Written on November 12, 2014 by Observing Libertarian
I was arguing with a guy today about MGTOW.
He made the assertion that I’m a misogynist who spouts anti-woman rhetoric. So I challenged him to find anything I’d ever said that was anti-woman. My aunt has as of late been worried about me as well; she’s a little flighty but her heart’s in the right place. She means well, I know she does.
Me saying “women aren’t worth my time” was what he came up with. I responded as follows.
“And they aren’t: that’s not because I -hate- them. Going to the movies isn’t worth my time either: does that mean I hate movie theaters, movies, actors, actresses, popcorn, Junior mints?
No, it means they’re not worth my time, my money, my effort. What’s the logical progression of bothering? Go out, spend money, find a girl, chat, buy drinks—Oh, no can’t do anything till we’re sober again—otherwise it’s rape. So, meet her again, hang out. Maybe have a good time (1). Maybe we start dating, maybe not.
Repeat process till I find a girl I actually want to date (2). Start dating, it lasts a while but do we start living together or break up before then? Chances are we break up. Repeated 1st and 2nd process until I find a woman to live with (3). Great. Do we get married? Chances are not. Repeat 1st, 2nd and 3rd process until I find “the one. (4)” Now what happens? Divorce rate is over 50%—chances are, divorce.
Then what? I lose half my liquid assets, probably forced to move out of an apartment I had since before I met her and there’s a good chance I may have to pay alimony. Meaning I now live in serfdom paying forth tribute to a queen who I never agreed to serve. Oh yeah—sounds fantastic. Explain to me, why, any of that: is worth my time? It’s not that I hate women: it’s that the game is rigged and there is no -win- involved.
There’s no goal except to hope after marriage: she doesn’t decide to throw me off the cliff. That’s the whole point. That’s the only possible -good- outcome: is to eventually find someone who’s -not- going to take advantage of no fault divorce and throw me over the cliff. I’m hoping -to find someone- who is unwilling to pull the trigger on the gun pointed at my head. Sounds, fucking, lovely.
The game is rigged, the deck is stacked. It’s entirely a waste of time and a tremendous waste of money. And I’m -not- the only one who thinks so: for the first time in this country’s history: there are more unmarried adults than there are married adults. So quite -CLEARLY- I am not the only one who thinks the entire process is a waste of time. That entire process 1, process 2, process 3 then finally marriage: process 4, only to be held at gunpoint the entire time: apparently doesn’t appeal to a whole lot of other people, not just me.
We unmarried, are the majority in this country. Clearly, there’s something wrong with the process, because it’s the first time it’s ever happened in the past 238 years.
Non of that even takes in account how badly women -treat- men in relationships these days.
Which is most often horrible. They -constantly- insult and berate the men they’re with. It’s common, they think nothing of treating him with every discourtesy possible. They treat their male partners worse than they’d treat complete strangers. If a woman talked to a female coworker the way women most often talk to their partners: they’d be fired for creating a hostile work environment.
And they think nothing of it. As the guy, you’re simply supposed to ignore it. Insulted, degraded in conversations, being demeaned in front of her female friends, being berated in front of your own friends and you’re expected to ignore and deal with it.
Well I have a mild-mannered suggestion: leave me the fuck alone. The entire game isn’t worth my time, and anyone who *expects* to be able to treat me like trash and think I’ll do nothing about it? Rude awakening—I have no use for you. No piece of tail is worth being treated miserably.
I’ve never hit a woman I was with, I’ve never forcibly restrained a woman I was with, never conducted sexual activity without consent, never cheated on a woman I was with. I’d do nice things, buy her something just because I thought it was nice. Breakfast in bed when she slept in on days off.
I once scored brownie points going on a guy’s night out pub crawl. I was at my 3rd bar, place called wide open. I’m 5 doubles into the evening (I’m Irish and Russian, it was only kahlua, 20% not enough to get drunk on), I call up my Girlfriend at the time got her voice mail “Hey babe, I’m having a great time. I’m five drinks in, surrounded by beautiful women and I’m thinking of you. Wish you were here, see ya later babe.” She sends me a text half an hour later, how she’s sitting there with her girlfriends swooning over the message I left her.
She had a stomach ache before, I sat on the floor while she laid on the couch and gently caressed her abdomen back and forth until she felt better. Her all natural shampoo used to mat her hair so I’d sit on the back of the couch and comb it out for her using my fingers so that her hair wouldn’t snag. I’m a genuinely good guy, and I’ve always treated women exceptionally well.
Of the women I’ve dated, which unfortunately is way too many, I’ve only had two who didn’t treat me like shit. So if even a really good guy like me is rarely treated right, something is desperately wrong.
So yeah, I don’t hate women—never have. They’re just not worth my time because so few of them are going to treat me like a human being. If marriage wasn’t an extortion scam: and more women actually gave men any semblance of common courtesy—I wouldn’t have “thrown in the towel.”
There’s only 4 things a woman can provide a man.
1, A home: cook, clean, etc. That’s a home. Women don’t like to be domestic these days, most of them can’t cook anyway. And that’s fine, everybody has to work to get by these days, so that’s fine. I get it, I do. No problem.
-I- can cook, I’m actually quite good at it. My mother taught me how to cook so that I wouldn’t have to be reliant on women. Thanks, Mom.
2, Companionship. -IF- she treats you right… doesn’t constantly intentionally say and do mean or degrading things to you just because she can. Otherwise that’s not companionship. That’s living with an asshole from college who has managed to stay too long. If she doesn’t treat you with so much as common courtesy but instead is rude, spiteful, hateful or demeaning to you on a regular basis—why would you want to be around her?
I don’t want to be around someone who’s going to be mean to me: why would I? That doesn’t make any sense at all.
3, Sex. what women are convinced all men are motivated by. Personally i wouldn’t want to be having sex with someone I didn’t like, see #2. Remember, when a woman doesn’t want sex—you’re just expected to deal with it. If however a man doesn’t want sex—it’s considered abuse. “Withholding Sex.” I shit you not…
4, Children. I don’t want children, bless you if you do, good luck with that. Just something else that can be used against you in the divorce.
So that’s that. There isn’t anything a woman can offer me of value except companionship and sex. Sex, I don’t particularly care, and companionship would require a woman who doesn’t insult and degrade me all the time. I’ve only come across two while dating. Both became long-term relationships, both eventually ended. Different reasons, I’m not bitter. Still in contact, we talk occasionally.
However—generally speaking: women just aren’t worth my time. Doesn’t mean I hate women—just means I’m not interested in them. Feminists have two important slogans: “her body her choice” and “She doesn’t owe you anything”. Well, it goes both ways: “MY body, MY choice”, “I don’t owe YOU anything.”
Until marriage is no longer legalized extortion and or until women think it’s unacceptable to treat their male partners like disposable trash—I’m not *going* to be interested either. Simple as that.”
Now, why do I think marriage is extortion? Simple.
“Extortion: The obtaining of property from another induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.”
Invalidation of prenuptial agreements + no fault divorce = seizure of liquid assets + alimony.
Marriage today, in America, is identical to the legal definition of extortion. It is “The obtaining of property from another induced”—”under color of official right.” The legal system has been manipulated to make marriage the legal definition of extortion. No ands, ifs, or buts about it. It is, by strict legal definition, extortion.
Women can actually bring palimony trials against men they’ve cohabited with whom they were not married to. “Common Law Marriage,” it varies by state, but the possibility remains. If a man is in a long-term relationship and living with a woman, in the wrong state after breaking up, he can be ordered to pay alimony to a woman he didn’t agree to marry.
The only way to survive the game is by refusing to play when the odds are stacked against you.
Sorry, ladies, you’re just not worth the time, effort, money, or potential risks. It’s a cost-to-benefit ratio—you’re not in the black: it’s a huge deficit.
CDC Researchers discovered interesting facts when examining their own data.
The study, by CDC researchers Daniel J. Whitaker, PhD, Tadesse Haileyesus, MS, Monica Swahn, PhD and Linda S. Saltzman, PhD, found that a surprising 70% of cases of non-reciprocal violence were perpetrated by women.
The researchers studied 11,370 18- to 28-year-olds who had been in a total of 18,761 heterosexual relationships. They found that about 50% of cases of intimate partner violence were reciprocal, which they define as “perpetrated by both partners”, and 50% were non-reciprocal. Cases of violent women and non-violent men accounted for 70% of non-reciprocal cases, whereas cases of violent men and non-violent women accounted for 30% of non-reciprocal cases.
Thus: 50% of all cases of intimate partner violence among heterosexuals involve violence by both partners
35% of all cases involve a violent woman and an non-violent man
15% of all cases involve a violent man and an non-violent woman”
Women are twice as violent in relationships, yet we have the Violence Against Women Act and the “predominate aggressor policy.” You can egregiously abuse a man, including mentally, emotionally, or even physically, and if he hits you back, once, as response to anything but a near life threatening injury, he goes to jail.
Data hasn’t been calculated under the new FBI definition yet, but Stemple parses several other national surveys in her new paper, “The Sexual Victimization of Men in America: New Data Challenge Old Assumptions,” co-written with Ilan Meyer and published in the April 17 edition of the American Journal of Public Health. One of those surveys is the 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, for which the Centers for Disease Control invented a category of sexual violence called “being made to penetrate.” This definition includes victims who were forced to penetrate someone else with their own body parts, either by physical force or coercion, or when the victim was drunk or high or otherwise unable to consent. When those cases were taken into account, the rates of nonconsensual sexual contact basically equalized, with 1.270 million women and 1.267 million men claiming to be victims of sexual violence.
I cover this in detail in my article “Rape Culture.” You can go there for more details on the topic. The point of me adding it here is to dispel some of the feminist threat narratives concerning men. I will, however, include the following as to why the CDC report on the numbers of MEN being raped look so one-sided with female victimhood;
We have Mary P. Koss—you know, from the fake “1 in 4″ statistic, same woman—to thank for having “made to penetrate” be added to the roster of classifications in the above CDC report. She lobbied the CDC to exclude male victims of female predators as being classified as “rape.” Now, if you ask the common person: if you are made to have sex with someone by being physically forced, or forced at gunpoint/knifepoint, coerced with threats of violence, you are unconscious, roofied, comatose, or any other form of incapacitation whereby you are incapable of providing consent or the sexual activity is committed directly against your will, is that rape? The vast majority of people would say yes, that is rape. Anytime someone conducts sex with you either against your consent or while you are incapable of providing consent, it is rape.
But not according to the CDC. Due to the actions taken by Koss, “made to penetrate” was created so that male victims of female predators could be discluded, by definition, from being “raped.” Therefore she could tout feminist statistics on female rape victims while completely excluding figures of males having been raped by women.
According to the CDC, a man cannot be raped by a woman even if he is physically forced, forced at gunpoint/knifepoint, coerced with threats, comatose, intoxicated, passed out, roofied, or otherwise incapacitated by any other means. By legal definition, he cannot be raped by a woman—no matter what. It’s instead referred to as “made to penetrate” and is therefore constituted as a form of sexual assault but not rape.”
Men are raped as often by women as women are by men: and the definitions have been changed so that fictitious statistics do not show that fact. So not only are men unjustly jailed and prosecuted using the predominate aggressor policy when women are twice as violent, but men are raped by women just as often as the reverse. We have a Violence Against Women Act, which extends no protection for men. We are victimized as often and more often than women, and we are not extended the same legal protections. Ladies, is this what you want for your brothers and cousins? Is this the society you want your sons to grow up in? If not, help us.
Also, ladies, this has just been about dating and cohabiting. Men are in danger anytime a man even talks to you. No … really.
“Overview: Street harassment is any action or comment between strangers in public places that is disrespectful, unwelcome, threatening and/or harassing and is motivated by gender or sexual orientation or gender expression.”
“Types: It ranges from leers, whistles, honks, kissing noises, gender-policing, and non-sexually explicit evaluative comments, to more insulting and threatening behavior like vulgar gestures, sexually charged comments, flashing, and stalking, to illegal actions like public masturbation, sexual touching, assault, and murder.
Gender-based street harassment can intersect with racism, homophobia and transphobia, classism, and/or ableism (as explored in Chapter 3 of the Stop Street Harassment book) to create multi-layered harassment.”
A man stopping to say to a woman “Hey, you look nice today” is street harassment under “non-sexually explicit evaluative comments”
In fact! “non-sexually explicit evaluative comments”: Man A watches Woman B parallel park a very tight spot and is genuinely impressed. Woman B gets out of vehicle and Man A comments, “The competency displayed by your vehicular maneuver was particularly exceptional and denotes a degree of skill far superior to the average motorist, huzzah to you, madam.” Woman B denounces Man A, emphatically pointing her finger: “That’s street harassment!”
In July 2011, Rebecca Watson, the founder of the website Skepchick, mentioned in a vlog an experience she’d had at a recent conference. A man had approached her in an elevator and invited her to his hotel room to talk over coffee. The invitation made Watson uncomfortable, and she suggested to her audience that they not behave in a similar manner. As it was just a note in a longer video about the conference, it went mostly unnoticed, except for two other female atheists who disagreed with Watson and believed the man’s comment wasn’t aggressive, and this all ended up devolving into the typical nasty YouTube comment fare. Even this did not cause anyone else to care.
A week later, while presenting at a Center for Inquiry conference, Watson discussed the response to her video, citing some alarming comments and emails directed at her. PZ Myers, a friend of Watson, would later defend Watson, arguing in a blog post that the insults and slurs directed at Watson were evidence of the sexism within the atheist community.
The post’s comment thread was full of trolling and hysterics, when Richard Dawkins decided to interject with a comment letter headed “Dear Muslima.” Dawkins accused Watson of overreacting, comparing her experience to those of women being forced to wear burkas or undergo genital mutilation (a classic example of the not-as-bad-as fallacy).
Dawkins identifies as a strong supporter of women’s rights and is a vocal opponent of the treatment of women by religion; however, his comments drew the ire of many within the atheist movement.
Things generally devolved from there, with some of Watson’s defenders repeatedly calling Dawkins a misogynist. A lot of big names, attempting to show off their credentials, came out in support of either Watson or Dawkins. The opinion of the lowly peon commenters was mixed, and sometimes quite sexist. Everyone agreed it was an overreaction but blamed the opposite side.
In a show of good faith, Dawkins arranged to provide childcare at future atheist meetings, a move generally praised by the community.
Three years after, Dawkins apologized for the “Dear Muslima” letter in passing on another blog post. Watson accepted it as better than nothing.
All because a man invited her to his room, and even according to Watson herself, he was very polite about it. She said now that he had said, “All right then, have a nice night” and left, like a perfect gentleman. I hate to inform you, ladies: men are in danger anytime they are even NEAR you. Think I’m joking? Exaggerating? Hyperbole you say? No, think again.
Two men were whispering jokes to each other during a boring tech convention speech. A woman, who was NOT addressed or targeted by said jokes, was offended. She launched a Twitter campaign against them. In the war of words that resulted, all three people lost their jobs. Point of interest: the jokes didn’t even involve a woman. Also, Richards, the woman who took such offense, days earlier had in fact tweeted “dongle” types jokes on her Twitter account.
Just for harmless, victimless jokes among themselves: two men lost their jobs because a woman was offended. She wasn’t part of the discussion, she wasn’t the target of their jokes, no woman, in fact, was the target of their jokes. They weren’t discussing women’s anatomy, they weren’t even jokes about women. They were bored, at a convention, and whispering to each other to keep from falling asleep.
Yet because a woman was offended by a private conversation, making the same kind of jokes she had made just days earlier on her own Twitter account, a conversation she eavesdropped on, two men lost their jobs and were publicly slandered, shamed, and harassed.
Men can be punished for talking to you or even talking near you. I do mean punished, by the way, they can face real consequences—including losing their careers—just for being anywhere near you. It all boils down to this.
The problem is five-fold.
1, Feminists incite bigotry in women toward men, which causes further problems as you will see.
2, Feminists have lobbied for changes to the law system in order to criminalize men. Made possible by the zeitgeist that men are evil.
3, Too many women are untrustworthy and perfectly willing to lie in order to punish you for anything—false accusations are commonplace. And rarely are they punished for this because man evil, woman good.
4, Even if not accused of wrongdoing by a woman, most women treat men like disposable trash, including being violent against their partners just because they’re angry—and they’re legally unaccountable for it. Kelly Brook struck two former boyfriends in the face (punched not slapped) and laughed about doing so on national TV. Man evil = he deserves to be punished.
5, The danger presented by the sheer volume of women who do scandalous things to get pregnant or married and put you on the hook for money makes it very dangerous to have close associations.
Positive pregnancy tests on Craigslist, lying about taking the pill, using a safety-pin to poke holes in condoms, one woman saved the contents of oral sex, got herself pregnant, sued for child support, and won. Another a month ago admittedly emptied the contents of a discarded condom, got herself pregnant, sued for child support, and won. Men are responsible for women’s actions …
So how does one proceed in an intelligent manner?
Look at this way, accurately stated: You’re in a room with 300 wicker baskets and five of them contain a precious gem. The relative value of that gem depends, but with it, you will be happy for a time. If you get the *right* gem, you can even be happy for the rest of your life.
In the rest of the 295 baskets, however, are venomous serpents, of various types and with varying degrees of toxicity. Some will cause pain, some will cause temporary paralysis, some will cause necrosis and wither the limb you stick in the basket. Others are fatal and a few kill quickly, while some kill slowly and with much pain and suffering.
So how exactly do you sort them out and decide which basket to stick your hand in? They all look the same … most of them don’t have audible hissing or rattling.
That’s why MGTOWs simply walk away. The ratio of good women worth our time versus all the toxic ones we have to stumble over isn’t worth the trouble or the risks. It only takes one bad choice to completely ruin or even end our lives. Sorting out which one is which is murder. Choose the wrong one and we could be battered, stabbed, mutilated, murdered, slandered, arrested on false charges, imprisoned on false allegations, coerced into marriage on false pretenses or forced to live in serfdom because through no fault of our own we’ve been shackled with child support payments.
Sorry, ladies, there’s a lot of good men who’d have been perfectly willing to treat you right, who have simply decided to walk away and not have anything to do with you. It’s not your fault, those of you deserving of a good man: it’s the fault of the hundreds of toxic women a guy could possibly stumble over instead of you. They’re dangerous, there are real-life potentially grievous consequences for a man who dates the wrong woman, or even speaks to the wrong woman: or even speaks NEAR the wrong woman.
We know “not all women” are like that, we do: the problem is that ssssooooooo many are. Good women are the exception to the rule. Someone who will treat her male partner with kindness, dignity, compassion, consideration: or hell, even just managing to treat him with basic common courtesy… That’s not the standard, that’s the exception.
There are too few of you too scattered and we have no way of picking you out of the crowd, so a man’s choice is to either play the game and keep sticking his hand in the basket looking for a gem—only to get bitten most of the time, and hope he survives long enough to find a gem—or walk away.
MGTOWs don’t see a point in playing the game: the possible rewards do not outweigh the risks of potential cost and harm. The game is literally so rigged against us that even the end game—success—is not a win of any kind. So we don’t play, and it’s you who misses out.
I’m sorry, ladies, but it’s only going to get worse unless YOU stand up and YOU fight for MEN. Legal extortion by just living together, predominate aggressor policy, criminalization of speaking to a woman no matter how politely, criminalization of even speaking near a woman. You cannot stand casually to the side and watch men being persecuted and say nothing but then turn around and complain when men give up on having relationships with women.
“Young men giving up on marriage: ‘Women aren’t women anymore” by Hilary White:
Pew recently found that the number of women 18-34 saying that having a successful marriage is one of the most important things rose from 28 percent to 37 percent since 1997. The number of young adult men saying the same thing dropped from 35 percent to 29 percent in the same time.
Pew’s findings have caught the attention of one US writer who maintains that feminism, deeply entrenched in every segment of the culture, has created an environment in which young men find it more beneficial to simply opt out of couple-dom entirely.
Also clearly stated in “The war on Men” by Suzanne Venker:
In a nutshell, women are angry. They’re also defensive, though often unknowingly. That’s because they’ve been raised to think of men as the enemy. Armed with this new attitude, women pushed men off their pedestal (women had their own pedestal, but feminists convinced them otherwise) and climbed up to take what they were taught to believe was rightfully theirs.
Now the men have nowhere to go.
It is precisely this dynamic – women good/men bad – that has destroyed the relationship between the sexes. Yet somehow, men are still to blame when love goes awry. Heck, men have been to blame since feminists first took to the streets in the 1970s.
If you have pondered what MGTOW is, I say it simply and as truly as possible: it’s a revenge, and that revenge is a boycott. Men are genetically, biologically, and socially conditioned not to want to harm women, even when we are being harmed by them. MGTOW is a refuge, a safe haven within our own selves. It’s a protest saying that we will not be dehumanized, we will not be criminalized for being born, we will not be treated like second-class citizens.
Why do I call it a revenge? Simple. The most harmful thing we could do in reprisal to the treatment we have received is to not have anything to do with you. That is our revenge, to cast you off and leave you adrift on your own, alone. As the punishment we receive for being born different continues and becomes worse, you will see more and more of us.
More and more of you, ladies, will be alone. If you don’t stand up and fight for us, if you continue to casually watch while we are persecuted for simply existing, you will see MGTOW grow. This is our act of defiance: that we will not participate in the games centered around you. We will not pay you any attention, we will not court you, we will not date you, we will not sleep with you, we will not marry you.
More and more women will have fewer and fewer men available, more of you will not enjoy the warmth of companionship. You will not enjoy a warm smile in the morning. You will not experience the embrace of a hug and a soft kiss on the neck. No big wedding, no pitter-patter of little feet, no joys of parenthood. You will have no one to comfort you when you cry, alone, at night. More of you ladies will be alone: men are far more capable of dealing with solitude. We’re accustom to it.
MGTOW is a refuge from the danger women present to men in this society. It is also a revenge.
In 2006, lesbians feminist Norah Vincent was interviewed by 20/20 about her book Self-Made Man. She conducted a gender study in which she cross-dressed as a man for 18 months. Then she wrote about her experiences. It’s a fantastic book you can buy on Amazon for under a dollar, by the way: I really recommend it. There are sections in it which made me laugh so hard I was crying.
Near the end of the interview, Miss Vincent said, “Men are suffering, they have different problems than women have but they don’t have it better. They need our sympathy, they need our love and they need each other more than anything else. They need to be together.”
The interviewer then asked Miss Vincent: “Do you think women understand what it’s like to be a man?”
Miss Vincent responded assertively: “Not at all, no clue. No idea.”
So, ladies, MGTOW is exactly what Miss Vincent prescribed after she spent 18 months as a man. It’s a gathering of men, as protection from those who would abuse us, rape us, persecute us, and demonize us. MGTOW is an ideological shift away from doing whatever we can to serve women, and instead investing in our own lives. Our revenge is our protest: a boycott. It’s only going to gather more men until women stand up and fight on our side. Until you ladies start speaking out against us being dehumanized just for being born different, you can expect the number of men willing to marry to decline further and further.
Pink Floyd “Hey You” ~ The Wall Album
Hey You (Waters) 4:39
Hey you, out there in the cold
Getting lonely, getting old
Can you feel me?
Hey you, standing in the aisles
With itchy feet and fading smiles
Can you feel me?
Hey you, don’t help them to bury the light
Don’t give in without a fight.
Hey you, out there on your own
Sitting naked by the phone
Would you touch me?
Hey you, with you ear against the wall
Waiting for someone to call out
Would you touch me?
Hey you, would you help me to carry the stone?
Open your heart, I’m coming home.
But it was only fantasy.
The wall was too high,
As you can see.
No matter how he tried,
He could not break free.
And the worms ate into his brain.
Hey you, standing in the road
always doing what you’re told,
Can you help me?
Hey you, out there beyond the wall,
Breaking bottles in the hall,
Can you help me?
Hey you, don’t tell me there’s no hope at all
Together we stand, divided we fall.
Originally posted on: http://honeybadgerbrigade.com/2014/11/12/mgtow-a-boycotting-of-women/