes to its tenets" rather than "believes it is a thing"? 
Someone who believes that being "manly" is something to strive for and bases their self-image of that is someone I expect to make arguments like that - if I were to call them on it I would go about it a different way because what I said to Fallow would make zero sense without first accepting the premise that machismo can be a negative/harmful thing. Someone whose position on the matter far as I can judge aligns more with the "believes it's a (negative) thing" is someone I expect to steer clear of evoking it. 



Dancy said:


> _perhaps it is because i choose to focus on the actual atrocious record of these movements rather than the hypothetical positive qualities you seem to see. the mras and the mgtows are both movements in the sexist manosphere. in fact, most compendiums of information on these groups often mention and place them in the same categories when it comes to antifeminism and sexism. if actual academics and experts feel they link these groups as fellow travelers of the same poisonous, how can you presume to know better than them? _


Yet the sources you're referring to in your post are capable of distinguishing between them and marking them as distinct. You are the one referring to MGTOW as incels and vice versa. I don't agree with the sort of methods employed by eg AVFM when they get deliberately offensive to pull in reactions, regardless of who is using them; IIRC the rightly criticized "bash-a-violent-bitch" month bullshit was originally a reaction to the Jezebel article I linked earlier. It's not the right response. 

I never denied that there is cross-pollination and points of intersection; that does not make them the same thing, or anything close. There are groups that are pretty much mutually exclusive within the "manosphere". Glomming the lot together and calling it the same is lazy at best.

However, dismissing legitimate issues because of the way they are presented is not going to fly with me, either. Maligning people based on what you superficially _assume_ their beliefs and attitudes are is not something I think rational adults should be engaging in. I think these are matters with a huge amount of nuance to them, and it irritates me to see them presented in shades of black just because.


----------



## Dancy (Oct 11, 2018)

Infrarednexus said:


> Before I leave this thread,
> 
> I think an apology towards @Ramjet556 for accusing him of using the slur "bitch" would be appropriate in all of this, considering he never did that.
> 
> You make mistakes, you own up to them.


_except i didn't._
_i was referring to when he made comment that women should come up with their own alternative for men to the slur "bitch". _
_but nice try, nexy._
_and speaking of mistakes, i see you didn't tag me with this little accusation, as per usual._
_also, you're standing on feet clay because we all know you were one of the primary users here who were defending hate speech. but don't take my word for it:_

_forums.furaffinity.net: What is a Nazi? At least in regards to the fandom?_​


> But I have a hard time believing that you "had no idea it bothered everyone this much" or that you were somehow unaware of how awful these guys were. Their posts were public. Their words were not hidden from you. And even if you somehow could not comprehend on your own how antisemitic, racist, homophobic, or misogynistic comments could be bothering to people, there were other people that were pointing out the harm in what they said, stating publicly how they felt. This should not be some startling revelation to _anyone_.
> 
> And I could see why some others might have been reticent to come to you with this because you were always by these guys' side. You own a server where they all were mods. You would post in threads to call out the people arguing _against _the hateful comments while ignoring the effect those comments had on everyone. You wrote a huge post just to me basically yelling at me to leave poor Yaka and Rez alone during a time when Rez was trying to claim that Nazi ideology wasn't violent. Why would anyone think that you would be sympathetic to their feelings about this? Why would anyone think you'd do anything but defend Yaka and Rez tooth and claw?
> 
> Again, I don't want you banned. And I don't think you're a bad guy. Especially not if you're truly throwing political shit to the side and focusing on just being a good person. But I don't think you're completely clean in this either, and at the very least it would be good of you to take a look at your past actions and the company you kept, _the company you_ _still keep, _before writing as though you were completely unaware and separate from the issue.


_so work on yourself, not on me
_​


----------



## Dancy (Oct 11, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> By "believes in toxic masculinity" I presume you mean "subscribes to its tenets" rather than "believes it is a thing"?
> Someone who believes that being "manly" is something to strive for and bases their self-image of that is someone I expect to make arguments like that - if I were to call them on it I would go about it a different way because what I said to Fallow would make zero sense without first accepting the premise that machismo can be a negative/harmful thing. Someone whose position on the matter far as I can judge aligns more with the "believes it's a (negative) thing" is someone I expect to steer clear of evoking it.


_you could've read what fallow said about being a man as meaning being an adult. you're assigning meaning to his words that clearly isn't there to most reasonable people. i'm specifically calling you out on that. _​


quoting_mungo said:


> Yet the sources you're referring to in your post are capable of distinguishing between them and marking them as distinct. You are the one referring to MGTOW as incels and vice versa. I don't agree with the sort of methods employed by eg AVFM when they get deliberately offensive to pull in reactions, regardless of who is using them; IIRC the rightly criticized "bash-a-violent-bitch" month bullshit was originally a reaction to the Jezebel article I linked earlier. It's not the right response.


_i do distinguish them as separate movements, but i and others clearly see that there is cross-pollination between these groups and they do share overlapping members. that blog i linked to about mra views on marital rape was written by a major blogger in the mra and mgtow, which you would've known if you actually were informed about these groups and the threat they pose to the standing of women in society. mgtows and mras often work together to toward mutual ideological goals to advance their interests where they overlap. _​


quoting_mungo said:


> However, dismissing legitimate issues because of the way they are presented is not going to fly with me, either.


_i agree that there are a lot of legitimate men's issues to be dealt with and discuss, maybe even here._
_i do disagree, as have many users here, that mras, mgtow, or incels are the best parties to take up those issues, even if they were really interested in doing so. despite the drawbacks of feminism, it has a clear record of success in championing women's issues and make society more equal for everyone. it is largely a celebrated and accepted movement, whatever your individual thoughts may be on it. most of the men of this thread don't think as highly of the mgtows as you do, interestingly. you can condemn mgtows and support men's issues at the same time._​


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Oct 11, 2018)

Reading more into this, I support MGTOWS, more straight men to have fun with :V


----------



## Ramjet (Oct 11, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> Reading more into this, I support MGTOWS, more straight men to have fun with :V



Lmao, only you Mika


----------



## Simo (Oct 11, 2018)




----------



## Dancy (Oct 12, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> Reading more into this, I support MGTOWS, more straight men to have fun with :V


_trust me, there are better men out there. _​


----------



## Deleted member 111470 (Oct 12, 2018)

Well I am a man, and more often than not, I go my own way. It would be weird as hell if I constantly follow random strangers when I'm walking outside, or when I'm driving.


----------



## FeministFoxFelicia (Oct 12, 2018)

Dancy said:


> _trust me, there are better men out there. _​



Women are so much better. I wish I was into women and not men.


----------



## Dancy (Oct 12, 2018)

FeministFoxFelicia said:


> Women are so much better. I wish I was into women and not men.


_this is exactly the kind of rhetoric detractors of feminism want feminist to use. _
_if you are really a feminists acting in good faith, you should be value both women and men equally._
_that is the core of movement and without it, we are truly no better than the mgtow, mra, and incel._
_if you really are a feminist and not some user parodying one, remember that._​


return2senderrrrrrrrrrrrr said:


> all furries are incel mgtow fuckwits who cant get any dick or pussy. fuckats


_i'd say more to you, but it's late so i'm just reporting you._
_bon voyage._​


----------



## Yakamaru (Oct 12, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> Reading more into this, I support MGTOWS, more straight men to have fun with :V


Leave it to Mika to always find something sexual about it. :V



FeministFoxFelicia said:


> *Women are so much better.* I wish I was into women and not men.


Sounds sexist to me to be honest.

You have better women out there as well. This is a given considering people can quite easily be shitty regardless of what they are.



Fallowfox said:


> If you have sex with a woman, you're open to the risk that there could be an unexpected pregnancy.
> 
> The woman _doesn't_ require your consent to keep that child.
> and being a grown man means that you may be expected, even if you're not present in their family life, to provide economic support towards the well-being of that child.
> ...


"Don't want kids? Just abstain. It's THAT easy!"
Sounds like a "Good Christian" abstainee argument. If I had the time I could spend hours debunking this kind of backwards mentality. But I don't have the time for it.

We're not talking about two idiots going at it without any protection. In those cases you should expect to get a kid at some point, and I am against either parent being able to opt out of anything, with the exception of the mother having an abortion if she so wishes. We're talking about a situation where the woman have gone behind the man's back and
a) Poked holes in condoms
and/or
b) Lied about taking the pill
and/or
c) Have not taken other preventative measures she *should* have been taking

This isn't about the woman. This is about the man. And a lack of choice/rights in the matter. Do you know how easy it is to bind a man financially through a child? It happens, and it happens way more often than you think.

Imagine growing up knowing you are being used as a weapon to make your father miserable and financially fucked. "You being born is the reason your father hates you/us". How do you think that kind of situation is going to affect the kid? I can assure you, it sure as hell ain't going to affect them in a positive manner.

Here's an example:
Both parents are financially stable and are both in the middle to upper class in terms of finances, and are both stable on that front. In the event of her going behind his back, she should not get any child support as she should already have the finances to take care of the kid on her own. Backstabbers/liars should reap the consequences of those actions.

If she is to get child support that support should go to the CHILD, and not buy jewelry, a new house or other crap she might fancy. Hell, put it into a savings account for when the kid turns 18(something I highly encourage both women and men to do, to be honest. To secure a better future for the next generation) that is locked for the kid only, and neither parent can withdraw from it. Unfortunately, this is more of an ideal situation, and too many women fuck it up when it comes to child support. Men fuck it up too tho, and is a topic I want proper legislation on either way.

I wouldn't mind paying child support if I knew the money would actually go to the kid. Hell, I'd be in favor of it. What I am *NOT *in favor of is for the woman to use that child support money to spend on shit that *she* wants. It's not called "Ex-wife support".

It's in situations like these that I want proper legislation for
a) The money to go where it's supposed to be, i.e., the kid
and/or
b) Potential protection for the man to prevent him taking a financial hit to the face if she is a backstabbing douchenozzle
and/or
c) The option of opting out of child support, depending on the context surrounding the child. Whether he actually opts out and *can* opt out will depend entirely on the context surrounding it
and
d) Neutral legislation and courts in these matters. The same way you see single mothers with kids on child support who just doesn't deserve the kid(s) she have(and abuse child support), the same goes for men in the same situation.

TL;DR: How about we simply make people accountable to their actions and stop ruining people financially through child support?


----------



## Dancy (Oct 12, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> "Don't want kids? Just abstain. It's THAT easy!"
> Sounds like a "Good Christian" abstainee argument. If I had the time I could spend hours debunking this kind of backwards mentality. But I don't have the time for it.


_tbh, i have problems with promoting abstinence as a way to avoid unwanted pregnancies since it relies on the ability of all parties refrain from sexual activity, but you can't deny that if you are able to abstain from sex you won't have to worry about an unwanted pregnancy. there is no reason you NEED to have sex and that it should be guaranteed to you. if you have sex, you should use proper protection and be ready for potential consequences. that is the burden of being an adult; you have to accept responsibility for your action, my guy._​


Yakamaru said:


> We're not talking about two idiots going at it without any protection. In those cases you should expect to get a kid at some point, and I am against either parent being able to opt out of anything, with the exception of the mother having an abortion if she so wishes.


_here, i actually agree with you somewhat. the parents should expect to raise a child if they're not using proper contraceptive countermeasures. adoption should be an option as well if both parents can't provide for the child._​


Yakamaru said:


> We're talking about a situation where the woman have gone behind the man's back and
> a) Poked holes in condoms
> and/or
> b) Lied about taking the pill
> ...


_these are very extreme scenarios that don't happen most of the time. pregnancy due to carelessness on the part either partner is entirely possible, but i'm having a hard time believing that a woman is going to be malicious enough to entrap a man to having a child to extort support from him. this is also an absurd notion from an economics perspective. child support is generally a predetermined percentage of the father's income or a rate decided in an assessment by the court based on a father's income. in most cases, the father usually has an average income. you also need to realize that in order to collect child support, you need to have a child to claim it and you therefore need to devote money to sustaining and providing for that child. a sizeable portion, if not all, of that child support money will be devoted towards providing for that child's food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, education, and all the expenses you need make to sustain your child. maybe you can cut some corners by applying for public services and or abusively depriving the child, but most authorities do eventually check on the child and certainly will ascertain whether that child is alive. also remember that if your child goes to school, their teachers and counselors will probably notice and report any abuse the child is experiencing, especially in the public education system, so anyone evil, dumb, and or lazy enough to go that route is in for a well-deserved rude awakening. as a result, our hypothetical and probably implausible female child support extortionist will not, in all likelihood, be living on easy street, especially when you consider she also has to support herself. you may want to reconsider promoting this scenario for these reasons, if not because it is a very damaging and false stereotype of women. _​


Yakamaru said:


> Do you know how easy it is to bind a man financially through a child? It happens, and it happens way more often than you think.


_i already laid out why it may be initially easy, but in practice unfeasible. if you have statistics to prove me wrong, they're definitely welcome._​


Yakamaru said:


> Imagine growing up knowing you are being used as a weapon to make your father miserable and financially fucked. "You being born is the reason your father hates you/us". How do you think that kind of situation is going to affect the kid? I can assure you, it sure as hell ain't going to affect them in a positive manner.


_i'm being harsh here, but if you're this concerned about your potential lovechild being weaponized against you, maybe you should use that as your motivation for not having sex, ya know?_​


Yakamaru said:


> Both parents are financially stable and are both in the middle to upper class in terms of finances, and are both stable on that front. In the event of her going behind his back, she should not get any child support as she should already have the finances to take care of the kid on her own. Backstabbers/liars should reap the consequences of those actions.


_i already explained that most providers of child support are obviously not upper class, but middle class or even poor. basic reasoning should tell you why. i also addressed the absurdity of extorting child support in the manners you suggested. i'll just reiterate that you can choose not have sex. it is not a necessity. you will not die if don't have sex. or you could wear a condom and not let the nefarious woman handle it. (on a segway, i'm laughing at my desk because why would let some woman who you may or may not know handle your condom before you use it?  and if you're going to say she is giving you to condom to use for the sake of both of you, you should be paranoid or cautious enough to bring you own condoms to the party.)_​


Yakamaru said:


> I wouldn't mind paying child support if I knew the money would actually go to the kid. Hell, I'd be in favor of it. What I am *NOT *in favor of is for the woman to use that child support money to spend on shit that *she* wants. It's not called "Ex-wife support".


_you can always petition the court for custody of the child if you feel she is being irresponsible or ask child services to investigate if she is misusing the money. most jurisdictions have this legal option._​


Yakamaru said:


> It's in situations like these that I want proper legislation for
> a) The money to go where it's supposed to be, i.e., the kid


_i tackled this._​


Yakamaru said:


> ) Potential protection for the man to prevent him taking a financial hit to the face if she is a backstabbing douchenozzle


_it isn't a great situation for the man, but unless the child was product of male rape (in which case the victim should be insulated from paying child support and further contact with the offender. the mother shouldn't be allowed to care for the child and should be forced to relinquish it for adoption since that can't be a healthy situation to raise a child in.), the father should have realized the potential consequences of having sex. harsh, but true. _​


Yakamaru said:


> c) The option of opting out of child support, depending on the context surrounding the child. Whether he actually opts out and *can* opt out will depend entirely on the context surrounding it


_i talked about this._


Yakamaru said:


> d) Neutral legislation and courts in these matters. The same way you see single mothers with kids on child support who just doesn't deserve the kid(s) she have(and abuse child support), the same goes for men in the same situation.


_courts are actually as gender-neutral as they can be in these disputes, considering that the majority of the time, the single parent caring for the child is female. _

_Single parent - Wikipedia_​

> In 2006, 12.9 million families in the US were headed by a single parent, 80% of which were headed by a female.[14][15] ... [16] At the 2013 census, 17.8% of New Zealand families were single-parent, of which five-sixths were headed by a female ... [17] In the United Kingdom, about 1 out of 4 families with dependent children are single-parent families, 8 to 11 percent of which have a male single-parent.[18][19][20] UK poverty figures show that 52% of single parent families are below the Government-defined poverty line (after housing costs).[21][22]


_i also want to remind you that most of the time men give custody of unexpected children to women, either through legal means or by walking out. men can also petition the court if they feel their child support is being abused. _

_toodles._​


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 13, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> Leave it to Mika to always find something sexual about it. :V
> 
> 
> Sounds sexist to me to be honest.
> ...




Support paid to ex-partners- what you call 'ex-wife support' is actually called 'Alimony'. Alimony - Wikipedia
Alimony *isn't* child support.

Alimony may be awarded to the financially weaker party during a divorce, in order to prevent situations such as a financially dependent partner being rendered destitute as a result of being abandoned by their wealthier partner. 
Alimony is essentially a legal descendant of the the dower or 'Ketubah', a price usually paid by a man to a woman during a marriage, so that if the marriage results in divorce, or the husband dies, the woman won't be left destitute. 

Your knowledge of this field of the law is too poor for you to express a coherent criticism of it. You've muddled up alimony, child support and child custody laws, when those are all _distinct _systems of law. 
These laws exist because they're important to maintain the social fabric; to prevent destitution and to provide for children. These systems of law already come with an extensive architecture of caveats designed to make people accountable for their actions. 
What you're proposing would make men_ less_ accountable for irresponsible attitudes towards sex and family, because it provides a legal route for them to abandon those responsibilities.


----------



## ZeroVoidTime (Oct 13, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Support paid to ex-partners- what you call 'ex-wife support' is actually called 'Alimony'. Alimony - Wikipedia
> Alimony *isn't* child support.
> 
> Alimony may be awarded to the financially weaker party during a divorce, in order to prevent situations such as a financially dependent partner being rendered destitute as a result of being abandoned by their wealthier partner.
> ...


Oh I did not know that! How fascinating......


----------



## Autumn the Squirrel (Nov 11, 2018)

Frugando said:


> MGTOW: Men Going their Own Way (self-based ideology based on 'going your own way'. Generally when gathered together, give advice/ warnings, express what they beleive to be unfair to men in society, as well give criticism towards others)
> 
> Just curious if they/ you exist in this fandom or ever came across a self proclaimed  MGTOW?
> 
> ...



They're probably too busy "retaking the holy land" with their katanas and airsoft guns.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Nov 11, 2018)

Nothing like fresh anon accounts bringing up touchy political subjects and sowing discord through the fandom.

At this point, I'd almost prefer korean bots flooding the forum again...


----------



## Slytherin Umbreon (Nov 11, 2018)

Oh God Damn it, I thought this thread got locked.


----------



## Yakamaru (Nov 11, 2018)

How about not bringing up already-dead threads?


----------



## ZeroVoidTime (Nov 11, 2018)

I forgot about this thread! WHY WAS IT REVIVED?!?!


----------



## CertifiedCervine (Nov 11, 2018)

ZeroVoidTime said:


> I forgot about this thread! WHY WAS IT REVIVED?!?!


+Why wasn’t it locked?!?


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Nov 11, 2018)

ZeroVoidTime said:


> I forgot about this thread! WHY WAS IT REVIVED?!?!


Ask the squirrel who necro'd it.


----------



## idkthough120 (Nov 11, 2018)

Mods lock this thread pls-


----------



## Autumn the Squirrel (Nov 11, 2018)

Prometheus_Fox said:


> Ask the squirrel who necro'd it.



Ahem. 

It hasn't been dead for that long.


----------



## CertifiedCervine (Nov 11, 2018)

Yeah, but these threads are really controversial,
11/10 times they turn into arguements and drama, so it’s better to leave them untouched and let them fall away into the abyss


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Nov 11, 2018)

whyt31 said:


> Mods lock this thread pls-


----------



## Someguy69 (Nov 11, 2018)

Uggggggggh


----------



## Someguy69 (Nov 12, 2018)

Necroing deserves the death penalty. (Obvious joke is obvious so don't ree at me)


----------



## Autumn the Squirrel (Nov 12, 2018)

Someguy69 said:


> Necroing deserves the death penalty. (Obvious joke is obvious so don't ree at me)


----------



## Illuminaughty (Nov 12, 2018)

An-Honest-Pie said:


> The only think I like about MGTOW and some Red Pill ideologies is self improvement and spotting red flags, too bad it comes from trashy people.



Maybe superficially, but if you take a closer look it's far more insidious than that. The truth is, none of these movements are about 'self improvement', even if they claim to be. Self improvement would be realizing you have a very _social and personal_ problem, and examining the attitudes and behaviours you foster that allowed it to poison your life.. And getting professional help if necessary.

The closest thing I've ever seen to 'self improvement' in any of these spaces (I've ventured into a few out of morbid curiosity, and God help me I never want to see them again) is physical self improvement, and even that isn't without its own unfortunate results. Men can have severe issues with body dysmorphia as well, and it can have just as devastating effect as it does on women.

These people have dangerously low self esteem that these movements are conditioning them to project onto women. And that low self esteem, combined with feelings of resentment, rejection, victimhood and a clear-cut "enemy" to direct their hostility toward.. Well- let's just say it shouldn't be a surprise that such a volatile combination of people and ideologies does often come to violence or suicide.


----------



## tamara590 (Nov 8, 2019)

woman haters not welcome, the furry community is all about acceptance, but not for hate groups. we already get enough hate being part of this community and as a woman i already feel alienated somethimes, so please cut us some slack


----------



## Infrarednexus (Nov 8, 2019)

Thank goodness you necroed a_ year old _dumpster fire thread to share your opinion.


----------



## tamara590 (Nov 8, 2019)

Infrarednexus said:


> Thank goodness you necroed a_ year old _dumpster fire thread to share your opinion.


umm okay? why is it so wrong to share my opinion?


----------



## Infrarednexus (Nov 8, 2019)

tamara590 said:


> umm okay? why is it so wrong to share my opinion?


Nothing wrong with the opinion, I agree with you actually, but this thread is a year old.


----------



## Jackpot Raccuki (Nov 8, 2019)

No thank you.
Mods lock thread now, if there is any still.


----------



## tamara590 (Nov 8, 2019)

Infrarednexus said:


> Nothing wrong with the opinion, I agree with you actually, but this thread is a year old.


ah okay, sorry for reacting so angry, having a shitty day, glad you agree tough. i never look at dates when posting on a thread so it went over my head that its a year old already


----------



## Infrarednexus (Nov 8, 2019)

tamara590 said:


> ah okay, sorry for reacting so angry, having a shitty day, glad you agree tough. i never look at dates when posting on a thread so it went over my head that its a year old already


No worries. Sorry if I came off as rude. Necroing threads is just one of my pet peeves. I hope we're cool.


----------



## tamara590 (Nov 8, 2019)

Infrarednexus said:


> No worries. Sorry if I came off as rude. Necroing threads is just one of my pet peeves. I hope we're cool.


no problemo^^ were fine, next time ill try to check the date of a thread, i learnt something today thanks to you


----------



## Nyro46 (Nov 8, 2019)

I love it when I see the same person keep necroing threads across the boards.

Also, this thread is exactly why I hate gender roles.

@SSJ3Mewtwo


----------



## TheCynicalViet (Nov 8, 2019)

I'm just gonna preface this by saying that the MGTOW community is really shitty and I don't support what they say because what they say is blatant bullshit. They're almost reaching the point of incels in terms of women hate. 

With that, I don't like being grouped with them just because I choose to not pursue a relationship due to me working full time in a warehouse, being a full time lewd artist (hit me in DM's), and being a full time uni student. I don't have the time and resources to invest into a relationship. That doesn't mean I'm not gonna try after I get my shit together.


----------



## Slytherin Umbreon (Nov 8, 2019)

ZeroVoidTime said:


> I forgot about this thread! WHY WAS IT REVIVED?!?!


It's the gift that keeps on taking.


----------



## Deleted member 111470 (Nov 9, 2019)

Not this again.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Nov 9, 2019)

How bored do you have to be to dig through a year's worth of forum topics to revive this?


----------



## SSJ3Mewtwo (Nov 9, 2019)

Locking due to necro


----------

