evil single moms men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misogyny red pill

Today’s almost completely unreadable MGTOW meme takes aim at single moms

Graphic designers weep.
Graphic designers weep.

This lovely meme, found in the Men Going Their Own Way subreddit, pretty unreadable even at full resolution. But it’s not too hard to see what point the meme-maker was trying to get across.

Naturally, Reddit’s MGTOWs have many thoughts on this subject.

Like these:

CyanideCookiez 3 points 15 hours ago Single moms are a scourge. These bitches failed hardcore when it came down to deciding who the father of their children was going to be. Oh Well, the next generation of criminals has to come from somewhere I suppose. and men who date single moms are the lowest caliber of men on the planet aside from white knights and cucks, although generally they are one and the same.

And these:

frikabg 25 points 23 hours ago This is what happens when you try and upbring your child with feelings instead of logic! Also it doesn't help if u are a soul sucking bitch who thinks that the world owns her something just because she decided to have a child or the fact that majority of single moms are single mainly because they decided to go for chuck who bailed the moment he got the phone call she is pregnant. But hey! Atleast she fucked around with 10s all the time i mean that has to count for something right?!???

Wait, am I reading this correctly? Has the legendary Chad Thundercock been replaced by his brother Chuck?

I feel kinda bad for the models who posed for the stock photos MGTOWs love to appropriate for their memes. No one wants to discover one day that they’ve become the focus of a MGTOW two-minute hate.

107 replies on “Today’s almost completely unreadable MGTOW meme takes aim at single moms”

I’m really hesitant to say that the study’s bullshit. I remember when, back in 2012, this study came out. It went around a number of circles and was touted as strong evidence. To say that it no longer counts without a strong reason for discounting it just strikes me as motivated reasoning.

(I don’t believe it as strongly as I used to, though. If they were able to let that sort of error slip through, others could easily have found their way in, too)

The twin study that they are working with is robust and reliable, and the methodologies they’re using are equally solid. I just don’t have a lot to argue with here. The error that was found was a big one, but it was a single error and nothing else has been found. The conclusion doesn’t say “Conservatives good Liberals bad” by a long shot, either. But it does suggest that we should be watchful about those negative traits in ourselves, and we shouldn’t automatically correlate “conservative” with “authoritarian” (for some values of conservative, at least).

Like I said, I’m trying to leave all of this in something of an undecided state until more work’s been done on it, because there’s too much up in the air. But I’m really uncomfortable about jut discounting it as a bad study.


think they cannot be happy, as they demand the impossible on a par with square circles and colourless green – the service and devotion of mythical creatures who by definition cannot exist in reality, since it is not actually possible for human beings to have absolutely zero thoughts or desires of their own (not to mention that devotion requires sentience, and sentience in women causes them problems).
(They would not be happy with bots, as they demand to triumph over and subjugate real humans in order to give themselves a sense of self-worth, but they would not be happy with even the most lobotomised of humans either as what they actually want is a fantasy of continual triumph over and subjugation of fresh or infinitely re-freshed subjects. And now I feel rather sick).

You stated that very well and have given me something to think about.

I would also add that even achieving their (impossible) goal would not be enough. They’re trying to gain some semblance of self-respect at the expense of others — and that never works. Of course, that fact doesn’t stop them from trying.


I’m really hesitant to say that the study’s bullshit. I remember when, back in 2012, this study came out. It went around a number of circles and was touted as strong evidence. To say that it no longer counts without a strong reason for discounting it just strikes me as motivated reasoning.

I don’t recall when it came out, but it’s hardly unusual for research that adds (or appears to add) to an existing body of evidence to be lauded, especially by people who haven’t actually looked closely at it. This is particularly the case when it also corresponds with observed reality. All other research on the topic of which I am aware shows opposite results, which leads me to question this study. There’s Altemeyer, of course, who famously wrote up his study for a popular audience in The Authoritarians, but there are other studies as well, most of which I can’t access anymore because I’m not at university. Here’s one I can still find an access for.

Imaginary Petal
December 6, 2016 at 1:13 pm

The fact that manospherians can unironically yell at women for using emotions when raising their children, is only further proof that the buzzwordification process of the words logic and emotions has rendered manospherians incapable of using these words in a way that makes sense to normal people. In their universe, logic now just means “good” and emotions means “bad”.

December 7, 2016 at 5:38 pm


Well, the highly religious portion of the Right considers themselves “meritocratic” in the sense that they believe in a just world fallacy on steroids because of god. Except most of them also seem to have a double standard where “bad things happen, therefore it’s deserved” doesn’t apply to themselves because of fundamental attribution error.

Many of them also believe in “freedom” in the sense of “freedom of my religion to persecute those not of my religion” plus the freedom of having a captive audience. I’m not sure if most of them also believe in freedom from the same being done to them, or if they’d be happy to be persecuted because of martyr complex.

These type of folks speak a different language from regular people. When they complain about “Big Government”, they really mean “Govt. that holds them accountable for their reactionary antics” or “Govt. giving aid to poor people/poor people of color” or “Teaching my kid real science and giving a real education” or “Giving women autonomy in everything”.

Likewise; When they yammer about “Emotions are bad” they mean “Empathy, nurturing, sensitivity and altruism is bad”. Their worldview is all about hyper-stoic or raging, hyper-masculine, hegemonic aggressiveness.

They basically want a world where every male is Duke Nukem and every female is a Stepford Wife.

Concerning Stepford wives….I hate how the story of that name ended. I heard that the author was supposedly pro-Feminist and the whole thing was a satire….but I would’ve loved to see a happier outcome….

….heck, I would’ve been satisfied with a twist ending where it ends with the fembots “malfunctioning” and leveling all of Stepford.

Imagine! Instead of the main protagonist (forgot her name) as a bot vapidly staring at us in the supermarket….it ends with her in the kitchen, about to make dinner….she raises a large butcher knife as a smirk slooooowwly creeps to her face….

….CUT TO: A news report is on the Nation’s TVs, detailing a cataclysmic even in Stepford. The place is a burning disaster and the streets are littered with the bloody remains of men everywhere! Some buildings have blown-up and some robotic female parts were found (implying some of the Stepford Fembot blew themselves up in the process)…..there’s a fade in to a shot of some Stepford Fembots in the shadows with glowing eyes (as if to say, ‘Watch out, misogynists!’).

Why couldn’t it end THAT way? It would’ve been awesome. The 1970s seemed to have a huge vibe of “We give up”. You have a whole slew of movies with protagonists representing Progressives/The Counterculture/Feminism/etc. getting defeated or invalidated (even if they’re completely sympathetic)….
* Easy Rider ended with the guys saying “We blew it” then get shot to death (I have heard somewhere that that movie was really a ‘Righty reactionary fantasy’ and not the ‘Lefty counterculture masterpiece’ people think it is).
* One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest ended with Nurse Ratched winning and Nicholson’s character lobotomized (but the Indigenous American guy does manage to escape).
* A Clockwork Orange left out the true final chapter where Alex changes his ways on his own and stops being a violent monster.
* The Stepford Wives ended with the Men’s club winning and the women all becoming fembots.
* Fight For Your Life was saying “Nonviolence solves nothing. Martin Luther King was wrong. You have to be a violent radical to achieve Civil Rights (all while making the hero initially a strawman who’s such an absolute pacifist that he’s an idiot)”. Of course; This was an “Grindhouse Flick” so it probably shouldn’t be taken seriously.
* Even Hair ended with the main guy sucked into Vietnam and his friends failing to save him.

It’s like the whole 1970s was one big glut of “Don’t bother trying to change things for the better because you will lose.” THAT’S NOT WHAT THE ACTIVISTS NEEDED! You need to RAISE MORALE, NOT CRUSH IT!

I sometimes wonder if these edgy screenwriters and Hollywood were really working for “The Man” and subverting the movements they were claiming to endorse?

There needs to be a slew of new movies about “Fighting The Man” where there’s some triumph.

Thank goodness for STAR WARS which broke from that.

@Dalillama, yeah, which is why the study has been bothering me so much. It’s a good study, with good methodology, but it’s saying the opposite of what’s expected. What am I missing? Where’s the bias coming from?

The closest thing I can think of is about the survey from which the samples are collected, the Virginia Twin inventory (n ~ 40,000). That study admits that it’s pulling from a largely conservative population. So, the only reason I can see for the countervailing results is that we’re seeing an artifact of the Backfire Effect. People, in an environment dominated by opposing ideology, will “dig in” and become more entrenched, and more accepting of authoritarian means to accomplish their goals. That’s my hypothesis, anyways.

So, yeah. I’m still not ready to just say that the study is wrong, and it’s raised a huge red flag for me that demands attention. There’s just not enough work being done in that field to address it.

Huh, I would have thought their desire to turn women into babyfactories would have overcome their hatred for female independence in this case.

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.