Two MGTOW contradict each other.

[нσтησσвParticipant 830]

*just read the first few posts*

in my opinion; when going about creating a utopian society, modern society has gone about doing so all completely wrong.

Women belong in the kitchen where they are the happiest.
In the past, women were absolutely happy making sandwiches and the men were happy to have a loving wife to come home to, whom would have had done her job as a SUPPORT ROLE – keeping the place clean, making food, taking care of the kids, in exchange for the resources of the man.

if you look at modern society and compare the poorer countries to the wealthier, in the poor countries such as india, you have women entering the traditionally male jobs so that they can SURVIVE. However, in the wealthier western worlds, you have more women entering the traditionally FEMALE jobs!

Aside from this feministic bulls~~~, everything women does, just screams that they want to suck your c~~~ and make you a sandwhich.
Get rid of feminism, put women back into the support roles, and watch as the world flourishes.

i do not think that having an ideal family is worse than living alone and f~~~ing sexbots all day long. It’s just that attaining that ideal family is completely impossible in today’s modern society, leaving the sexbots as the next best thing.

My Goal: To Leave Society.

[VeniversumParticipant 492]

нσтησσв wrote:

i do not think that having an ideal family is worse than living alone and f~~~ing sexbots all day long. It’s just that attaining that ideal family is completely impossible in today’s modern society, leaving the sexbots as the next best thing.

I agree. For me, it isn’t that I don’t want to have romance and a family. It’s simply not realistic anymore. It’s like hoping to win the lottery. It’s like believing in Santa Clause. It sounds so beautiful, but it’s not how the real world works. I remember sitting in a hair salon and this girl was sitting there bragging to me about how she had been manipulating this guy, and how he was buying her all this stuff. She was saying how he was too nice, and that he was stupid. She had absolutely no respect for that guy, but this guy had feelings for her. Perhaps it’s time to admit to ourselves that what women really want, besides resources, is strength. Weakness is a turnoff. Romance? That just seems like something you tell a kindergartner to make them feel good about the real world. Maybe there are couples who by some astronomical chance actually have romance, but very few. Just look once more at the brutal honesty of the modern western woman:
http://www.pornhub.com/view_video.php?viewkey=ph565e9e7f7581d

..but we’re supposed to have “class” and consider that women shouldn’t be replaced by sexbots and technology. The men who actually believe in romance are the ones who get exploited the most, the hardest, and with consequences that are so harsh, sometimes they lead to suicide.

[HitmanParticipant]

dude , no need for the porn link ..of course women want a strong man ..it’s their biological make up ..you would too if your life depended on relying on someone to take care of your basic needs ..but that’s not the case in first world nations for the most part ..you can theorize and ponder all sorts of ” what if’s ” ..however the reality is what you choose to make it to a large extent .women are easy to find , f~~~ and forget ..what is the price you pay,not just monetarily..? usually it’s your FREEDOM ..if you choose to be single ,you retain your freedoms ..in a relationship , even the old traditional kind , trade-offs were made ..f~~~ all the schools of thought ! YOU MAKE YOUR RULES in regard to dealing with women and in all your affairs , .i think that’s what going your own way is about ….( or i could be wrong ! ) ….

[VeniversumParticipant 492]

The porn link doesn’t actually contain porn, not in the referenced video, anyway. It’s just a redhead girl talking about how she is disgusted at weakness, and humiliating this guy for being weak. I don’t disagree with you on any of that

[HitmanParticipant]

thanks..click the link , on the way back an ad for porn-hub is the spot …not a big deal to me ..just be cautious brother ..

[VeniversumParticipant 492]

Cautious of what? We’re all men here, right?

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

I’m not sure what happened with Sandman but it’s pretty clear from watching hundreds of his videos that he wants a NAWALT and is prepared to accept an android simulation of one if that’s what it takes. Whether or not that damages his credibility as a MGTOW I’m not sure I’m qualified to judge but the fact is that both men are making the same argument:

Men desire an object of beauty and frailty that they can possess, provide for, protect, and defend. I personally believe this is instinctual on our part and that while some men may experience this desire more profoundly than others, it’s part of what differentiates us from females.

Sandman simply believes we’ll create artificial surrogates onto which to project those instinctual desires and that this will be utopia whereas Turd Flinging Monkey believes that the instincts themselves, expressed or not, are going to prevent us from reaching an idealized utopian state. I’m assuming they’re both defining utopia here as a state where men get their instinctual needs met without having to deal with female bulls~~~.

I think a lot of MGTOW would like to evolve past the point where we desire to possess young, beautiful females or feel the need to protect and provide for anyone other than ourselves. Neither of those gentlemen appear to believe this is possible.

I believe we will eventually produce sufficiently lifelike female surrogates and that a lot of men will have no problem transferring both their their sexual and paternal urges onto them. The question to me is will this be enough to satisfy our instinctual drivers and, if so, will having gotten everything we want liberate us or destroy us?

I’m going to say that desire and conflict are the engines that drive this train. There is no utopian station at the end of the line where we all get off and live happily ever after because if we ever did truly get everything we ever wanted, that would be the beginning of the end for the human race. I see a shining city in a green and beautiful park, built by creative men who were happy and secure in the arms of their femdroid lover/companion/children and managed by strong willed, independent females who received all the material wealth, social representation and adoring attention they desired… who then, having achieved utopia, laid down and died.

[VeniversumParticipant 492]

No no no no no sir. One of them states that we will never get along because we will always compete for women, and the other one states that we will no longer need to compete for women because they can be replaced by technology. That’s the argument. No Red Herrings, please

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

Veniversum wrote:

We simply don’t need women anymore. That’s the entire thought process behind MGTOW. It makes no sense to me that a group of people who believe we don’t need women think that we can never have peace because we supposedly will always fight over women. It’s both irony and hypocrisy simultaneously

I think it’s ludicrous to say we don’t need women. MGTOW is, above all else, an attempt to understand the true nature of women and of men and to try to make better choices for ourselves based on those understandings. At least that’s how I see it. If you disagree, you may as well stop reading this post now.

Given that we’ve come to understand feminine nature as well as masculine nature, we can no more expect to say we do not need women any more than we can expect to say there are NAWALTS. They can’t go against their base nature and neither can we, you see what I mean? We, armed with knowledge, understanding and will, can choose options that mitigate the worst effects of our nature but we can’t change it… and thereby cut out our instinctual urges to compete for, possess, inseminate, provide for and protect them any more than we can change the color of the Sun.

* note that the strength of your urges and how and toward whom you may choose to direct them may vary

We are what we are and we desire what we desire. Now some may suppress those desires, some may sublimate them into work or study, others may redirect them at robots or AI programs and yet others may simply struggle with them. But can we remove them completely? No, I say… and if we ever did, we would no longer be men.

So no, technology will not “save us” from our own nature, it can and will only serve our nature in some way, hopefully, that is maybe less damaging to us as individuals.

If, on the other hand Going Your Own Way means, to you, denying, subverting or destroying your instinctual urges toward women, then good luck with that. I just don’t see it as an option and I don’t think either Sandman or TFM do either.

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

Veniversum wrote:

No no no no no sir. One of them states that we will never get along because we will always compete for women, and the other one states that we will no longer need to compete for women because they can be replaced by technology. That’s the argument. No Red Herrings, please

Red herring, reframing the argument… I’ll try to stay on your tracks if you prefer.

Men compete against each other for women and can never be at peace with each other so long as there are some number of men who are either unable to get what they want or who see other men getting what they want or doing better than they are. If I understand it correctly, this is TFM’s argument. It’s predicated on the notion that we can not divest ourselves of the need of women.

Sandman’s argument is also that we will always need women, but that we’ll redirect that need toward simulations. Now unless you’re imagining a world where every man who wants one gets the “perfect” woman surrogate robot, there will still be competition, no? Are all female surrogate robots equal?

And the questions have arisen as to whether a surrogate will meet the need as well as the real thing. I add the question of can we be happy with getting what we want or do we need to WANT it to be happy. And some (TFM I believe) have raised the question of whether we will produce simulations that are so lifelike like that they will essentially become sentient, desire independence and revolt from us the way real women have,

So I say Sandman’s view is limited and most likely wrong. So we all get automated love dolls (yay) and women can pound sand and all men are happy. Really? Here comes your red herring,,, the reason WHY I disagree with Sandman… because I don’t think getting what we want will ever make us happy. I think the urge goes deeper and we can’t just shunt it to ground by replacing our girlfriends and f~~~ buddies with love dolls, no matter how sophisticated they are. And the more sophisticated, the more problematic… and the cycle turns again.

Women are not our problem. We are our problem. We resent (well, some of us do, anyway) our instinctual urges to chase, possess, inseminate, provide for and protect females and we’re not getting out of it so easily. If our objective is to create a world where men no longer compete with each other (and I do not believe this is a meaningful or desirable objective or that it is even possible, for the record) then I still don’t think simply removing the temptation of women from the picture and giving everyone a f~~~doll (with optional baby making upgrade) is the answer.

What I’m saying is that it is our nature to compete for access to women that defines us as men, versus women, versus something human but neuter. Take that away if you can (which you can’t) and what do we become? And why would anyone want to become that? Do you believe men would have done 98% of the s~~~ we’ve done throughout history if we were neuter? Do you believe we would keep reaching… and to greater heights, even, if we became neuter, caring no more for women than we do for tree stumps and river stones? I know what you’re going to say but even Tesla felt romantic and paternal desire for a bird.

[VeniversumParticipant 492]

Stargazer wrote:

What I’m saying is that it is our nature to compete for access to women that defines us as men, versus women, versus something human but neuter. Take that away if you can (which you can’t) and what do we become? And why would anyone want to become that? Do you believe men would have done 98% of the s~~~ we’ve done throughout history if we were neuter? Do you believe we would keep reaching… and to greater heights, even, if we became neuter, caring no more for women than we do for tree stumps and river stones? I know what you’re going to say but even Tesla felt romantic and paternal desire for a bird.

I disagree as to what defines us as men. I think what defines us as men, is our accomplishments, and our principles. We do not have to agree on that. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that the people who have accomplished the most in life, the majority were rejected by society, or otherwise beta males who, because of their rejection, focused almost entirely on their work. Yes, I would most certainly lump Tesla in. However, despite all of his work he died destitute. There isn’t a doubt in my mind we would reach better heights. It’s a myth that the greatest accomplishments were the result of competition. On the contrary, people who were allowed access to resources to pursue a subject, or multiple subjects, that they had a passion for, and interest in, excelled. These people were inventors, astronomers, scientists, alchemists, etc. The alpha male may have used violence to take what they want from the world, but men who were rejected by women are responsible for the world’s greatest discoveries. They stayed focused on their studies. What competition does, is destroy the confidence of people who weren’t gifted in a specific field, to the detriment of their total confidence, resulting in demoralization that prevents them from further pursuing anything else. There are a few characters who can roll past failure without slamming on the breaks, but very, very few. If people told you for the entire duration of your life that you were worthless, and a loser, after a while you would begin to believe them, even if it weren’t true, and it would become a self fulfilling prophecy. Psychology is clearly at play here. Not everything has to be a contest, and when it comes to innovation, I don’t think it should be. Why would I compare Jimi Hendrix to Stevie Ray Vaughan? Who would win in a contest? Must I choose one over the other? I don’t see the necessity. One day I might like to have Indian food. The next day I would prefer Chinese food. This is why variety exists. The idea that everyone has to try and be superior to everyone else is ridiculous. The truth is, that people only need to persistently better themselves, by pursuing things that they (once again) have a passion for, and interest in. This is why I’m an excellent guitar player. Likewise, because I’m so interested in code, I will get good at it. I’m creative and have ideas for what I want to do. I’m not looking at Steve Jobs or Bill Gates and saying “I WANNA BEAT HIM!”. It’s a stupid philosophy. It’s the philosophy of apes. We are animals but we do not have to relinquish aspiring to be greater than that. Forfeiting competition will not be the end of society. I’m not jealous of other people. I suppose that may be the difference between myself and others. I appreciate people that are great, and I do not resent them for being greater than I. Not everyone is going to be great at the same thing, and some people will have gifts or pieces of the puzzle that others do not. Even if you are correct about women, people like myself will simply tire of being manipulated, or tire of witnessing the manipulation of others, and decide it’s better to focus on themselves and leave women behind. I have absolutely no interest in a relationship, and quite frankly, this late in life, there is nothing about one that could do anything other than harm for me. I’m better off focusing on my studies, and producing something of value…building a legacy. That’s what makes us men.

[VeniversumParticipant 492]

…and above all, I detest the idea that individuals who are not useful to the collective should be murdered due to artificial scarcity created by a mandatory coerced centralization of the production of food, along with the criminalization of independence and subsistence by the government. Scarcity is a lie. Plants replenish themselves, and 75% of the Earth’s surface is covered in water. Carrying capacity, and all that other mythology is being perpetuated solely for the purpose of maintaining the current hierarchy and structure of society, one where the ruling class can obtain anything they like from their subjects. The ruling class simply fears there will be too many people to control. Eternal servitude.

Edmond: Why? In God’s name, why?
Fernand: Because you’re the son of a clerk, and I’m not supposed to want to be you!

[VeniversumParticipant 492]

[ScandinavianParticipant 590]

Stargazer wrote:

I think it’s ludicrous to say we don’t need women. MGTOW is, above all else, an attempt to understand the true nature of women and of men and to try to make better choices for ourselves based on those understandings. At least that’s how I see it. If you disagree, you may as well stop reading this post now.

Given that we’ve come to understand feminine nature as well as masculine nature, we can no more expect to say we do not need women any more than we can expect to say there are NAWALTS. They can’t go against their base nature and neither can we, you see what I mean? We, armed with knowledge, understanding and will, can choose options that mitigate the worst effects of our nature but we can’t change it… and thereby cut out our instinctual urges to compete for, possess, inseminate, provide for and protect them any more than we can change the color of the Sun.

* note that the strength of your urges and how and toward whom you may choose to direct them may vary

We are what we are and we desire what we desire. Now some may suppress those desires, some may sublimate them into work or study, others may redirect them at robots or AI programs and yet others may simply struggle with them. But can we remove them completely? No, I say… and if we ever did, we would no longer be men.

So no, technology will not “save us” from our own nature, it can and will only serve our nature in some way, hopefully, that is maybe less damaging to us as individuals.

If, on the other hand Going Your Own Way means, to you, denying, subverting or destroying your instinctual urges toward women, then good luck with that. I just don’t see it as an option and I don’t think either Sandman or TFM do either.

With all due respect, I agree on some of your points; we do need women if by “we” you would be talking about society, but as individuals? I see too many exceptions to that both now and in history, and though I can only speak for myself, I can’t for the life of me feel any need to protect nor provide for a woman, heck, lines such as “you don’t even know what a relationship is” and “you’re the cheapest guy I ever been with” have run like a red river through all my previous girlfriends, and I never understood why they seemed so upset til I came here… It may be something “wrong” with me and everyone else has other instincts, but I’d like to think there are more like me out there, but the topic is a tad like saying one regrets ones offspring being born; a little taboo.

But from your point of view; what do you mean can be done to mitigate creatures with a carte blanche to do pretty much as they wish like overly spoiled kids with the law on their side?

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

Veniversum wrote:

“Turd Flinging Monkey” released this video, that claims that a Utopian type of society cannot be created because of the biological instincts of men to compete for women: https://youtu.be/8rgNPhETuDI

“Sandman” released this video stating that men will no longer need to compete for women, because their biological functions will be replaced by technology: https://youtu.be/SfDfjIILkJQ

Can they both be correct? I’m leaning more towards Sandman’s point of view, due to the fact that MGTOW’s existence is a rational response, and proof that men no longer wish to compete for women, because there is more liability than there is benefit. Once technology can provide a man with all of the benefits that a woman would provide, then women will be reduce to only a liability. In a civilization of abundance, why bother murdering each other? Clearly there would be more to lose, than to gain. Right

What is intrinsic in being MGTOW that would lead to individual MGTOW not contradicting each other? I don’t see not being in a married state (hardcore MGTOW as in never marrying), combined with doing your life as you decide (with your own thoughts), won’t produce anything BUT contradictions in most areas.

As for who is right, the underlying premise, as I see it, is that men will compete for women, because of their biological drives. BUT, if technology comes along that can manage these drives, then the competition goes away. The disagreement will be over how optimistic you are over whether the technology shows up. And being MGTOW isn’t going to answer this question. What I see is Sandman so badly, just like other YouTubers who do MGTOW stuff, want it to become an active philosophy they can push, and borderline religion (see Stardusk here). Sandman so badly wants this technological utopia to happen, and for MGTOW to be everywhere, and there to be The End. I will fully disagree with that. I think Sandman WAY underestimates the consequences of his wishes, like somehow artificial wombs will be some sort of utopia and not end up as tools of corporate-government complex to produce drone workers, that will be denied the market, except for elites and people who can afford the license to have such. In short, Sandman isn’t going to get access to his artificial womb to produce a Mini-Me he wishes.

For myself, I end up taking a view closer to TFM, but I also hold that being MGTOW isn’t for all men. I saying you are MGTOW because you have a strong reasons for being so. To be sustainable, it needs to be more than just “women are evil, stinky piles of doo-doo”.

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

[VeniversumParticipant 492]

Well Richard, clearly at some point something you do or say that is “intrinsic in being MGTOW”, and leads to individual MGTOW contradicting each other, can be the result of someone speaking a point of view that isn’t inline with MGTOW philosophies. Clearly if a person says they are MGTOW but does not follow the protocol, or incorrectly teaches the philosophy, the community objects to that, which is what it would seem to be the case with all who object to Sandman. I don’t feel that way about Sandman, but others do and they may feel that they have a legitimate reason for it. You can’t really shout from the mountain tops “I’m MGTOW, Be like me and get married and be monogamous for life!” and be taken seriously. So, what you say is false, sorry. As for a “Utopia”, everyone agrees that it’s an unrealistic goal. However, the “human nature” excuse is p~~~ poor in every way. The premise that we can never better ourselves, and that we cannot change the future because “hey, this is how it has always been”, is weak. Most of the people who are complaining just want the institutionalized *disadvantage* to go away. That means they want the discontinuance of the use of legislation by the ruling class to create a business advantage for themselves or a disadvantage for their competitors. That’s a completely fair request, and if you are individualist you should agree, because quite frankly, we already have communism/socialism. This is why I keep railing people about the 10 planks of communism and the legislative framework that constitutes it. The welfare state *creates* the impoverished. It also incentivized for ghetto ladies to have multiple kids so they can get paid by the state. The primary reason people don’t want to work anymore is because the state has criminalized the option for people to work for themselves. This is completely evident in the fact that even little girls are accosted by police if they sell lemonade without a business license. Stealing a person’s right to do something and then selling it back to them is called a “license”, or “permit”. The people who have the institutionalized disadvantage who are left out in the cold but *REALLY* want to work, turn to crime and begin selling drugs, and they become millionaires. Then if they are smart, they get out of the business by laundering their money and then starting a legitimate business, like many rappers have done. As for your fears of the artificial womb process ending up as “tools of corporate-government complex to produce drone workers, that will be denied the market, except for elites and people who can afford the license”, That sounds exactly like “Brave New World”, and that’s exactly the type of world I *don’t* want to live in either, but you had better face the facts right now: as long as people accept pay to do *anything*, and as long as people can pay them with printed money, there will be no stopping the transformation of this world into that. Sorry sir, but this is reality. The world central banking cartel isn’t going to just stop pursuing their goal because “hey, capitalism is great for the individual.”. Millionaires can have all the ego in the world and pat themselves on the back about being self made, and point the finger at poor people and call them lazy and place the blame on them for their situation, but even millionaires are just minnows compared to the whales of the central banking cartel and military industrial complex. If you don’t want a “Brave New World”, the middle and lower classes had better start teaming up to figure out what to do, instead of criticizing one another… the *real* welfare state is the money machine.

[VeniversumParticipant 492]

As for “women are evil, stinky piles of doo-doo”, I don’t believe that most MGTOW possess that philosophy, and I don’t. I simply pointed out that they are liability due to their irrational behavior, and due to the fact that attraction is not a choice. Clearly, NAWALT, because some women can override their animal instincts with rational thought. The very existence of NAWALT is proof that “human nature” can be superseded by rational thought, and free will. The existence of NAWALT defeats TFM’s “human nature” argument, because NAMALT, and because quite frankly, men are exhausted from being manipulated and exploited so eventually I believe MGTOW will hit critical mass. Anyone who would point the finger at me and say “that’s just speculation” would be correct, but then again, so is TFM’s theory that a Utopia couldn’t exist due to competition for females. However, I can prove that men have given up on women, and that more and more are giving up every day. Once again, the existence of MGTOW alone is proof of this, but the “Sexodus” in general.

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

Scandinavian wrote:

I can’t for the life of me feel any need to protect nor provide for a woman

I do mean us as individual men, though your specific instinctual procreative and paternal drives may be stronger or weaker than average. I know men who have seemingly insatiable sex drives and others who seem to have nearly no sex drive… men who can’t help but to place themselves in the role of protector and provider for any random female and others who wouldn’t step aside for a woman struggling to shove three kids through a doorway.

It’s been my experience, furthermore, that the procreative and paternal drives seem to come together. The horniest men I’ve known have also seemed to be the biggest white knights as wel, though I won’t assert that they are always strongly correlated.

I am a biological determinist… I believe these instinctual drives are uniquely masculine and are at the core of what makes the vast majority of men behave the way we do… just as I believe the instinctual urge to identify a socio-economically successful male, submit to him sexually and then have him pay the bills, so to speak, is a uniquely feminine instinctual driver and informs the behavior of the vast majority of women.

Note that I distinguish between man and masculine and woman and feminine here as well. I know exceptionally feminine men who act out the feminine instinctual roles and I know highly masculine women who act out the masculine instinctual roles so I would argue that there is some interplay between biological gender and neurological gender. in addition to variation among individuals in overall strength of instinctual drives… never mind the role of social conditioning… but that’s another topic for another post.

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

Scandinavian wrote:

But from your point of view; what can be done to mitigate creatures with a carte blanche to do pretty much as they wish like spoiled kids with the law on their side?

My gut response is to not try to change them or their behavior at all. I think it’s futile at best and suicidally dangerous at worst. Trying to engage with feminists, social justice warriors, white knights, entitled socialists or anyone you feel is a nut job, for that matter, is akin to carrying a concealed weapon and then hanging out in a Wal-Mart waiting for an active shooter situation to erupt. If MGTOW knowledge is your firearm, you keep it concealed and only use it to save your own life or the life of someone you’re willing to die for.

Or to quote from a well known movie, “When you see an Agent, you run.”

Are we going to have to face them eventually when they get too big and too powerful and all of our freedoms are threatened? Perhaps. Let’s hope they turn on each other before it comes to that. Should we work to undermine the system they depend on so that it will collapse out from under them? I wouldn’t unless you’ve got a nice gulch in the Rockies and a fast plane to get you there. For now, I say we simply ignore them and don’t feed them and let them have their moment. Stay off social media, avoid protests, keep your opinions to yourself in public and back away slowly whenever you see some s~~~ about to pop off. Just go on about your life as though they didn’t exist and eventually, with a bit of luck, they won’t.

That’s what I try to do, anyway… and whenever I fail to do so, I regret it.

[VeniversumParticipant 492]

Lol. Transhumanism is cybernetics. At no point in time did I reference cybernetics. In no way am I anti-human, on the contrary the people who advocate the use of war for depopulation purposes, like TFM, are “anti-human”. I am 100% pro-human. I would prefer that we didn’t wipe ourselves out. I would prefer that good men and women are not manipulated or exploited in the future, by learning from the mistakes of others that happened in the past. You’re entitled to your opinion of me, and I’m entitled not to care what it is.

[Author]

Posts