41 Responses

  1. donalgraeme

    Excellent analysis. The comparison to Weimar is fascinating, because I can see the parallels. I believe it was Hayek who noted how the Nazis and the Communists were bitter opponents of one another, not because they disagreed on so much, but because they drew support and new members from the same segments of society. As you noted, something similar is occurring within the Manosphere now.

  2. The Manosphere as Weimar Germany | Donal Graeme

    […] who makes his home at Veritas Lounge, has recently posted an excellent essay analyzing the recent MGTOW dust-up in the Manosphere. A […]

  3. zhai2nan2

    >there is a general sense of “what are we really about here” going on, with the often inevitable corollary of “who doesn’t belong here” and “well, if [that] is here, I am taking my ball and going elsewhere”.

    You have made an excellent point. In fact the whole post is golden.

    Sometimes it is necessary to drop out of the group in order to Go One’s Own Way.

    Sometimes the most effective critics are those who work alone.

    I don’t know that it’s very effective to write frequently about the fact that one is practicing MGTOW. After one has mentioned the fact, there’s no need to write about the battle of the sexes. One might write about one’s hobbies, or weightlifting, or the like, but that’s a hobby blog, not a real MGTOW blog as such.

  4. donalgraeme

    “I don’t know that it’s very effective to write frequently about the fact that one is practicing MGTOW. ”

    From my experience, those who are most outspoken in declaring their affinity for MGTOW tend to be the most hostile to women, and the most evangelistic in nature. While it varies with each man, the main drives seem to be either a desire to “save” other men from the fate of associating with women (often frivorced men), or a desire to “punish” women by forcing the collapse of the society they depend on by the advent of mass scale MGTOW.

  5. Early June Mini-Linkfest | Patriactionary

    […] Novaseeker: The Meaning of the Recent MGTOW Dust-Up for the Manosphere At Large […]

  6. Cail Corishev

    You made a good point about the detoxification process. I’ve thought before that one problem we have in the manosphere is that we’re all in the same big classroom. There’s not a Manosphere 101 class for the guys who are just taking the red pill, and then Manosphere 102 for the ones who understand the basics and are starting to learn more, all the way up to a series of 40x classes for those who have mastered the concepts, gotten through the phases you describe, and are ready to put their learning into action in some way and also to teach others. There’s just “the manosphere,” and we’re all jumbled up together in it.

    Because this is a new and growing phenomenon, lots of new men are always showing up, and they need to go through that detoxification process personally — the denial/anger stages. They need to spend some time railing against frivorce, trading stories that tear down their idealized view of women, and facing other harsh realities. That’s an ugly process at times, but a necessary one. But men who are already past that can get tired of slogging through yet more comments about the perfidity of females, looking for new wisdom. And red-pill women who want to contribute get tired of hearing the constant criticism of their sex, whether it’s warranted or not. But that’s always going to be part of it, as long as there are new men showing up and starting the process for themselves.

    I think we’re starting to reach enough of a critical mass that the conversation can divide into different rooms. The beginners can gather at blogs such as Roissy’s, which will hit them with the blunt facts, shock them out of their conventional beliefs, and give them a place to work through their anger and start down the path. More advanced students will tend to move to other rooms, further subdivided by what they hope to do with their new-found knowledge — PUA, MGTOW, finding a good wife, emigrating, etc.

    That’s not to say there won’t still be plenty of crossover, because this is all informal and we all have things we can learn from each other. But I think we’ll see the different areas of focus gradually find different homes where they can be better served than in one big ballroom called “the manosphere,” and there won’t be any need for everyone to get on the same page or shut down particular kinds of comments to keep everyone involved.

  7. Dalrock

    Excellent analysis as always Novaseeker. It is interesting how virulent the response to MGTOW is. It seems that MGTOW invokes a far more visceral response than the PUA path does. This can’t be for moral reasons, because this is (more or less) the other moral answer to the ultimatim presented by feminism. But I think this is probably the point. MGTOW is the most frightening response to the ultimatum, and I suspect much of the reaction to it is not from a moral perspective but from a feminine imperative perspective.

    1. Retrenched

      I think the reason why women don’t condemn PUAs as much as they do MGTOWs is that PUAs give women sexual pleasure, attention and validation, and many of them eventually do settle down after a while. So while most women don’t approve of the PUA lifestyle, they see PUAs as somewhat useful to women, or at least potentially so (if women are able to “tame” them). MGTOWs on the other hand are totally useless to women, not serving the feminine imperative in any way.

  8. donalgraeme

    ” I also think another element is that these guys are seen as potential recruits in the war to rebuild the culture through breeding, and by failing to do that they are interfering with the plan”

    That does seem to be the general Orth/Trad view. At least it seems like it from this:
    http://orthosphere.org/2013/05/02/can-man-live-traditionally/
    Of course, there are some other takes on it out there (which you mentioned in the OP). As I hinted at earlier, this is a fight for support from the same general population, and just as with the Nazis and Communists, these kind of fights are the ugliest.

    1. zhai2nan2

      > this is a fight for support from the same general population,

      A man who engages in society by promiscuous sex hints that he will support a government that guarantees his freedom to live a playboy lifestyle.

      A man who engages in society by raising five religious children by one wife hints that he will support a government that guarantees his freedom to be religious.

      A man who disengages from society might actually withhold his support from any government.

      This is a scary, scary thought for people who always want more and more and MORE government.

  9. Höllenhund

    Great article, as usual. If you don’t mind I’ll just copy + paste an earlier comment of mine on Dalrock’s and add some further points.

    I don’ think the dividing lines within the Manosphere are ideological. They are rather dependent on one’s social condition and the mindset that results from it. It’s easy to categorize Manosphere members accordingly into different groups.

    A) Single men not planning to marry. They tend to gravitate towards PUA or MGTOW depending on how fed up they are by women’s never-ending BS. If you had enough of women’s BS, you go your own way. If not, you learn Game, basically. A sizable segment of those who choose Game orient themselves towards eventual expatriation to Latin America, Thailand or what have you. Another segment seems to be oriented towards cohabitation in a string of quasi-monogamous relationships. There also seems to be some overlap between the two. Based on Novaseekers’s seemingly correct predictions about the state putting tighter regulations on cohabitation in order to facilitate more male-to-female resource transfers, I don’t think men planning the cohabitation route have a bright future ahead of them. This group will become more and more marginal.

    As far as I can see, what the men in group A generally don’t do is become an MRA or turn towards tradcon-ism. They just don’t see the point – and why should they, really? As far as they’re concerned, it’s a waste of time because this civilization is destined for demise. They are a large segment of the Manosphere, which is good, because they’re a smart and calculating bunch.

    B) Single men planning to marry. Their main interest is LTR Game, expatriation and, maybe to a lesser extent, tradcon-ism. Any other kind of stuff doesn’t interest them. They want to have a stake in the future of society.

    There’s a real dividing line between A and B. There’s not much to do about it so it’s best to simply accept it.

    C) Married men. Well, these guys are basically screwed (note that I’m only talking about those who belong to the ‘sphere – men that are happily married, or think that their marriage is fine, don’t visit websites to learn about the current SMP/MMP). They don’t have the same options and interests in life as either A or B. Their life is one of drudgery and attempts at practising LTR Game so as to avoid divorce rape. They have a stake in the future because..well, they don’t have any other choise, do they? Their interest is LTR Game and pretty much nothing more.

    There’s another real dividing line between C versus A+B. It’s not as antagonistic though as the one between A and B. It’s just that there’s a lack of common interests between C and A+B.

    D) Divorced men. They are the ones most screwed by society. They are the main group gravitating towards MGTOW and, to a lesser extent, the MRM. They pretty much stopped having any serious contact with women, for good reason. They have the fewest options in life among all these groups. They are the biggest supporters of the MRM because they need any legal reform they can get, and they need it more than anyone else. They get along well with group A but not with the others.

    There’s another real dividing line between D versus B + C.

    E) Married women with sons. There are a few of them around, as far as I can see. They seem to be the best potential asset of the MRM. They tend to be tradcon types, which means they only get along with B and C. The other guys simply terrify them.

    That pretty much sums it up. But I think I should mention two other groups outside the Manosphere.

    F) Married men with daughters. They can’t really be treated as a subgroup of C because…well, as I said, they aren’t part of the sphere and let’s face it, these guys are the worst. Novaseeker has written about this a number of times. They are the biggest white knights and generally the lamest group of people on the entire planet. They are the mortal enemies of PUAs, MGTOWs, MRAs plus anti-feminists in general. They’re useful idiots raising their daughters to be ball-busting, careerist bitches. They seem to actually believe that their innocent princesses are constantly preyed upon by an army of abhorrent, slacking players dedicated to pumping & dumping clueless young „ladies” and giving them facials. Unsurprisingly, these men are the stormtroopers of Churchianity and tradcon-ism as well.

    G) Married women with daughters. Well, to the surpise of probably no one here, this group is equally bad. Some of these women occasionally stumble upon the Manosphere, but even if they actually try to learn from it, they eventually recoil in disgust and lash out against the entire ’sphere. Susan Walsh is an obvious example. This whole issue just terrifies them, because they learn that the SMP their daughters are facing is simply horroristic – from their mothers’ point of view, of course.

  10. Escoffier

    “There can be no such fantasy with respect to a guy who has voluntarily withdrawn”

    I don’t see why not. I mean, why not fantasize that you can be that special snowflake who changes his mind? In principle, that’s possible, but the reality is that those women don’t want to change his mind. They don’t think he’s worth it.

    I think the implicit assumption here, especially on the part of the female MGTOW critics, is that MGTOW individuals are losers not merely by choice but intrinsically, inherently. They didn’t so much choose MGTOW as have it thrust upon them. Because no woman wants them, they hamsturbate that into “I will live without women.” Then the women get to cackle “bitter loser who can’t get laid tries to spin that into a choice.” This is the way women see it.

    PUAs, on the other hand, are inherently SMP “winners” so even nominally traditional or sensible women simply do not feel the same contempt for them. I have noticed from reading a few blogs that women whom one would think ought to know better tend to give wide latitude to commenters who come off as “alpha” to say things whereas “betas” get pounced on for minor infractions.

    1. zhai2nan2

      Regarding the thought:
      >that MGTOW individuals are losers not merely by choice but intrinsically, inherently. They didn’t so much choose MGTOW as have it thrust upon them.

      Note that Western feminism is heavily influenced by “positive thinking.”
      If one takes the neo-Norman-Vincent-Peale “positive thinking” philosophy, then everything in one’s life is under one’s control – one can always choose to be a success. Positive thinkers often berate failures by telling them that they have chosen to fail.

      If, on the other hand, one believes that some aspects of life are beyond one’s personal control, then it is possible to have failure forced upon one’s plans. People who believe this sometimes express contempt for failures as doomed to fail.

      The greatest horror to a Westerner is to see a failure who has some inherent weaknesses and who makes some bad decisions. The Westerner oscillates in and out of “positive thinking” mode; the Westerner alternates between blaming the failure for having made bad choices, and blaming the failure for being an Untermensch.

      But perhaps I have made bad choices, and perhaps I am an Untermensch. As Aurelius would say, “Of what concern is that to me?”

      “Since it is possible that thou mayest depart from life this very moment, regulate every act and thought accordingly. But to go away from among men, if there are gods, is not a thing to be afraid of, for the gods will not involve thee in evil; but if indeed they do not exist, or if they have no concern about human affairs, what is it to me to live in a universe devoid of gods or devoid of Providence?”

    2. Retrenched

      Feminine imperative aside, it’s easier to dismiss someone’s point of view or concerns if you don’t find them attractive, or don’t see them as having a lot of SMV. There’s a reason why code purple is the most commonly used form of feminist/female shaming tactic. (To be fair it goes both ways – men will often dismiss a woman’s opinions on gender-relations issues if she’s overweight, unattractive or an aging spinster, or if they think she is. See: every comment thread in the history of Roissy/Heartiste’s blog.) And it’s probably fair to say that most MGTOWs, even if they aren’t total incels, don’t have a lot of good options in this SMP, which is part of the reason why MGTOWs get more disdain from women than PUAs do.

      Another reason why MGTOWs get less respect is that, while PUAs are looking for ways to work around or beat the messed-up system, MGTOWs are just walking away from it. And we, as human beings, have very little respect for men who avoid danger or who back away from challenges and trials. We understand why women might want to step away from bad, dangerous or difficult situations, but we have no respect or patience for men who do the same. People may acknowledge how unfair and rigged the game is against men, but they still expect men to play it to the best of their ability.

      And while women and tradcon men may find the PUA’s lifestyle choices to be morally repugnant, they do respect him on some level (even though they may not admit it) for trying to make the best of a bad situation instead of just walking away from it like the MGTOW does.

  11. Vic

    @Dalrock on 06/06/2013 at 13:40
    “Excellent analysis as always Novaseeker. It is interesting how virulent the response to MGTOW is. It seems that MGTOW invokes a far more visceral response than the PUA path does. This can’t be for moral reasons, because this is (more or less) the other moral answer to the ultimatim presented by feminism. But I think this is probably the point. MGTOW is the most frightening response to the ultimatum, and I suspect much of the reaction to it is not from a moral perspective but from a feminine imperative perspective.”

    As usual, Dalrock’s lucid analysis nails it while many miss the mark. It explains why Dalrock’s forum will continue to explode. There is a real hunger in my Christian community for the truth. Not anger, bitterness or a continuation of having smoke blown up our bibles or called losers, just the ugly truth. Marriage doesn’t exist if your contract says you can lose everything, at any time, for any reason, at the whim of your partner. That’s a contract that ignores your responsibility to guard your God given liberty and redeem the time you’ve been given.

    Pretending to make life changing financial decisions by ignoring observed reality is dangerous and disregards the people that care about you. Marriage 1.0 doesn’t exist, and divorce is lifelong indentured relationship with the state and they will not hesitate to put you in prison, while your lovely bride watches.

    My 20+ year marriage is duct taped together after 2 decades of divorce threats, abuse and threats of government-thug intervention and my marriage is the ‘good’ one other Christians point to as an example.
    Dirty little secret, MOST of the wives I’ve known are identical to mine, and they’re husbands are often involved in ministry. When women aren’t around and prayer requests are made, they involve their hellish relationships driven by histrionics and the female imperative. That’s not an accident, that’s emblematic of our churches, today.

    My prediction is that MGTOW will not grow as fast in the secular community as it will in the Christian community. The secular community has nothing to reform to because you can’t pull the plug on relative truth; it’s just another opinion. In 6 months, MGTOW will be twice as big a movement as it is now and more forums will be talking about it.

    And if Dalrock’s forum was a publicly traded corporation, I’d tell my broker to buy.

  12. Crimson Viceroy

    Vic,

    Astute observation. You’re definitely right, Christian MGTOW’s will be coming out of the woodwork faster than we can blink. Men are trivialized and marginalized heavily in the church. Matter of fact, I was discussing the very thing over at LGR’s Unmasking Feminism blog. Single men are considered wetback labor at best and criminals at worst in most “Christian” churches in North America. A single Christian man is almost an endangered species in most churches in the US. True MGTOW’s in the Christian regard are those who seek to live their life in peace pursuing God and away from the caprices of women and their white knight enablers. The churches that are able to recognize this need and specifically cater to these men will find a treasure far more valuable then anything they can imagine with the whores they are catering to now.

    There is a good deal of justifiable and NECESSARY anger and a call for righteousness from men. Until balance and justice are restored, the anger must be used to drive towards a restoration. Some have found that they can channel their anger in renewing their search for a peaceful life in solitude and peace. Others have found that fighting and going muzzle-to-muzzle with society, through activism, is how that anger will be used towards equitable and fair restoration.

    For the first time in history, we have an entire generation of men who are coming to realize that their lives are their own and that they hold no allegiance to any authority outside of God. Of course women aren’t going to like this. You think the Egyptians liked talks of the Hebrew’s leaving Egypt to their Promised Land? Bear my words well, they will get a lot more stringent and hysterically power-mad before the end is near. Just look at what they are doing on Facebook, not to mention the ultra-socialist agenda being passed through Congress carte-blanche.

    SD’s blog is a joke and her hysterical rantings lends even more credibility to MGTOW’s, so she only harms her own cause by not being able to compose herself and handle herself with grace and tact. People like her and Hansen demonstrate that given enough time and pressure, most women will show their true colors…and those colors do not hold fealty to the struggle against misandry. Mind you, these women are political polar opposites..one is liberal atheist and the other is a self-avowed Christian conservative. So there is very much a real grain of truth to the fact that the hatred against men’s personal autonomy, such as MGTOW, in the grand social context is a point of contempt, hatred, fury, wrath, rage, and condemnation amongst every sect and group in the political and religious spectrum. No matter where you lean politically or religiously, when your free meal and the free meal of your progeny is about to walk out the door, such boundaries no longer matter. Quite interesting and ironic that both those who deny God’s existence and those who worship God can find commonality and an almost sick solidarity in their collective hatred of men. Make no mistake, the battle lines have been drawn.

  13. Höllenhund

    The PUA-MGTOW issue is a mixed bag. The thing is that all women harbor some level of anger towards men who refuse to invest their valuable time and money in women. They’re basically seen as deserters of the Feminine Imperative, slaves who escaped the plantation. The one thing common between PUAs and MGTOWs is that they fall into this category – note that both of them openly shun Marriage 2.0, which women generally find objectionable.

    I generally see a lot of female resentment and anger directed at PUAs as well. It shouldn’t be surprising – one of women’s biggest fears is getting duped into giving away “free sex” to counterfeit alphas, which is the exact goal of PUAs. So in a sense women are actually more resentful of PUAs than MGTOWs, because at least the latter aren’t pumping & dumping clueless women.

    As far as MGTOWs are concerned, I think women tend to harbor contempt rather than anger towards them. Escoffier is right about that. But women don’t see the contradiction in their attitude. If many MGTOWs are inherent losers in today’s SMP, what’s exactly wrong with them going their own way? What else are they supposed to do? Are these women encouraging them to expatriate to places where the SMP isn’t as bad for them? No. In women’s eyes, these men cannot do right. I think they want them to commit mass suicide.

  14. Höllenhund

    “men will often dismiss a woman’s opinions on gender-relations issues if she’s overweight, unattractive or an aging spinster, or if they think she is. See: every comment thread in the history of Roissy/Heartiste’s blog”

    Not true. What they often dismiss aren’t the *opinions* of these women but their self-entitled, resentful attitude towards men. These women aren’t normally offering their opinions on this issue; they are merely howling and ranting about men refusing to grow up and there not being any good men around. The ‘sphere is correct to point out that these women have such a nasty attitude precisely because they’re unable to elicit commitment from the men they find attractive, due to their own low SMV.

    “Another reason why MGTOWs get less respect is that, while PUAs are looking for ways to work around or beat the messed-up system”

    Again, not true. Women and tradcons don’t see it this way. They don’t think the poor PUAs are just trying to “work around” or “beat” the system. They think this system is ideal for PUAs, so the PUAs are pretty much making a killing.

  15. slumlord

    Critiques and disagreements are of course inevitable, but the systematic and willful tearing down of different paradigms that have emerged from the same process is not.

    Disagree Nova.

    I anti MGTOW, not because of any temperamental issue but because of the ideological poisons encapsulated in their ideology. I’m a live and let live sort of guy but MGTOW crowd are toxic to the manosphere.

    The whole point of the PUA crowd, which is the mainspring from which the manosphere originated, is that it was a movement directed towards self “improvement” with regard to getting laid. It was emphatically a movement directed towards engaging with women whilst the MGTOW movement is its direct opposite. The purpose of the Roissyite “knowledge” of women was to disabuse men of their pre-concieved, cultural approved notions of them in order to better enable their engagement with them. The MGTOW crowd are the antithesis of this.

    The broad agreement with the MGTOW and the PUA’s are with regard to the nature of women. But even here there lurks and ideological poison. The PUA’s accept women for what they are, in other words, they accept female nature. The MGTOW on the other hand are opposed to female nature, either mildly or virulently, so in many ways are like those radical feminists who hate “men” for what they are and want to have nothing to do with them. Hansen quite rightly recognized the parallels between them and the feminists. They are mirror ideologies.

    The whole conservative movement is about accepting reality and dealing with it. The MGTOW are sort of in rebellion against it.

    Sex is a good; a good created by God I might add, and therefore an ideological position which rejects this good is a sort of slap in the face to the Creator. I know that fornicating and adultery are sins, but so is cutting your dick off. The good man wants to avoid the whores but keeps hanging out for the good girl, even though he may never find her. Women are a good created by God and a rejection of women as a class is, once again, a slight against the Creator.
    As the good book says, It is not good for man to be alone.

    The other problem with the MGTOW approach is that is masquerades a moral evil as high principle. The whole “I’m not going to have anything to do with women because they are evil approach” is a great way of putting all of the blame of ones misfortunes on others, and not on oneself. Sometimes the person himself is, indeed, innocent, but more times than not he is responsible for a degree of his own misfortune.

    I suppose the reason why women find the MGTOW approach so repellant is not because there won’t be any “men to marry those sluts”, rather because the whole approach reeks of loserdom and embraced beta behaviour.

    Let the hate begin.

    [And I’m not surprised that we differ on this. Again, to me the manosphere is not a movement, it is a process. It is open-ended, and it isn’t any more tied to PUA-ism or improving your lot with women than it is anything else. What is currently the manosphere, taken in total, did NOT solely come from the PUA sphere. It’s true that Roissy helped bring everything together, but some of the elements that coalesced into what is now the manosphere pre-existed the rise of Roissy, as is the case with the MGTOWs. It’s a strain that comes from pre-Roissy MRAs and their MGTOW offshoots. Paul Elam, for example, is a part of the manosphere, isn’t a fan of Roissy, was never a part of the “Roissysphere” (which was the immediate precursor to the manosphere), and is an MRA who describes himself as a MGTOW. The MGTOWs have been a part of this space, and a biggish part of it, from the beginning, even as Roissy created the catalyst for bringing together various elements into what now we know as the manosphere — something which ranges from Roissy to Welmer to Elam to Dalrock and so on.

    The manosphere is much broader than something which is “basically about Game and PUAs”. It’s a broad clearinghouse of ideas and perspectives, all of which are oriented around seeing things as they are, but as a result of which men can, and do, opt to react rather differently to that realization. It also isn’t explicitly Christian or limited to Christianity, when it comes to the manosphere as a whole — it can’t be, because the manosphere is broader than that. There is a Christian subset of the manosphere, but it tends to coexist with the non-Christian hedonistic set of the manosphere by deciding to agree to disagree about what to do about the recognition of reality as it is — in other words, they agree on the diagnosis, but very much disagree about the therapy, or even whether therapy is necessary. They don’t rage against each other all the time, however, because they recognize that the fact that they agree on the diagnosis, in and of itself and quite apart from any alignment or not beyond that, is incredibly valuable in the context of a broader culture which sees such a diagnosis as not just politically incorrect, but in many circles as bordering on a hate crime. In that setting, it makes no sense for people who agree on the social diagnosis to take up swords against each other in a hot war because they disagree about what they should do as a result of that diagnosis — not at this rather early stage of the game.

    As I said, I understand that there will be different points of view and different perspectives. And very sharp and deep disagreements between some of them. However, at this point in time it is way, way too early to hive off into antagonistic movements hell-bent on tearing each other up. The whole thing, taken together, is too small for that at this point. It will result in a lot of cannibalization, and a weakening of the entire current enterprise of “waking men up”, which is the main raison d’etre of the manosphere currently. In order for the manosphere to continue to serve this function and wake more men up — which is the critical task for the success of anything beyond that at some future stage — the different factions need to live and let live for a while, as, it is well noted, the long-established players like Roissy, Welmer, Elam, Dalrock and so on, have been doing for years. These folks pretty much get it. They disagree about many details in terms of what they think people should do, but they agree about many basic aspects of seeing reality as it is, and despite periodic flareups (and here I am thinking mostly of Paul, which isn’t surprising because he is in the activist camp), for the most part they live and let live because they understand that they are still aligned to some degree, and each is working in his own way for the benefit of men and the manosphere as a whole. That’s the point.]

    1. empathologism

      This suggests a significance that perhaps is rooted in issues that are, or can be, common to groups or even individuals who have, on the surface at least, very different ideological or values perspectives.

      Correct, and also the folly of the notion that something can be void of ideology. All mixed together, its an insurmountable problem. The other day somethingorotherPUA wrote

      The red pill is unique, even if a fraction of the truths in the red pill are adopted, we’ll see a massive shift in the mainstream at Dalrocks. Despite being lathered up everytime Ive read The Misandry Bubble, I am not nor will i ever be convinced that what he said is true. There are myriad reasons, Hansen etc being just one. All together its simple cultural inertia.

    2. Vic

      @slumlord
      “The whole conservative movement is about accepting reality and dealing with it. The MGTOW are sort of in rebellion against it.”
      My ‘conservative’ movement abandoned reality some time ago. There is very little to conserve. Men are looking at what is, and have stopped pretending to see what they want to see. Marriage 1.0 doesn’t exist and the legal environment for men in a long term relationship is getting increasingly hostile to his liberty, if not his safety. That’s not hyperbole.

      “Sex is a good; a good created by God I might add, and therefore an ideological position which rejects this good is a sort of slap in the face to the Creator.”
      Sacrificing yourself and putting your life in the hands of a capricious government for the privilege of having sex is as foolish a thing as you could possibly do and incredibly short-sighted. Financial suicide in pursuit of pleasure is the opposite of honoring God.

      “Women are a good created by God and a rejection of women as a class is, once again, a slight against the Creator.”
      Women and men aren’t good, both are fallen and restrained by conscience, laws and convention. Women no longer have those constraints and they are destroying themselves in droves. I simply recommend that men not go down in the catastrophe with them because someone has to be able to pick up the pieces after this dirt bath settles.

      “The whole “I’m not going to have anything to do with women because they are evil approach” is a great way of putting all of the blame of ones misfortunes on others, and not on oneself. Sometimes the person himself is, indeed, innocent, but more times than not he is responsible for a degree of his own misfortune.”
      Again, men and women aren’t good. Decades of conflating women with good and men with bad MAY have taken their toll on your thinking as it has on the church. It is not blaming to simply recognize behaviors that have been around since the Garden of Eden and pointing out the fact that the behavior is now accepted practice and endangering men.

      I, like all men, are responsible for the actions, decisions and conclusions that led us here. But it is irresponsible to ignore that I was lied to as much as it would be irresponsible to ignore my participation in it.

      I will warn men and tell them what I see. I refuse to sit on the side of the road and regret. I will warn men not to follow me. I will warn men that the bridge is out and that the signs telling them that the road is fine were old and outdated. I can’t minister to dead men and to advocate for men’s continued demise is not just counter-productive, it would be an irresponsible act that borders on evil.

      God bless you, slum

    3. GT66

      “I anti MGTOW, not because of any temperamental issue but because of the ideological poisons encapsulated in their ideology”

      What ideology? Society told us to fuck off so we fucked off. It’s all yours now assholes.

  16. zhai2nan2

    It is a strange experience to read the writings of an opponent with joy.

    Slumlord wrote:

    >Women are a good created by God and a rejection of women as a class is, once again, a slight against the Creator.

    So, male celibacy has no place in Christianity. Good to know.

    >As the good book says, It is not good for man to be alone.

    Indeed, just like John the Baptist, who caused so much trouble in the wilderness.

    >The other problem with the MGTOW approach is that is masquerades a moral evil as high principle. The whole “I’m not going to have anything to do with women because they are evil approach” is a great way of putting all of the blame of ones misfortunes on others, and not on oneself.

    So let me see if I understand Slumlord’s version of ethics:
    if I have it in my power to have sex with willing women, but I choose to abstain from sex, my abstinence is motivated by a neurotic hatred of women.

    If, on the other hand, I choose to fornicate without fulfilling the requirements of traditional Christian ethics, I am deeply accepting of female nature and thus I am doing God’s will.

    Slumlord, you’re selling a marvellous religion, but if you market it as any kind of Christianity, you’ll be guilty of false advertising.

    Matthew 10:14 =
    And if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet when you leave that house or town.

    Indeed, MGTOW should go far away from the manosphere. And if any Christian man goes his own way, he should shake the dust of the manosphere from his feet as he leaves.

  17. Höllenhund

    As usual, slumlord’s observations are incorrect.

    The PUA crowd was never the “mainspring” of the sphere. It gained mainstream acceptance by avoiding any public criticism of feminist dogma – self-declared feminist Neil Strauss is a good example. That’s the complete opposite of what the sphere is doing. The real mainspring was anti-feminist cultural commentary mixing evo psych and right-wing philosophy. Roissy indeed mastered this art and this was the thing that pulled male readers in. Game was of secondary importance in that regard. The simple truth actually seems to be that more men are interested in cultural commentary than Game.

    It’s true that MGTOW is opposed to “self-improvement with regard to getting laid”. But we cannot say with a straight face that MGTOW is opposed to male self-improvement as a whole. I should also add that PUAs promote self-improvement with regard to getting laid…outside marriage and even LTRs, generally.

    PUAs don’t “accept female nature”. Far from it. They manipulate it, but they don’t accept it. There’s a good reason why PUAs openly discourage men from marriage and even LTRs with women. In that they’re the same as the MGTOWs. The difference is that MGTOWs shun responsibility for women while rejecting any use of them, whereas PUAs shun responsibility for women while using them. A man who actually accepts female nature doesn’t avoid investing in women and being responsible for them (or just one of them). Again, I fail to see how PUAs are somehow better for society than MGTOWs.

    Radical feminist don’t hate men “for what they are”. BS. They hate them for what they *think* they are, and this hatred originates from projection plus the apex fallacy, as usual. Radfems never actually said or though anything about men that was true.

    With respect to the Christian attitude towards MGTOW, I can’t buy your ideas. What about Christian hermits? Monasteries? Friaries? Were they all heretics, or what?

    With respect to female contempt of male loserdom, again, I don’t see anyone offering alternatives to MGTOW. One consequence of unregulated hypergamy and the Four Sirens is that a segment of men are shut out of sexual relations with women. There’s no systemic solution to this besides regulating hypergamy. If they don’t go their own way, what else are they supposed to do? Kill themselves? I’m all ears.

  18. Retrenched

    Conservatives? “Reality” based? Really? Well, yeah, compared to the MSNBC, Jezebel and Ivy League faculty crowd they are, but what sane person isn’t?

    “Conservatives” certainly don’t accept reality when it comes to the nature of women, male-female relations, and the truth about women’s preferences in men (i.e., they really believe women when they say things like “I’m so sick of dating jerks, I wish I could find a nice guy” and all that). And they refuse to acknowledge any differences between the sexes, beyond whatever they can cite as proof that women are better than men, or at least “just as good” as men. They’re very much like progressive feminists in that way.

    What’s more, modern “conservatives” aren’t conserving a damned thing besides the changes that liberals have made to society and culture since around 1970 or so. “Conservatives” today are right where progressives were about 30-35 years ago, for the most part. And in 30 years “conservatives” will be fighting to preserve Obamacare and socialized medicine, and to protect the sanctity of gay marriage against polygamy and bestiality (or whatever else the progressive perverts will be pushing by then).

  19. slumlord

    @Nova

    I don’t even think it is a process as much as it is a forum where men, who disagree on everything else, at least agree on some aspects of the nature of women. What unites the PUA’s with the MGTOW’s is an overlap in the understanding of the the nature of women. Otherwise the camps are fundamentally ideologically opposed.

    To draw a rough analogy: at the turn of the 20th C, many people saw that there were problems with capitalism and various solutions were offered; distrubutism, socal-market economy, socialism and communism. As history has shown, the solutions were sometimes worse than the disease. Likewise, the manopshere seems united only in a critique of women. The manosphere at the moment resembles the situation of the Allies in WW2: deadly enemies united against a common foe. The foe in this instance, being a traditionalist understanding of the female psyche.

    I personally think that we are in the nascent stage of cultural renewal, made possible by the “by-passing” of the Cathedral narrative by the medium of the internet. It’s important to get the foundations right since ideological “wrong turns” are going to have disastrous consequences downstream. In my mind, the MGTOW crowd are one example of this erroneous thinking and therefore criticism of them is legitimate. Furthermore, the whole ideology of the MGTOW crowd is diametrically opposed to the philosophy of the PUA mentality. The PUA’s embrace a philosophy of self improvement whilst the MGTOW’s want to blame everything on women.

    From what I can see, its the MGTOW’s who seem to be most offended by this criticism. They, incidentally, seem to see themselves as part of a movement, where the PUA’s don’t really see themselves as some type of men’s movement at all (Frankly, I get the impression that most PUA’s don’t want to be seen dead anywhere near the MGTOW crowd) Rather, the PUA’s see themselves as individuals using the knowledge that they have gained for personal advantage. The PUA’s are not advocates for men’s rights as much as they are individual pragmatists. I could go on about the ideological differences but I guess you are aware of them.

    I’m perfectly OK with the squabbling since a young man, exposed to the red pill, is going to want to make changes. It’s very easy to fall into error and the point of all this squabbling is to point out ideological errors.

    The Wiemar state failed, not because of the squabbling, but because of its weak ideological foundations. It was a diseased organism in which pathogens could thrive and eventually take over. A victorious Wilhelmine Germany would have avoided the Nazi catastrophe. Personally, I’m very happy the way the manosphere is growing at the moment, slowly and with roots. The best things always take time. Novelty is fleeting.

    @zhai2nan2

    Celibacy is a funny thing. If you’re doing it to be closer to God it is good. If you’re doing it because you hate women it’s evil.

  20. slumlord

    @Retrenched

    What’s more, modern “conservatives” aren’t conserving a damned thing besides the changes that liberals have made to society and culture since around 1970 or so.

    Correct. Most conservatives these days are temperamental conservatives. i.e go it slow types.
    I’m an “ideological conservative”: a get it right type. That’s why some of the temperamental conservatives find me radical.

  21. Johnycomelately

    Given the proliferation of the net and the decentralization of social institutions, it is not surprising older practices are coming to the fore.

    To me MGTOW is analogous to monasticism (not necessarily of he Christian variety), I know MGTOW will call bullshit to this assertion but the parallels are there nonetheless.

    Like MGTOW, in the past monastics were not looked upon favorably by authorities particularly when they were not sanctioned by the accepted bodies. The Reformation forced the monastics out of the cloisters, Byzantium frowned upon ‘lay’ monastics, the communists abolished monasteries and even conservative Molsems agitate against dervishes. Not to mention Israel and the prophets.

    There’s an interesting quote by a 19th century Spanish chronicler complaining about the monasteries stealing the best men (can’t remember the books title) and leaving the dwarfs to the state.

    So there is something intrinsically unappealing about MGTOW that causes it to be viewed with suspicion and angst by secular and religous authorities alike.

    1. Escoffier

      “There’s an interesting quote by a 19th century Spanish chronicler complaining about the monasteries stealing the best men (can’t remember the books title) and leaving the dwarfs to the state.”

      Machiavelli’s complaint about the evils of “ambitious leisure” is in part about monks.

  22. rmaxGenactivePUA

    How the hell are PUA’s making a killing, pussy doesnt give you welfare …

    PUA’s are just as screwed over as MGTOW, which is why game & PUA communities support Mens rights activists

    PUA’s arent magic unicorns, who arent effected by bullshit male hating feminist laws

    PUA’s game the system, it doesnt mean we benefit from the system

    Women benefit from the system, PUA’s dont get much from gaming the system, we get to lockdown pussy, big deal …

    But what we do get is the truth & insight about society & women, most men wont get to see

    We also get explore & push the boundaries of our intellect & masculinity, THAT is an invaluable advantage, most men arent allowed to explore

    THIS IS why men are attracted to game & PUA, its subversive value of allowing us to see society for what it really is & using it to a mans advantage

    Optimising a mans biological imperative, creates a deadlier, more ruthless, warriorcaste, able to stand up to the likes of feminism & marxism & taking whats rightly ours, our civilisation created by men, for men

    THAT’S what PUA & game is really about

    MGTOW & PUA are both different sides of the same coin

    One is more aggressive then the other, but both equally reject society & want to usher in a system which gives a crap about mens rights FIRST

  23. Bob

    My view on why feminists have MGTOW’s so much is because it robs women of their victimhood and shaming tactics.

    How can they continue to blame somebody and play the victim role if the other person has walked away from the table and has no interest in coming back? MGTOW’s effectively removed themselves from the problem entirely and has decided to leave women to clean up their own mess.

  24. Höllenhund

    it is assured that feminists WILL find a way to blame MGTOW for women’s “problems”. They will probably say crap like “the dating scene is so terrible for women because so few men are showing up” or something like that.

  25. Milo

    The main reason why the PUA community receives less flack from women than the MGTOWs is because they are directly linked to serving female interests! PUAs cater to women’s physical/sexual/social needs and create the drama which gives their lives meaning.

    Women generally view PUAs as the alphas whom they wish to procreate with, and “change” through their influence and proximity. When this strategy fails, they begin searching for the beta males to con them into supporting and raising their bastards.

    MGTOW terrifies women because they never viewed it’s membership as being useful for alpha procreation, but for beta support. By spreading truth and knowledge, and by sharing experiences, MGTOWs are undermining the resource which the majority of women eventually come to rely upon – beta provisioning. Thus, MGTOWs are indirectly cutting at the root of the feminine imperative, which cannot be tolerated.

Leave a Reply