MGTOW: Ancapistan For Your Penis

MGTOW
I AM MURRAY’S FLACCID COCK.

Feminism and Western Civilization. What do?

The manosphere, a “reactionary” (lol) blogging counterculture that emerged against feminism, is a perfect example of a present day market failure. All of the free association afforded by the internet, and the demand for an anti-feminist culture produces blogs about picking up skanks and/or celebrating being a sullen asshole. The former is at least entertaining and educational, the latter is poison.

In the sullen asshole category is the Men Going Their Own Way movement. Here are bloggers dedicated to moralizing their fearful hatred of the Western vagina.

The MGTOW manifesto states their goal is “to instill masculinity in men, femininity in women, and work towards limited government!” The first goal is an honorable one, but is sabotaged by an impossible second and retarded third objective.

When the most “red-pill” brand of masculine identity amounts to sexual separatism, ancapistan for your penis, it becomes apparent you need to re-think your stance on “rational” human action.

(Protip: Less “Human Action,” more “Might Is Right.”)

I.

Don't Need No
Masculinity instilled.

Consider the second goal. What does a man know (or care) of femininity? A superior man is not also a superior woman; the two genders are fundamentally different and therefore unequal. The conflict between the two genders, the biological desire/distrust of difference, is what makes the dialectic, what intertwines the two, what creates love and desire and progress.

It can no longer be a dialectic or relationship if you control the opposition’s narrative. MGTOW seeks a male-created/controlled feminine ideal that better resembles a cow. Making someone “yours” does not entail making them an object, manly-man. Go fuck a Big Mac.

The MGTOW who advocate giving up women entirely are thankfully more logical and less destructive. You are indeed better off staying home with the e-titties if you think the feminine exists as a pre-assembled mirror with a vagina; you would be horrified to see what was reflected back, anyway.

II.

It's Happening
Fucking humans, how do they work?

Now for the third objective, limited government: because nothing is more manly than limitation, amirite?

The purpose of this oxymoronic libertarian ideal is to prevent people from imposing their will on others (particularly theirs). Different wording, same barriers to entry. Funny, it’s never “statist” controls when a libertarian desires it.

MGTOW “masculinity” thinks an equally-castrated society would be the best means of acquiring their traditional family ideal. They forget that families were traditionally held together by a strong and domineering patriarch.

Government emerges to reflects the culture, and that culture is a reflection of the family.

Liberalism is a broken home, MGTOW seeks joint custody.

III.

Libertarianism and a thorough misunderstanding of the feminine purpose makes it impossible for MGTOW to ever achieve a coherent masculinity. You really want to understand manliness? Lrn2Filmer.

Society began when a man was willing to kill another over his woman. Humans transcended animalism when the first man crowned himself Patriarch, ruler of his family. The first Kings were Fathers of Families. THIS should be the ideal men seek, not angry and cowardly sexual secessionism. Take the power away from the bitches who never earned it; the reason society is as shitty as it is now is that avoiding pain and conflict has been confused with morality and strength. You think you can build a better society, when you can’t even conquer a single bitchy Western woman? GTFO.

Society ends when men believe they don’t need a woman to challenge or complete them. Man becomes an animal when he thinks it is ideal to walk away from the conflict that builds society. MGTOW correctly intuits the problem as being feminism, but they do not go any further. The movement is therefore complicit in the Liberal deconstruction of both Father and Family.

Calling your cowardly, roundabout anarchy “reactionary” is thoroughly offensive. You are at best conservative anti-natalists.

  • Tom

    Before a man can be a ruler of his family, he must first be free. MGTOW are the only ones who are trying to achieve this, and yet this is precisely why you bash them. Marriage for a man now is slavery to the feminine, and this slavery is backed by society and the state. If men don’t reclaim their independence, they will never rule.

  • Tom

    “Society ends when men believe they don’t need a woman to challenge or complete them. Man becomes an animal when he thinks it is ideal to walk away from the conflict that builds society.”

    No, most societies were built on the idea that a man does not need a woman to “challenge” him, and definitely not to “complete” him. That is a fucked up and feminized way of looking at male/female relationships. Men need women for sex and reproduction. That’s it. There may be other benefits, but these are not needs. And no man needs a woman to challenge him. Quite the opposite. He needs her to shut the fuck up and do what she’s told.

  • http://www.theoldmaninthecave.blogspot.com/ TheOldManInTheCave

    “because nothing is more manly than limitation, amirite?”
    Last time I checked, thats what separates us from the apes.

    You are projecting a lot of logic onto this idea that I’m not sure is all there. You say that sexual secession is a cowardly flight away from pain? I see it as exactly the opposite. What I see as cowardly is when men play along with the game and let the whole bloody thing perpetuate itself.

  • David

    Yeah, I mean what are we supposed to do? Marry non-virgins and stay married to them even if they’re awful and continually yell at them to stay in the kitchen, a battle that will only end in divorce and losing control over most of your property and your heirs? No, unless there’s a governmental revolution then it’s better to just leave. I think my dad should divorce my mom because of this. In any case, you are correct about pua and debauchery as male adaptation to a Feminist society.

  • Tom

    “The first Kings were Fathers of Families. THIS should be the ideal men seek, not angry and cowardly sexual secessionism. Take the power away from the bitches who never earned it;”

    I ask again, how exactly do you do this? I’ve been seeing a lot of this shit recently from the right, but they never give a solution besides some sort of vague “man up” recommendation. When men liberate themselves, then they will be free to enter and remain in relationships on THEIR terms. Until then, patriarchy is in fact dead.

    “Consider the second goal. What does a man know (or care) of femininity? A superior man is not also a superior woman; the two genders are fundamentally different and therefore unequal. The conflict between the two genders, the biological desire/distrust of difference, is what makes the dialectic, what intertwines the two, what creates love and desire and progress.

    It can no longer be a dialectic or relationship if you control the opposition’s narrative. MGTOW seeks a male-created/controlled feminine ideal that better resembles a cow. Making someone “yours” does not entail making them an object, manly-man. Go fuck a Big Mac.”

    And this is exactly the point of MGTOW. We apply this same logic to the masculine. I’m beginning to think you’re some sort of confused feminist. MGTOW want an actual dialectic, not female hegemony. Take your prescriptions and invert them, and you have MGTOW.

  • http://transpolitik.com Nihiltue

    Interesting perspective, not a surprising response from the comment thread. MGTOW are a bunch of sub-betas slapping their blue balls together.

  • Hismit

    Who the fuck wants to get married, in this day and age? Unless you convert to Moslemism and find yourself one of those Burka women – and I don’t think you had that in mind.

  • Tom

    “Interesting perspective, not a surprising response from the comment thread. MGTOW are a bunch of sub-betas slapping their blue balls together.”

    The article is incoherent. It berates MGTOW for (allegedly) trying to define the feminine in terms of male desire, only to go on define the masculine in terms of female desire, and then on top of that to insinuate that this is real patriarchy. What a fucking joke. You pussy-beggars can’t even put forward a logically consistent argument, and then when this is pointed out you result to insults and shaming tactics, just like the little feminist hypocrites you are.

  • Bulbasaur

    You’re trying a little too hard to troll, Tom.

    Dialectic used to be a method whereby two people come to one conclusion. The (post)modern world is dialectally materialistic: God is dead, humans are sacks of meat, and women are supposed to be fuck-puppet ciphers for the man. My Patriarchy is indeed the opposite of MGTOW, because I know there is value in a woman beyond babies.

    I am criticizing the MGTOW for not striking at the root, and either giving up or fucking cow-brained women. You’re not applying my arguments from before to fill in the blanks as far as an alternative to their “masculinity.” I will not hold your hand and spoon-feed my argument letter by letter. I expect more of my readers.

    Going Galt with your dick isn’t going to stop a system as monolithic as the progressive Western democracy. MGTOW will not harm the system, will actually help the system. It is far more rebellious and masculine and fulfilling to find God, find a good woman, and raise a stable nuclear family.

    • David

      Okay, well I get what you’re saying then. But just doing that won’t make a difference. Drop in a bucket. It would need to be done in such large numbers as to bring about a cultural shift. I’m not looking solely at America anyway. I plan on finding a good virgin girl and raising a stable, nuclear, patriarchal family…in Asia. Leave America to the dogs.

  • ASDF

    I don’t blame women for sleeping around. It feels good (temporarily), and the message they get from 10 years of age and onwards is to do it. Why do we expect independent thought and moral leadership from a group of people most of us don’t think should be allowed to vote? If they’re repentant, give them a chance. Is any one of us who came to true conservatism after living a hedonistic, liberal, youth any less repentant of our follies? Tell your dates that you want to wait until marriage to sleep with them.

    I live in a very liberal city, and I make no secret about my desire to move to the country, have 8 kids, and rule the family with an iron fist. The number of women who are up for it would surprise you.

  • Tom

    “You’re trying a little too hard to troll, Tom.”

    I’m not trolling at all. I am a MGHOW, and you are talking shit about MGTOW in such a way that it demonstrates that you are either ignorant, or willing to deceive.

    “Dialectic used to be a method whereby two people come to one conclusion.”

    And this is impossible under the method that you propose, since it is a forgone conclusion in the woman’s favor.

    “The (post)modern world is dialectally materialistic: God is dead, humans are sacks of meat, and women are supposed to be fuck-puppet ciphers for the man.”

    Uh, no. The “women are supposed to be fuck-puppet ciphers for the man” position is one that is thoroughly marginalized in the (post)modern world. Men who behave in this way are routinely condemned as rapists in principle, if not in fact.

    “My Patriarchy is indeed the opposite of MGTOW, because I know there is value in a woman beyond babies.”

    Then I would say your “patriarchy” is no such thing.

    “I am criticizing the MGTOW for not striking at the root, and either giving up or fucking cow-brained women. ”

    And here you presuppose that there are other options.

    “You’re not applying my arguments from before to fill in the blanks as far as an alternative to their “masculinity.” I will not hold your hand and spoon-feed my argument letter by letter. I expect more of my readers.”

    Your arguments are manifestly inconsistent, so its not really a matter of needing to “spoon feed” them.

    “Going Galt with your dick isn’t going to stop a system as monolithic as the progressive Western democracy. ”

    Bullshit. Complicity in the system is what is futile, and that is exactly what you propose.

    “MGTOW will not harm the system, will actually help the system. It is far more rebellious and masculine and fulfilling to find God, find a good woman, and raise a stable nuclear family.”

    Fine on the God part, but the latter two are simply non-existent. If you believe otherwise then either you aren’t paying attention, or you are deluded. There are no stable nuclear families precisely because there are no good women. The point of MGTOW, as Barbarosssaaaa once put it is the recognition that “Men do not owe women families. Men are not responsible for the broken family unit, and as such, we will not fix it.” I would add that men CANNOT fix it even if they were willing. And if you think this is defeatist, then I’d love to see you outline a plan for fixing it beyond “marry a good woman and hope for the best. herp. derp.”

    • Bulbasaur

      Indeed, life is simply too hard, too unfair, to even bother with competing, “being complicit.” You’re being a manly man because you’re not going to deal with a reality that isn’t very fair. Ancapistan for your penis, indeed.

      Worse, you are technically complicit by continuing to exist; you didn’t choose to be here in the first place. Have you considered suicide yet? Maybe you should.

      An MGTOW is too busy being a roundabout anti-natalist to recognize that his consumptive toxicity towards life itself would naturally repulse quality mates (both male and female). This is well and good for the people worth a fuck. You may not be interested in eugenics, but eugenics is always interested in you.

      If you don’t see how your ideology does *nothing* to rebel against a system that encourages apathetic nihilism, then it makes sense that you feel so compelled to destroy my argument. Better to project than to reflect, amirite?

    • C

      I’ve found a good woman, so you are wrong.

  • Tom

    “Indeed, life is simply too hard, too unfair, to even bother with competing, “being complicit.””

    Competing for what? What is the prize here?

    “Worse, you are technically complicit by continuing to exist; you didn’t choose to be here in the first place. Have you considered suicide yet? Maybe you should.”

    Why would I do that? I am perfectly capable of enjoying my life without enslaving myself to a whore. Apparently you aren’t tho, so maybe you should take a hard look at your own dependency issues.

    “An MGTOW is too busy being a roundabout anti-natalist to recognize that his consumptive toxicity towards life itself would naturally repulse quality mates”

    Again, there are no “quality mates”, so your point is moot. You have to advocate overlooking flaws in those to whom you ascribe that title, which simply concedes that you’re full of shit.

    “If you don’t see how your ideology does *nothing* to rebel against a system that encourages apathetic nihilism, then it makes sense that you feel so compelled to destroy my argument. Better to project than to reflect, amirite?”

    Lol. I advocate that men take charge of their lives and their resources, and STOP FEEDING THE BEAST. This strategy alone is already having an effect to the extent that articles such as yours are being written EVEN BY FEMINISTS. The fact that men have begun rejecting their role as the providers and protectors of these whores and this whore society is becoming statistically manifest, and it has feminists and traditionalists alike getting scared. You advocate nothing. And yet I’m the one who is exercising futility? And you started this shit also. Apparently you felt compelled to destroy the MGTOW argument, even tho your criticism of it makes no sense.

    Again I ask you, what do you prescribe for the would be patriarch?

  • http://www.transpolitik.com Nihiltue

    He-Man Anti-Natalism ftw.

  • Bulbasaur

    MGTOW ideology is nihilism and egalitarianism resolving itself to anti-natalism. If you don’t see that, it’s because you don’t want to. You don’t see my argument because you will not allow yourself to. I may as well be writing in French.

    Were I a nasty man who applied my experiences with people (and as a person) like you, I would suggest this virulent hatred of all women and criticism of my manliness is nothing more than projection of your butthurt from having horrible taste in women.

    My prescriptions are spirituality and family. Man will not go forward until he achieves these two things. I will not move on that position, so you should probably stop reading my shit.

    • Tom

      “MGTOW ideology is nihilism and egalitarianism resolving itself to anti-natalism. If you don’t see that, it’s because you don’t want to. You don’t see my argument because you will not allow yourself to. I may as well be writing in French.”

      You haven’t even come close to demonstrating any of this shit. You just keep saying it. Your argument is non-existent, and your “man up” prescription is nothing more than posturing. You can’t even explain what it means. Probably because you know that you’ll have to admit that it means enslaving yourself to a slut for the sake of “society”.

      “Were I a nasty man who applied my experiences with people (and as a person) like you, I would suggest this virulent hatred of all women and criticism of my manliness is nothing more than projection of your butthurt from having horrible taste in women.”

      Lol. As if this whole article isn’t evidence that you are a nasty man who generalizes and attempts to shame men for desiring to be independent. And as to my “horrible taste in women”, I’d love to see an explanation or example of a “good” woman.

      “My prescriptions are spirituality and family. Man will not go forward until he achieves these two things. I will not move on that position, so you should probably stop reading my shit.”

      Maybe you should start making some fucking sense, especially when you are going to bash your fellow men. Spirituality is fine. Family is practically impossible. And this is due to women. And you can’t divert their responsibility by saying it is due to feminism either, because feminism is a product of women as well. So if man must achieve family to move forward, then it appears we are stuck.

      • Sun

        What doesn’t make any sense Tom?

        • Tom

          “What doesn’t make any sense Tom?”

          Advocating “family” as a strategy, and ridiculing those who recognize that it is impossible.

  • Bulbasaur

    Happiness is impossible. Manliness is impossible. Love is impossible. Religion is impossible. Stable society is impossible. Self-actualization is impossible. On and on and on. Wanna know why our society is creating more and more Adam Lanzas?

    I ridicule the MGTOW “rebellion” because it’s not very rebellious at all. How are you tearing down a materialistic society with the radical assertion that women are nothing more than breeding stock?

    Who is John Galt? Not some snide cocksucker who moralizes beating his meat and calling all owners of vaginas “whores.” I really cannot stress this enough, Tom: Go fuck yourself.

  • Tom

    “Happiness is impossible.”

    Nope.

    “Manliness is impossible.”

    Nope.

    “Love is impossible.”

    Romantic love, maybe.

    “Religion is impossible.”

    Nope.

    “Stable society is impossible.”

    Nope.

    “Self-actualization is impossible.”

    Hard, but not impossible.

    “On and on and on. Wanna know why our society is creating more and more Adam Lanzas?”

    Because men see that the game is rigged, and don’t know how to play another one.

    “I ridicule the MGTOW “rebellion” because it’s not very rebellious at all. How are you tearing down a materialistic society with the radical assertion that women are nothing more than breeding stock?”

    By not giving them resources and power that they haven’t earned. How hard is that to understand?

    “Who is John Galt? Not some snide cocksucker who moralizes beating his meat and calling all owners of vaginas “whores.” I really cannot stress this enough, Tom: Go fuck yourself.”

    I’m not a Randian, so I’m not sure what this has to do with anything I’ve said. You don’t like MGTOW prescriptions? Fine. I’m not happy about them either, but they’re the only ones that make sense. You can’t even offer an alternative. What, you think men should marry worthless sluts who will take everything from them, and corrupt their kids? This is what you advise men to do, and I’m the one who doesn’t get “rebellion”?

    • Sun

      Sorry its been so long.

      Are you sure you are not confusing something that you don’t agree with, with something not making sense? That is only something you can personally answer. However, I will try to address your point.

      To be fair, in the current framework of society, it is seen has heavily rebellious by those pro and con (on the Feminist or modern society side)–“opting out.” Although to patriarchs, it isn’t. Because patriarchy is about establishing yourself via hierarchy whereas opting out is done primarily out of the feeling of injustices due to an perceived in-egalitarian system.

      Is it impossible? You find it detrimental, sure, based upon the laws currently enacted, etc, but that doesn’t make it impossible.

      I get where you come from and your belief about the state of affairs when it come to marriage. I get how you believe that marriage is bad and the only way to culturally change the system is to opt out until things change. But the fact remains is that those who pass on the genes, their linage, their ancestry, are the builders of civilization (that is what he is trying to say).

      There is a fine line, which can be hard to distinguish to the inept, between “going your own way” and “running away.” Many times “going your own way” masquerades as a running away.

      I do believe, unlike Bulbasaur, that being able to assert yourself and reject shitty women is the first step into becoming a patriarch, but that in and of itself isn’t enough. You assert yourself to establish your authority, generate confidence, and to make it known that you won’t tolerate crap. A man who will do anything to get sex is enslaved and pathetic. Saying “no,” when appropriate, is important.

      However, society is not built upon individual needs. Men and women have survived by working together. And if they don’t, the whole society suffers. Men are biologically attracted to women and it is impossible for men to “truly go their own way” or become asexual by opting out of sex entirely without become miserable. Society also breaks down when there is contempt and both sexes don’t work together. Part of being a man is the duty through love to support women (or the woman that you specifically love).

      What you ultimately advocate is not sustainable. Like I mention before, reproduction serves as a bedrock for society.

      It is understandable for such a movement to advocate what it does being made up of men. Men, naturally (not just in a political sense), retreat to their cave regardless of the issue at hand. Sometimes it is to work out the problem themselves, other times it is to recuperate, or lastly, (although many won’t admit) to escape from an uneasy situation.

      Men tend to be more introspective, solitary, in their efforts. Whereas women tend to extrospective, seeking reassurance and advice from from others.

      “What, you think men should marry worthless sluts who will take everything from them, and corrupt their kids? This is what you advise men to do, and I’m the one who doesn’t get “rebellion”?”

      I think gathering your wits and being able to say no and not lowering your standards is a good first step. However, I don’t believe ultimately advocating for gender separatism is good. You should assert yourself with confidence and find a decent woman who is noble and worthy.

  • Tom

    “To be fair, in the current framework of society, it is seen has heavily rebellious by those pro and con (on the Feminist or modern society side)–”opting out.” Although to patriarchs, it isn’t.”

    Apparently it is, as the kind of resistance to the idea demonstrated in this article and others demonstrates. If they really saw it is futile, they would ignore it. But I think they know it is dangerous to the last formal vestiges of “patriarchy”.

    “Because patriarchy is about establishing yourself via hierarchy whereas opting out is done primarily out of the feeling of injustices due to an perceived in-egalitarian system.”

    One cannot do the former. In terms of preference, I am a patriarch. But because I know what patriarchy is, I know that the modern “marriage” is no such thing.

    “Is it impossible? You find it detrimental, sure, based upon the laws currently enacted, etc, but that doesn’t make it impossible.”

    Actually it does. The laws and social attitudes place all the power with the female. This is not patriarchy. It’s not just about it being detrimental.

    “I get where you come from and your belief about the state of affairs when it come to marriage. I get how you believe that marriage is bad and the only way to culturally change the system is to opt out until things change. But the fact remains is that those who pass on the genes, their linage, their ancestry, are the builders of civilization (that is what he is trying to say).”

    A mass refusal to take part in this could destroy this civilization, and that’s what I’m hoping for. The power of male labor and authority has been underestimated. I want men to withdraw and let these whores and their pimps starve. And men are already doing that, even apart from the MGTOW movement. We simply spell it out as a ideology.

    “I do believe, unlike Bulbasaur, that being able to assert yourself and reject shitty women is the first step into becoming a patriarch, but that in and of itself isn’t enough. You assert yourself to establish your authority, generate confidence, and to make it known that you won’t tolerate crap. A man who will do anything to get sex is enslaved and pathetic. Saying “no,” when appropriate, is important.”

    You really can’t establish authority. You can emulate it, and get laid. But your authority is gone as soon as you marry the slut.

    “However, society is not built upon individual needs. Men and women have survived by working together. And if they don’t, the whole society suffers. Men are biologically attracted to women and it is impossible for men to “truly go their own way” or become asexual by opting out of sex entirely without become miserable.”

    No MGTOW that I know of advocate abstinence. It’s more about using women ONLY for sex.

    “Society also breaks down when there is contempt and both sexes don’t work together. Part of being a man is the duty through love to support women (or the woman that you specifically love).”

    And here we STRONGLY disagree. I have no duty to women that does not entail a reciprocal duty on their part. They have completely rejected such a duty, so, consonant with my masculinity, I reject any duty to women.

    “What you ultimately advocate is not sustainable.”

    Yes, that’s the idea.

    “It is understandable for such a movement to advocate what it does being made up of men. Men, naturally (not just in a political sense), retreat to their cave regardless of the issue at hand. Sometimes it is to work out the problem themselves, other times it is to recuperate, or lastly, (although many won’t admit) to escape from an uneasy situation.”

    Not only do I believe this to be false, I think it is pretty misandric. Are you a man or woman?

    “I think gathering your wits and being able to say no and not lowering your standards is a good first step. However, I don’t believe ultimately advocating for gender separatism is good. You should assert yourself with confidence and find a decent woman who is noble and worthy.”

    Here’s the thing, I spend a lot of time around a lot of different women. And I don’t mean romantically or sexually. There are no women who are noble and worthy. If there are, it would only be a technicality. .000000001% of the female population might as well be nonexistent. And furthermore, no relationship is possible with them, so it’s pointless. They good for sex, and that’s it. When it comes to reproduction, one of the better ideas I’ve heard is contracting a surrogate mother. Put it in writing that she will bear your child for a fee, then she’s gone. I’m not sure how well this would stand up in court tho.

  • Sun

    “Apparently it is, as the kind of resistance to the idea demonstrated in this article and others demonstrates. If they really saw it is futile, they would ignore it. But I think they know it is dangerous to the last formal vestiges of “patriarchy”.”

    Not really. It isn’t more dangerous then Feminism. The rest about being “futile and ignoring” has nothing to do with what I said, so I’m going to comment on it. I find it detrimental and will make things worse.

    “Actually it does. The laws and social attitudes place all the power with the female. This is not patriarchy. It’s not just about it being detrimental.”

    I never said that was patriarchy. You said marriage was impossible. It is not impossible, just not feasible, in your opinion. Impossible means that you can’t do it.

    “One cannot do the former. In terms of preference, I am a patriarch. But because I know what patriarchy is, I know that the modern “marriage” is no such thing.”

    If you are egalitarian, you are, by definition not a patriarch. You opt out of marriage because it doesn’t treat the sexes equally. This makes you an egalitarian. MGTOW want marriage equality. That is not patriarchy.

    “A mass refusal to take part in this could destroy this civilization, and that’s what I’m hoping for. The power of male labor and authority has been underestimated. I want men to withdraw and let these whores and their pimps starve. And men are already doing that, even apart from the MGTOW movement. We simply spell it out as a ideology.”

    No, there is a difference between not wanting bad women vs. choosing to opt out of such a miserable relationship–advocating gender separatism. You advocate gender seperatism. We don’t see eye to eye.

    “Not only do I believe this to be false, I think it is pretty misandric.”

    Well it doesn’t matter what you think. It is my observation. You are living proof of that. The movement is living proof of that. I’m living proof of that. I see it all the time. If you find truth, “misandric,” then that is your problem.

    Why are you here. You obviously seem to have it all figured out.

    • Sun

      Meant to say:

      No, there is a difference between not wanting bad women and choosing to opt out of such a miserable relationship vs advocating gender separatism. You advocate gender seperatism. We don’t see eye to eye.

  • Tom

    “I never said that was patriarchy. You said marriage was impossible. It is not impossible, just not feasible, in your opinion. Impossible means that you can’t do it.”

    Let me rephrase that. Patriarchal Marriage is impossible. The patriarch cannot rule over his family within the context of marriage. Thus, bulbasaur’s “be a man” prescription is simply unworkable.

    “If you are egalitarian, you are, by definition not a patriarch. You opt out of marriage because it doesn’t treat the sexes equally. This makes you an egalitarian. MGTOW want marriage equality. That is not patriarchy.”

    No, I want reciprocal obligations in marriage, not identical obligations.

    “No, there is a difference between not wanting bad women vs. choosing to opt out of such a miserable relationship–advocating gender separatism. You advocate gender seperatism. We don’t see eye to eye.”

    You keep talking like there are “good women” out there somewhere. I don’t see them, and I suspect that if you do, then you are wearing some rose tinted glasses.

    “Well it doesn’t matter what you think. It is my observation. You are living proof of that. The movement is living proof of that. I’m living proof of that. I see it all the time. If you find truth, “misandric,” then that is your problem.”

    Like I said, this isn’t the “truth” at all. MGTOW is not about running away, its about not putting yourself into a bad situation. And men do not have a tendency to “retreat to their cave”, except when that is the ONLY option. Men are not the one’s who are flawed here.

    “Why are you here. You obviously seem to have it all figured out.”

    The article is slandering men like me.

    • http://transpolitik.com Nihiltue

      Lol, slander. That’s blatant misdirection thinly-disguised with modern moralspeak. Maybe you should look into a lawyer for these grievances? :P

      You’ve flipped your shit because you see something here that causes internal strife. You are seeking outside conflict as a distraction. If you were secure in your beliefs you would have left one nasty/dismissive post and left for more comfortable reading. The more you wall-text, the weaker you reveal yourself to be. Congratulations, Shinji.

  • Bulbasaur

    “I do believe, unlike Bulbasaur, that being able to assert yourself and reject shitty women is the first step into becoming a patriarch, but that in and of itself isn’t enough.”

    I argue that writing off an entire gender is beyond retarded, that doing so would regress the species to animalism.

    Neither do I suggest that all women are salvageable.

    Why are the shitty women there? “Government” isn’t an adequate answer. We are an Age without it’s Spirit. This is why people like Tom can call himself a “Man,” and yet his idea of manliness amounts to physical actions and a prioristic shortcuts.

  • Tom

    “You’ve flipped your shit because you see something here that causes internal strife.”

    Lol. Not really. Bulb’s arguments are bad, and his characterization of motives is just cheap shaming tactics. Hardly anything to cause internal strife.

    “You are seeking outside conflict as a distraction.”

    This is kinda true. I really enjoy debate. I don’t play video-games. Arguing is my entertainment.

    “If you were secure in your beliefs you would have left one nasty/dismissive post and left for more comfortable reading. ”

    Actually, no. I don’t do that with any subject I believe in. If I believe in it, then I will tenaciously defend it, because it is fun for me. What you are describing sounds a lot more characteristic of one who is afraid he’s wrong, or who just doesn’t wanna think too hard.

    “The more you wall-text, the weaker you reveal yourself to be. Congratulations, Shinji.”

    How so? You prefer one liners to debate? Sophisticated crowd here, innit?

  • Tom

    “This is why people like Tom can call himself a “Man,” and yet his idea of manliness amounts to physical actions and a prioristic shortcuts.”

    Is there some reason why you keep your insults as vague as possible? I can’t really even tell if I should be offended by something like this. Here’s one back at you. >Ahem< Sir, your idea of manliness is marrying a used up slut with another man's kids, paying her bills, and and gratefully accepting sex once a month while tolerating the fact that she cuckold's you with every dirtbag in your town.

  • Tom

    Can I get one of you to explain to me what a “good woman” is? I’ve asked multiple times, and the question seems to just get ignored. Because, from my experience, any woman that is at least moderately attractive has made herself a communal fuck-hole from a very early age. Is this what you consider marriage material?

  • David

    Why even bother arguing with Tom? He’s just making huge over generalizations. Yes, Feminism has turned most women to shit, but that doesn’t mean all women are like that. The real issue is that things like virginity can’t be assumed anymore and it’s improper to ask. Masculinity would be defying those odds and finding a good woman, a diamond in the rough. As for me, I’m Asian-American, so I think I’ll just go back to Asia to marry in a place it’s not as degenerate (Not Thailand). You could just as well convert to Mormonism.

  • Tom

    “Yes, Feminism has turned most women to shit, but that doesn’t mean all women are like that.”

    You know, when you find pieces of corn in your poop, you could pick it out, wash it off, and it would be perfectly edible. But would it be worth it? Is this something you would recommend that people should do?

    • David

      So you’re basically saying you’re a nihilist. There’s no point in you being on this site then besides to troll.

  • MGHOW

    Don’t focus overmuch on one guy’s definition of MGTOW.

    The definition is in the name. Men going their own way. It doesn’t necessarily have to do with limited government, except in the sense of limiting feminist abuses of government.

    It’s simply men who feel that the much increased risks of long term relationships outweigh the much diminished rewards. There is a case to be made that they are correct in this reasoning. Once you get attached to your kids, losing them in a divorce can be an extremely negative experience.

    You can call it cowardice, but it is also caution and prudence.

    I’m a MGTOW because I desire a traditional, patriarchal marriage. But it is not possible in the current legal climate. I’m not sure if I’m up for emigrating to a third world country just to pass on my genes. I’m definitely not up for a modern marriage where I am expected to shoulder all of the risk, in exchange for a non-virgin woman with a significantly reduced ability to form pair bonds.

    I notice that you never answered the question about the practicality of implementing a patriarchal marriage in a legal climate where all laws favor the woman.

  • Tom

    “I’m a MGTOW because I desire a traditional, patriarchal marriage. But it is not possible in the current legal climate.”

    Ditto.

    “I notice that you never answered the question about the practicality of implementing a patriarchal marriage in a legal climate where all laws favor the woman.”

    I don’t expect you will get an answer, aside from “man up”.

  • SeventhSonOfA

    And here I thought this blog was PART of the Manosphere. LOL.

  • Pingback: Alpha Males Will Not Save The West | The Right Stuff()

  • http://gravatar.com/fiddlestix FamilyorNot

    I am honestly at odds with myself here.

    I used to consider myself MGTOW.

    But this article got me thinking.

    How EXACTLY will MGTOW change things?

    For it to change things you will need to believe that women will straighten up as soon as they see what is happening, INSTEAD of:

    1) Getting their weekly cock needs via Mexican or Black or Native American, etc
    2) Getting their protection needs via building up the goverment bigger and bigger AND going after gun rights.
    3) Forcing more men to pay more in taxes.

    So essentially the more I think about it…. MGTOW will do nothing because there is no friction point.

    Hell – just look at Japan. Something like 40% of young people (men and women) have NO interest in sex. It’s driving their government crazy. And it will eventually destroy them all.

    Same thing can happen here.

    Anyway…. Now I consider myself an MGTOW BUT with an option/desire to have a woman & family.

    • stringfellowshawk

      MGTOW is not about changing anything. its about male self preservation. judging from the comments on this website a lot of men think that they are obligated to women and society . in reality society and women in general do not give a damn about men. so why should men support something that sees them as little more than animals.

  • Vigiliante VIII

    Why would a “neo-reactionary” “trad-con” faggot be so up in arms about MGTOW (which is the ONLY way to stop or reverse feminism, short of Islamic takeover)? Well because the “neo-reactionary” “trad-con” faggot in question is a PEDOPHILE. The blogger who calls himself “Bulbasaur” named himself after a Pokemon character. Pokemon is a Japanese multi-media empire intended for children (around 10 years of age). Now why would a grown-ass man name himself after a media franchise intended for children? So he can lure minors, including prepubescents.

    Aside from the fact that he is a “neo-reactionary” and a traditionalist conservative, and therefore ostensibly against feminism, he clearly appears to be a feminist mangina.

    From his bio:
    “I have been happily married to my best friend for almost two years.”

    Best friend? That does not sound like a TRADITIONAL (TM) and Patriarchal marriage, that sounds like a companion-marriage. Your wife should be a loyal wife, but not your “best friend.” Of course, it’s likely that the pedo “Bulbasaur” does not have a wife outside of his imagination. But I suppose it’s possible that he DOES have a wife just so he does not LOOK like the creepy pedophile that he is, even so he could have access to children to molest (especially if they have some of their own, whether through adoption or biologically).

    Let’s look at his statements.
    “Society began when a man was willing to kill another over his woman.”

    Anybody who would kill over a woman, especially another man [EXCEPT IN LIFE OR DEATH CASES, e.g. self-defense, defense of others], is not a civilized man. He is a barbarian, a savage, a nigger for lack of a better word. A White man who kills to “defend the honor” of his “baby momma” or his ho is just a white-skinned nigger. Such behavior is the antithesis of civilization or “society.”

    “Humans transcended animalism when the first man crowned himself Patriarch, ruler of his family.”

    WRONG. Humans never “transcended animalism” [sic] overnight. It was a long, gradual process, so to call fancying oneself “patriarch” as the single defining moment is demonstrably stupid.

    “The first Kings were Fathers of Families. THIS should be the ideal men seek, not angry and cowardly sexual secessionism.”
    Shorter Bulbasaur: Vagina worship! Only through the sacred orifice may man redeem himself. [Which would apparently make many great men, including Jesus Christ, “losers” because they were celibate for life.]
    Even Shorter Bulbasaur: Go on, and knock some bitches up! Make some kids so my buddies and I have more fodder for our sexual exploits.