# Men going their own way (MGTOW) **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [June 20, 2015, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/men-going-their-own-way-mgtow/723022 "2015-06-20T19:21:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 21
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2015, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/men-going-their-own-way-mgtow/723022/401 "2015-06-24T15:07:26Z")
> [@Slithy\_Tove](#): > > I’m not denying that, because its true. I’m not apologizing for it, because I didn’t do it. All I will do is ignore it, because that’s all I owe you as a human being. As I quoted upthread: evil cannot be forced out, it must be crowded out. Okay, but crowded out by what? If men don’t object to the characterizations because they don’t “owe” women something (which is a very odd way to phrase this), then who does object? And if no one objects, why would anything change? ---
**Author:** ![Slithy\_Tove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slithy_tove/32/18248_2.png) [@Slithy\_Tove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slithy_Tove)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2015, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/men-going-their-own-way-mgtow/723022/402 "2015-06-24T15:25:25Z")
Crowded out by the positives of being independent, instead of negging on the negatives. There are simply too many assholes in this world to engage with each and every one. I wouldn’t laugh at a rape joke. I’d frown at it’s asininity. But I wouldn’t call the cops and say “this guy is potential rapist!” Another quote fits: “gratitude is riches, complaining is poverty.” I’m not going to tell anyone they have no right to complain. I’m not going on a crusade to censure inappropriate complaints. And you must admit that misogyny is not black and white: everyone with a brain knows _“slap my bitch up”_ is misogynous. But is \*“why should a make a big deal for someone just because it’s February 14th and she’s the one with the vagina?” \*misogynous? I guarantee you you’ll find some people who think it is. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2015, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/men-going-their-own-way-mgtow/723022/403 "2015-06-24T15:50:41Z")
> [@Slithy\_Tove](#): > > Crowded out by the positives of being independent, instead of negging on the negatives. Is there any place this is happening? The site you linked to above says their core mission is: “AVFM’s core mission has been to change the public narrative about sexual politics; to force a critique of feminism into the cultural consciousness and to chip away at the empathy gap when it comes to the sexes.” I looked at the front page you linked to. They say a lot about women. It’s a lot of critiques of feminism (or strawmen of feminism) and lots of snarking about women. But there’s very little about men directly. I don’t know. I don’t read those headlines and think “This is about the positives of being independent.” I think “These guys really want to go after women.” I took a look at the front two pages of Jezebel (to see roughly the same amount of content as the AVFM site). Jezebel’s front page has one article/post/thingie explicitly about males in that it mentions that Kim Kardashian and Kanye West had only male embryos planted. I guess they did IVF (I didn’t read the article). There were articles about racism, homophobia, drugs, a rape trial, some celebrities. Lots of different things. Now, it’s important to note that I don’t tend to read Jezebel, and I don’t tend to read AVFM. So their respective front pages may not be their norms right now for whatever reason. And their standing in their respective communities may not be similar. That said, Jezebel’s front pages did not read to me like an attack on men. It read like a progressive bloggy type site with a pro-women and minorities slant. So, this is how the two sites struck me: Jezebel: Go women! Go minorities! Go gays! Because we’re awesome! AVFM: Go men! Because women and feminism suck! ---
**Author:** ![Slithy\_Tove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slithy_tove/32/18248_2.png) [@Slithy\_Tove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slithy_Tove)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2015, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/men-going-their-own-way-mgtow/723022/404 "2015-06-24T16:12:53Z")
And you didn’t see any misogyny. If you had, you’d have let us know. Jezebel isn’t the opposite of a MGTOW site. Its a woman’s advocacy site, with some good articles and some real clunkers (as the UVA rape story unraveled, it doubled-down by smearing the journalist who investigated Rolling Stones’ shoddy journalism) The opposites of a MGTOW site are Plenty O Fish, and OK Cupid. Kind of like how the opposite of a frugal living website would be an online investment site with incredibly poor ROI. Like I said in my second post in this thread, I don’t agree with a lot of what gets into MGTOW sites. It doesn’t jibe with everything in heaven and earth. But nobody else is telling guys “you don’t have to put up with this bullshit.” ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2015, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/men-going-their-own-way-mgtow/723022/405 "2015-06-24T16:16:28Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > I wouldn’t make the argument in quite that way. I do remember hearing discussions and debates some years ago about how teaching methods favored boys’ learning styles (individual studying and tests) over girls’ (peer interaction and group projects), and that teachers should change their methods to give girls more educational opportunities. Has it worked, is that why women now outnumber men in college admissions; and should we put some effort into making sure boys don’t get left behind? But I still think this falls back on convenient stereotypical thinking. What evidence is there that girls do better in group projects? Being able to work in a team is a skill that develops over time, and boys get a lot of practice at this in sports. Unless things have drastically changed since I was a kid, most schoolwork (particularly at the youngest ages)l is targeted toward the individual. Homework is individual, testing is individual, and class participation is individual. So I question the assumption that increasing emphasis on peer interaction and group projects has resulted in a major grading changes. If we’re serious about addressing male underperformance, we need data. Not assumptions based on stereotypes. What factors differentiate the strong performing boys from the weaker ones? It’s perfectly possible that certain factors associated with poor academic performance (like parental reinforcement or lack thereof) have a bigger effect on boys than girls. This isn’t evidence of gender bias, though. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2015, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/men-going-their-own-way-mgtow/723022/406 "2015-06-24T16:23:01Z")
> [@Slithy\_Tove](#): > > And you didn’t see any misogyny. If you had, you’d have let us know. ? Or not, since that wasn’t what I was focused on. > [@](#): > > Jezebel isn’t the opposite of a MGTOW site. Its a woman’s advocacy site, with some good articles and some real clunkers (as the UVA rape story unraveled, it doubled-down by smearing the journalist who investigated Rolling Stones’ shoddy journalism) So a women’s advocacy site is not the opposite of a men’s advocacy site? > [@](#): > > The opposites of a MGTOW site are Plenty O Fish, and OK Cupid. Kind of like how the opposite of a frugal living website would be an online investment site with incredibly poor ROI. AVFM has articles about feminism, dogs, women, rape accusations, ADHD, etc. I don’t see how this is the opposite of dating sites. > [@](#): > > Like I said in my second post in this thread, I don’t agree with a lot of what gets into MGTOW sites. It doesn’t jibe with everything in heaven and earth. But nobody else is telling guys “you don’t have to put up with this bullshit.” You know, if you didn’t want to talk about it, you could have just not talked about it. I would like to have a conversation, but I would also like not to be near-sighted and to be able to eat ice cream for breakfast. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2015, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/men-going-their-own-way-mgtow/723022/407 "2015-06-24T17:37:55Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > First, there is a fact that stuck in my mind listening to NPR in 2007: > > **The median age for women getting married in 1957 was 20.** > > 20! That means roughly half of all women getting married were teenagers. The average for men was a few years higher. The median for women in 2007 was 26 IIRC. > > Then here is an opinion that I didn’t come up with but I think is pretty close to a fact: > > **Women are sex objects; men are success objects.** > > Should it be that way? No. Is it that way? Basically yes. Is it that way for primitive reasons rooted in primate psychology? I certainly think so. > > So let’s put it together. _Very_ recently, we had an economy in which men could rather easily fulfill their role as “success objects.” Graduate high school, get a job at the mill, pay your bills. In your early 20s, you could get married, have kids, and enjoy social approval. All this with average intelligence and abilities. > > At the same time, women could fulfill their role as sex objects fairly easily. Put more positively, objects of desire. Look nice, have some basic social skills, leverage that home ec knowledge you gained in high school. > > Was there plenty to criticize about this setup? Absolutely. Has feminism been a valuable critique of all that? Absolutely. > > OK, now fast-forward to 2015. We have a shitty economy with terrible prospects for young people, but one thing is still true: > > **Women are sex objects; men are success objects.** > > The difference between now and the past is that women can more or less just as easily fulfill their role as sex objects/objects of desire today. Look nice, have some basic social skills. Have some interests. You’re golden! > > But men are very much hampered in fulfilling their role as success objects. Those mill jobs are gone, and even if they existed, what kind of blue-collar loser works at a mill anyway? Who cares if you look good, work out, put work into yourself, have some interests? If you’re not a young billionaire like Christian Grey, then what the fuck good are you? > > The shaming of the “basement-dwelling losers” in this thread is _exactly_ this. They are basement-dwelling, i.e., they are not successful. They are not successful, ergo, they can’t get a decent woman or a woman at all. To top it off, they are bitter about it all! What loser mutherfuckers worthless trash deserving of no respect at all. > > Feminism has been great for society on the whole. The trouble is that primate psychology hasn’t changed. Women have absorbed feminist teachings and apply them in their top-level cognition, as well they should, but beneath all that the desire to have a man “who can really take care of me” has **not** changed. At least not much. Just as feminism has also influenced men’s thinking but hasn’t changed their desire for “a really hot chick with massive hooters.” > > Although the career prospects in 2015 are shitty for both men and women, that situation, while no doubt having a negative impact on women’s perception of self-worth, is catastrophic for men’s self-worth. Moreover, men may think less of women who don’t have good jobs, but women _really_ think less of men who don’t. > > Meanwhile, it’s no harder to look good and be charming now than it was in the 1950s. > > That’s why, I believe, you see this growing pool of bitter men. The choice, then, is to piss on them even more or actually have some compassion and try to help them a bit. There’s some truth I what you’re saying. 40 or 60 or 80 years of social engineering isn’t going to change hundreds of thousands or millions of years of evolution. Short of some sort of forced marriage program, women are going to continue to want to date the guy with the nice car, good job, and/or fat bank account over a “basement dwelling loser”. Men, on the other hand, are going to want to date the most attractive woman they can, whether she lives in a basement or not. As an aside, my 20- something year old, competent, charming, hard-working, highly empathetic assistant, who also happens to be drop-dead gorgeous, has never dated a man her own age. Currently she’s dating a 50- something year old man with a “panty-dropping” (her words, not mine) Lamborghini, who’ll be taking her to NY in a couple weeks. Just sayin’. I’m not hating, btw. After seeing where he lives, I’d date him. (I just don’t think he’d have me.) My only concern is I may wind up losing a hard-to-replace assistant. But if you were a twenty-something guy, and you believe being Mr. Nice Guy would eventually win you a girlfriend… switching from the lies you’ve been told to reality is a bit of an adjustment. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2015, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/men-going-their-own-way-mgtow/723022/408 "2015-06-24T18:54:32Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > They are not full of misogyny, they are made up of misogyny. Per my analysis, it you remove the misogyny there is vanishingly little content. Misogyny is not an unfortunate side effect or an unwanted guest, it is, as the actual content clearly shows, a primary activity for this particular group. > > Men who are genuinely interested in these causes need to stop being apologists for the nasty things these guys are indulging in. There are genuine problems with gender, on all sides. Women need to be partners in dismantling these, just like men are our partners in feminism. Women are your mothers, teachers, lovers, colleagues, friends and partners. Together we can imagine a better world where our sons and daughters are seen as individuals first, with the range of expectations and opportunities available to them not defined by their plumbing. > > But not while you are calling me a fat, dim, sexless, gold-digging, cheating whore (or defending those that do.) I’m reasonably sure you’re one of the ones who dismissed them as “basement-dwelling troglodytes” (if I’m wrong, I apologize in advance). You may have been one of the ones who compared them to the KKK and the NAZIs. I remember when Limbaugh first came out with feminazis, and how offended I was and what an ass he was making of himself. (Example #573). But I say with sincerity, I don’t believe men can be partners in feminism, unless you view your pet as a partner. And you really really don’t don’t like your pet. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2015, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/men-going-their-own-way-mgtow/723022/409 "2015-06-24T19:01:12Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > … > But I say with sincerity, I don’t believe men can be partners in feminism, unless you view your pet as a partner. And you really really don’t don’t like your pet. I can’t parse this to make any sense at all. I’m guessing you’ve defined “feminism” in your own mind so narrowly that “feminists” have no respect for men. That’s absurd. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2015, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/men-going-their-own-way-mgtow/723022/410 "2015-06-24T21:40:50Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > I can’t parse this to make any sense at all. I’m guessing you’ve defined “feminism” in your own mind so narrowly that “feminists” have no respect for men. > > That’s absurd. No, you’re right: there’s 37 different flavor of feminism. I know they don’t all hate men. It’s just that the ones who register loudest to me say the same thing over and over: “we hate men.” Now whether that’s because they’re the loudest, they get the most attention, or I’m especially attuned to that message is up for debate. But they’re definitely out there, and I’ve heard their message again and again. I’m not up for hearing it anymore. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2015, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/men-going-their-own-way-mgtow/723022/411 "2015-06-24T22:13:33Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > But I still think this falls back on convenient stereotypical thinking. What evidence is there that girls do better in group projects? Being able to work in a team is a skill that develops over time, and boys get a lot of practice at this in sports. > > Unless things have drastically changed since I was a kid, most schoolwork (particularly at the youngest ages)l is targeted toward the individual. Homework is individual, testing is individual, and class participation is individual. So I question the assumption that increasing emphasis on peer interaction and group projects has resulted in a major grading changes. > > If we’re serious about addressing male underperformance, we need data. Not assumptions based on stereotypes. What factors differentiate the strong performing boys from the weaker ones? It’s perfectly possible that certain factors associated with poor academic performance (like parental reinforcement or lack thereof) have a bigger effect on boys than girls. This isn’t evidence of gender bias, though. It’s not something I’ve studied enough to really debate of what works, and why; just a general recollection of how the subject has been handled in news articles and interviews. Although I don’t think the bit about different learning styles is pure stereotype. I’m pretty sure that has been studied; I may have just gotten the details wrong in my descriptions. My point was more to do with the reactions and public perceptions on the issue. When girls and women underperform in some area, it’s seen as a problem. There are efforts even now to increase women’s participation in STEM fields. It doesn’t seem to be the same with boys and men. I see the statistics that women are the majority of college students and graduates, and I can find articles on why boys underperform in school, but it hasn’t mobilized any sort of effort to correct it. If no one is offering a solution, is it because boys’ poor performance isn’t considered a problem? ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2015, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/men-going-their-own-way-mgtow/723022/412 "2015-06-24T22:18:19Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > My point was more to do with the reactions and public perceptions on the issue. When girls and women underperform in some area, it’s seen as a problem. There are efforts even now to increase women’s participation in STEM fields. It doesn’t seem to be the same with boys and men. I see the statistics that women are the majority of college students and graduates, and I can find articles on why boys underperform in school, but it hasn’t mobilized any sort of effort to correct it. If no one is offering a solution, is it because boys’ poor performance isn’t considered a problem? Or maybe enough time hasn’t passed for people to be sure there is a problem. Or maybe enough time hasn’t passed for anyone to figure out any answers. Black kids often underperform white kids. Lots of us think that’s a problem and it hasn’t been fixed. Does that mean lots of us don’t think it’s a problem? No. But it does mean that something is missing: knowledge of the problem, knowledge of the cause, knowledge of the solution, or the will to fix it. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2015, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/men-going-their-own-way-mgtow/723022/413 "2015-06-24T22:48:05Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > It’s not something I’ve studied enough to really debate of what works, and why; just a general recollection of how the subject has been handled in news articles and interviews. Although I don’t think the bit about different learning styles is pure stereotype. I’m pretty sure that has been studied; I may have just gotten the details wrong in my descriptions. > > My point was more to do with the reactions and public perceptions on the issue. When girls and women underperform in some area, it’s seen as a problem. There are efforts even now to increase women’s participation in STEM fields. It doesn’t seem to be the same with boys and men. I see the statistics that women are the majority of college students and graduates, and I can find articles on why boys underperform in school, but it hasn’t mobilized any sort of effort to correct it. If no one is offering a solution, is it because boys’ poor performance isn’t considered a problem? It could be because the jury is still out as to whether what we’re seeing in boys is actually new. If boys are doing about the same as they always done–and we’re only now reconizing their performance as a problem because girls are beating them–it’s going to be harder to galvanize the masses to treat this as a serious issue. It’s all too tempting to see this as zero sum, as if helping girls succeed has to come at the expense of boys. I think this mindset is counterproductive because it’s antagonistic and causes us always conclude bias is afoot rather than other hypothesies… ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2015, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/men-going-their-own-way-mgtow/723022/414 "2015-06-24T23:18:54Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > I see what you’re saying, but I think it oversimplifies a bit. > > Traditional-minded men are most attracted to women who aren’t going threaten their self-image as a strong, capable provider. So in a bad economy, when such men find themselves at the bottom of the food chain, they typically are not going to be pining after women who are outperforming them status-wise. > > Which is part of the reason why there are so many single, high-achieving women. It’s not just that their standards are disqualifying men. It’s also that fewer men are pursuing them. This is one of the reasons that women feel pressured to dumb themselves down and downplay their jobs when dating. I think you’re wrong. I think most men just don’t want to be with a woman who thinks she’s better than him, or that she’s “settling”. Many men, I think, would be perfectly happy dating or marrying a woman who makes more money. But they’d want that fact to be separate from the power structure within the relationship. And they’d want to feel like the woman valued him for _something_; if not the amount of money he makes, then something else. He’d want to think she’s happy to be with him, despite the fact he makes less money, and he’d want to feel like she thinks she’s picked a winner, even if she makes more money than he does. One thing to consider is there are a lot of ways to be a successful person, other than by making a lot of money. Another thing to consider is that being a “high-achieving woman” may have a lot to do with, say - hard work - for example. But it’s also possible that you’ve been fortunate. Maybe you were born smart. Not everybody is. Maybe you had good parents. Not everybody does. Maybe your parents paid for your education. Not all parents do. Maybe you got a break, at some point, and had the opportunity to take advantage of it. I’m just throwing some things out there. If you (and I’m talking about the hypothetical you, not you personally) go around projecting the idea that you’re better than other people, you’re going to turn a lot of people off, including potential suitors. If you think about the ways you’ve been fortunate in life, and consider the ways other people may not have been as fortunate, you’re more likely to draw people in. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2015, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/men-going-their-own-way-mgtow/723022/415 "2015-06-24T23:55:53Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > But people come to every issue with their own set of preconceptions and long-held ideologies. Often it’s easier to label people, and sweep them under the rug, than reexamine your own cherished beliefs. > [@LinusK](#): > > But feminism was never about equality, and its not about equality today. It’s about giving women choices, but without consequences, or obligations. As a philosophy, it’s untenable. It’s doomed to failure, and it is failing, but not without doing a lot of collateral damage along the way. Just sayin’ :). In fairness we all have our moments of hypocrisy, so I’m not going to heap too much salt on the wound. Afterall you do go on to acknowledge, correctly, that feminism has many different faces. But you seem to be pretty dogmatic in pushing the one view as the dominant one while scolding everyone else for not being more flexible and open-minded about your “own” ( or at least the one you’re implicitly carrying water for ) ideology. If you were previewing your argument for a debate team, you’d probably get a mild rebuke for trapping yourself with your own rhetoric. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2015, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/men-going-their-own-way-mgtow/723022/416 "2015-06-25T00:15:43Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > I think you’re wrong. I think most men just don’t want to be with a woman who thinks she’s better than him, or that she’s “settling”. Many men, I think, would be perfectly happy dating or marrying a woman who makes more money. But they’d want that fact to be separate from the power structure within the relationship. And they’d want to feel like the woman valued him for _something_; if not the amount of money he makes, then something else. He’d want to think she’s happy to be with him, despite the fact he makes less money, and he’d want to feel like she thinks she’s picked a winner, even if she makes more money than he does. > > One thing to consider is there are a lot of ways to be a successful person, other than by making a lot of money. Another thing to consider is that being a “high-achieving woman” may have a lot to do with, say - hard work - for example. But it’s also possible that you’ve been fortunate. Maybe you were born smart. Not everybody is. Maybe you had good parents. Not everybody does. Maybe your parents paid for your education. Not all parents do. Maybe you got a break, at some point, and had the opportunity to take advantage of it. > > I’m just throwing some things out there. > > If you (and I’m talking about the hypothetical you, not you personally) go around projecting the idea that you’re better than other people, you’re going to turn a lot of people off, including potential suitors. If you think about the ways you’ve been fortunate in life, and consider the ways other people may not have been as fortunate, you’re more likely to draw people in. In fact in the past few decades there have been an increase of like marrying like. Male execs don’t marry secretaries any more, they marry female execs. That there are more female execs around to be candidates helps also. There always has been a distribution of brains and opportunity. The difference today is that women with brains don’t get blocked (or not as much as they used to.) The smart woman becomes a doctor today, not a nurse. Perhaps this puts her out of the reach of not-so-smart men who might have had a chance with a nurse. (I am not putting down nurses - it is just a prestige thing. And a money thing. My wife’s aunt could have made a great doctor if she were born 40 years later.) I’ve never heard any men I know express the wish to marry a bimbo, (even 40 years ago) and they pretty much all married smart and competent women. My two very smart daughters had no trouble getting husbands. If any boys considered them too smart, those boys got rejected immediately. As for the woman making more money, I suspect this would be fine if the man were doing something interesting or creative that doesn’t pay well. If the man is making less money because he never cared about school or is dumb or is lazy, then he might have a bit harder time attracting a smart woman. Tough. I think it is good when spouse not only love each other but are also proud of each other. ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2015, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/men-going-their-own-way-mgtow/723022/417 "2015-06-25T00:26:08Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > “Humping and dumping” is a **Lamia** concoction, not something that comes from MGTOW. **Slithy Tove** is actually the one who introduced the term “humping and dumping” to the discussion; I’ve only been using it because that was the expression he used. I’ll admit that I’m not the heppest cat around, so it’s possible I’ve misunderstood what this means. It seems pretty self-explanatory, but if this: > [@LinusK](#): > > From the FAQ: > > > [@](#): > > > > **Do MGTOW have sex? Or are you all virgins who can’t get any?** > > > > This is one of the dumbest repeat questions we receive. > > > > Where do you think the exploding population of single mothers comes from? After all, it’s still legal in this country for a woman to allow herself to get pregnant without a man’s consent. If she pulls that stunt, does she really expect her man to stick around? > > > > Single mothers are the number one cause of single mothers. > > > > Who do you think had sex with her? A MGHOW, that’s who. is not the sort of thing properly described as “humping and dumping” then I apologize for the mistake. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2015, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/men-going-their-own-way-mgtow/723022/418 "2015-06-25T01:05:21Z")
> [@Tamerlane](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally Posted by LinusK View Post > > But people come to every issue with their own set of preconceptions and long-held ideologies. Often it’s easier to label people, and sweep them under the rug, than reexamine your own cherished beliefs. > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally Posted by LinusK View Post > > But feminism was never about equality, and its not about equality today. It’s about giving women choices, but without consequences, or obligations. As a philosophy, it’s untenable. It’s doomed to failure, and it is failing, but not without doing a lot of collateral damage along the way. > > Just sayin’ :). > > In fairness we all have our moments of hypocrisy, so I’m not going to heap too much salt on the wound. Afterall you do go on to acknowledge, correctly, that feminism has many different faces. > > But you seem to be pretty dogmatic in pushing the one view as the dominant one while scolding everyone else for not being more flexible and open-minded about your “own” ( or at least the one you’re implicitly carrying water for ) ideology. If you were previewing your argument for a debate team, you’d probably get a mild rebuke for trapping yourself with your own rhetoric. I don’t except myself from having preconceptions. I come to every issue with my own pre-conceptions, just like everyone else. And I will acknowledge that my own experiences with feminism have darkened my view of it. It’s sort of like, my gut reaction is colored by past experiences, even though I know intellectually not all feminists are the same. Sometimes I have to check myself, and I don’t always do a good job of it. Anyway, mea culpa. On the other issue, I don’t know that I’m carrying water for anybody. I understand why it seems that way: to me I was trying to have a discussion about MGTOW, while others were attacking it, without bothering to find out what it was, first. Which, in turn, seemed to validate one of MGTOW’s points: that it’s pointless to engage with the outside world, because nobody gives a shit about them, or what they think. And at least some - not all - of what they say resonates with me. So I am willing to defend at least those parts. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2015, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/men-going-their-own-way-mgtow/723022/419 "2015-06-25T01:48:46Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > In fact in the past few decades there have been an increase of like marrying like. Male execs don’t marry secretaries any more, they marry female execs. That there are more female execs around to be candidates helps also. > There always has been a distribution of brains and opportunity. The difference today is that women with brains don’t get blocked (or not as much as they used to.) The smart woman becomes a doctor today, not a nurse. Perhaps this puts her out of the reach of not-so-smart men who might have had a chance with a nurse. (I am not putting down nurses - it is just a prestige thing. And a money thing. My wife’s aunt could have made a great doctor if she were born 40 years later.) > I’ve never heard any men I know express the wish to marry a bimbo, (even 40 years ago) and they pretty much all married smart and competent women. My two very smart daughters had no trouble getting husbands. If any boys considered them too smart, those boys got rejected immediately. > As for the woman making more money, I suspect this would be fine if the man were doing something interesting or creative that doesn’t pay well. If the man is making less money because he never cared about school or is dumb or is lazy, then he might have a bit harder time attracting a smart woman. Tough. > I think it is good when spouse not only love each other but are also proud of each other. I agree with most of what you say, so I’ll limit myself to asking a question: if there’s been an increase in “like marrying like”, where do all the stories about “successful” women not being able to find a man come from? ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2015, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/men-going-their-own-way-mgtow/723022/420 "2015-06-25T02:02:24Z")
> [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally Posted by LinusK View Post > > “Humping and dumping” is a Lamia concoction, not something that comes from MGTOW. > > Slithy Tove is actually the one who introduced the term “humping and dumping” to the discussion; I’ve only been using it because that was the expression he used. I’ll admit that I’m not the heppest cat around, so it’s possible I’ve misunderstood what this means. It seems pretty self-explanatory, but if this: > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally Posted by LinusK View Post > > From the FAQ: > > Quote: > > Do MGTOW have sex? Or are you all virgins who can’t get any? > > > > This is one of the dumbest repeat questions we receive. > > > > Where do you think the exploding population of single mothers comes from? After all, it’s still legal in this country for a woman to allow herself to get pregnant without a man’s consent. If she pulls that stunt, does she really expect her man to stick around? > > > > Single mothers are the number one cause of single mothers. > > > > Who do you think had sex with her? A MGHOW, that’s who. > > is not the sort of thing properly described as “humping and dumping” then I apologize for the mistake. Yeah, like I said before, it’s defensive and antagonistic. I won’t defend the substance, or the tone. In fact, “Single mothers are the number one cause of single mothers.” is obviously wrong, since it takes two (usually) to make a baby. I suspect (and yes, I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt) they’re over-compensating for the “they’re just a bunch of basement-dwelling losers who can’t get any” attitude. It’s still wrong, and stupid. Edited to add: in my view, being a good father should be the #1 aspect of what it means to be a good man. Making babies and abandoning them is despicable. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/men-going-their-own-way-mgtow/723022.md?page=20) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/men-going-their-own-way-mgtow/723022.md?page=22)