What do you think of the MGTOW social justice movement? I would

I think they have a really stupid and pretentious website layout

Also wouldn't it just make logical sense for a "fuck women" movement to go gay? Are they seriously just planning on staying celibate?

>>5430840
It's the male version of political lesbians.

>>5430813
Just angry manlets

>>5430840
Most (all) of them tend to be damaged and upset by unsatisfying relationships with women. The site is essentially a hugbox for men who are going through divorces or are upset because of a nasty relationship.
Imagine a son and dad talking to one another about girls. The boy is sad that the girl he asked out didn't like him. The dad replies, "Ah, son, all women are the same haha!".
Now imagine those boys all grew up and took that statement 100% literally.

They aren't all repressed homosexuals or something, but when you browse their forums you hear a lot of:
"This woman did X so all women do X, im sick of the modern female".

>>5430813
I had to look it up

It's hilarious, thank you

>>5430840
But to answer your question, yes. Yes they are. The ultimate goal is to completely disconnect yourself from modern society because it has women in it.

>>5430904
If there is one thing I hate, its the sort of people who are clearly misandrist or misogynistic, but they will NEVER EVER admit to being such a thing.

It's yet another Jew trick designed to sow discord between men and women so our race dies out.

http://renegadetribune.com/mgtow-white-nationalism-issues-men-women/

https://waronwhitegirls.wordpress.com/2015/06/12/warning-white-women-declared-1-enemy/

>>5430914
These people are a sufficient small proportion of the population that you can afford them the luxury of your contempt and amusement.

>>5430813
I think it's pretty silly, they claim they're trying to be independent of women but their whole movement basically revolves around women one way or the other. So basically, they're no more independent from women than the average straight guy - only they whine about women instead of having sex with them.

>>5431002
In being part of the movement, they let women dominate their lives even more than they thought it did before.

Why are these people so afraid of women and themselves?

mgtow isnt a social justice movement because theyre all misogynists

File: jOAQhwU.png (180KB, 589x532px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 589x532px

As a dude who'd been struggling with separating his self-esteem from female validation for years, MGTOW was super interesting to me. At first it was pretty much just a support group with some philosophy mixed in, but the message was pretty clear.

Take a step back from society when it gets too much for you, learn who you are before trying to find someone who will love you, and above all learn to be comfortable with yourself so that your happiness is never reliant on another person. You're not a broken person just because you function differently from what society expects from you.

Then when I come back from my self-imposed isolation as a much happier person, I find that the MGTOW label had absorbed all the shitty run-off from the MRA and redpill circles, essentially just becoming an echo chamber for damaged men to complain about women all day, rather than focus on self-improvement.

>>5431016
>Why are these people so afraid of women and themselves?
When you grow up convinced that your worth as a human being is determined by what women think of you, to the point of seriously considering suicide if you go too long without romantic validation, it's hardly unreasonable to be afraid of the person who unknowingly holds your well being in their hands, and yourself for being such a weak willed fuck.

I had never had a bad experience with women personally, my circumstances were mostly caused by introversion and neglect, but I can sympathize with some of the stories I heard, to an extent.

I have been MGTOW for many years and I transitioned to be my own girlfriend. I no longer need women when I have my own breasts to touch.

>>5431135
this is the funniest thing ive heard all day

>>5431123
>When you grow up convinced that your worth as a human being is determined by what women think of you, to the point of seriously considering suicide if you go too long without romantic validation, it's hardly unreasonable to be afraid of the person who unknowingly holds your well being in their hands, and yourself for being such a weak willed fuck.
Is this really a common attitude people have?

While I don't necessarily agree with feminism, MRA is nuts. As perverse as its become now, feminists fought for equality, while many MRA groups are severely misguided if not outright misogynist. There really are some issues men should campaign for however. The US is one of the few major western countries that don't offer our paternity leave for newborns, and divorce and child custody still tend to favor mothers. But these guys Will never champion for those.

>>5430813

I think it's something that doesn't actually require a movement. If you're fed up with women and don't feel like getting into relationships, then don't get into relationships. Countless men the world over fuck around and don't put down roots without having to start a support group about how much they don't like giving women power over them.

I kind of view it like having a movement for Atheism. It seems like it kind of defeats the purpose.

>>5431295
>I kind of view it like having a movement for Atheism.
That would have sense in certain countries, or like 200 years ago, as an instrument against oppression. I can't think of anywhere or anywhen a men's rights movement makes sense.

File: Double Standards2.jpg (443KB, 1328x1850px) Image search: [Google]

443KB, 1328x1850px

>>5431327

>I can't think of anywhere or anywhen a men's rights movement makes sense.

Why is that? There are serious issues that men face that deserve to have attention drawn to them, and feminism is clearly not equipped to do so--nor should they be expected to do so, for that matter. Suicide rates, workplace death rates, male rape victims, the current "kangaroo court" college climate, the increasingly lopsided-in-favor-of-women education system, prison rape culture, overall male disposability... The list goes on.

Now, if you use that movement as a vehicle to gripe about women instead of talking about and working on solutions to the aforementioned problems, then yeah, that's shitty. But that doesn't mean that such a movement isn't needed.

File: i dont want a gf girls sux amirite guise.png (87KB, 927x538px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 927x538px

>>5430813
holy shit I'm dying lol

>>5431576
how jaded does one have to be
i can hear the sound of their lil babby bitch boi tears hitting the floor from over here

File: marriage is for gays.png (16KB, 941x279px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 941x279px

>>5431588
I mean this has to be advanced autism

File: miscarriage.png (27KB, 940x334px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 940x334px

>>5431604
yup. advanced autism it is.

>>5431621
FANTASTIC ADVICE

>>5430813
I don't think they are anti LGBT.
I used to identify as MGTOW before I turned gay.
I think it is good to define your own reasons to pursue life rather than follow 'the script' so to speak.

>>5430813
I think guys who self-identify as MGTOW are fucking autists who don't realize that in defining themselves by their avoidance of women that are again basing their own worth on women. It's called "Men Going Their Own Way" and then all it is is a series of female teardowns. Nothing about actually being independent of women, nothing that shows the worth of a man in any context except in relation to their biased portrayals of women.

I avoid most women too, but it's not a movement or a statement. I don't put a name on it. It doesn't have rules or codes. I don't recruit and I don't preach unless solicited for my opinions. It does stem from a long string of unsatisfying experiences with women, but I see it as something that causes me disappointment more than anger. The realization that I couldn't truly be happy based on anything but my own satisfaction with my life. For me it really is about defining my own worth. Creating a great life for myself that I can be happy about before worrying about if someone can or should share it with me. So I deal with women (when I have to) in a strictly business or platonic manner. Aside from 1 slip up at the bar with this really cute goth girl I've been celibate for 3 years. In that time I got my shit together and now in my early 20s I've got a house, 2 cars, and a steady job. My life is pretty great no women necessary, but a lack of anger on my part allows me to see a future with me taking a mate if I ever want one.

File: 1450742135093.jpg (30KB, 403x312px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 403x312px

>>5431135

fucking k3k

They're entitled to live the way they do, but I don't need their self-righteous elitism pretending that they're better than everyone. Plus I feel that more than a few members have some seriously toxic attitudes towards women, like serious issues.

>>5431135
favorite post on the whole board

>>5431253
Another person here

Men yes, there's a huge pressure over it. You HAVE to get on a good job to be able to support your family, you HAVE to either have or be after a gf and so on.

I get that shit from my family, from my friends ( when I had friends), teachers...

It comes from everywhere.

>>5430846
/thread

Except since they're insecure manlets, they've got nohomo plastered all over it instead of pretending to be gays while not wanting anything to do with homosex at all ever (I swear one of these days some political lesbian will whine that cis lesbians who have sex are reproducing the patriarchy)

It could be a positive thing if most of them weren't so dependent of women. They still can't ignore the fact they want female company and society's support. So it feels just pretentious.

Face it, straight men need women. Straight women need men. We need both. It's insane to deny the laws of nature.

>>5431371
Because those issues bear no direct relationship with men's rights or status. What feminism has accomplished as a movement is to make women no longer second-class citizens. Things like the income gap are direct consequences of that former paradigm, they just have too much "inertia" to go away easily.

Men, as a group, do not lack rights or status in any significant way. A "men's rights" movement is ridiculous. There are male-specific problems - there are even some that weren't made up by self-absorbed manchildren - but setting up an MR movement as a kind of "counterpart" to feminism is a totally inappropriate way to address, for example, prison rape. There's a reason these organisations are inevitably filled with neurotic misogynists.

>>5431651
Normal, healthy people don't pursue the opposite sex like dogs after a fox, and are capable of being happy and content while single. MGTOW are not normal, healthy people.

>>5430813
>What do you think of the MGTOW social justice movement?
I could not care less whether a bunch of straight guys want to date women or not, but I think it's hilarious how upset women and feminists get over them.

>>5433011
It's not a "men's rights" group, so a bit off-topic, but the good men project puts out some quality content on improving the experience of being a man.

>>5432069
Someone pointed that out in their FAQs section and the answer was one of the most autistic things I've read on the internet this year.

>>5433011

I thought pay discrepancy was trivial when comparing men and women in equivalent positions, but that the 'wage gap' actually referred to the sum total of all working men versus the sum total of all working women without giving consideration to the careers in question?

Man haters from from salon.com, huffingtonpost.com, wehuntedthemammoth.com, cuckservative.com and manupandmarry.com - angry that MGTOW are causing them to lose their fair share of forced wealth transfer (legalized theft), vagimony and vag support - take break from anti-male hate sites to come here and post:

"MGTOW are beta faggot basement dwelling tiny penis losers afraid of strong independent women and marriage. Don't read their posts. Delete their posts."

Actual naive beta faggot losers agree with their gynocentric overloards and post anti-male propaganda against other men as well.

MGTOW laugh at all married men knowing they live under constant fear that their cupcake NAWALT will one day awaken, go AWALT and destroy said men's lives. Anti-male, pro-marriage propagandists hate on MGTOW to stem tide of global mass backlash exodus from marriage. Too little - too late.

>>5433240
I can't tell if this is satire or just autism.

>>5431254
A lot of that could also be said about feminism, especially the tumblr variety. I don't consider myself a feminist nor an MRA, but there are vocal parts of both communities that have ended up at the end of the horseshoe with hate for the opposing side.

File: 1383493712258.jpg (38KB, 362x346px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 362x346px

>>5430813
>MGTOW social justice
You mean social injustice?

MGTOW are just a bunch of MRA retards and misogynist gays in the closet.

They could just give up their mommy issues and become plain normal friendly gay guys, things could be so peaceful.

>>5433271

Hating men when you've suffered big time from misogyny or have studied misogyny in depth is fairly legitimate.

It's
1. as vicious and disgusting as for instance anti-semitism or racism against blacks (which both have caused heinous crimes on humanity), and
2. actually still continues in like half the world (look at e.g. some Arabic nations) AND even in the most "modern" countries in some forms (look at mainstream porn, and how common rape and harassment is, etc.) and yet being ignored and denied.

I'm a white cis het middle-class dude who's merely somewhat gender non-conforming (I shit on masculinity; it mentally breaks me that I have to conform to it to avoid discrimination) and after just a bit of reading radfem texts I decided that yes, I categorically fucking hate men in this culture. At least the ~14-40 year-old ones who take part in porn culture and are full of themselves.

Not to say there aren't many men I love, like my father, John Stoltenberg, Richard Stallman, many fellow free software and computer science nerds, etc.

And not to say it's a biology or anatomy based hate. It's a socialization/culture based one. Imagine you're a black guy or a black sympathizer living in 1800 USA.

Call me deluded or retarded and see if I give a fuck.

If you ask me, feminism needs some proper, defensive separatism. Those men who are genuinely worthy of inclusion in the movement will be able to prove themselves just fine. Namely, by a lack of childish entitlement and instead a display of genuine understanding of the problems.

http://www.feministcurrent.com/2015/11/30/18995/

It is victim-hood disgused in self improvement and respect.

Yeah there is a problem of the types of responsiblity men need to make for the family and how society has pushed that

At the same time there is a problem of womens perception in society (which is being changed)

Accept that both have problems and be the bigger person and better yourself instead of complaining about how "the feminist did this wah wah wah"


It also comes down to men wanting to be treated like women and women wanting to be treated like men, everyone wants what they cant have, but both are also quick to say the other person cant have any

>>5430813
>>5430813
oh, god, their forums are a gold mine. A guy's username is literally 'Beer'. I kinda feel sad for them but at the same time their circlejerk is really amusing.

>>5433271
I think the difference is that feminism was a good thing at one point (i.e. fighting for voting rights for women, pushing against restrictive gender roles) but the MRA movement seems to have been dominated by anti-feminism from the beginning.

>>5433323

Second-wave/radical feminism ain't dead yet and hopefully will get third-wave/librul feminism back on the right tracks, also integrating the good things that came out of the third wave like intersectionalism.

>>5433333
nothing good has come from feminism
equal rights came from classical liberal men and women, not fucking "muh vagina" tribalists

>>5433383
>nothing good has come from feminism
political lesbians are a good thing tho

I don't think any man would want to have someone that crazy around, so it's good that they decided to stay away

>>5433383
>equal rights came from classical liberal men and women
Isn't that what early feminism basically was though?

>>5433288
>Hating men when you've suffered big time from misogyny or have studied misogyny in depth is fairly legitimate.
>And not to say it's a biology or anatomy based hate. It's a socialization/culture based one.

"I'm a feminist. I hate men. It's totally legit because I don't hate men for their sexual dimorphism, I hate them because they're just awful people."

> porn culture

"And I believe that there's an entire culture around wanking to videos on the internet."

>Not to say there aren't many men I love, like my father, John Stoltenberg, Richard Stallman, many fellow free software and computer science nerds, etc.

"Of course, I still like some men that fit the exact criteria of people I said I hate, but they're different in a completely unspecified way so it's not hypocritical at all."

>>5430840
>Are they seriously just planning on staying celibate?
Robots anon, robots.

>>5431576
>>5431604
>>5431621
moar pls

>>5433503
just go to the site, to the 'about' menu and then to 'faqs'

you won't regret it, I promise.

>>5433511
thanks

>>5433091
Not entirely. It's a combination of a large number of factors, but it's shrinking so steadily across the board that it doesn't really seem worth the effort to argue about.

>>5433323
There are pockets of MRAs who actually do try to get men's issues taken seriously, but mostly it just seems to be a place for damaged dudes to vent, kinda sad.

>>5433333
>implying the second wave is worth salvaging
The third wavers are the ones who reminded you lot of old suburban white fucks that there was more to women's experience than being an old suburban white fuck.

>>5433468
Yeah, this is basically retarded mras implying feminism didn't exist until the suffragettes when Olympes de Gouges and Mary Wolstoncraft (sp) used similar terms already to talk about their ideas.

>>5433304
https://www.mgtow.com/profile/8021/

https://www.mgtow.com/profile/2805/

His picture is literally two chess queens lying dead before two chess kings

>cunts punted: 12
of course.

>>5433732
Those people had nothing to do with your Muh vagina tribe

>>5433793
You're a retard with no awareness of history. Feminism was a word before tumblr. And political lesbians have always been a minor laughingstock.

>>5433802

You just can't give a history lesson to people who are so triggered by tumblr posts. Their impotent rage is too strong.

>>5433015
MGTOW don't pursue the opposite sex, they are guys that have realized that doing that is not their route to happiness. So I'm not sure why you made your comment.

File: Yami.jpg (220KB, 574x741px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 574x741px

...
The answer is that MGTOW is founded on a negative itself: avoidance of woman. This has caused blanket rants against women. "But many of these rants are accurate, Pook!" So what? A farmer can rant all day about the unfairness of frost, but that will not get him anywhere. There is no cosmic justice out there. The world is what it is and its better to live in it that in a hyper-reality.

http://dapook.blogspot.com.au/2008/03/time-to-move-beyond-mgtow.html

>>5433815
MGTOW don't pursue the opposite sex, they are guys that had a number of experiences where they are left hurt by women so they decide to form an echo chamber built to ease one another's pain so they can convince themselves the matriarchy are the root of all their emotional problems and its best to throw a temper tantrum and run away [spoiler]"run away :^)"[/spoiler] than accept the world is imperfect*

FTFY

Feminists
MGTOW

People who haven't reached 30 yet

>>5433383
>nothing good has come from feminism
LOL, bullshit. Women's right to vote, sexual harassment laws, rape/battering shelters, and countless other things came from feminism.

>>5433470
1940, Germany: "I'm a Jew liberationist. I hate Germans. I don't hate them for their race, I hate them because they're just awful people."
Problem?

>not knowing what porn culture means
Why am I not surprised?

>still trying to argue against it
That's idiotic. Educate yourself first.

>implying my father, Stoltenberd, RMS, or said nerds take part in porn culture
It's exactly because they don't, that I don't hate them, you doofus.

Jibbers Crabst, how fucking wrong can your reply possibly be.

File: 1325831146092.jpg (41KB, 429x377px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 429x377px

>>5433844
>MFW all of the famous feminists I know are above 30

>>5433847

> implying your father doesn't look at porn

>>5433789
kek

>>5433844
>People who haven't reached 30 yet

I read a post on their forums of a guy that said he was 40 and happy he never married and in the following line he basically admited Jennifer Lawrence was his waifu, kek. I can't find it now tho reeeeee

>y-yeah I really hate women you guys!
>original starwars trilogy was the best because women barely spoke right haha
>haha...
>hah.....

you can feel the pain.
there is a girlfriend shaped hole in all of them.
nature never intended for both sexes to avoid one another.
they miss her.

;_;

Strong, independent women - angry that MGTOW are causing them to lose their rightful share of asset division, alimony and child support (alimony+) - post:

"MGTOW are beta loser, unattractive, poor, basement dwelling, tiny penis, ugly, poorly educated, smelly, overweight, stupid porn addicts afraid of strong independent women and marriage. We don't want these men in the dating/marriage/gene pool. They can all drop dead for all women care. Good riddance to them."

Countless thousands of threads devoted to MGTOW - just like this one - posted globally annually.

Actual naive beta losers form alliance with their emasculating gynocentric overlords and post anti-male propaganda against other men as well - hoping to curry favor of misandrist rulers. MGTOW laugh at them knowing they live under constant threat of cupcake NAWALT self-actualizing, going AWALT (going her own way) and destroying said men's lives. Anti-male, pro-marriage propagandists hate on MGTOW to stem tide of global mass exodus from marriage. Too late.

Marriage = slavery + life destruction for men. Giving woman ring of power => tens upon tens of millions of men's lives destroyed in US alone. Not your fool. Don't want my genes in the future gene cesspool.

Marriage rate down 60% since 1970. Half of all US adults unmarried. Marriage extinct by 2040. Marriage declining in both good and bad economies. Man hating sploding globally as result. Feminists/cuckservatives form alliance with "Affirmative Consent" to stop drunk sloots from slooting and to put anti-marriage, anti-commitment pump and dump chads away. Countries enacting defacto marriage laws (Cohabitation Rights Bill - UK) to force marriage upon men and to give cohabiting women same rights to asset division, alimony and child support their married counterparts so enjoy. Cohabitation as well as marriage go in steep decline. Women continue self-delusion with naive, beta white-knight boot licking echo chamber support.

>>5433879
we are supposed to fuck and cuddle and be happy
men and women are supposed to be natural allies because they need one another
but NOOOOOOOOOOOooOoOOOoo, we have to have chucklefucks like these dudes throwing a hissy fit and declaring all women as scum because of their divorce or break up

>my mother didn't understand this movie, so all women must not understand messages through fiction
>fifty shades of grey is a bestseller so all female writers must be awful hacks who have no skill

https://www.mgtow.com/forums/topic/women-shouldnt-review-movies-video-games-and-entertainment-in-general/

>I hate how female reviewers are biased because they are female and always agenda pushing
>So lets create our own review section for entertainment because that totally wont be an echo chamber of also biased views that are totally non agenda pushing

File: 1426364189386.jpg (41KB, 475x357px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 475x357px

>>5433905
b-but men are capable of analyzing things from an unbiased perspective!

all womyn sux btw

>>5433883
Deep down I know you miss her. It's okay. I miss her too.
But we all just gotta move on you know? Just gotta move on.

>>5431123
well said, anon. I'm glad you were able to make yourself a happier guy

File: 1425939035178.png (65KB, 285x276px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 285x276px

https://www.mgtow.com/forums/topic/a-depressing-realization/

>be in love with girl for years
>she agrees to fuck with me a couple of times but never got too much into me so we stayed as 'friends'
>One day I'm thinking about her like I usually do
>Think about how many men she's fucked
>get angry because I'm just one more of them and not someone special for her
>try to slut shame her but she doesn't want to tell me the real number of guys she's fucked with
>probably because she knows I'm a creep
>Shame her for lying to me because how dare she not to be honest to such a fine gentleman like me and not to think I'm special enough to know the exact number
>she's so immature - therefore all women are immature!

life is suffering guise ;_;

>>5433994
Jerk. I was getting not-sad feelings thinking of those guys in the abstract.

>>5434074
Yeah. In fact in cringing so hard my testicles are receding into my body cavity.

Might be different since I'm gay, but I don't go around forming homophobic support circles for jilted dudes not getting any dick.

>>5433815
>I'm not sure why you made your comment.
That's because you lack the ability to hold more than two ideas in your head at once.

>>5433852

LOLno, that one time he's like "this neighbor of mine told me to go to this one website ... there were women putting in footballs and shit!! you guys don't look at that sort of stuff do you?!" and me and my brother like "n-no of course not." (We, or at least I, didn't have a concept for differentiating between kinds of porn back then, so my lie-response was to the perceived question of "do you watch porn at all.")

He's Turkish. Atheist, philosophy-studied Turk, but a ~55 year-old Turk nevertheless. Has some strange traditional ideas of masculinity too, but you don't really see them take effect.

>>5433883
>"MGTOW are beta loser, unattractive, poor, basement dwelling, tiny penis, ugly, poorly educated, smelly, overweight, stupid porn addicts afraid of strong independent women and marriage. We don't want these men in the dating/marriage/gene pool. They can all drop dead for all women care. Good riddance to them."
It's not necessarily about appearance, it's more their personality that makes them repulsive. Men who are going to choose not to have sex with women, AND then spend their time talking about how women are the cause of every single problem, are really not those who women are going to want to be around in the first place. Straight women feel about them the same way straight men feel about Tumblr SJWs.

>and post anti-male propaganda against other men as well
It's actually the MGTOWs who are pretty anti-male as well. They may not realize it, but generally they accept only one way of being male. If you're not "alpha" or don't aspire to be, you're a "beta mangina white knight cuck" to them.

> AWALT (going her own way)
That's literally not what AWALT means. Unless you think AWALT somehow spells GHOW.

>Marriage rate down 60% since 1970. Half of all US adults unmarried.
Largely due to economic circumstances, and the decline of "traditional values" (which isn't itself a bad thing, it just means people are no longer getting married for the sole purpose of what's essentially peer pressure).

>Marriage extinct by 2040
That sounds like it's based on some kind of linear projection from current trends, which isn't accurate at all - most things follow a cyclical pattern as they search for equilibrium.

>Feminists/cuckservatives form alliance with "Affirmative Consent" to stop drunk sloots from slooting
How is that a bad thing? Aren't you guys opposed to "slooting"?

What's the point of this site? Don't they know they can just type in r9k.org ?

>>5433905
Do men and women need each other? Not trying to be edgy, but it seems like we've always operated on that assumption and I'm not sure it's relevant anymore. Do men and women each need for the other to exist? Yes, but do they need to co-exist? I don't think so. Not anymore.

It's also patently ridiculous to blame woman-bashing MGTOWs without also recognizing the role that man-bashing feminists (and I do mean only the man-bashing ones) play in the recently formed chasm between the sexes. I get that we're talking specifically about MGTOWs here, but they're two sides of the same hate-filled coin.

>>5433994
It’s a matter of principles, honor, integrity, credibility, and maturity. All male abstractions that women don't understand.

:^)

>>5434429
Thats exactly what I believe though, its two extremes on the same spectrum and its interesting to just sit in the middle, look at both ends and scream at the top of your voice.

>>5434429
In either case it's only themselves they're affecting. Anyone who listens to an MRA or a militant radfem and thinks "gee, that person's a cunt, so by extension so is everyone else with similar sexual organs" didn't really need the push.

>>5434319
>It's not necessarily about appearance, it's more their personality that makes them repulsive. Men who are going to choose not to have sex with women, AND then spend their time talking about how women are the cause of every single problem, are really not those who women are going to want to be around in the first place. Straight women feel about them the same way straight men feel about Tumblr SJWs.
no, they aren't born hating women and then choosing not to pursue them
Their bitterness is born of their inability to attract to opposite sex, not the other way around.

>>5434482
Usually they become bitter and misogynistic before going full MGTOW. It's not something that happens overnight.

>>5434489
Yes, but it all starts with some boy who never learned how to interact with girls naturally, or worse, actually bought in to the "always be nice and polite and respectful to girls!" narrative that gets pushed on boys and thought that treating women like fabrege eggs was the way to get sex.

>>5434501
>thought that treating women like fabrege eggs was the way to get sex.
Well, it seems to me that part of the problem is this attitude some people have that there even IS some kind of foolproof technique that can guarantee any girl you want will have sex with you.

>>5432765
>>5431123
What these guys say sums it up, MGTOW at it's core is a positive movement because men get a lot of pressure to seek validation from females and MGTOW teaches that you should make women one of the last things you think of however it has been shat up by bitter divorcees and virgins.

File: Hallie Lee (1).jpg (56KB, 720x480px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 720x480px

>>5434372

>>5431135
Are you serious?

>>5434591
Yeah in practice it's a good idea but if it actually was used the way its supposed to there wouldn't be such a thing as MGTOW as an identity - you'd base your identity on something other than women. MGTOW in the way it exists today is mostly about still basing your identity around women, just in a different way.

File: un-tears.jpg (69KB, 960x802px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 960x802px

>>5430870

>>5430813
i was going to become one even tho i never heard of them until recently.
the entire fuck women let them do whatever they want no longer appeals to me, i'm much more into militant anti-feminism nowadays.

>>5434632
Please describe your social philosophy for our amusement.

>>5434632
I was also going to become one before I decided to instead become a female myself. If you can't beat em' join em.

>>5434663
it's basically whatever these fuckhead sjws and feminists are telling you is bullshit all their arguments belong to the fucking bin and all their logical fallacies and biased fucking sources need to be debunked as publicly and loudly as possible.
>>5434675
cunning move traitor scum ;) but i don't think you picked the winning side.

>>5434684
But I don't know what they're telling me, anon, I don't move in those circles. Explain it to me.

>>5434684
Well it's far less stressful. As a guy there are so many demands to have the "correct" personality which usually boils down to "alpha, confident, tough, unemotional" etc. As a girl the only demand is to look good and changing your appearance is far easier than changing your personality.

i'm proud of the Men Going Their Own Way.

>>5434721
that would be tiresome just be glad you don't know.
i was pretty happy with life a few days ago until i realized the fucking cultural marxists are out for blood and worse they are actually making progress despite all reason to the contrary.

>>5434684
>but i don't think you picked the winning side.
Well the winning side is eventually going to be islam and the globalists who fund them in the hopes of having a radicalized muslim public because muslims are easy to control through imams and actively oppose social and personal freedoms making them ideal slaves for the one world government
And they're okay with trannies so it IS picking the winning side

>>5434739
>And they're okay with trannies so it IS picking the winning side
Pretty sure that's just Iran.

>>5434726
that doesn't sound like anything a girl here would experience tho. in a certain age when mommy and daddy are still paying for college maybe. frankly i'm quiet happy to born a male imo life is much more simple.

>>5434730
Yeah, fuck those whoever they are, they're taking over our no-doubt-separate countries.

>>5434739
You naive son of a bitch, Islam is just a front for the lizard people from the dark side of the moon. This is fucking obvious shit, pay attention.

>>5434750
my country? not so much but it's too small and insignificant to make it's own policy.
is us falls the entire world might fall sooner or later. so it's important to stop them feminazis in the us.

>>5434742

That's always been a weird incongruency in my understanding of Iran. I know it's not as bad a place as the media would have you believe, particularly compared to some of its neighbors, but at the same time there are plenty of people very happy to get out of there to the West. No gays, but trannies okay. Very odd.

>>5434755
Of course. But what are they planning, those evil bitches? What should we expect?

>>5434743
It's simple if you fit the "alpha" mould. If you're effeminate, skinny, quiet, or just plain beta you're fucked.

>>5434758
Man-tranny sex at least looks halal that's their reasoning.

>>5434759
well the "evil bitches" are actually stupid bitches and they are trying to oppress an entire population in the name of stopping oppression, which is pretty fucking retarded if you think about it, they are also actively creating inequalities in the name of fighting inequality. they are that kind of retarded cunts.

it's really quiet simple tho. whenever they try to fuck with freedom of speech and freedom of expression on whatever pretext you just tell them to fuck off instead of bending over and apologizing.

>>5434774
I see, I see. I haven't personally observed this, but of course I haven't delved nearly as deeply into these matters as you have. Perhaps you could give some illuminating examples.

>>5434787
it's everywhere in the news you live in a cave or what?

>>5433281
I think you're misunderstanding things MGTOW are guys that don't think they have to date women, and get married, have the whole 2.3 kids a house in the suburbs to be happy. So they try other things to be happy.

I used to consider myself MGTOW before I turned gay, and know a lot of other such people. Really should just hear them out instead of judging.

>>5434799
Clearly, yes. I've actually spent the last 6 years living with the Sentineli of the Andaman Islands as part of a prolonged anthropological study, so forgive me if I seem ignorant of these basic facts.

>>5434812
minus the dating thing i'm qualified
i like plowing pussy tho

>>5434812
But that's not how they present themselves. People who identify as MGTOW are associated with the stated views of their organisation. Those who don't want to be so associated should consider growing a cock and balls and becoming their own person rather than a member of a weepy self-masturbatory club of imbeciles, no?

>>5434831
>M.G.T.O.W – Men Going Their Own Way is a statement of self-ownership, where the modern man preserves and protects his own sovereignty above all else. It is the manifestation of one word: “No”. Ejecting silly preconceptions and cultural definitions of what a “man” is. Looking to no one else for social cues.
uhm...

>>5434812
I think they're talking about what the people who claim to be MGTOW actually are like, not what they claim MGTOW means.

>>5434847
whatever they are tho they are a bunch of defeatists.
if you don't like the way the world goes you just pretend you not see it look the other way or do something about it?

>>5434839
Except in practice most* MGTOWs are people who embrace the traditional cultural idea of what it means to be a man, and still essentially define themselves based on women.

*or at least the majority of those who openly identify as MGTOW

>>5434870
how do you define yourself as a man based on women?

>>5434847
No shit. I browsed mgtow.com. Is this what people are defending? It's like reading a religious website, I can't locate a single rational argument, and I really did try.

>>5434881
Well, most men define themselves by their relationships with women, or so the MGTOWs claim. The MGTOWs define themselves by their refusal to date women.

>>5434891
Personally, I think most men define themselves by their use of lithium. I never touch the stuff, myself.

>>5434891
so that's like theists define themselves by their religion and atheists also define themselves by the same religion is your argument?

>>5434904
Well, it's more like the MGTOWs are like the atheists are the ones who make a big deal about being atheist, rather than basing their identity on other things.

>>5434904
No. His argument is based on observation of idiots in their natural habitat.

https://www.mgtow.com/blog/

Pick a random article and defend it, please.

MGTOW is pretty much a worldwide phenomenon under different names, in Japan it's they're call 'grass eaters'. While I am not one, it makes sense. We've pretty much removed most societal obligations for women, heterosexual men who expect to get into relationships are expected to fill traditional told even under threat of jail. I don't have shit to lose so I don't give a fuck.

>>5434919
traditional roles*

>>5434912
i'm not sure how i could put it in their place.
i don't see the big issue tho they will have years to figure it out what it means to be a man without looking at women right?
maybe they all turn sasquatch and never leave the woods.

>>5434915
>Pick a random article and defend it, please.
uhm...
shaming tactics seems doable maybe, but i can't be bothered to read it with all the animations.

>>5434824
I used to date women, but the bottom line is that hetero relationships are defined by the gender roles associated with them. Women can be victims at anytime it is like dating a child, they are victims of everything and anything, I don't fuck children, that is wrong dude.

Now I can have sex without feeling guilty though, by being gay.

>>5434978
>I don't fuck children, that is wrong dude.
yeah i get it
when gf gets drunk it's literally like she is 3-5yo the way she talks and the stuff she laughs at
creepy as fuark i usually end up shouting at her even tho i don't want to and send her to bed so she shuts the fuck up
but interestingly enough they are dead convinced we are the childish ones kek
just because i want to own guns and a motorbike and other fun toys like that i'm childish.

>>5435008
I would like to get a motorcycle myself to get around traffic. Worried about how other guys will see it, but much rather have the extra 20 mins a day I guess. I haven't had a gf since 5 years ago. Though I did like her soft body.

Prefer guys now though. Something about actually dating someone that I can talk to on the same level.

>>5435045
>Something about actually dating someone that I can talk to on the same level.
i have the internet for that, i only expect her to give a good head and make a good sandwich.

>>5435062
That sounds nice, my ex-gf used to give really good head. The obvious problem is that after reading to a lot of feminist writing, I came to the realization that much like a child, she couldn't really consent to sex. After that everytime I had sex with her I would feel more and more guilty. Eventually I apologized to her for taking advantage of her childlike mind, and stopped dating women.

My ex-bf actually gave pretty good head, gay guys really seem to know what they are doing when it comes to giving head.

>>5433011

So you're literally just arguing semantics?

>>5433011
>What feminism has accomplished as a movement is to make women no longer second-class citizens.
that was actually not feminisms accomplishment
>Things like the income gap
are a myth
>Men, as a group, do not lack rights or status in any significant way.
except before feminazi kangaroo courts
>A "men's rights" movement is ridiculous.
would be if not for that awful level of protectionism towards women which makes men unfairly handicapped on many playing fields
>There are male-specific problems...blabla...for example, prison rape.
yeah those lesbians never rape each other in prison
>There's a reason these organisations are inevitably filled with neurotic misogynists.
feminism is producing them tho maybe they are not any better than their feminist counterparts but not any worse either.

>>5433240
>manupandmarry.com
>not a real site

What a bummer.

>>5435369
>that was actually not feminisms accomplishment
Then what did accomplish that?

>>5433011
>Men, as a group, do not lack rights or status in any significant way
Any person that can be sent to jail for rape on evidence that is lacking like a woman having his face come to her in a dream, is lacking rights. In general if you can be convicted at a lower standard than beyond a reasonable doubt, that is lacking rights, in a significant way.

So I will have to disagree with you there.

http://www.mail.com/news/us/4029114-man-held-decades-colorado-rape-denies-walks-free.html#.7518-stage-hero1-1

Most of the issues MRMs deal with are more societal than anything. The presumption that men are rapists or child abusers for example. Schools shorting boys and leading to many less boys than girls going to college. Boys not being adopted from foster care because of assumptions about their behavior. Male victims of domestic violence and homelessness getting little or no resources. Those are societal issues were men and boys are being ignored or shortchanged, and someone has to address those.

>>5435450
the feminist movement (and widespread use of the word in the meaning we use today) was born in "1960s and '70s, in the United States" basically the feminists claimed a heritage of the suffragettes but as with all their claims it is largely bullshit.
in the early 1900s when the universal suffrage was "fought" the word feminism had a different meaning it did not had political or cultural charge.
what feminists accomplished is pretty much affirmative action. which in turn is the very mockery of the equal opportunity the suffragettes sought.

>>5435466
also worth mentioning that universal suffrage was more than about women's right to vote and them not being second class citizens. not so long before not even all men were able to vote and voting rights of other races were still in question in between.

so all in all it was one big step or a series of stumbles that the entire world pretty much did together however you want to see it not some epic fight the women waged against their oppressors as feminists want you to believe.

>>5435466
>in the early 1900s when the universal suffrage was "fought" the word feminism had a different meaning it did not had political or cultural charge.
What did feminism mean at the time?

>>5435479
it meant something like feminine or feminine mannerism something like that awfully trivial compared to how loaded the word became of late.

you could say that there are two kinds of feminists equal opportunity feminists (whom i really thing should find a new name cause this one became toxic) and equal outcome feminists (the so called cultural marxists) who are the intellectual heir too the radical feminists of the self proclaimed "second wave" which was pretty much the first wave as far as i'm concerned) and they are the ones doing the damage ever since. they are attacking and eroding the very fundaments of western society: free speech; equality before law; presumption of innocence. they are attacking these concepts and some other important liberties ones that are not part of the big 3 constantly since the 70's and lately we are seeing it reaching hysteric levels with the slut-walkers and campus banshees.
feminism became much like religion it does not allow for critique it does not even allow for dissent it does not allow for questioning or debating it's claims. hell it doesn't even allow for questioning or debating other claims it doesn't likes.
basically feminism became a cancer.

>>5435531
>basically feminism became a cancer.
that is if it was anything else ever

File: 1395119181124.png (202KB, 294x307px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 294x307px

A bunch of MRAs and assblasted men who do the virgin 30 year old equivalent of taking their ball and going home.

It's just pathetic. More proof that that men are the inferior gender.

>>5435583

You sound like the reason why people like them even exist desu.

>>5435588
nah there is some truth in it like i said they are a bunch of defeatists and deserters.
but plenty of us left to tell the feminazis where to stuff their irrate irrational cuntiness and totalitarian ideas.

>>5435588
Their complaints tend to be that women are:
>sluts
>annoying
>feminist

It's basically a bunch of immature men. They can't handle humans having sexuality or women being their own people.

>>5435612
imo it's more like this:
>economy is being economy there are laws of equality and all the jazz
>feminism the toxic stew of cancerous retardation is simmering silently
>suddenly feminists say "THERE IS A HUGE INJUSTICE!"
>men are like "what where?"
>"LOOK AT THESE STATISTICS I PULLED OUT OF MY ASS!! MEN MAKE MORE MONEY THAN WOMEN FOR THE SAME JOBS!! FUCKING SEXIST PIGS! THE EDUCATION BARELY ANY WOMYN!"
>"okay, maybe that's bec..."
>"AFFIRMATIVE ACTION! AFFIRMATIVE ACTION!"
>"oh.. okay, but..."
>"AFFIRMATIVE ACTION! AFFIRMATIVE ACTION!"
>"now wait now actually less men are into collage, and..."
>"MORE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION! AFFIRMATIVE ACTION!"
>"look..."
>"MORE AFFIRMITIVE ACTION! MISOGYNY! AFFIRMATIVE ACTION!"
>"okay, that's enough i'm out MGTOW is out..."
>"MISOGYNY! VIRGINS! NECKBEARDS! IMMATURE CLOSET FAGGOTS!"

Seems like the new sluthate.

I'm sure an Elliot Rodger will emerge and catapult the movement into mainstream awareness at somepoint.

File: 1444849592633.jpg (64KB, 390x463px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 390x463px

If you're doing MGTOW right, no one should even know you're a MGTOW.

>>5435645
i should work "rape culture", "all men are rapists" and "safe space" and "cultural appropriation" into this wall of text, any other ideas?

>>5435671
So according to feminists less men in college than women is not an issue that society should address since men do worse in school, they think men are dumb, so don't deserve to go to college.

They ignore studies that show teachers are biased against boys, keeping tight to the idea that boys do badly at school because they choose to slack off. If the tables were reversed it would be because schools are biased against girls, but it boys do worse is because they are slackers or stupid. Not an issue

>>5435697
"boys are slackers" nice more?

>>5430813
The only relevant questions concerning MGTOW is how did it happen and how do we make it (and other gender-based radical groups) unhappen not through force or conditioning, but through showing men and women how to love or at least respect each other again? Seriously, what brought us as a people to the point where we're seeing increased extremism in every facet of society?

>>5435645
>>5435663
These two are both correct, I dont mind MGTOWs that actually live by it rather than preach it.

>>5435583
>taking their ball and going home
No, actually going your own way is taking your ball and going home. Making the decision to withdraw yourself from the dating pool without making a fuss or trying to make a statement or putting some faggy name on it is taking your ball and going home.

MGTOW is like them taking their ball, going home, and then throwing the ball directly at your face from the protection of their front yard. They may be fucking immature idiots, but they still care on some level which is better than guys who adopt the lifestyle rather than the name and the anti-female rhetoric.

>>5435583
>A bunch of MRAs
>Implying there's anything wrong with being an MRA
Also how do you not see the irony in your statement? You give them shit for nothing other than being men, your stances supported by a system that does nothing but shit on men, then you give them shit for NOT wanting to be part of that system.

Replace the term MRA with feminism and men with women and you see how insanely bigoted your opinions are.

File: 1372576400668.png (16KB, 500x400px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 500x400px

>>5436016

Jews.

File: Social Justice4.png (72KB, 676x230px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 676x230px

>>5436062

>Replace the term MRA with feminism and men with women and you see how insanely bigoted your opinions are.

>>5436016
MGTOW isn't an aggressive or a radical movement. At best it's passive-aggressive, in reality it's pretty much just passive non-conflict approach. And yeah removing the whole 'us vs them' shit gender extremists are pushing would be fucking great.

>>5436033
>No, actually going your own way is taking your ball and going home
That's exactly what I fucking said.

>>5436062
It's not for simply being men, it's for not being real men.
Real men are strong, physically and emotionally, successful, tall, handsome, and not virgin at age 30.

>>5436062
Let me guess, you don't like feminism. Does that make you anti-woman? No? Then there's no reason why anyone is obligated to like MRAs either. Doesn't mean they have anything against men or think that their problems aren't real. Some MRAs do seem more concerned with fighting the perceived evils of feminism than in actually helping men, and there is quite a bit of overlap with the r9k/PUA/manosphere crowd which really only cares about men who are or want to be "alpha". So it really shouldn't be surprising that MRA has negative connotations for a lot of people.

File: bait seal.png (123KB, 878x878px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 878x878px

>>5435583

>>5430813
I don't think they seem very anti-LGBT, they just get all defensive and "W-we are NOT gay! I swear!!!", but with all the real homophobia going around in the real world, those don't even take points away from them.

I think they're okay. I think it's a sensible choice for a straight man to have. Really, it's getting to the point that straight men are becoming oppressed. Both socially and legally, a true systematic oppression. Avoiding women as much as they can really does reduce the problem for them.

Being gay I don't really like being around women, so I sort of passively MGTOW anyway...

>>5436016
The thing is relationships are a trade and men have the job of actually running after women to get with them. Feminism is putting so many obstacles in the way that a lot of men are starting to feel it's just not worth it.

To be completely honest, I do think this is a good thing ... for now. We really need to bring the population down a lot. Like we could be doing very well with 15% of our current population.

The only problem is that underdeveloped cultures are not affected by this as much, so all that happens is that the people you WANT to reproduce aren't going to and suddenly mohammeds make up 80% of the population and they want your head...


But a good "band-aid" for the situation would be governmental incentives to married couples of middle and upper class who have children (like, I don't know, 50% reduced taxes or something).

File: 1442868503973.jpg (95KB, 750x375px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 750x375px

>>5436106
>Let me guess, you don't like feminism.
True regards third wave feminism which is anti-liberty, anti-empowerment, anti-men and has no fucking factual basis when they call victim on whatever they're whining about this time.
>Then there's no reason why anyone is obligated to like MRAs either.
There's no fucking reason for the term MRA to be equal to 30 year old virgin chauvinist pig. Absolutely none. If there is please do tell me. As far as I know their goals are very clear cut, I've never ran into an MRA that can't point out to clear list of inequalities that they are trying to iron out. I'm not even part of their demographic but I can totally get behind stuff they do in regards
>equal custody rights
>right to genital integrity
>equal access to domestic abuse shelters
>equal protection from military drafting
>disparity in convictions for same crimes purely based on gender
>young men suicide rates
and so on. There are some more ambiguous ones like the ability to opt out of parenthood the same way women can and men being the victim of >95% of workplace deaths. I haven't put more thought into those last two so I don't know how accurate that shit is but the stuff I listed earlier is infinitely better than anything the spinning-our-wheels-in-the-mud third wave feminism is trying to advocate for whatever the fuck that is.


I'm far from an MRA, not being a man myself, but I'd still consider myself an anti-feminist because feminists want me to censor women in my own art and disempower me from doing what I want with my own body. r9k is a joke in and of itself but what do they actually try to do other than whine about tfwnogf on message boards? Absolutely fucking nothing, it's not even a real movement and when you talk to political MRA's first thing they do is try and disassociate themselves with the womanhaters.

>>5436183
>I don't know how accurate that shit is
Men are not allowed to opt out of a child. At all. They have no choice. If they refuse to pay for it, they'll even get thrown in jail. If they CAN'T pay for it, they'll get thrown in jail all the same.

The only way to "opt out of parenthood" is to try and have the girl abort.

Also, if the girl doesn't want to abort, she has a myriad of ways of hiding the child from you and even putting it up to adoption WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT.


Workplace deaths is not something they could complain about, desu. Men die in the workplace because men do the dangerous jobs, women refuse to do dangerous jobs so women die less. It makes no sense to put this as a gender issue.

>>5436205
I guess that was a bad example for an ambiguous one. Maybe disparity in breast cancer funding and prostate cancer funding is a better example. The kill rates are the same but it's probably because breast cancer has gotten so much funding that the levels are now equal? I don't know for sure so can't say yay or nay.

File: YRE4TRf.png (111KB, 495x198px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 495x198px

>>5436212
Last I checked breast cancer was the type of cancer least likely to kill you and prostrate cancer gets hundreds of deaths a year. The deaths are nowhere near the same, nor is the rate at which people gets these (prostrate cancer both happens more often and is more lethal).

It does receive only a speck of the funding breast cancer does, though.

Pic related is what I could find on short google search. It's not as bad as I remember it being, though.

>>5436226
Gotta keep in mind most victims of either cancer are not exactly in their 20's. There are less men in the age groups that are prone to those cancers so there's probably more or less the equal amount of deaths caused by both cancers.

It does show some bias in how public views the issues, I mean there was a huge drive for breast cancer research and funding in the past several decades and there still is. Generated money interest in the field results in better treatment, everyone likes tits except gay men and nobody likes prostates but gay men, smaller demographic for publicity yo.

>>5435645

Wow, never seen anyone this fucking retarded on feminism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap_in_the_United_States

When Wikipedia disagrees with you on facts, you have to sit back and take a deep breath, then re-evaluate your ideas.

>>5436062
>>5436069
This is retarded.

"Whites are oppressing blacks by controlling the economy and keeping blacks out of positions of power."

"Jews are oppressing Germans by controlling the economy and keeping Germans out of positions of power."

Exact same argument, yet one led to the civil rights movement and the other led to the Holocaust.

>>5435355
No, read it again. They're not calling it one thing and doing another, they really are setting themselves up as a counter to feminism. They're like the Christian rights groups or white rights groups.

>>5435369
Haha, OK dude. Good luck with your life. Hope you get over it before you die.

File: 1424059098314.gif (922KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

922KB, 640x360px

>>5436183
>clear list of inequalities that they are trying to iron out

They aren't trying to iron out shit. They're just a bunch of screaming manbabies who blame feminism for everything that's a result of patriarchal gender stereotypes that radical feminists have been fighting literally for decades.

>equal custody rights
It's a gender-stereotype-gone-real phenomenon that men are like a gazillion times more likely to abuse children. That is, it's a patriarchal stereotype of men that they have to be abusive and loveless, and since many men conform to this it also leads to the situation that giving men custody can be a Very Bad Idea a lot of the time. The solution is not to scream at feminists and whine, it's to abolish men's adoption of patriarchal stereotypes.

>right to genital integrity
It's a medical fact that male circumcision has relatively neutral outcome, statistically. FGM on the other hand is a heinous crime on women; it's akin to chopping off a guy's whole dick and not comparable to male circumcision. Therefore, you should not be surprised that feminists are more concerned with FGM. And even if this were unjust, the solution would again not be to scream at feminists as if they are the ones circumcising males; it would be to complain to those who actually do/endorse the male circumcision.

>equal access to domestic abuse shelters
Feel free to open up domestic abuse shelters for men. But if you want men to get access to women's shelters, you are a fucking idiot, the whole point of shelters is to keep the abusive husbands out.

>equal protection from military drafting
War is patriarchy.

>disparity in convictions for same crimes purely based on gender
Gender stereotypes.

>young men suicide rates
Expectations of masculinity.

You know shit fuck about feminism. Go read a feminist classic please. http://radfem.org/dworkin has some PDFs for free.

>>5435455
Serious question: do you understand why posting a news article about rape conviction that was later overturned does not constitute valid support for your argument?

And no, it's not because he was black, or because it was the eighties, or because the police mishandled the case.

>>5435466
You seem like a reliable and unbiased source, Mr. Angry Manlet sir.

>>5436205
let's be hones, men don't like women in dangerous jobs one bit.
altho in the dawn of capitalism the match girls were quiet a thing.

>>5436519
well an "ad hominem", and a "tu quouqe" in such a short sentence also implying a bit of "false cause", you must be a real feminist.

>>5436511
>They're just a bunch of screaming manbabies... blah blah
that's just no use
>who blame feminism for everything that's a result of patriarchal gender stereotypes that radical feminists have been fighting literally for decades
me think either feminism is not doing a heck of a good job and it's really useless or they are lying out of their ass
but no really it's simply not true there are no "patriarchal" gender stereotypes for starters this idea only exists in feminist heads gender stereotypes were as much if not more created by women as by men.
>giving men custody can be a Very Bad Idea a lot of the time
misrepresenting facts: actually real statistics show that children are most likely abused by the step dad mommy grabs onto after she gets custody, not their own dad.
>It's a medical fact that male circumcision has relatively neutral outcome, statistically
yeah check again, unaesthetic scar tissue, unintended variation in color in 60% deformity and severe loss of sensation up to 30% (depending on where they are doing it and how) i wish i had that infopic.
all to combat the less than 1% chance that the child might need a circumcision later on because of some infection and phymosis (2% occurrence rate). it's simply unjustifiable medically. fgm is just as abhorrent as circumcision and if they cut a little off an unconsenting babys nose or a big chunk it's not all the same?
>the whole point of shelters is to keep the abusive husbands out.
except the majority of times the physical violence is initiated by the women they just tend to pull the short straw in a fight some men can't or don't fight back and they are abused the same as women are by men exactly the same. fucking gender bias is everywhere with feminists
>War is patriarchy
war is a mere continuation of politics by other means. women do politics, women would go to war without men just fine once they find themselves at an impasse
>You know shit fuck about feminism
nobody should be forced to study feminism

File: 1421836476192.gif (260KB, 266x207px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 266x207px

>>5436657
>implying the patrirachy isn't true
>claiming women would create gender stereotypes that serve to make them literally sex slaves
>pulling statistics out of your ass
>etc.
Just fuck off.

>nobody should be forced to inform themselves
Sure.

>>5430813
It's a cringey as fuck movement full of ugly fucks that are, in my conservative opinion, worse than any extreme leftist you will ever meet.

Failed straight betas that jerk it to femboys and transsexuals and pretend to be macho straight guys.

It's pretty hilarious when tons of them come onto my straight homophobic little brother though. Even he thinks they're ugly manlets.

>>5436672
>literally sex slaves
literal bullshit and you know it men and women built civilization with a lot of work and sacrifice on both part. it was not something that was forced on them it was a system that worked and women benefited from it.
>pulling statistics out of your ass
actually i read those statistics and they were sourced properly but i admit not providing the source here the info pic is on /b/ all the time tho in cut vs uncut threads.
>nobody should be forced to inform themselves
nah reading feminist literature is not informative one bit unless you are a psych student.

File: 1437378660674.gif (2MB, 496x366px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 496x366px

>>5436689
>the info pic is on /b/ all the time tho

File: Civil Rights.png (708KB, 2136x887px) Image search: [Google]

708KB, 2136x887px

>>5436689
>feminist literature is not informative one bit unless you are a psych student
Not informative at all, no.

How old are you?

>>5436689
>men and women built civilization with a lot of work and sacrifice on both part
Yeah, women would often sacrifice their feet so men would feel greater sexual satisfaction. Such great civilization, wow.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot_binding

>>5436205
>women refuse to do dangerous jobs
This is known bullshit. Women don't get hired for these jobs unless they do blind hiring.

>>5430813

I don't think MGTOW affects me at all. So I don't think about it much.

>>5436716
frankly china is not exactly a western value civilization even today. some cultures are really retarded and i personally think intervention there is our duty and in this regard western civilization is not one bit better than islam. we both try to push our wares at the other. but i'm surprised most feminists don't dare to tread that slippery slope of cultural critique.
>>5436719
there should be walks about this women dressed as miners soldiers and firefighters and whatnot. why is it not a thing?

>>5436728
>hurr durr western
>it was legal in Germany to rape your wife 18 up until years ago
Did you say something?

>>5436732
>18 up until years ago
I have a flu and it's fucking my brain.
*up until 18 years ago

>>5436732
well about marital rape my cents are: if you don't want the sex the divorce you are free to do so.
sometimes i don't want the sex but gf is horny and jumps on my dick even tho i say "nooo leave me alone" cause all i want is to sleep but she takes advantage of the morning wood. then there are times when she just want to sleep but i'm really horny and i grab her ass and she gets to say "noh noh lemme sleep" but you know if she don't like the d then she can move out any time. not to mention the hundred thousand times when we did sexual stuff without explicit verbal or written consent.
now i could look at it as rape, but i think that would be quiet retarded. either we both are fucking rapists or this bullshit is not rape.

>>5436741
well of course there is a third possibility - it would be a fallacy to say you can only have it one way or an other - that it is indeed rape but not all rape are bad rape.
put that through your feminist processor and give us the output.

File: 1437228370064.jpg (9KB, 234x216px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 234x216px

>>5436741
>divorce
>by a woman
>free
Is that a sophisticated way to say that women's lives are worthless and therefore do not count as a cost?

>me and my gf who both have an IQ of 70 or below sometimes nag each other for sex and this objectively proves that date rape and drunken rape is totally not a thing
Sure thing babe.

>>5436760
>Is that a sophisticated way to say that women's lives are worthless and therefore do not count as a cost?
i honestly don't get what you are saying. women are free to divorce. and free to leave a home if they find it abusive they will be given shelter and support unlike men in the same shoes.
>drunken rape is totally not a thing
it is totally a thing. last time when gf came home drunk as a skunk she started nuzzling my dick thru my pants so i pulled out my dick and put it in her mouth. she started sucking it then she was like "wu awe rafin meee" so i put it in deeper so she can't talk stupid things.
it's a horrible thing we must fight at all cost i agree.

>>5436070
MGTOW recruits and expands and preaches to anyone that will listen. They're not blowing up Womens Centers or anything, but the extremist designation isn't reserved for only physically violent groups. Extremism can be mental too.

>>5436151
>governmental incentives
That's interesting, but I certainly wouldn't want to be the one explaining how we're now blatantly giving sweeping tax cuts to the richest segments of society and leaving that burden on the poor. I think that would have some negative effects.

>>5436496
>Citing Wikipedia
Whether you're right or not that's an incredibly shitty and unreliable way to prove it desu. Even middle school won't let you cite Wikipedia as fact.

>>5436823
>unwilling to worship vagina and throw out justice and reason in the name of political correctness.
an extremist group if i ever saw one!!
>giving sweeping tax cuts to the richest segments of society and leaving that burden on the poor
sad fact of capitalism is money have the power to influence policy and it will given the power the wealth will continue to accumulate.
the other sad fact is if you try to tap into this wealth and redistribute it you will find it very elusive and quick to respond and reorganize, unlike poor people rich people are very well versed in the fine art of tax evasion or optimization however you like to call it.

>>5436496
i missed your reply
>In a stance rejecting discrimination, a 2009 study for the Department of Labour by the CONSAD Research Corporation concluded, "it is not possible now, and doubtless will never be possible, to determine reliably whether any portion of the observed gender wage gap is not attributable to factors that compensate women and men differently on socially acceptable bases, and hence can confidently be attributed to overt discrimination against women." The conclusion was based largely on a study by Eric Solberg & Teresa Laughlin (1995), who found that "occupational selection is the primary determinant of the gender wage gap" (as opposed to discrimination) because "any measure of earnings that excludes fringe benefits may produce misleading results as to the existence magnitude, consequence, and source of market discrimination."

on the very page you linked...

>>5436496
wait let me highlight the important part
>>5436845
>"occupational selection is the primary determinant of the gender wage gap" (as opposed to discrimination)

>>5436511
>War is patriarchy
No it's not, because if it was I'd be completely justified in peeling your face off for even suggesting that war and patriarchy are equal on any plane. The only people who would even suggest such a thing are people who have experiences pseudo-Patriarchy, but not war. Patriarchy never shot down your plane in Vietnam. Patriarchy didn't roll your plane and force your crew to eject directly into concertina wire. If you knew war you wouldn't compare it to anything.

>>5430813
Omg thanks for showing me this site, op it's just what i needed.
AWALT

>>5436839
>extremist group
You're highlighting their stated goal not their actual actions. The Hells Angels will tell you that they're a motorcycle club about brotherhood and charity, but what they actually do is murder people and sell drugs and weapons. There is a gaping chasm of difference between not worshipping the vagina and focusing everything you do around the idea that vagina-owners are vapid, stupid, and greed. It's not just something that comes up every now and then. It's a prevailing theme of the group.

>>5436923
i agree tho if you take the mgtow and mra fags out of context which is a reactionary movement or activism in contrast to or against feminism, they are pretty damn retarded and dangerous looking.
the fact why feminists see them as misogynist whiners is because they can't possible see what is wrong with their movement and absolutely blind and deaf to critique of their actions and ideas or can't even comprehend the notion that anyone could critique them so they are seeing the movements out of context.

me thinks they are the same in a way if the mgtow movement got widespread political backing they would evolve to be the same beast as feminism. i used to think feminists were harmless and i think mgtow is harmless for now this can change with time of course.

people like this only do good until they have power. power corrupts especially when you think you are fighting for justice.

>>5436835
Oh this idiocy over Wikipedia seriously needs to stop.
Wikipedia is as reliably as any encyclopedia, except on obscure topics.
You want citations? There are literally 160 different citations on that Wikipedia page. Literally.

>>5436845
>>5436850
And what leads to different occupational selection?

>>5436877
Learn to interpret words for fuck's sake. War and patriarchal cultures are linked.

File: stem.jpg (57KB, 599x557px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 599x557px

>>5436948
>And what leads to different occupational selection?
different life choices according to most people
but if you ask a feminist she will tell you the it's obviously the goddamn patriarchy
stormfront fags see the jews behind everything feminists see the patriarchy behind everything

>>5436635
It was neither a tu quoque or a false cause. For it to be an ad hominem I would have to be attacking the validity of his argument, but he didn't make an argument, he made a simple statement of fact (without providing evidence). It was, however, an insult.

What would be better than using logical terminology to try to belittle me would be to actually construct a logical argument. Otherwise, just stick to name-calling.

>>5436992
careful analysis shows you are outright lying or can't read.

>>5436948
>Wikipedia is as reliably as any encyclopedia, except on obscure topics.
That may or may not be true, but in either case it's not a reliable source. Better, as you say, to follow the citations back and check out the original material.

>>5436998
That's better.

>>5436499

>They're like the Christian rights groups or white rights groups.

Depending on context and the part of the world, those are two groups that could have entirely legitimate purposes.

>they really are setting themselves up as a counter to feminism.

It sounds to me like they're setting themselves up as the male equivalent to feminism, not its counter. I see nothing wrong with that.

File: 1447368302034.jpg (52KB, 475x356px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 475x356px

>>5436511
Can you make a post that doesn't entirely consist of bitter outlandish assertions and man/masculinity-hating?

>>5436948

>And what leads to different occupational selection?

Free will. Women are adults with the capacity to choose their own lives just as men are, and to suggest anything else is offensively condescending. Women are not children.

>>5437301
>Depending on context and the part of the world, those are two groups that could have entirely legitimate purposes.
>implying anyone who believes in racial or religious privilege acknowledge the world outside the West exist
You'll never hear anyone from the social left complain about yellow privilege in china

>>5436511

The more I learn about the theory, the more I realize "the patriarchy" is just an incredibly convenient means of ensuring that women are never held as responsible for any ills against men (because other men are responsible for all of society's ills).

All problems women face are the result of men.
All problems men face are the result of men.

It's hard not to see why so many feminists are explicitly man-hating if this serves as the foundation of their entire ideology.

File: 1449804280697.jpg (16KB, 240x242px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 240x242px

>>5436672
>implying the patrirachy isn't true
>implying that it is

>claiming women would create gender stereotypes that serve to make them literally sex slaves
>implying that men would create gender stereotypes where they're worthless fodder for the machine

>pulling statistics out of your ass
>providing no statistics or data whatsoever

>nobody should be forced to inform themselves
the burden of proof is on the one making the claims aka. you

>poisoning the well by equating 2nd wave feminism with third wave radfems

Radical feminism is a religion, patriarchy is satan, masculinity and evidence are sins

>>5437325
>Radical feminism is a religion
How could anyone belie...
http://imgur.com/gallery/sxkt9
...nevermind

>>5437301
>I see nothing wrong with that.
I already said what's wrong with it, just follow the quotes backwards. If you disagree you're free to dispute what I've said.

>>5437341
Inb4 radfem shows up and says it's just undoing the damage done by muh patriarchy and this is for the greater good.

>>5433288
>those men are genuinely worthy
This is the exact sentiment mgtow avoid.
Telling someone they are not worthy for a open movement is fucking autistic >>5430813
I kind of like what I have seen from it. I haven't seen a lot but I have listened to a talk and subscribe to the occasional YouTube channel.

Some are fucking autistic and think women are this global conspiracy
But the less autistic ones make great points.

It's usually just about objectively weighting your options and realizing getting married and staying monogomaus in this day and age is just to dangerous to their future. With divorce, child custody and social nudging to appease women. (Get good job, have kids, give her money, so on)
Most I've heard don't go celibate but just have hookups and friends with benefits.
They just want live not married and focus on their career and their own interests. Not so much avoid women.

Shame there are a bunch of women fearing Autists shouting the loudest in it.

Observe, if you will, the fucktards in this thread as representatives of the various men's movements. Observe the material on the organisations' websites. All they do is bitch about women and feminism. I haven't seen one person bring up and earnestly argue for the rectification of some violation or other of men's rights, even though doing so would go a long way towards justifying their group's existence. No, an offhand comment made here or there then quickly dropped, and some tangential remarks made in the course of laying into feminism. They define their entire system around their enemies, rather than identifying the issues at stake and then working towards a solution. There's a sociological word for that, it's called backlash. They will never be a legitimate civil rights movement, they will never gain real power, they will never be respected, because they have no independent identity. They are, forever and always, a subsidiary, one of the various ticks hanging off feminism's backside, along with the militant radfems and assorted other minority crackpots.

>>5433288

Hating women when you've suffered big time from misandry or have studied misandry in depth is fairly legitimate.

>>5437436
You do realize you will find what you want as those who feel the most persecuted will speak the loudest. They usually won't be the most articulate or nuanced people.

Just like feminism. Most of the good is not seen by the public. I've found this to be true with mra's, feminists, and others. The vocal minority are fucking autistic and ruin the groups image.
Instead of looking at forums look at doing charities and going to them. Helping battered women shelters or emotional support groups for men. you'll find the legitament people actually doing something and not usually on a forum.

>>5436970
So you assert that the reason is something natural/innate in the genders, right?

And of course you have no proof for this.

And the swathes of research that shows that women are every bit as talented in STEM and that there is no such thing as a female and male brain doesn't change your mind, I suppose.

And accepting a sociological explanation with decades of history and culture analysis behind it, also being taught in universities, is not an option either, right?

You sound like a really intelligent, rational person.

>>5437004
>That may or may not be true, but in either case it's not a reliable source.
If it's true, it means it is a reliable source.
Wikipedia is a reliable source.

>>5437304
Yes, here: >>5436511.
No need to thank.

>>5437305
>Free will.
Learn culture analysis 101.

>>5437318
Men have ruled to world for millennia. SURPRISE!
What is so unusual about attributing long-standing cultural/social ills to the group of people who have been ruling the world for millennia?

>>5437325
>imblyng imblgcnts
0/10 try again

>>5437341
>>5437365
Hahahaha, how fucking retarded are you folks? Have you watched any of the screencapped talks? Oh, you haven't? Color me surprised.

>>5437447
There is no culture-wide misandry by women.

>>5433847
More like
>1940, Germany: "I'm a German Nationalist. I hate jews. I don't hate them for their religion, I hate them because they've held back our people for centuries."

>>5430813
Good on them for abandoning the Vaginal Jew

>>5437473

So I suppose this means that you agree that making such comparisons is worthless, because some such sentences may be constructed by people on the "right" side and some by people on the crime-on-humanity side.

Thanks, that's exactly what I was trying to point out.

The level of intellectual discourse here is amazing.

>>5437461
>Yes, here: >>5436511
But that post was nothing but assertions without evidence and man/masculinity-hating. Why would you go on the internet and just tell lies anon?

>Learn culture analysis 101.
>why are you asking me to back my own assertions up? you need to prove me right!
It doesn't work that way m8. If you make assertions you need to provide evidence to back them up. Let me try to hammer this in for you: if I assert that women are just dumb shits and that's why we dont go to STEM fields
a) Do I need to back this claim up?
or
b) Do you need to get yourself educated until you agree with me?

>imblyng imblgcnts
>implying that's a refutation of any sort
Seriously, your ideas fall apart THAT easily? The mere questioning of your ideology puts you in full defensive mode? Goes to show how little ground you have to stand on.

>Hahahaha, how fucking retarded are you folks?
WHOA sick burn anon! You sure disproved all of their points with that name calling!

>>5437425
>realizing getting married and staying monogomaus in this day and age is just to dangerous to their future.

I kinda agree with them on that because I've seen guys getting destroyed after a divorce.

There's just one thing that's keeping me from taking them seriously, and it is that not once I've seen anyone on that site even consider that maybe some women want to get a divorce because the men they are married to are just shitty husbands.

Of course, women can just be shitty people too, but I feel like the men there think it's always the woman's fault when a divorce happens, while the man is always the victim. And I find that just dumb.

The legal system is pretty fucked up and it tends to make it easier for women in that regard, especially with custody and alimony stuff, I won't deny that. But I've heard feminists say they think that's wrong, too, and that both men and women should be treated equally when it comes to that. Although I guess it's possible they're just a minority.

>>5437489
>So I suppose this means that you agree that making such comparisons is worthless
No. I'm saying that hate towards a group of people for arbitrary reasons they cant affect like gender, race or sexuality is always wrong. The previous poster implied that their hatred of men was justified where in reality it's just as bad as the other extreme.

>>5437461
>If it's true, it means it is a reliable source. Wikipedia is a reliable source.

No, learn to logic for god's sake. If it's true, AND if encyclopedias are a reliable source, then Wikipedia is a reliable source. And I didn't grant that it was true. You're an imbecile.

>>5437502
I've honestly never been to the site. I've heard of other sites but I usually listen to a handful of videos on occasion from mgtow(ers?) as well as other groups. I try to avoid all the hateful garbage and get to people who actually speak to the core of their movement. It's not hard to see why mgtow would be easily co-opted with a title like that

>>5437461

>What is so unusual about attributing long-standing cultural/social ills to the group of people who have been ruling the world for millennia?

Rich people?

>>5437516
>I've honestly never been to the site.

Oh, well, it may be a good idea to stay away from it then.

I think it's great that some men decided not to base their self worth around being married, or their relationship with women in general -as long as they keep it civil.

But the site is mostly a circle jerk of guys who hate women because they got treated badly by one (with 'treated badly' going from getting fucked up after a divorce to someone refusing to go on a date with them).

It's just sad, really.

>>5437461

>There is no culture-wide misandry by women.

Who said that there was? Does that make the pain of an individual who has suffered greatly as a result of misandry any less legitimate?

>>5437501
I don't have time to educate a bunch of retards on topics on which tons of books have been written over decades.

Sociology doesn't work like mathematics where pure abstract logic and self-determined definitions are all you need, nor physics, or chemistry where you can test things in a lab environment. You can't put one whole test nation and one whole control nation into a pair of lab tubes and watch their behavior as you change culture variables in the tubes.

This childish clinging to "m-m-muh evidence" when people are simply informing you of a viewpoint that has been established over decades and has actually been accepted in sociology academia, is extremely childish and intellectually immature.

>>5437511
>hate towards a group of people for arbitrary reasons they cant affect like gender, race or sexuality is always wrong
If that hate has net positive or neutral utilitarian merit, then you have no reason to call it wrong.
In this society, a woman who categorically hates men might just make more right decisions on average, because men are hateworthy so often you can just hate them by default and only make exceptions to not hate them.

>>5437513
>encyclopedias aren't reliable
Thanks, that's what I was trying to get out of you. Now I can safely ignore you.

>>5437542
Yes, because it means they generalize from an individual problem, i.e. making a wrong generalization, plain and simple.


Damn, I never thought I'd legitimately defend categorical hate against men, but it's going pretty smooth. Not even trolling, just seeing how far I can go with this until I have to backpedal. So far, nobody made a convincing argument against categorical hate of men.

File: image.jpg (213KB, 599x880px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 599x880px

>>5437540
The more I deal with people the more I realize a good portion are fucking depressing.
So I'm not really surprised you'd see that from a bunch of emotially hurt or immature people. You're asking for it when you put a bunch of people together with similar cases. They are gunna make a common enemy appear. It's a misguided coping skill.

>They are very anti LGBT
Are they? Why would they be? It's usually feminists who are anti GBT, and they seem to be the inverse of feminists.

File: 1426530456105.png (80KB, 329x306px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 329x306px

>>5437567
>feminists
>anti GBT
Hello, deluded idiot.
I will keep calling you out in every thread you appear in because you're just way too transparent.

>>5431016
the same way sjw let men dominate their lives

>>5437567
I think they aren't lgbt. They just have to make it clear that they are not gay. Just a bunch of men who got together to get away from women.

>>5437580
anti lgbt*

>>5437550
>If that hate has net positive or neutral utilitarian merit, then you have no reason to call it wrong.
In this society, a woman who categorically hates men might just make more right decisions on average, because men are hateworthy so often you can just hate them by default and only make exceptions to not hate them.

thank you, now I can hate niggers all I want.

>>5437598
>blacks are hateworthy for having to grow up in the fucking ghetto and turning into criminals
Impeccable logic anon.

>>5437605

>If that hate has net positive or neutral utilitarian merit, then you have no reason to call it wrong.

I'm actually kind of disappointed, you backpedaled after a single reply.

>>5437605
>men are hateworthy for growing in the patriarchy ideology and turning into rapists

you run from rapists, I run from criminals and rapists. Me win lewlwlelwelwel

god damm it, Im impressed with how self entitled people are nowadays. Get back to tumblr you piece of shit, seems like the only way you can learn is by reading two lines.

>>5437605
also, men are rapist by nature, blacks are dumb by nature. SJ will eat itself.

>>5437580
This. Weirdos like that tend to be the type of neckbeards that romanticize viking and similar cultures where men were the stereotypical ubermanly man. Those cultures were fine with gay sex as long as neither of the men involved were what /lgbt/ considers to be "flamers"

>>5437572
I'm not whoever you think I am, I usually just hide feminist threads, since it's impossible to argue with your kind.
Also, posting animays and calling someone deluded is fucking rich.
>>5437624
As far as I know, no ancient culture was fine with gay sex, unless it was a superior man raping an inferior one. And the inferior wasn't even considered a man. Pretty much what happens in prisons and other such closed environments.

>>5437609
Why? Hating an oppressed group for the signs of their oppression means long-term net negative merit. Duh.

>>5437614
>you run from rapists, I run from criminals and rapists. Me win lewlwlelwelwel
7/10 made me hue hue

No, learn to logic.

>>5437620
>men are rapist by nature
You just literally called me a rapist-by-nature.
Bend over.

>>5437638
>it's impossible to argue with your kind
That's a very interesting way to say "I don't have any counter-arguments."

What's the problem with anime? Do you have difficulties telling apart fantasy from reality? Projecting much?

>>5437643

>Hating an oppressed group for the signs of their oppression means long-term net negative merit.

You mean like hating 99% of men for the signs of their oppression (being influenced by societal gender norms) by 1% of men (The Patriarchy)?

>>5437643

>Hating an oppressed group for the signs of their oppression means long-term net negative merit.

I'm not interested in long-term net negative merit (which you haven't actually proved; saying "duh" isn't an argument). I'm interested in the positive utilitarian merits that outweigh the neutral or negative utilitarian merits of avoiding contact with or proximity to blacks. What do I stand to gain, and how is it worth what I stand to lose (my safety and/or my life).

>>5437650
Since when is it wrong to put the actions of the 1% on the whole of that group. We do it to whites with slavery and genocide of PoC's and we do it to Muslims who blow shit up. Both sides do it and yet both sides complain when the other does. What's the problem and can't we agree to just both do it?

>>5436183
I'm not opposed to the CLAIMED objectives of the men's rights movements, but it seems that a lot of those who identify as such are just plain misogynists, saying things like giving women the right to vote was the worst thing we ever did. And they seem more focused on fighting against feminism than actually helping men, there's a lot of overlap with the PUA community where they look down on any man who isn't "alpha", any even slightly effeminate man is labeled a mangina cuck regardless of whether they support feminism or not. And I seem to recall there was some prominent member of some MRA group who said that if they were on a jury for a rape trial they would vote not guilty even if there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, solely to "compensate" for the allegedly high numbers of innocent people accused of rape and sentences for it.

>>5436497
Might have something to do with the fact that people weren't actually advocating systematic total destruction of the white race.

>>5436657
>nobody should be forced to study feminism
And nobody should try to discuss things that they don't understand. Don't accuse people of being "wrong" on a topic that you don't even know anything about.

>>5437650
The common men (99%) are upholding patriarchy. It's not like capitalism.

>>5437657
>the positive utilitarian merits that outweigh the neutral or negative utilitarian merits of avoiding contact with or proximity to blacks
As far as I'm concerned, there is nothing wrong with physically avoiding possibly suspect blacks when you're living near a ghetto.

File: 1437483765083.jpg (207KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 1280x720px

>>5437669
>It's not like capitalism.
Well, I guess one could say that capitalism is also upheld by the consumers, but anyway, doesn't change my point.


MFW I still didn't receive a rational argument against categorical hate against men.

>>5437669

>The common men (99%) are upholding patriarchy.

Through no fault of their own. They are victims, tools being used by the Patriarchy to oppress all that are beneath them. Why are you blaming the victims of patriarchy for its existence?

>>5437671

What is the rational argument against categorical hate against women?

>>5436741
Unless one specifically agrees to terms that marriage means they give up their right to not consent to sex, that's not how it works. Maybe that's how you see things, but most people don't see it that way. Consent is something that has to be given every time, it's not something to be assumed unless for some reason people make a contract that says so. And yes, if your wife makes you have sex when you're unwilling, you most certainly should be able to call that rape.

>>5436970
>different life choices according to most people
>but if you ask a feminist she will tell you the it's obviously the goddamn patriarchy
Patriarchal society most certainly does affect life choices.

>>5437305
So it's "offensively condescending" to say that social norms affect behavior? Please explain how the vast majority of men have some sort of innate biological aversion to wearing dresses and high heels.

>>5437567
I'm not sure if they're really that anti-LGBT, but they seem to be attached to the ideals of traditional masculinity which is somewhat homophobic due to insecurity, and they see trannies as gender traitors.

>>5437674
The patriarchy is not a material organization, it's the culture upheld by the individuals living in the society.

>>5437677
There needs to be one for first.

>>5437674
People often ask why moderate Muslims are doing nothing to stop the extremists. The same should apply to men and the patriarchy. Either both arguments are valid, or neither are valid.

>>5437694

So women also uphold the patriarchy?

>>5437695

So it's also valid that, because feminists are doing nothing to stop their most radical members, they are equally culpable for any reprehensible actions that are taken in feminism's name? Just want to make sure we're on the same page here.

File: 1449081154646.jpg (462KB, 1050x1080px) Image search: [Google]

462KB, 1050x1080px

So may of you in this thread right now - sitting at Starbucks, drinking cappuccino and getting cucked by your fat feminist girlfriends.

File: 1408509451263.jpg (19KB, 550x550px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 550x550px

>>5437708

>Mfw I'm not Anthony Burch.

>>5437704
In a way akin to how black slaves were upholding a culture of slavery, yes.

>>5437725

So women aren't actually free in western society?

>>5437706
Yeah, there's basically two possibilities:
>Groups are to be held responsible for the actions of their extremist members
>Groups are not to be held responsible for the actions of their extremist members
And in general, the same should apply to every group.

>>5437725

But aren't men also slaves to the patriarchy?

>>5437731
LOLno, even less so than men.

>>5437750
In a way akin to how Nazi officers were slaves to Nazism. (And in patrirachy there is not even a concrete Hitler or NatSoc Party, so not even as much as that.)

File: ThreadOver.jpg (92KB, 640x483px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 640x483px

>>5437757

>Godwin's Law engaged.

>>5437757
Is there anyone who isn't a slave to patriarchy? What is the force that sustains the patriarchy?

>>5437665
>I'm not opposed to the CLAIMED objectives of the men's rights movements, but it seems that a lot of those who identify as such are just plain misogynists
It's completely impossible to openly hold any misgynistic views in the political space. Either way, like I said
>when you talk to political MRA's first thing they do is try and disassociate themselves with the womanhaters
Anyone can wear the label but the people who actually do the activism are a different group entirely. Kind of like equality feminists (ie. christina hoff sommers) who don't support third wave/intersectional feminists. Unfortunately the regressive third wave feminism is the politically active majority and we've somehow gotten to the point where being sexist towards men is PC.

>>5437461
>So you assert that the reason is something natural/innate in the genders, right?
i'm saying they worked out pretty well in the past for us. i don't think gender stereotypes are holy and untouchable tho. i admire people who can step out of their boundaries. i despise people that don't or can't really but bitch about them stereotypes all the time.
>there is no such thing as a female and male brain doesn't change your mind, I suppose.
i can believe it either way, it's up to science to prove it or disprove it. i bet if you cut into brains with a knife you will only see the same shit. maybe there is difference we are just unable to prove it yet.
i know one thing all my math teachers where female hell all my math lecturers and profs at uni were female. doesn't seem like there is a discrimination to me at all.
>also being taught in universities
see, this is where it all went wrong according to anti-feminsits and myself. it is a wacky theory that taught as truth and fact but in a way that makes it unquestionable.
>You sound like a really intelligent, rational person.
why thank you!

>>5437767
LOL, we Godwin'd like dozens of posts ago anon, you're way too late.

Usually the first Godwin is someone calling feminists Nazis.

>>5437769
>Is there anyone who isn't a slave to patriarchy?
Those doing activism and causing social unrest in ways that majorly disrupt patriarchal norms. Like radfems, radical queers, LGBT who reject heteronormative relationships, etc. (Heteronormative relationship meaning e.g. when in a gay couple one chooses to be the "woman" side, or when the pair imitates porn-like sex that is originally rooted in male sexual dominance over women.)

>What is the force that sustains the patriarchy?
Deeply held beliefs about the nature of humans and what is right and wrong to do in society.

>>5437807
>worked out pretty well in the past for us
Anon your ignorance is just incredibly staggering.

For all of human history there has been war, starvation, slavery (of women most ubiquitously), persecutions, and so on.

I have a flu and am very tired so I won't respond to the rest of your post.

File: fight-the-patriarchy.jpg (64KB, 576x647px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 576x647px

>>5437669
fucking insane cunts there is no such thing as patriarchy you made it up! you can't have a cultural evolutionary movement built on a fucking phantasmagory and a bunch of generalizing lies!

>>5437689
>Patriarchal society most certainly does affect life choices.
the burden of proof lies at your feet. i haven't seen a single evidence of this "patriarchal society". until you prove it exists we are just gonna put it in the bin with the tooth fairy the forest elves and the reptilians.

>>5437812
>slavery (of women most ubiquitously)
always kek at this. slavery was never a woman only thing. bullshit.
i have flu too, my head hurts and you are not helping it.

>>5437550
>I don't have time to educate a bunch of retards on topics on which tons of books have been written over decades.
So you openly admit you have nothing to back your assertions up? Great.
>people are simply informing you of a viewpoint
That viewpoint doesn't correspond with reality in any quantifiable way.
>and has actually been accepted in sociology academia
Appealing to authority, cute. This is the same academia that uses 'no-platforming' to keep up their own echo chamber, even preventing 2nd wave feminists from speaking if they don't toe the line.

>extremely childish and intellectually immature
>This childish clinging to "m-m-muh evidence"
Arguing with feminists is the comedy highlight of the day. If we were on tumblr you would have blocked me and if we were on tumblr you'd probably try to file a harassment lawsuit against me for replying to your messages.

But seriously, how do you not see your own intellectual dishonestly? You adamantly refuse to provide any sources to your claims, you resort to name calling and diversions rather than addressing any points.

>If that hate has net positive or neutral utilitarian merit, then you have no reason to call it wrong.
Of course I have. Ends do not justify the means. Human rights > collective benefit, especially when your collective benefit is not founded in reality and simply serves a narrow radical fringe. Basically all atrocities in human history have been 'justified' by the collective benefit.

>In this society, a woman who categorically hates men might just make more right decisions on average, because men are hateworthy so often you can just hate them by default and only make exceptions to not hate them.
So you are an openly sexist bigot? You are literally just as bad as the misogynistic males you hate.

>Thanks, that's what I was trying to get out of you. Now I can safely ignore you.
Encyclopedia is nothing without credible citations.

File: 1412500843969.png (74KB, 185x230px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 185x230px

>>5437815
>local shitposter is angry
What else is new?

>>5437812
okay so slavery and traditional gender roles, how did we get from one to the other?
traditional gender roles simply means men do the heavy lifting provide for the family fight nature and other men while the women battle the kitchenware and heroically raise the kids (which in the old times meant they hanged them from a nail until they were old enough to run around unchecked).

Excellent article about how men aka the patriarchy opress women without even knowing because of their male privilege
http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/11/types-of-misogynistic-men/

>>5437812
>slavery (of women most ubiquitously)
Yeah why use the gender naturally more suited for physical labor for slavery? They got neat dangly pee hose and gonads, we can't enslave them!

>>5437827
>i haven't seen a single evidence
Read the books Woman Hating, here:
http://radfem.org/dworkin
Don't come back before you're done with it.

>>5437831
>woman only thing
Which I said when?

Oh silly anon.

>>5437832
>back your assertions up
>quantifiable way
Actually, here's some material evidence of The Patriarchy for you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot_binding
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch-hunt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam

Are you starting to understand now?

>comedy highlight of the day
>doesn't understand sociology 101
Anon, you're cute.

>Human rights > collective benefit
Do you even know the basic concept of utilitarianism?

>sexist
As much as Jew sympathizers living in Nazi Germany hating Germans were racists, I suppose.

>Wikipedia
>not having credible citations
toppest kek of 2015

>>5437840
but of course you are not going to touch the issue raised right? that would be way above your paygrade.

>>5437827
Patriarchal society just means a society in which men are the dominant gender. Do you deny that for most of human history it has been mostly men in positions of political power?

>>5437832
>Of course I have. Ends do not justify the means. Human rights > collective benefit, especially when your collective benefit is not founded in reality and simply serves a narrow radical fringe. Basically all atrocities in human history have been 'justified' by the collective benefit.
So all atrocities have done more good than harm? And by your reasoning, it would be preferable for 10 people to die than for 6 people to live if it meant violating the human rights of the other 4.

>>5437869
>>woman only thing
>Which I said when?
i admit you only said it affected women especially, but i can't find any proof of this. if a slave owner wanted his slaves to fork heavy physical jobs he would only buy males in the past that much i'm fairly certain of.

>>5437879
>Do you deny that for most of human history it has been mostly men in positions of political power?
i do
first off, we know only the recent history of humans well enough maybe for a hundred thousand years women were the boss.
secondly the proverb "Behind every great man there's a great woman" which many put the origins of well before feminist movement has some truth in it. women always exercised power indirectly by manipulating their men. and in many cases they exercised power directly.
thirdly men all through history looked at their own accomplishment as how it would appeal to the women they were trying to impress.
there was a not so clear cut balance of power between the genders that went way beneath the "whos wearing the boss hat?"
and finally just because the ones in power were men doesn't mean that women under their rule suffered more than men under their rule you can't prove this this is just your assumption.

>>5437638
>As far as I know, no ancient culture was fine with gay sex, unless it was a superior man raping an inferior one.
Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and the entire Western Hemisphere were fine with sticking your dick in anything and having anything in any hole until the Arabs created Zoroastrianism and started spreading that "if a man lies with a man..." nonsense. Until then only East Asians gave a shit about what you could and couldn't do with your penis and/or holes.

>>5437883
Up until 18 years ago it was legal in Germany for a man to rape his wife.

Women have been literally sexual chattel for most of human history.

>>5437903
>and finally just because the ones in power were men doesn't mean that women under their rule suffered more than men under their rule you can't prove this this is just your assumption.
I'd say being denied the right to vote or own property (even in circumstances when one would have been able to do so if they were a man), and laws that made it fully legal for your husband to rape you, count as "suffering".

>>5437921
nah it was considered in the old times a duty to do the sex for both parties. it was not only the women forced or pressured into it but the men too.
i keep to my previous statement. i don't think the definition of rape is correct. and thus i don't think anyone can be raped in a relationship or wedlock.
since nobody forces you to marry anyone and you can have a divorce any time. you are not forced to stay in a marriage where you don't consent to the sex.
being in a sexual relationship means you consent to the sex. if you withdraw your consent you do it by ending your relationship. and then it's just plain vanilla rape. same as any other.
but about the definition of rape... rape as it was understood back in the days was a viscous physical assault where their life was in danger and that often left women dead or with severe injuries.

rape today is you have sex and she regrets it and remembers she didn't explicitly say yes to everything you were doing, bamm rape! and that's bullshit.

>>5437923
>I'd say being denied the right to vote or own property (even in circumstances when one would have been able to do so if they were a man)
i'm not saying we did not improve or legal systems but you are overplaying this a lot.
only a few years of difference between the two accomplishment in the end of 1800's and early 1900's.

>>5437869
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap
>In the United States, the average female's earnings have been cited as 78% of those of an average male.[6] However, multiple studies from OECD, AAUW and the US Department of Labor have found that pay rates between males and females varied by 5-6.6% or females earned 94 cents to every dollar earned by their male counterparts.[7][8][9]
A gap, sure, but you can't simply put the god in the gaps - I mean patriarchy in the gaps. Either way gender based wage discrimination is illegal and not supported by the patriarchal society boogeyman.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot_binding
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch-hunt
Not modern day and not relevant to the west.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam
Nobody is defending religions here. Being anti-religion is an entirely separate matter, get that red herring out of here.

>doesn't understand sociology 101
>Do you even know the basic concept of utilitarianism?
Already told you why your attempt to shift burden of proof is full of shit here: >>5437501
You're the one making the claims. Arguing with you is exactly like arguing with a christian and getting told to read the bible if you doubt their claims and rationale of their beliefs. It's not my job to prove your arguments.

>As much as Jew sympathizers living in Nazi Germany hating Germans were racists, I suppose.
No not really. You're as much of a sexist as an openly anti-jew nazi was racist (implying jews are a race). It was justifiable for the aryan collective to ignore the rights of the jews, collective benefit. Reading comprehension please.

>not having credible citations
They do have citations and when you look at the citations you can see why your assertions are complete bullshit. Hell, just read the wikipedia page in its entirety and don't just cherry-pick what supports your established point of view.

>>5437879
>So all atrocities have done more good than harm?
I did not say that. I'm just saying that 'collective benefit' is not a justification for trumping human rights or to approve racism/sexism/bigotry. If it is you can literally justify a genocide, slavery and all sorts of nasty shit.
>And by your reasoning, it would be preferable for 10 people to die than for 6 people to live if it meant violating the human rights of the other 4.
I never claimed there is a moral absolute let alone that I posses moral authority. There's a reason why hypotheticals like the one you presented are called moral paradoxes.

>>5437954
>being in a sexual relationship means you consent to the sex
No, it doesn't. What if you enjoy being in a relationship but you don't want to have sex right this moment? It's rape unless you actually have a signed contract that says you surrender your right to withdraw consent. If being in a relationship literally meant someone could have sex with you whenever they wanted regardless of how you felt about it, relationships wouldn't be very common at all. The fact that there are apparently men who think like this may well explain why marriage is becoming less popular these days. I know I wouldn't want to enter an arrangement where I give someone the right to stick things in my body whenever he wants without my consent.

>rape today is you have sex and she regrets it and remembers she didn't explicitly say yes to everything you were doing, bamm rape! and that's bullshit.
Don't you think it's a bit misogynistic to basically say "rape isn't real"?

>>5437962
Yeah, but for pretty much all of human history women haven't had those rights. It's not like human history began in 1850.

>>5437972
>It was justifiable for the aryan collective to ignore the rights of the jews, collective benefit
And how is genocide collective benefit? Was the harm the Jews were causing to German really of greater equivalent value than the loss of millions of lives?

>>5437923
Women were allowed to own property. However, when a woman is married her property and the husbands property are the same. So the title went into the husbands name because women were no subject to taxation. Women enjoyed the benefits of the state without paying for it. They also didn't have to serve in the military for it. The majority of men at the time couldn't even vote so really women as a whole were better off than the majority of men.

Which is what you will always see. A few men will be at the top. All women will be in the middle and then a lot of men will be at the bottom. Think about why society lets so many men be homeless and how little we care to help them.

>>5437991
Collective benefit IS a valid justification if it's true. It's an abuse of collective benefit if you CLAIM it's for the collective benefit but really isn't.

>>5438008
>Think about why society lets so many men be homeless and how little we care to help them.
Again, it's at least partly due to patriarchal attitudes. Men are "SUPPOSED" to be self-sufficient and not need help, while women are "supposed" to be dependent. Which means that homeless women are seen as in need of help, while homeless men are just seen as lazy and deserving of their fate.

>>5437879
No, no, you are lying. The only reason you are disregarding what a "patriarchal society" REALLY means, as in when it is used by historians, it's because the ideology you adhere to is completely submerged in post-structuralism and post-structuralism basic premise is that "the discourse determines sociablity", or in a simple way, DISCOURSE > REALITY. As feminism nowadays is completely taken over by this school of thought, it directly affect the things the ideology adherents say and speak, and using this philosophical basis, feminism take words and change and expand their meaning far beyond what is reasonable. So if historians used the term "patriarchy" to refer to a society that it is legally structured around the male having most legal obligations, now "feminist" philosophers and social scientists create the "sociological theory of patriarchy", that tries to explain the relations between genders in marxist-perspectivist freudian psychoanalytical premises, and the disenformed masses that consider themselves feminists just go along repeating words like "patriarchy" without a deeper philosophical insight. You may not know, but the you are assuming philosophical and epistemological premises in what you are saying here. Some of them doesnt hold up to intelectuall scrutiny. Of course, if you told me that we used to live in a patriarchal society, and some things regarding gender relations are still tainted by how our society used to be structured, it would be a whole different game, and I would be inclined to agree with you. You should read what Susan Haack writed about "feminist" epistemology.

>>5438006
>Yeah, but for pretty much all of human history women haven't had those rights. It's not like human history began in 1850.
Pretty much though all of human history men didn't have the right to vote either.

You don't vote in a monarch. Voting for government leadership is a pretty modern concept.

they are okay

>>5438006
>Yeah, but for pretty much all of human history women haven't had those rights. It's not like human history began in 1850.
pretty much all of human history was a huge mess of oppression and men didn't had the same rights either. every man and woman was property to the crown or to their liege. if not legally then in practice because if you opened your mouth you were smacked down so hard you couldn't even walk after.
women's right to own property and thus vote where it was voting rights varied by time and place. there were times an influential woman had to marry some puppet husband to hold on to her property and in the name the poor sod might have been the master sure but make no mistake them bitches were formidable and viscous and the owned men often enough and what men did to the women under them was nothing compared to what women did to women under them.
we males see this all the time the ones that shame and hurt women most are other women.

>>5438006
>And how is genocide collective benefit? Was the harm the Jews were causing to German really of greater equivalent value than the loss of millions of lives?
I dont think any bigotry is okay and I dont subscribe to the collective benefit over human rights (or any other moral absolute for that matter). I don't go full libertarian on the other end either. For example I don't think taxes are unjustified as long as they provide a collective benefit.

>>5438016
Patriarchy cannot be a system to benefit men over women but also a system were men are the majority victims of violence murder, homelessness etc.

>>5438019
Democracies existed in ancient times, and even among the class that was allowed to vote, it was only men that could vote, not women. And it was the same in the middle ages - within the ruling class, the power was mainly held by men, not women.

>>5438034
>cannot be a system to benefit men over women
That was not the intention behind creating patriarchal society.

>>5438036
And yet, still, most men did NOT have the rights to vote or the say in political matters. Women in the nobility had A LOT of political power. You really need to stop spreading noise and start actually reading books or something.