How and where do pseudoscience & religion fit in MGTOW ideology ?

[Anonymous 29]

Ancientwisdom wrote:

If you see this as a s~~~ test . . . . I’m guilty as charged,

So youre a male, on a male only website, employing the very same FEMALE tactics which are despareged in the glossary of terms of this website, in attempt to “s~~~ test” the men here?
Quite the f~~~ing irony.
Thanks, but no thanks. I dont need anymore s~~~ tests. If you request an opinion or a poll, then please simply state it in a transparent matter.
“Ulterior motives” and “s~~~ tests”: that is not why I come here.
Next time you want to conduct a “s~~~ test” devious plotted “poll” , please use facebook, tumbler, or some other S~~~ TEST safe environment.
S~~~ test someone else please. Thats not why I come here.

So you accuse me of something I’m not and then use the same method to get at me ?
You are stepping well over the line now, so now in a polite way go F~~~ yourself.

[UntamedParticipant]

KeyMaster: MGTOW is less of a “moral issue” and more of a legal issue.
You choose it for tangible, logic-based reasons. It’s perfectly sensible and easily justified

Sidecar: Unless you subscribe to some pseudoscience or religion that orders men to be chumps for women (and if so, WHY?!!), I don’t see how they have anything to do with each other. It’s like asking how quantum physics fits in with 17th century German literature

The moral side of MGTOW is up to the individual. Obviously, the world is made up of thousands of belief systems and laws differ from country to country. We’re not calling to fall in line with a religion, an organization, a party or whatever can be undermined or controlled.
But the constant dehumanization of Men in the press, the courts and society at large is what concerns me. The fact that weemins can mistreat, abuse, use and dispose of men while being supported, cheered and helped by an army of psychotic Femenist Terrorists Extreemists is what the topic of the day is, everyday.

.

Don't let them Blame, Shame or Tame you!
Give 'em NOTHING, not even an answer!
#GenderSegragationNow!

[KeymasterKeymaster]

Ancientwisdom wrote:

I also dont know why people feel the need to use phrases like “psuedo science” or a belief in “santa clause” (clearly a fictional character designed for unwise children) whenever discussing the belief in the existence of a God and creator. There couldnt be more negative and divisive connotations and characterisations when refferring to such a deeply held personal belief.

So let’s put it another way. You can be a Jesus GHOW, Galileo GHOW, or Tesla GHOW.
What God meant to Schopenhauer is totally irrelevant.

The point is – as you said – it’s a “deeply held personal belief”.
Not the same thing at all.

Religion sits very close to the heart and it should be kept there. GYOW is in your head and wallet.

If you keep doing what you've always done... you're gonna keep getting what you always got.

[IGMOW (I Go My Own Way)Participant 2572]

sidecar wrote:

Unless you subscribe to some pseudoscience or religion that orders men to be chumps for women (and if so, WHY?!!), I don’t see how they have anything to do with each other. It’s like asking how quantum physics fits in with 17th century German literature.

richardhutnik wrote:

MGTOW has its roots in the manosphere,

How is that even possible? MGTOW predates the manosphere. By centuries. Your own evidence shows this.

The label “Men Going Their Own Way”, and terminology used, are connected with the Manosphere. A bunch of men now MGTOW, happened to come from MRA and PUA areas. The LIFESTYLE goes way beyond it, but whole use of terms, and focus on the nature of women around the MGTOWsphere, comes from the Manosphere. But, BEING MGTOW (without the label) goes WAY back. You find significant men in the past who weren’t involved with women (and not gay either).

"I am my own thang. Any questions?" - Davis S Pumpkins.

[IGMOW (I Go My Own Way)Participant 2572]

Burgundy wrote:

Ideologies often try to subjugate men, therefore religions aren’t very well mixed with MGTOW, most MGTOWs in history have been critical against religion and hunted by religious people for it, and religion as a whole always tries to put men in a box, for whatever purpose said religion desires them to function as, thus not free, and not walking their own way.
Some of the greatest in our history have been shunned by the religious, and praised centuries later, talk about hypocrisy.
Therefore religion has absolutely no place in MGTOW, unless the religion is merely for spiritual purposes, and is only secondary after your MGTOW life-style.

If MGTOW becomes an ideology, which elevates autonomy above everything else, and has its own set of beliefs, then what you said is true. However, as a lifestyle, it is not. That was a reason for myself doing that video. The men who went monk in the past ended up not fitting into the normal social structures, and even religious side. They felt they couldn’t fully do what they felt God would have them do. They were often oversaw by bishops in the Christian Church, and would go off also and form communities, with their own standards and so on.

Of course, it depends on how you define religion. In one sense what you said was correct. In another, it isn’t.

And this discussion is showing where the multiple understandings of what MGTOW is, results in confusion. If MGTOW is simply living an unmarried life, it fits with everything. If it ends up being seen as autonomy, which some understand it to be, those then understand that a man going his own way can marry. If it is seen as a philosophy, then it is merely discussing life, and attitude. If it is seen as its own sub-culture, and a community/brotherhood, then there is the witch hunt aspect of includes, exclusion and worry about who is “infiltrating” MGTOW.

So, MGTOW as an ideology, with it being the core of someone’s life, can subvert any other sort of ideology a man, and the man must go his own way and just be MGTOW. If it is other things, then it means something different.

I am going to discuss MOW in an upcoming video. MOW is My Own Way, which I am using to label the autonomy aspect of MGTOW.

"I am my own thang. Any questions?" - Davis S Pumpkins.

[sidecarParticipant 35837]

@DRS_au @ancientwisdom

Gentlemen, please. We’ve already established that relating religion to MGTOW is like trying to relate Apples to Harlem Renaissance art. As such, this is not the place to debate religion. At the very least, please take it to the philosophy board.

IGMOW (I Go My Own Way) wrote:

The label “Men Going Their Own Way”, and terminology used, are connected with the Manosphere.

But even the label “Men Going Their Own Way” predates the manosphere, the MRAs, and so on. It’s at least 100 years old. I can’t be bothered to look for them, but @keymaster has stuff from the 1800s complaining about Men Going Their Own Way instead of being good little providers for women.

A bunch of men now MGTOW, happened to come from MRA and PUA areas.

But nowhere near all of them. I certainly didn’t.

A bunch of MGTOW also own motorcycles, but that doesn’t mean MGTOW is a type of motorcycle club.

You can be a MGHOW and also an MRA. You can be a MGHOW and also be a PUA. You can be a MGHOW and poke yourself in the eye with a blunt stick for all the good it will do you.

[Anonymous 29]

My post @ 9-26 am was written ( approximately at 6-30 am earlier ) but did not appear on the page. Just saying so that timeline of posts can be corrected.
Something had gone wrong with the content as well..

[KeymasterKeymaster]

Yes that post went it to “pending” probably because of odd /content formatting (as you pointed out ). We posted a note about that happening sometimes if the content filter thinks it may be questionable. It was released a little while ago (about an hour ago)…… and to satisfy you, I have changed the posted time to 6:30 AM. Thank you.

If you keep doing what you've always done... you're gonna keep getting what you always got.

[FrankOneParticipant 1424]

I’m irreligious, but I’d argue religion does NOT necessarily encourage marriage and children — depends which religion, which denomination, and even which PATH. Take the celibate religious orders of the Catholic tradition vs the devout Catholic who follows the Pope’s prohibition on birth control and has a huge family — two extremes, both Catholic. Or simply a single Catholic who remains unmarried and never has sex outside marriage. Some religions encourage taking multiple wives (fundamentalist mormons, for example). And you can even go your own way even as a fundamentalist Christian — just by not marrying — as long as you’re not having sex with women, which would be regarded as fornication in most denominations. And there have been entire Christian communities like the Shakers who never married.

As for pseudo-science, I regard that as beliefs or practices mistakenly based on scientific principles. MGTOW makes some claims about typical female motivations, but it is empirical in my view. I DO think some of the claims lack evidence — for instance, women causing wars. Wars existed before women had the vote. Giving women the vote certainly didn’t STOP war, though. I think we’re best served by citing empirical evidence that supports the MGTOW lifestyle, rather than false information which discredits it — that is why I un-popularly objected to the ‘30% misappropriated paternity’ claims I’ve seen on here. If you’re trying to justify MGTOW empirically, better in my opinion, to cite figures on what percent of alimony and child support is paid by Men — real, verifiable numbers that make a strong case in the cost-benefit analysis of Marriage 2.0.

[IGMOW (I Go My Own Way)Participant 2572]

It is brutally hard to justify a lifestyle, or desires where one wants to be in the future, which I see as core parts of MGTOW, by means of an empirical approach. You really can’t do it. I take that approach as a Blue Pill approach of trying to justify personal preferences to the world to get their approval. In this regards, I consider there is a level if tyranny to facts and the desire to appeal to them. It is this reason here why I say a MGTOW doesn’t need to justify his going MGTOW to anyone, for any reason, and needs to just do it.

"I am my own thang. Any questions?" - Davis S Pumpkins.

[IGMOW (I Go My Own Way)Participant 2572]

sidecar wrote:

@DRS_au @ancientwisdom
Gentlemen, please. We’ve already established that relating religion to MGTOW is like trying to relate Apples to Harlem Renaissance art. As such, this is not the place to debate religion. At the very least, please take it to the philosophy board.

richardhutnik wrote:

The label “Men Going Their Own Way”, and terminology used, are connected with the Manosphere.

But even the label “Men Going Their Own Way” predates the manosphere, the MRAs, and so on. It’s at least 100 years old. I can’t be bothered to look for them, but @keymaster has stuff from the 1800s complaining about Men Going Their Own Way instead of being good little providers for women.

A bunch of men now MGTOW, happened to come from MRA and PUA areas.

But nowhere near all of them. I certainly didn’t.
A bunch of MGTOW also own motorcycles, but that doesn’t mean MGTOW is a type of motorcycle club.
You can be a MGHOW and also an MRA. You can be a MGHOW and also be a PUA. You can be a MGHOW and poke yourself in the eye with a blunt stick for all the good it will do you.

The terminology used in the “MGTOWsphere” today from “red pill” to “Mangina” and “White Knight” and more, come out of the manosphere. The LIFESTYLE goes way back, and it could be argued the manifesto even predated the manopshere, but the lingo has been heavily manosphere. That is what I am talking about. To live MGTOW doesn’t even need the label at all.

"I am my own thang. Any questions?" - Davis S Pumpkins.

[sidecarParticipant 35837]

IGMOW (I Go My Own Way) wrote:

The terminology used in the “MGTOWsphere” today from “red pill” to “Mangina” and “White Knight” and more, come out of the manosphere.

“Red pill” and “mangina” probably, but “white knight” is older. I also don’t see it as particularly significant that MGTOW use manosphere jargon when discussing manosphere issues. We use motorcycle jargon when discussing motorcycles, but that doesn’t make us a motorcycle club (though maybe we should be).

I guess my point is that MGTOW, labeled or not, relate to other men’s issues groups simply due to the common matter of being, well, men. The MRA’s take issue with feminism, while MGTOW recognize and deal with the older and much greater problem of gynocentrism (of which feminism is but one flavor)..

[AncientwisdomParticipant 6089]

DRS-au

go f~~~ yourself

Ahh yes, this is the voice of reason I was anticipating. Thank you!

if you see this as s s~~~ test, then Im guilty as charged.

Lovely! You admit to your duplitcous and deceptive nature. Why thank you!

what was your ulterior motive?

I never had one. Simply because you do, doesnt mean the opponent in your argument does as well. Thats womens thinking. But, eh: thanks for showing you not only think like a woman but also that you HAVE AN ULTERIOR MOTIVE. Thanks!

1. You admittedly gave men a s~~~ test.
2. When asked about it you merely turned the tables (i.e. you gave me a s~~~ test)
3. In response you say – “f~~~ yourself”,

Thanks for the lesson in talking to a bitch. Hadnt done it in a while here on MGTOW. It was a fresh reminder. Any other BITCH behavior you want to freshen us with?

Resident cynic.

[Anonymous 29]

Ancientwisdom wrote:

DRS-au

go f~~~ yourself

Ahh yes, this is the voice of reason I was anticipating. Thank you!

if you see this as s s~~~ test, then Im guilty as charged.

Lovely! You admit to your duplitcous and deceptive nature. Why thank you!

what was your ulterior motive?

I never had one. Simply because you do, doesnt mean the opponent in your argument does as well. Thats womens thinking. But, eh: thanks for showing you not only think like a woman but also that you HAVE AN ULTERIOR MOTIVE. Thanks!
1. You admittedly gave men a s~~~ test.2. When asked about it you merely turned the tables (i.e. you gave me a s~~~ test)3. In response you say – “f~~~ yourself”,
Thanks for the lesson in talking to a bitch. Hadnt done it in a while here on MGTOW. It was a fresh reminder. Any other BITCH behavior you want to freshen us with?

Nice move. Twist it as much as you like. I will waste no further time on you so go ahead and paint the forum red if you like.

[IGMOW (I Go My Own Way)Participant 2572]

sidecar wrote:

richardhutnik wrote:

The terminology used in the “MGTOWsphere” today from “red pill” to “Mangina” and “White Knight” and more, come out of the manosphere.

“Red pill” and “mangina” probably, but “white knight” is older. I also don’t see it as particularly significant that MGTOW use manosphere jargon when discussing manosphere issues. We use motorcycle jargon when discussing motorcycles, but that doesn’t make us a motorcycle club (though maybe we should be).
I guess my point is that MGTOW, labeled or not, relate to other men’s issues groups simply due to the common matter of being, well, men. The MRA’s take issue with feminism, while MGTOW recognize and deal with the older and much greater problem of gynocentrism (of which feminism is but one flavor)..

I end up looking at where things came from, based out of the language used. You have Herbivores of Japan, for example, and I doubt any of this terminology is used by them. You see it by MGTOW, because of the label (and those involved with it) coming out of the manosphere. The lifestyle went on for centuries, but the terminology has its roots in the manosphere, right down to also the name itself, and the sign symbol.

"I am my own thang. Any questions?" - Davis S Pumpkins.

[Mango IngawayParticipant 2264]

I don’t consider mgtow an ideology.
Unlike ideologies, mgtow are grounded in reality.

We see the facts as they are, if all we wanted was some bulls~~~ that suited our bias like feminists do, we wouldn’t be on this website, because going mgtow actually isn’t that easy at first. You have to accept that you can rely on pretty much nobody but yourself, which is a hard blow, and probably the main cause of red pil rage.

You don’t need an ideology-based theories to notice that the divorce courts are biased towards women, just look at things as they are and you’ll notice it.
Same thing for dating in general, women want gender equality, yet most of them, according to studies, still expect men to make the first move.
We don’t need a theory to notice that men who focus on themselves are told to “man up”, and that people tell us we’re “selfish” for refusing to go through the meat grinder.

Mgtow wasn’t a reaction from some upper-class spoiled bitch who decided to throw a tantrum, unlike feminism.
Men going their own way just looked at the way things are and where society is heading, so they decided to refuse the raw deal and opt out.

It is a common failing of childhood to think that if one makes a hero out of a demon the demon will be satisfied.

[IGMOW (I Go My Own Way)Participant 2572]

MGTOW can come out of reality, but you see a bunch of speculation on the nature of things, around MGTOWsphere, that may not be true, but sound nice. You get YouTubers with followings, making certain allegations about this or that, and the nature of women, that haven’t been founded. It ties into views of things. A lot of it is personal preferences and rationalizing it. One example is the NAWALT debate, where no one can get an agreeable percentage on how many women are this or that, and why. The reason why is there isn’t anything solid, just personal experience AT BEST. There are problems when you project your own personal experiences as universal truths.

"I am my own thang. Any questions?" - Davis S Pumpkins.

[Author]

Posts