Skip to content

MGTOW Philosophy

I watched video where someone mentioned taking the more self fulfilling path of realizing that society had failed, is in decline (etc), and to make the best of a bad situation. I’ve seen this particular philosophy echoed in other MGTOW areas and philosophers. I disagree with this notion, and without knowing it, they do to; for what I believe are the same reasons.

Now I’m not against the general philosophy of MGTOW; realizing certain truths about the world and acting according to your own ethical compass and not the destructive policies of society and government. Philosophically speaking, I won’t prevent those from abandoning something they see as utterly pointless. I’ve made that decision plenty of times, whether with a project or a person, etc.

But the reason I mention a disagreement is do to my personal, and stereotypically male personality quirk; I need to fix things. And certainly another trait, one that many MGTOW share; they desire to help others.

I’m aware that many people have a fairly negative view of MTGOW; they are perceived as selfish, cowardly, assholes, misogynists, etc. Some of that is certainly true, but not on the whole. Same for the MRM. But what some of them have noticed is that they help each other. They’ve realized a bad situation and have proactively taken steps to not only protect themselves, but educate others who might feel the same way. You can’t really support a movement, or be a part of a movement, through purely selfish actions. Sure it might work out that way sometime, but that’s really splitting hairs at that point.

You see, I don’t advocate for the total abandonment of society based on it’s problems like many MGTOW would advocate. I promoted fixing problems and making life better for everyone. Of course this is the common split between MGTOW and the MRM. They essentially fight the same enemy, but the split troops into two different camps and in doing so create two weaker armies. Not always a bad thing, but a consideration nonetheless.

Life is full of odd dualities, and the MGTOW are not above that. As always, I think it’s the approach that makes the real difference. If someone says to ‘fuck society’, what kind of message do you think they’re sending? Not much different from a common anarchist eh? If someone says to ‘take care of yourself above all else’, what kind of message do you think that sends? A bit selfish perhaps? Or maybe a little practical? How can you take care of others if you ignore your own needs?

Practically speaking, MGTOW is all about the self. Make sure you are the center of your universe. Find personal fulfillment. Make yourself happy. Etc. Is that really so objectionable? Who in their right mind would argue against that? But of course, we know the answer; those who seek to benefit from your labors.

The heart of the matter is choice. Some MGTOW choose to abandon society all together. Some MGTOW choose to remain and help when and where they can. There’s nothing inherently wrong with either approach. The error comes in the form of the same profit seeking suggestion from those that disagree with your personal position.

Seriously, who cares?

If you want to keep dating women, that’s your decision. If you want to severe all relationships with women, that’s your decision. If you want to live out in the middle of nowhere, that’s your decision. The only thing other MGTOW should do, is help educate you on the potential consequences of said lifestyles. And I don’t say “consequences” with any negative slant. I merely point out the action-reaction to choice. Dating women comes with certain benefits and detriments as an example; all applicable in different ways depending on many various circumstances. Same goes for all other lifestyle choices.

So let’s say society is crumbling. Let’s say society has failed men. Let’s say the apocalypse is upon us and it’s every man for himself. Then why are you trying to help other men?

Shot down

I was at Starbucks a few days ago and while waiting pleasantly in the sun I viewed a very odd encounter. An employee had walked outside to clean the tables; someone just doing their job. A woman was sitting at one of the tables doing something. He walked by her since she was using the table. He said “hey” and she immediately responded with “I have a boyfriend”. He kept doing his job.

I’m obviously not the social genius that others are, but what in gods name happened there? Was the guy really attempting to hit on her? Was she so repulsed by him she had to shoot him down immediately? Had she become so accustomed to men using ‘hey’ as an icebreaker only to then ask to get into her pants? Couldn’t she have said; “I’m waiting for someone”? Will she later complain to her friends about some creepy guy at Starbucks?

I grant that people have many unique but complimentary experiences that add to notions of stereotypical behaviors among our population, but I can’t help but wonder it this situation is what fuels the continued issues of perceptions that plague our inter gender relationships.

I don’t know what the man or woman in question felt during that encounter, but I highly doubt it was pleasant for either party. And for what? A misunderstanding surrounding a close proximity encounter? Merely acknowledging the existence of another human being around you? What makes this any more or less socially prudent than saying ‘bless you’ (or equivalent) when someone sneezes? Or ‘excuse me’ when you accidentally bump someone?

I believe that most social interactions are derived from a common courtesy for one another. Saying ‘hey’ seems courteous, even if in a casual and albeit almost juvenile way. Responding to such a greeting, even in passing, with a comment regarding an excuse from engaging in said greeting smacks of rudeness and narcissism.

Of course, can I expect any different from people today? I cannot, and I choose not to. Instead, I remain pleasantly surprised when people act with decency towards one another.

They aren’t the only one’s who are hostile

Something I see from MRA’s and Feminists alike are the accusations of hostility from the differing camps. MRA’s often reported as misogynist pigs and Feminists as misandric lesbians. I wish I could say the issue was more complex than the surface; but this is one of those time’s it’s not.

If you go into either camp, you’ll notice pretty much parallel personalities. Some people will be looking for answers. Some people will be looking for a community. Some people will be trying to solve the dilemmas of their camp. Some people will be there to bitch. And some people will be drawn to it as a way to express their general distaste for the opposing gender/sex. What a pipe dream it would be could we get those seeking solutions in the same room.

But the accusations of hostility are true, but only when you apply them to the distinct personalities than the movements as a whole. There are some people that are simply down right hostile towards any incarnation of the opposition as they see it. Not surprisingly, the choice of my name made me a convenient target for quite a bit of that hostility.

I get the hostility; people have differing experiences, many of which aren’t pleasant at the hands of their aggressors. But that is a problem that the internal movement needs to resolve. It is the job of MRA’s and Feminists to police their own, and openly, so the other camp may see it being done.

Those advocating violence (or like) must be condemned publicly by each camp otherwise the accusations will continue, and continue to remain valid to one degree or another.

But when you find yourself defending the hostility or your own camp and condemning the hostility of the opposing camp, you’ll fail to see your own hypocrisy and be doomed to perpetuating the ever present issue of childish and hypocritical mud slinging.

If you’d prefer lamens terms; you’re both bitches and dicks. You’re both jerks and are generally assholes towards the other. You’re both guilty and a perfect solution would be to lock you away in a room together until you figure it out, or until one of you kills the other. Either way, the rest of us won’t have to put up with your shit any longer.

And yes, I’m being completely hostile here. I just advocated for a violent solution. But hey, I’m a big supporter of everything being smacked upside the head on occasion.

So what do you do?

I subjected myself to a re-social experiment, speed dating. The first I thought was an utter failure and once I could not appreciate the full gravity of the experience. I hate half-assing things, so I went again. There were about 30 women or so, I may have spoken to about 20 before the night was called. While I maintained a pleasant smile through the proceedings, cracking jokes and making people laugh. I left early because I was disgusted, absolutely disgusted by the behavior of the women I interacted with. Lucky for me, I got to experience every sad and pathetic poor female stereotype in the dating game in a single night.

Let’s get the one common theme squared away; “So what do you do?” Every fucking one. Within the first 3 questions, usually the first if they didn’t ask my name, even though it was plastered on my fucking chest. One recording the professions of every suitor, claiming her photographic memory was easier to work with by association.

Bull. Fucking. Shit.

Only one was blatantly obvious; she wore fur and had more jewelry then were open drinks at the bar. I enjoyed making things up on occasion. But while many of them would have undoubtedly explained that you can often learn about someone based on what they do, they were unaware of that theory given away their true intentions. Beyond supporting myself, I could see that many were interested in whether or not I could support them.

Even veiled compliments about fascination behind when I did tell the truth I could see the wheels turning in their heads regarding dubious ambitions. Discussions of travel and leisure activities attempting to penetrate the thickness of my wallet to satisfy their curiosity.

And when they were not asking that, the glazed look of boredom across their face as their eyes darted around the room to locate a physical specimen to make an exception with. I noticed the tallest of us received the most glances; surely he found a few interesting options which to dwell upon.

There was one honest women though. And not in a good way mind you. She admitted to her thought that most if not all men lacked a distinct spine. My witty retort that perhaps it was because she was insulting the lot of them. While standing up for myself was deemed more stable than the rest, I can wage a safe bet that I received a less palatable description after my departure.

The experience reminded me why I had began adopting MGTOW philosophies. The game is horseshit; rigged in favor of those who complain the most when they are not winning it. A wonderful illustration of the phrase ‘first world problems’ when mating choosers complain about the lack of quality men throwing themselves at their mercy.

Do you still fucking wonder why some of us care less and less each day? When we are chastised for being men? And then not being men? When we play the game? And when we choose not to?

So what do I do? Nothing when it comes to “winning” the hand of a female. Surprise still shatters the expectations of females when I proudly explain that I will NEVER compete against another man. And not because I want my brothers to gain what happiness they can in their own choosing, but because I never wish to be with a woman who treats her affections as a reward for my efforts. They should be given freely as I choose to toward those I wish.

What do I do? Whatever I choose, defiant in the face of your selfish demands and expectations. I choose not to fit in your juvenile fantasy and Hollywood spoon fed ideas of romance and love. And I educate all other men to think the same way. To open their eyes to the hellish treatment they receive at the hands of the entitled generation that foolishly thinks the world exists to serve them. Do not ask for a Knight when all you seek is a Pawn.

Should I ever hear words regarding what I should and should not do or should or should not be from someone who desires I be any way other than who I am; I can think of only two most eloquent words in response…

…”Fuck you.”

I was banned from A Voice For Men

I wanted to come up with a catchy title. I was reminded by a quote from MovieBob regarding Captain America; “That’s right, these guys were so bad, that the Nazi’s kicked them out.” But alas, I could not come up with something poignant. The direct approach is usually the best one.

The details are probably rather inconsequential, but I’ll give you the serious of events anyway.

I posted a Rant in the rant section. I was bitching because I wanted so desperately to get something off my chest and I couldn’t.
Some posters asked what was going on. Others speculated. While some bitched about me bitching. Rather amusing considering the purpose of the Rant.
But I came back to it rather pissed of. In my reply I thanked the posters who attempted empathy, while raged against those who tried to turn my personal issues into politics.
I left for a few weeks to clear my head.
When I returned, my account was banned with the note; “Fuckhead.”

I’m not sure what it was specifically that I wrote, perhaps something about certain members damaging the movement (or how the community wasn’t grown up enough). To which I will never retract. But it was enough to warrant a ban. Sadly I didn’t even get to read the replies since then, not that I probably would have enjoyed it. But I also didn’t get to see what, if any, was my defense. However minor and fleeting those voices might have been. (A thanks to those who may have actually stood up for me)

But I did mention I was already considering leaving the forum anyway. It had become something I didn’t want to be affiliated with. For instance, turning the personal into political. I don’t particularly care for it, even when I am guilty of doing it myself. A place where discussion does not foster unless you discuss what the majority wishes to discuss. It’s a problem for any forum built for specific reasons; the democratic majority eventually drown out most if not all dissenting opinion. The ban simply made my choice for me.

But if a single, angry, non violent, dissenting post is enough to warrant someone’s removal from a community, then I certainly don’t want any part of it.

They accuse Feminists of manufacturing Misogyny, when an entire forum is devoted to every day Misandry. As I’ve explained before, just because a gendered person is the victim, doesn’t make it a gendered crime. The lengths the community went to finding fault in the mundane often confused and irritated me; especially when they complained so much when the other camp did the same.

With any movement there will be times when people butt heads. A functional community, like any relationship, will work through those differences to achieve their goals. One fight and a break up happens? What a shitty relationship. Superficial at best, but generally dysfunctional.

It didn’t help that because of the name I choose I received a fair amount of hostility from the start. But I have a thick skin, and colorful commentary did not keep me from engaging others on a more intellectual level than most posters I saw. All things considered, there were a dwindling few on the forum I cared to actually discuss anything with for any length of time. The pity party was becoming stale with tales of woe-is-me.

The initial reason I joined was one of help. To learn about people, their struggles and what I could potentially do to help. Being banned from a single community has not changed that. I successfully held my own support group. I supported a teacher accused of questionable relations with her students (yes, it happens to females to). I’ve gotten quite a few Feminists and MRA’s in various circles to actually discuss their issues like rational human beings. I’ve change policies at work and I’ve gotten involved in some real world politics (which I’m still not talking about). Quite frankly, I feel I’ve done more than most other members of AVFM.

And this is not to detract from those in AVFM who actually do something, but I find they participate little in the forums themselves. But even some of the staff started to wear on me. John, Wooley and Moon all started getting on my nerves for different reasons. The chorus surrounding them was… mildly irritating in many respects.

This… set back, if I even want to call it that, does nothing to change my views on the movement itself and the issues I feel are in need of repair. It just means I won’t be affiliated with said group any longer. And that’s just fine by me. You can have common interests and goals with people without liking anything about them. Many of my goals are also aligned with Feminists, and I don’t care for most of them.

The entire situation just kind of puzzles me more than anything else. I find myself lacking strong emotions about it one way or another. Perhaps I should be furious and tell all readers of AVFM to go fuck themselves. Perhaps I should be noble and wish them the best of luck. The truth is probably a little of each. There are people I wish to thank, like you Cat loving son-of-a-gun. And people I think could use a long walk off a short peer, and I think they know who they are.

Really the only thing this means is that of today, AVFM has one less reader. I might get linked to it every now and then, but my frequency will mimic that of Jezebel. The two are almost like a couple that everyone knows are perfect for each other, but are both so damned stubborn and pig headed it will never happen. Which is sad for the romantic in me.

With the close of each chapter, the promise of the next one. Time to read what happens next.

The grass is always greener

A very accurate idiom when it comes to most, if not all types of activism. Pretty much par for the course when it comes to relationships, but I’m going to avoid that today.

When I look at the likes of Feminism especially, what are they currently fighting for? It’s no longer the rights of men, but the advantages or “privileges” as they like say. There are no “rights” that men have at his point that women do not (I continue to ask without answer).

And as MRA’s are quick to point out, Feminism is fighting for the good things, none of the bad. They want the shatter the glass ceiling, but don’t want to mop the floors. They want to write books, but let someone else handle the printing.

But so too do MRA’s fight for what can be considered the greener side of the female paradigm. The advantages in personal relationships, the social benefits of stereotypes, economic or like incentives for educational excellence or professional prestige.

This is my singularly simple contention behind the idea of “privilege” as a concept; it requires a context to frame the advantage. Sans context, the benefits behind privilege goes out the window. Your natural “fire proof” is useless unless you find yourself in a situation that involves fire.

But other people often find themselves fighting fire; like firemen. Would they not want to be fire proof? And if you had that advantage, should you not feel some kind of obligation to fight fire?

When I think of the grass being greener for myself in certain situations, I see what I can do to help others in those situations. And I think that’s what activism should be; and that’s what it is for me. It’s about helping people come up to your level, not about forcing others to help you to theirs.

One is helpful, the other entirely selfish. I don’t take issue with working towards something you don’t have. Hard work deserves equal reward. But I do take issue with you demanding that simply because another person may be advantaged in some regard, you must have equal advantage.

Like playing a game of basketball. I admit I have height enough for it, although my skill with said ball is atrocious. Should I demand that better players tie a hand behind their back for the sake of fairness? Should those shorter than I demand I play with only one foot or on my knees?

I see millions of immigrants departing their countries for a better life in the US. Yet I wonder; should you not work to elevate your own country to the heights of the one you so wish to live in? Would you then have no recourse to leave? In doing so, possess the pride that comes with building a civilization others want to come to?

The grass will always be greener on the other side. But your neighbor thinks the same about yours. Perhaps the best course of actions would be to become pals, and mutually work on each other’s lawns. Tearing down the fence works to; it’s everyone’s grass now.

An inference is not an education

You can teach inference. It’s a logical framework of rational thought. But like any logic, it requires the accuracy of the steps in order to be correct. Example…

*If* all A’s are Letters.
*And* all letters make words.
*Then* all A’s make words.

This is a logical inference. But this is only logical based on the accuracy of the assumed premise(s). When the premise(s) comes into question, the follow-up inferences cannot be logically sound. This is how you can teach inference. It’s kind of like teaching science. You’re teaching people the process, not the conclusion. You teach people how to reach their own conclusions.

But when someone begins teaching the conclusion, the premise immediately comes into question. It’s the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning.

Now there is nothing wrong with inductive and/or deductive reasoning… at least insomuch that those who utilize said logical processes are willing to change their conclusion when new information is brought to their attention. And that’s the problem quite a few people have.

There’s a particular “theory” going around a few circles regarding a cultural paradigm that just makes me scratch my head. Rape Culture (cue dramatic music, “bum ba buuuum”!).

The inference, or premise if you will, is that our culture teaches men that it is acceptable to rape; therefore the solution is to teach men not to rape. On the surface, it’s a sound argument. If we teach something a certain way, and we do not like the outcome of teaching said “something”, the obvious solution would be to stop teaching it.

Does anyone see the rather sizable issue with the premise? Where and how does our society (the modern western society I live in currently) teach men to rape? There are no ‘Rape 101’ courses I can take. There are no “sexual assault, a beginner’s guide” I can pick up at my local library. My parents did not include instruction in violence during my birds and the bees talk. My friends, my neighbors, my schools, my community and my society *universally* condemn rape.

Point of fact, the proposed solution is already being used in practice. We have anti-harassment seminars, sexual-harassment workshops, classes that welcome people exploring their inner sexual desires and feminine sides, etc. From a scientific standpoint, we have evidence that the proposed solution is not working. Would it then not be logically sound to change course?

I took some time to research the various ways in which society aids me in going around raping people and I came up empty. Actually, I did find some examples of various people supporting the notions through colorful commentary usually refered to as “trolling” in the likes of YouTube and twitter and other social media outlet. Key word there being “outlets”.

The pro arguments surrounding the likes of Rape Culture are inferences on questionable premise(s). The argument that a “joke” about Rape proves Rape culture exists is so intellectually dishonest I have trouble even uttering the words. As if any joke actually contributes to the problem. I’m not aware of a growing issues of people running down chickens with their cars, nor does it change the reality of human atrocities such as the Holocaust. Humor is one of the most powerful tools humanity uses to command and overcome the problems of the word. Hate politics? Make fun of it.

Denying Rape Culture does not prove Rape Culture any more than denying Russell’s Teapot prove it exists. Lacking evidence does not support evidence. You can’t fill a hole with dirt if you don’t have any dirt.

Now I can understand how someone can infer that Rape Culture is a thing. You see an outcome, you create a conclusion based on a convenient premise. But not only is it lazy, it’s harmful from a social and psychological aspect. Which I shouldn’t have to explain have potentially serious ramifications in the real world. Scapegoating leads to the like of internment camps, large-scale social violence and demographic specific genocide. And why? Because someone came up with an easy answer and people, who sadly want easy answers, lack onto with a compounding destructive force of self-righteous condemnation.

The problem behind the likes of Rape Culture, and many inferences, is the lack of critical thinking when it comes to the validity of the statements. There’s an odd psychology behind people’s acceptance of accuracy in written form (for another day). So while inference is taught, critical thinking is not. And while we teach people how things work, we rarely teach them why. And when you learn the why, you can begin to explore the possibilities of how to make something better.

When it comes to inference; asking ‘why’ begs the accuracy of statements…

*If* all A’s are Letters.
*And* all letters make words.
*Then* all A’s make words.

Are all A’s letters? When are they? When are they not? Do all letters make words? Do letters make anything else? Are there any other explanations for words?

If I suggested that A + B = C, would that not confuse the above statement? Are A, B & C words? Surely A’s are letters, and letters make words, therefore A is a word yes? What about B? And C? Do they represent words here?

I am a proponent of Occam’s Razor. BUT, only when the information fits and is verifiable. Otherwise statements along the lines of “god did it” would be fit under Occam’s Razor. ‘Magic’ is a simple answer, and it works based on the rules (or the lack thereof) that magic works under; anything is possible. Which is hogwash.

So when someone infers a basic assumption on complex problems, such as; Men can Stop Rape. I wonder to myself, but not all men rape… and not all rapists are men. Based on this, I must reject the assumed premise underlining the inference behind the statement that men can stop Rape. From a simplistic perspective, Women can Stop Rape. It maintains the simple perspective while adjusting the premise, or not. Women can still stop Rape, just in different ways.

The inference is that men commit rape. Is such a simple statement logical accurate? Yes, but it’s incomplete. Similarly, the statement that women commit rape is also logically sound; but equally incomplete. Maintaining simplicity in explanation can create its own problems. So Occam’s Razor is used fallaciously.

If we really want a simple solution, stop drinking. According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice, 47% of the rapes involve alcohol consumption by *both* parties. A simple solution to potentially cut nearly half the rates in half right? (Could have als prevent 32% of traffic fatalities) Well… how did prohibition work for us last time? Even simple and obvious solutions have complex problems. And they don’t really address the primary issues; was alcohol even really a factor? Considering that the remaining 53% didn’t use alcohol.

Rape Culture is merely a colloquialism that describes a society that has a problem with Rape. And we undeniably do. As a society we admit that, and we take steps to correct it. We make Rape a crime, we educate our youth to treat others with respect and we joke about it to show we are not afraid of the issue. So when someone comes along and screams; “We live in a Rape Culture! Teach Men not to Rape!” I wonder how they can reach “gargamel” as an answer for what does 2 + 3 =?

Luckily, I’m happy to report that the crime rates have been steadily declining for quite some time. Certainly long before the likes of “Rape Culture” and correlating rhetoric gained any meaningful circulation. Being roughly 4% in 1990 and down to 3.67% (Care of FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program). That’s a little over 21,000 women per year less (sorry guys, statistics regarding men are still hard to come by, but we’re getting there).

Now the reasons for that can be, and are, quite complex. Potentially a mix of progressive policies coupled with expanded education and a side of women’s liberation sprinkled with social and sexual revolutions. Sadly we’ll never know for sure what all the factors are. Some will infer that there specific political cause is the source of change. But correlations are not causations. I could equally cite the advent of internet porn as a cause for the drop of sexual crime rates. Because, and here’s a quote mining gem for the easily offended… less women are raped the more women are willingly have sex. Can’t wait to see that get twisted.

Here’s the point; an education needs to go beyond convenient methods to get from premise A to conclusion B. Professors can be, and often are, wrong about many things. Someone who claims authority behind intellectually sound political positions needs to be able to provide evidence for peer review. If your positions cannot withstand critical deconstruction, then they are not accurate and will be rejected as unsound. And of course, if someone provides an equally, if not more accurate, explanation regarding your premise and conclusion, you must be willing to accommodate that possibility into your position. It doesn’t mean you have to abandon your work (unless it’s absolute shit), but that you need to accept that it isn’t the only one.

I get it, I really do. A’s are letters, and letters make words. It makes sense and it’s sound. But it’s incomplete. And until you accept that, your understanding will always fall short and you’ll never be able to fully articulate your position, nor create accurate repairs to the broken system. Otherwise you’re just talking magic, in which, ironically, anything is possible.