Categories
manginas MGTOW

Science Proves that Men Going Their Own Way Don’t Go Anywhere, Really

mgtowscreencap
I highlighted that one big word.

If you ever wonder what a bunch of dudes who are Going Their Own Way and totally don’t give a good gosh darn about women, nosireebob, like to talk about the most on their special Men Only No Girls Allowed We’re Totally Going Our Own Way forum, well now you don’t have to rely on the comments I so cavalierly cherry pick from their forum.

Nope, I just realized we can use SCIENCE, in the form of the tag clouds that the site puts above the various subforums, to SCIENTIFICALLY see what they talk about. If you cast your glance upwards, for example, you’ll see the tag cloud for the most active forum on the site.

Seems like these Men Going Their Own Way haven’t gone very far, huh?

I’m guessing the National Organization for Women spends less time talking about women than they do.

EDITED TO ADD: If you would prefer to hear this post read aloud by an actual Man Going His Own Way, one of them has helpfully prepared this video. It’s an uncanny impersonation, by the way. They showed me, I guess!

258 replies on “Science Proves that Men Going Their Own Way Don’t Go Anywhere, Really”

People are marginalized in a society when they don’t have a *place* within it. Men’s place in a society involves their relationships to women and men who have an insecure relationship to women are, by and large, marginalized.

Oh my.

No citation is needed. If I claimed that humans having two legs is genetic would you offer the snarky “citation needed”? Of course not.

Prior to the mass entry of women into the workforce society had a non-governmental method of transferring resources from men to women. It was called the family and men got something out of it. For a functioning and sustainable society you *need* a transfer of resources from men to women. However, men are going to require something in return for that transfer of resources and ever-increasing numbers are not getting it in the current scenario.

Those men are marginalized and will have no incentive to sustain your precious welfare state.

Oh my oh my oh my oh my oh my oh my HIT IT:

Featuring Fibinachi, who can’t sing, with a backup of your tormented, inner anguish at reading the above, it’s a slightly altered rendition of Rush’s the Trees:

There is unrest in the cities,
There is trouble with the men,
For the shefolk want more equality
And who will give them resources then?.

The trouble with the womyn,
(And they’re quite convinced the’re right)
They say the men are just too oppressive
And they grab up all the light (and money and political seats and benefits and social easy grace)
But the men can’t help their feelings!
If they like the way they’re made!.
And they wonder why the women
Can’t be happy in their shade!

There is trouble in the cities,
And the kittens all have fled,
As the manboobs scream oppression,
And Asher just shake his head

So the females formed a movement
And demanded equal rights.
“These men are just too greedy;
We will make them give us light (and bodily rights!).”
Now there’s sligtly less male oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the pay-grades are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.

But hatchets must be made
from stone-faced working men
And since women entered the workforce
who could possibly make the tools, then?

Now if you like your precious wellfare-state
It’s obvious that you must agree
That women can do nothing at all
And men must give them resources, pay their company

Without this noble order
It’ll all come crumbling down
Because no man of woman born
Can have a female co-worker without also having a frown

So there’s unrest in the cities
There’s trouble with the men
Without relationship to women
Their lives forfeit, it’s only a matter of when!

Don’t you understand, fool manboob?
It’s the law of the very land!
Women do nothing but blow at jobs
That should rightully be in the hand
Of a much better man
So he can give all his money
To some random wench
And quench
The thirst for company
That harbours the significant soul of every man in the world
Without which he is NOTHING
and dismayed!
(I’m so lonely)

Banging power solo
Fibi trips out on drugs.
Passes out.
Tour cancelled.
Tour re-booked, but with Kittens and ferrets in suits as the main singer instead.

The theme of the song sucked now, the notion of it sucks now, and you, Sir, is so wrong that on the granular scale I use to measure wrongness you are tipping in at a significant Ten MegaWrongs, or, as I like to also call, your thought process is a neat and wonderful 1½ Shoggothian:

A shapeless congeries of protoplasmic bubbles, faintly self-luminous

Yep.

Women tend to choose professions where they can shape their work around their life. Men tend to order their life around their professions.

Translation: societal expectations about who does the child-caring and household chores are IMMUTABLE.

Asher:

Women tend to choose professions where they can shape their work around their life. Men tend to order their life around their professions

See, this is one of the things I asked you: it’s got to do with how men are “marginalised”. Yo seem to be arguing against it here. If men and women each get to choose how to order their lives, then neither is marginalised.

If, however, one group is constrained in that choice, then that group is marginalised.

So, I’ll repeat my queries (in case they managed to slip past your eagle eye).

In what ways have men been marginalised? Have they been turned out of elective office? Kept from participating in certain professions? Been paid less for their work than women?

Are people advocating they lose some of their rights? Denying them bodily autonomy? Blaming them for these events?

@Asher

Any reply to how the state takes money away from women to give it to rich men?

Also, you know that married women on average perform 16 hours more child care and housework than men, right? If that disparity was gone, then job choices might be more equal.

Also, the wage gap still exists if you account for career choice.

@ Howard

The regressive nature of state and local taxes, by income, says nothing about the welfare state as a transfer of resources from men to women.

Prior to the mass entry of women into the workforce society had a non-governmental method of transferring resources from men to women. It was called the family and men got something out of it. For a functioning and sustainable society you *need* a transfer of resources from men to women. However, men are going to require something in return for that transfer of resources and ever-increasing numbers are not getting it in the current scenario.

Dear Goddess, is he going with the ‘everything was great until women started working’ ploy?
“It was called the family and men got something out of it-” But apparently women didn’t get so much out of it because so many of them decided they liked paid labor better than unpaid. And, you know, not being completely up shit creek without a paddle if hubbie dies/loses his job/becomes abusive/runs off/goes to jail, etc.

@ Howard

The regressive nature of state and local taxes, by income, says nothing about the welfare state as a transfer of resources from men to women.

No, but it addresses the point you made about WHO IS PAYING FOR IT. Dunderhead.

The regressive nature of state and local taxes, by income,

Yet, you just used PROGRESSIVE taxation as an argument for its existence.

Does it hurt to have so much cognitive dissonance?

I mean, I quoted his own words right back to him–showing him what part of his analysis I disagreed with.

BTW, I think I know which of my citations he’s questioning, because at a second look, I’m mixing and matching–those are non-US statistics about consumptions of welfare benefits. Back to the drawing board…

*sigh*

As a result, certain groups of women have always worked outside the home for pay, regardless of whether they were mothers simultaneously. Black women have been negotiating the boundaries of paid work and motherhood since slavery (Benin & Keith, 1995; Collins, 1991). Lower middle-class, working-class, and poor White women have all traditionally worked for income in some capacity in American culture as well, even during the iconic 1950s when women supposedly did not work (Garey, 1999; Kessler-Harris, 1983).

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/mfr/4919087.0010.105?rgn=main;view=fulltext

Women have always worked outside the home. Especially women who were not white and rich. The “welfare state” you are railing at has only existed for a portion of the last 100 years, so please explain how all the women working outside the home prior to that were evil, since clearly you believe everything is our fault.

Addendum: the “white and rich” comment refers to Western societies in Europe and North America. I apologize for acting implying that was universal to the entire Earth.

Kudos to Asher’s programmer; I don’t think I’ve ever seen a cleaner markov chain generator.

Asher, you should totally make some posters and plaster them everywhere. You’ll be a hero to all alphas and show all those FEMALE stealers of our hardearned manwealth.

Kudos to Asher’s programmer; I don’t think I’ve ever seen a cleaner markov chain generator.

Hey! I was trying to enjoy that drink. Now it’s all over my screen. Heheh. Good joke.

@Asher

First, LOL @ you questioning someone else’s citations.

Second,

The regressive nature of state and local taxes, by income, says nothing about the welfare state as a transfer of resources from men to women.

Um, if data and citations have no bearing on your argument, you’re doing arguing wrong.

The difference in service utilization between men and women? Practically non-existent. (55/45 — compare to the population split, 51/49)

I was hasty and grabbed non-US numbers for that.

Here’s the US numbers.

SOURCE, goddamit Asher, this is how you do sources

In 2001 slightly more females (26.5 percent) than males (23.4 percent) lived in a household that received means-tested assistance, or welfare benefits of any kind

MASSIVE INCOME SHIFT, EY?

It’s not. You asshole. I would be kind of okay with it if it was, BUT IT ISN’T.

Wait, I have to walk that back a bit. I just said ‘I would be kind of okay with that.’

Let me rephrase.

Men have been skimming off women’s economic contributions to the system in America for hundreds of years. If a strong social safety net was needed to cancel out that effect while we worked on equality then I would be all for that!!

But that’s not what’s going on here. Men and women both access these at near to the same rates, and both pay for these services at near to the same rates. It is a social safety net, and is being used by SOCIETY.

Yeah, and my earlier comment didn’t even begin to address the problems with such a system for women who don’t want to get married/haven’t found the right SO/are lesbian/whose hubbie doesn’t make enough to support a family on his income alone.

Basically, the system Asher describes can only effectively satisfy a tiny subset of women. Unless there is an even tinier subset of men that would be dissatisfied with it, at least half the population can’t sustain his model.

Oh, right, I forgot. Only the cis-male portion of the population counts. Silly me.

Asher: The regressive nature of state and local taxes, by income, says nothing about the welfare state as a transfer of resources from men to women.

Whut? If taxes at the state level are regressive then those with the least income are paying the most. Those whom you say are getting money from the state (supposedly women, but I’ve yet to see any evidence from you on that, so I have my doubts) are paying those regressive taxes.

Which means either the “welfare state” is an elaborate scam to move money from men to “The State”, in the form of a system designed to make them think it’s women getting it (and so furthering social misogyny like yours; because you can’t see the real agenda), or women are paying more than men.

If the former (the elaborate scheme) who is ending up with the money? Men; because last I checked they weren’t being marginalised in politics.

So, either way, much to my surprise, you are wrong.

Troll’s gonna troll, but:

Asher-

Interestingly, I’m on my 5 min. break from writing a research paper on the FTP and CCC, and the post-WWII GI bill. As a welfare state scholar, you will know that New Deal welfare programs stem from veteran programs and were issued in men camps where women were excluded. The logic was that by giving money to men, the women would get help by proxy. However, the FTP got a reputation of making people into perverts (translation: gay), so it was shut down in 1935. Camp rape of men on welfare was seen as hilarious because it made them into women. In other words, male welfare were seen as what you would call a mangina, even though women didn’t have access to benefits.

The welfare state was created for the benefit of men, completely excluded women and those with ‘gender inversion’ (New Deal era) or ‘homosexual tendencies’ (post-WWII). Homosexual tendencies did not necessarily mean same-sex attractions, it was completely arbitrary. The welfare state was created to establish top down regulations on ‘traditional’ gender roles. They used exactly your arguments to exclude women from the public sphere to exclude gay men from society (gay men do not participate in society because the state excludes them. Since they do not ‘participate’ (but pay taxes), they should be penalized).

So your welfare state = benefit of women assumption is a big fail. I know it’s convenient for you, but it’s just not based on reality.

I’m glad to learn you support wage equality and men’s fair participation in private chores though.

Female’s even at similar participation rates make highly different career choices than men

Level 1 Snark unlocked at the use of “female” to refer to women, but “men” to refer to…men

Level 2 Snark unlocked at “Female’s” meant to be a plural

Level 3 Snark unlocked at unsubstantiated/vague assertion

GO ASHER GO! YOU CAN DO IT! YOU CAN WIN ALL THE SNARKS!

@David – FYI Tumblr has the draft posts up too. You may want to delete those posts.

So your welfare state = benefit of women assumption is a big fail. I know it’s convenient for you, but it’s just not based on reality.

Maude, thanks bunches for bringing real facts into the discussion. When Asher’s talking I feel like we kind of actually lose facts already in the discussion…..

Just so we’re keeping track, the evidence of male oppression now includes:

1. Men getting paid more than women
2. Men getting paid more than women for doing the same job
3. Male workers being seen as essential, female workers as disposable
4. Men not being expected to do housework or childcare
5. Fewer men than women living in poverty

It’s so hard. A tear.

and #6: men having the freedom to choose how to prioritize their work/life balance and actively selecting to make work more important than their family & personal life

What I tell the average young guy who doesn’t look like he has the station to really make it is to make it his life’s goal to expend as little effort as possible to fund the welfare state.

So the plan is pretty much for guys to sit around all day whining online about women, do little else because you might accidentally end up contributing to the welfare state, and wait for civilization to collapse because THAT’LL SHOW THOSE WHORES NOT TO GIVE ME SEX I WAS ENTITLED TO FOR BEING SUCH A NICE GUY?

If there’s a Wikipedia page for “harebrained scheme”, can we get it to automatically redirect to a page for MGTOW?

@bookdragonette: “You’d think they talk about something else than the one thing they’re going out of their way to avoid. How about golf? Or chess? Or the latest book they read?”

That’s assuming these guys have any interests other than hating on women. So far, there’s little evidence to suggest it.

@dustydeste: those stockings are amazing! And like Amnesia, I am now looking at my winter legs and thinking “Inadequate!”

Still, my toes are making a great effort to be hobbit-curly.

Women tend to choose professions where they can shape their work around their life. Men tend to order their life around their professions. A few years ago I ran into the stat that the average male orthodontist makes almost twice the income of the average female orthodontist. Why? Simple. Because male orthodontists keep the same practice longer and see more patients.

When home life disrupts work life, it’s usually the mom who has to leave work. Let’s say the two orthodontists are a straight, married couple. Their children are at school and daycare while they are at the dental office. Uh oh, the school just called and their daughter has 102 fever and a rash. Guess who leaves work to get the daughter? Mom does. That means Mom doesn’t get as many pay raises, chances for promotion, and might be first in line to be laid off during cut backs, all because she is “unreliable” for having to leave work occasionally.

I don’t know how you turned that around to be oppression of men. That’s one heck of a stretch. After all, Dad never left work, he is reliable, so his career can continue advancing at the expense of his wife. In the future, if they get a divorce, he has a better financial situation while she wouldn’t be as well off as him. Granted, she does have a good job as an orthodontist in your hypothetical here. Even so, we’re comparing apples to apples, a dad orthodontist to a female orthodontist.

Somebody wake me if Asher says anything original.

Your nap will be longer than Rip Van Winkle’s then.

As The Number Of Female Breadwinners Grows, Women Are Still Stuck With The Housework

The book Second Shift talks a lot about this, too. One of the facts that I think is sad is straight women in relationships do the majority of housework and childcare even when their husbands are househusbands or stay at home dads. That’s how hardwired these social rules are for women doing it all at home. Then if the breadwinner wife comes home to a dirty house and kids needing meals and baths, she is a meanie NAG for complaining that the SAHD spent his entire day playing video games. How dare she ask for a hand because she’s tired!

I’m sure Asher could explain how that proves women oppress men, though. After all, she did nag rather than cheerfully wait on him after her long day at work.

Wow. Asher just made my brain explode, with the whole, “men are oppressed because they’re making more money, and thus are being forced to pay more taxes.” I’m flabbergasted.

Just wow. Put a bow on it, will ya?

Yeah, I kind of came to the conclusion that cleaning the apartment was more fun than butting my head against that particular wall… and thus I had no excuse not to do so. Sparkly living space, yay!

I figure a husband is enough animals in the house for me 😛 I mean, to be fair, he gets hair everywhere.

RE: MaudeLL

Man, so do I.

In other news, me and hubby might be celebrating our anniversary at Faerie Camp Destiny, which far as I can tell is like eco camping for radical queers. Can I just say AWESOME?

I figure a husband is enough animals in the house for me 😛 I mean, to be fair, he gets hair everywhere.

It’s amazing, isn’t it? My dad takes two weeks to get a 5 o’clock shadow, so I had no idea what I was getting into marrying an Italian.

I have solved the housework problem by finding a guy with the exact same mess tolerance that I have. So when there is housework to be done, we do it together, and most of the time we play video games together. 🙂

@kitteh: me too. I think one day the dust bunnies will become sentient.

@katz – I somehow managed to marry the one Italian who can’t grow non-patchy facial hair to save his life, but he makes up for it with the long luscious locks on his head. Which then break off and end up all over my things, haha.

@kim – Me too, pretty much; we’re plenty content to live in filth, but we’re having dinner guests tomorrow so we’re attempting to make the apartment look like civilized people live in it 😀

I haven’t read the comments yet, so forgive me if this has been addressed, but the next-largest word in the cloud is “don’t”.

So, they’re obsessed with women and “don’t”. Grrlz and being told “no”. Huh.

@katz: “My dad takes two weeks to get a 5 o’clock shadow, so I had no idea what I was getting into marrying an Italian.”

Blue-tinged sandpaper, ah joy. 😀

@Kim: “I think one day the dust bunnies will become sentient.”

::looks around nervously:: I’m surprised ours haven’t already.

Over at Babble courtesy of Disney, is a raving review of a book that covers most of the standard MRA talking points. Which is all fine and good, except for how the Mr. goes all panda sad face over poor Thomas Ball. I quote….

” In the introduction, before the book really begins, she relates the story of Thomas Ball, a man who burned himself to death on the steps in front of a Family Court building to protest his treatment by that court.

Have you heard his name before? On the other hand, have you heard the names Susan Smith and Andrea Yates? There’s something wrong when a mother who murders her children can get more sympathy than a man who kills himself to protest the unfair treatment he received in Family Court. Dr. Smith uses the Ball case to set the table for the rest of the book, demonstrating that men are not heard in our family courts, their needs are not addressed in our modern society, and their worth is not only not recognized, but actively denigrated.”

OH BOY. 9_9

http://www.babble.com/babble-voices/a-complementary-angle-rich-hailey/are-men-on-strike-or-are-we-being-fired/

Cloudiah, how’d you even find that?!

I added it to the post.

I like that JtO’s comment is completely obtuse and humorless.

Q: How many John the Others does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

A: Lightbulb jokes are a pseudo-intellectual justification for cultivating hatred and fear of men. It is obviously unacceptable to nakedly and deliberately promote hatred of an entire biological demographic based on a character of shared innate identity. Unless that group is the male sex. They’re the humans for whom it is politically correct to treat as wholly disposable; to treat as not even human, to kill in vast numbers while enacting our nation’s foreign policy and to imprison and murder in vast numbers while enacting domestic policies. Our children, when they happen to be male, are entirely disposable.

Holy shit, why did I go to that forum? I was just expecting the usual “baw men have it hard”, but a few posts/threads really stood out.

http://www.mgtowforums.com/forums/going-your-own-way/15702-young-turks-continue-shame-shame-shame.html

Here they nitpick the video, missing the point that Japan is in a bit of a pickle because of their low birthrate.

http://www.mgtowforums.com/forums/mens-general-discussion/16416-32-facts-show-how-men-being-systematically-emasculated-america-today.html

You know what, fuck them. I wanted to be understanding to their problem, since I had a few of their woes as well. But, it’s clear they don’t want to fix their life and I’m too far removed to even get their logic. The person they are quoting actually is saying that “women play less video games than men, so it means men are being emasculated”. How do you even come to that idea?

I hope they can see the light and find happiness that isn’t just in spite of others, but I’ve lost my sympathy for them now. And that’s probably a good thing, but I won’t hesitate to give a big high five to a fellow dude who left the echo-chamber of the MRA/MGTOW.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.