FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > MGTOW
MGTOW
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What are your thoughts?" Ok.. showing my ignorance  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What are your thoughts?" I'm thinking of a broken down car. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I'm thinking of a broken down car." Sounds an expensive repair bill. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What are your thoughts? Ok.. showing my ignorance "Men Going Their Own Way. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW /'m?gta?/) is a mostly pseudonymous online community of men supported by websites and social media presences cautioning men against serious romantic relationships with women, especially marriage. The community is part of what is more broadly termed the manosphere." Lol was just going to post this | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What are your thoughts?" It seems that most of us have never heard of it, so don’t have any thoughts about it. Enlighten us, OP, give us your thoughts and something to discuss... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What are your thoughts? It seems that most of us have never heard of it, so don’t have any thoughts about it. Enlighten us, OP, give us your thoughts and something to discuss..." I don't think that is the case. I'm sure many are aware of it. As there are many ideas surrounding the subject. I advise doing some research if you wish to know more. I wouldn't want to show any bias by giving my take on it.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"[Removed by poster at 10/01/19 11:10:16]" Why would one remove such an informed post? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"[Removed by poster at 10/01/19 11:10:16] Why would one remove such an informed post?" I lost a pi | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yeah I've no idea what you are trying to say. "Circumference of a sphere is pi x diameter therefore a spherical person would have a waistline of pi x height  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For those interested in being better informed about the world I would suggest finding the Reggie Yates programme from BBC3 on this movement. In the context of violence against women and the effect of increasingly violent porn on young men's psychosexual development it is a worrying trend we hopefully will not join in on in this country." I wouldn't hold your breathe on that. We've taken on-board an awful lot of this kind of crap from the US of A thanks to the internet. Isn't psychosexual a technical term for sex on a bike?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder how much choice there is in their new lifestyle? Or maybe it’s down to the fact that Wohmen won’t fuck them? I can see plenty on here and Incels in the making. Lurking in their Mothers spare room. Neckbeards and Fedoras at the ready. " Choice of what? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What are your thoughts?" Men grow their own Willies?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's basically successful men who have no desire to take the risk of being fucked by the pro feminist laws that take their children and hard earned wealth away from them when their spouse decides that she'll just up and leave since 'no fault divorce' became legal. Basically all your hard earned wealth and properties can be taken away from you even if your wife was cheating on you and there was no abuse etc. The current culture of 'securing the bag' from men and devaluing of men by hypergamous women who 'trade up' and monkey branch is the main reason cited by men who go their own way. MGTOW is not a movement, as many have mistaken. It does not seek to change laws or confront these women or even other men who support the system. It is a set of principles to live by which, at its core, is grounded upon refusal to marry, procreate or cohabit with women, under the present laws which virtually offer zero benefit to a man to get married. The rationale is that there is absolutely nothing in it for men and that they are unnecessarily and illogically putting all of their investments into the hands of one woman which can - and according to divorce statistics of 75% initiated by women - destroy their livelihood, reputation, dreams and wealth. This way of life is not to be confused with groups such as INCEL who are mainly men who are involuntarily celibate, hence the acronym. MGTOW are usually highly driven men who have high sexual value and have been in relationships or have goals that they wish to protect by abstaining from committed relationships. Contrary to what some have suggested, MGTOW (Men going their own way) do not necessarily refrain from sex nor do they hate women. Their primary aim to to protect themselves and their livelihoods from the government by not entering into legal contracts with women. " Crack on lads is what I say. I do the same thing myself  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What are your thoughts? It seems that most of us have never heard of it, so don’t have any thoughts about it. Enlighten us, OP, give us your thoughts and something to discuss... I don't think that is the case. I'm sure many are aware of it. As there are many ideas surrounding the subject. I advise doing some research if you wish to know more. I wouldn't want to show any bias by giving my take on it. "To be honest, I don’t really want to know more, certainly not to the point of doing some ‘research’ into it. Some men don’t want to commit to a relationship, some do... nothing new, or interesting in that. If you had a specific viewpoint on it, then that might be fun to discuss/debate - but it seems you have nothing you want to share either. So, in true Dragon’s Den style, “I’m out.” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's basically successful men who have no desire to take the risk of being fucked by the pro feminist laws that take their children and hard earned wealth away from them .................. 'securing the bag' from men and devaluing of men by hypergamous women who 'trade up' and monkey branch is the main reason cited by men who go their own way. MGTOW is not a movement, as many have mistaken. It does not seek to change laws or confront these women or even other men who support the system. It is a set of principles to live by which, at its core, is grounded upon refusal to marry, procreate or cohabit with women, investments into the hands of one woman which can - and according to divorce statistics of 75% initiated by women - destroy their livelihood, reputation, dreams and wealth. This ........do not necessarily refrain from sex nor do they hate women. Their primary aim to to protect themselves and their livelihoods from the government by not entering into legal contracts with women. " Christ! I'm non-PC and even I'd describe that as straight from the egotist's handbook! "men who have high sexual value"...do real people speak in this way other than on ego trips? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What are your thoughts? It seems that most of us have never heard of it, so don’t have any thoughts about it. Enlighten us, OP, give us your thoughts and something to discuss... I don't think that is the case. I'm sure many are aware of it. As there are many ideas surrounding the subject. I advise doing some research if you wish to know more. I wouldn't want to show any bias by giving my take on it.
To be honest, I don’t really want to know more, certainly not to the point of doing some ‘research’ into it. Some men don’t want to commit to a relationship, some do... nothing new, or interesting in that. If you had a specific viewpoint on it, then that might be fun to discuss/debate - but it seems you have nothing you want to share either.
So, in true Dragon’s Den style, “I’m out.”"If you didn't want to know. Why ask? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's basically successful men who have no desire to take the risk of being fucked by the pro feminist laws that take their children and hard earned wealth away from them .................. 'securing the bag' from men and devaluing of men by hypergamous women who 'trade up' and monkey branch is the main reason cited by men who go their own way. MGTOW is not a movement, as many have mistaken. It does not seek to change laws or confront these women or even other men who support the system. It is a set of principles to live by which, at its core, is grounded upon refusal to marry, procreate or cohabit with women, investments into the hands of one woman which can - and according to divorce statistics of 75% initiated by women - destroy their livelihood, reputation, dreams and wealth. This ........do not necessarily refrain from sex nor do they hate women. Their primary aim to to protect themselves and their livelihoods from the government by not entering into legal contracts with women. Christ! I'm non-PC and even I'd describe that as straight from the egotist's handbook! "men who have high sexual value"...do real people speak in this way other than on ego trips?" High sexual value simply means that they are sought after by women and not usually men who are not sought after by women. Low sexual value world be men that find it harder to find sexual partners. That is all. These men have no issue finding sexual partners. The term is simply descriptive to distinguish between men who are having trouble finding partners. That is all. Are you denying that there is such a hierarchy in the sexual culture? The man you want to fuck has high sexual value. The man you don't want to fuck has low sexual value. You can evaluate many aspects of what someone has to offer. There are women who are more sought after than others. That's all it means. Ask questions. That's how you learn. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's basically successful men who have no desire to take the risk of being fucked by the pro feminist laws that take their children and hard earned wealth away from them when their spouse decides that she'll just up and leave since 'no fault divorce' became legal. Basically all your hard earned wealth and properties can be taken away from you even if your wife was cheating on you and there was no abuse etc. The current culture of 'securing the bag' from men and devaluing of men by hypergamous women who 'trade up' and monkey branch is the main reason cited by men who go their own way. MGTOW is not a movement, as many have mistaken. It does not seek to change laws or confront these women or even other men who support the system. It is a set of principles to live by which, at its core, is grounded upon refusal to marry, procreate or cohabit with women, under the present laws which virtually offer zero benefit to a man to get married. The rationale is that there is absolutely nothing in it for men and that they are unnecessarily and illogically putting all of their investments into the hands of one woman which can - and according to divorce statistics of 75% initiated by women - destroy their livelihood, reputation, dreams and wealth. This way of life is not to be confused with groups such as INCEL who are mainly men who are involuntarily celibate, hence the acronym. MGTOW are usually highly driven men who have high sexual value and have been in relationships or have goals that they wish to protect by abstaining from committed relationships. Contrary to what some have suggested, MGTOW (Men going their own way) do not necessarily refrain from sex nor do they hate women. Their primary aim to to protect themselves and their livelihoods from the government by not entering into legal contracts with women. " Can't they just get a pre-nup or something? I definitely notice a lot of mature men not wanting relationships because they have been 'fleeced' once, but I think it's sad - there is a great deal to be gained from cohabiting IMO, and I don't think bad relationships should influence the possibility of entering good ones too much. Just get a contract and have at it lol! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's basically successful men who have no desire to take the risk of being fucked by the pro feminist laws that take their children and hard earned wealth away from them when their spouse decides that she'll just up and leave since 'no fault divorce' became legal. Basically all your hard earned wealth and properties can be taken away from you even if your wife was cheating on you and there was no abuse etc. The current culture of 'securing the bag' from men and devaluing of men by hypergamous women who 'trade up' and monkey branch is the main reason cited by men who go their own way. MGTOW is not a movement, as many have mistaken. It does not seek to change laws or confront these women or even other men who support the system. It is a set of principles to live by which, at its core, is grounded upon refusal to marry, procreate or cohabit with women, under the present laws which virtually offer zero benefit to a man to get married. The rationale is that there is absolutely nothing in it for men and that they are unnecessarily and illogically putting all of their investments into the hands of one woman which can - and according to divorce statistics of 75% initiated by women - destroy their livelihood, reputation, dreams and wealth. This way of life is not to be confused with groups such as INCEL who are mainly men who are involuntarily celibate, hence the acronym. MGTOW are usually highly driven men who have high sexual value and have been in relationships or have goals that they wish to protect by abstaining from committed relationships. Contrary to what some have suggested, MGTOW (Men going their own way) do not necessarily refrain from sex nor do they hate women. Their primary aim to to protect themselves and their livelihoods from the government by not entering into legal contracts with women. Can't they just get a pre-nup or something? I definitely notice a lot of mature men not wanting relationships because they have been 'fleeced' once, but I think it's sad - there is a great deal to be gained from cohabiting IMO, and I don't think bad relationships should influence the possibility of entering good ones too much. Just get a contract and have at it lol!" Excellent question. The issue with prenups is that they have been thrown out of court and are therefore not secure and reliable. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's basically successful men who have no desire to take the risk of being fucked by the pro feminist laws that take their children and hard earned wealth away from them .................. 'securing the bag' from men and devaluing of men by hypergamous women who 'trade up' and monkey branch is the main reason cited by men who go their own way. MGTOW is not a movement, as many have mistaken. It does not seek to change laws or confront these women or even other men who support the system. It is a set of principles to live by which, at its core, is grounded upon refusal to marry, procreate or cohabit with women, investments into the hands of one woman which can - and according to divorce statistics of 75% initiated by women - destroy their livelihood, reputation, dreams and wealth. This ........do not necessarily refrain from sex nor do they hate women. Their primary aim to to protect themselves and their livelihoods from the government by not entering into legal contracts with women. Christ! I'm non-PC and even I'd describe that as straight from the egotist's handbook! "men who have high sexual value"...do real people speak in this way other than on ego trips? High sexual value simply means that they are sought after by women and not usually men who are not sought after by women. Low sexual value world be men that find it harder to find sexual partners. That is all. These men have no issue finding sexual partners. The term is simply descriptive to distinguish between men who are having trouble finding partners. That is all. Are you denying that there is such a hierarchy in the sexual culture? The man you want to fuck has high sexual value. The man you don't want to fuck has low sexual value. You can evaluate many aspects of what someone has to offer. There are women who are more sought after than others. That's all it means. Ask questions. That's how you learn. " Are they sought after by women because of their sexual prowess, or their position in life; wealth; importance? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Isn't psychosexual a technical term for sex on a bike? "Or is it only having sex with psychos 
That's easy on here | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's basically successful men who have no desire to take the risk of being fucked by the pro feminist laws that take their children and hard earned wealth away from them .................. 'securing the bag' from men and devaluing of men by hypergamous women who 'trade up' and monkey branch is the main reason cited by men who go their own way. MGTOW is not a movement, as many have mistaken. It does not seek to change laws or confront these women or even other men who support the system. It is a set of principles to live by which, at its core, is grounded upon refusal to marry, procreate or cohabit with women, investments into the hands of one woman which can - and according to divorce statistics of 75% initiated by women - destroy their livelihood, reputation, dreams and wealth. This ........do not necessarily refrain from sex nor do they hate women. Their primary aim to to protect themselves and their livelihoods from the government by not entering into legal contracts with women. Christ! I'm non-PC and even I'd describe that as straight from the egotist's handbook! "men who have high sexual value"...do real people speak in this way other than on ego trips? High sexual value simply means that they are sought after by women and not usually men who are not sought after by women. Low sexual value world be men that find it harder to find sexual partners. That is all. These men have no issue finding sexual partners. The term is simply descriptive to distinguish between men who are having trouble finding partners. That is all. Are you denying that there is such a hierarchy in the sexual culture? The man you want to fuck has high sexual value. The man you don't want to fuck has low sexual value. You can evaluate many aspects of what someone has to offer. There are women who are more sought after than others. That's all it means. Ask questions. That's how you learn. Are they sought after by women because of their sexual prowess, or their position in life; wealth; importance?" Is actually that women do want to fuck them because of their position in life; wealth; importance etc. To be very very precise again, the purpose of mentioning SEXUAL value is to point out that these are not men who are having trouble getting SEX! That is all. So outside of that, yes they are 'sought after' by women, but it is not to be taken as "sought after for sexual prowess" in particular. Hope that clarifies. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's basically successful men who have no desire to take the risk of being fucked by the pro feminist laws that take their children and hard earned wealth away from them when their spouse decides that she'll just up and leave since 'no fault divorce' became legal. Basically all your hard earned wealth and properties can be taken away from you even if your wife was cheating on you and there was no abuse etc. The current culture of 'securing the bag' from men and devaluing of men by hypergamous women who 'trade up' and monkey branch is the main reason cited by men who go their own way. MGTOW is not a movement, as many have mistaken. It does not seek to change laws or confront these women or even other men who support the system. It is a set of principles to live by which, at its core, is grounded upon refusal to marry, procreate or cohabit with women, under the present laws which virtually offer zero benefit to a man to get married. The rationale is that there is absolutely nothing in it for men and that they are unnecessarily and illogically putting all of their investments into the hands of one woman which can - and according to divorce statistics of 75% initiated by women - destroy their livelihood, reputation, dreams and wealth. This way of life is not to be confused with groups such as INCEL who are mainly men who are involuntarily celibate, hence the acronym. MGTOW are usually highly driven men who have high sexual value and have been in relationships or have goals that they wish to protect by abstaining from committed relationships. Contrary to what some have suggested, MGTOW (Men going their own way) do not necessarily refrain from sex nor do they hate women. Their primary aim to to protect themselves and their livelihoods from the government by not entering into legal contracts with women. Can't they just get a pre-nup or something? I definitely notice a lot of mature men not wanting relationships because they have been 'fleeced' once, but I think it's sad - there is a great deal to be gained from cohabiting IMO, and I don't think bad relationships should influence the possibility of entering good ones too much. Just get a contract and have at it lol! Excellent question. The issue with prenups is that they have been thrown out of court and are therefore not secure and reliable. " Surely there is something that can be devised that is or does the new law overule? If not then someone needs to change the laws - I quite agree with a long term partner who has maybe given up work to raise children being given a fair proportion of assets, but not someone who has just moved in. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why the need for more labels? Do what you want. If you don't want to have kids or get married then don't! No need to make a club for it. Do they get a car sticker if they join up?" MGTOW is specifically men refusing to participate due to laws and not for any other reason primarily. There's nothing to 'join up' to. MGTOW is not a movement or a club. There are no meetings or marches. It is simply a set of principles for men to live by in a hypergamous culture that fucks men over in divorce and family courts. The 'label' is descriptive, men going their own way.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why the need for more labels? Do what you want. If you don't want to have kids or get married then don't! No need to make a club for it. Do they get a car sticker if they join up? MGTOW is specifically men refusing to participate due to laws and not for any other reason primarily. There's nothing to 'join up' to. MGTOW is not a movement or a club. There are no meetings or marches. It is simply a set of principles for men to live by in a hypergamous culture that fucks men over in divorce and family courts. The 'label' is descriptive, men going their own way.. " So basically not getting a woman pregnant or cohabiting? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's basically successful men who have no desire to take the risk of being fucked by the pro feminist laws that take their children and hard earned wealth away from them when their spouse decides that she'll just up and leave since 'no fault divorce' became legal. Basically all your hard earned wealth and properties can be taken away from you even if your wife was cheating on you and there was no abuse etc. The current culture of 'securing the bag' from men and devaluing of men by hypergamous women who 'trade up' and monkey branch is the main reason cited by men who go their own way. MGTOW is not a movement, as many have mistaken. It does not seek to change laws or confront these women or even other men who support the system. It is a set of principles to live by which, at its core, is grounded upon refusal to marry, procreate or cohabit with women, under the present laws which virtually offer zero benefit to a man to get married. The rationale is that there is absolutely nothing in it for men and that they are unnecessarily and illogically putting all of their investments into the hands of one woman which can - and according to divorce statistics of 75% initiated by women - destroy their livelihood, reputation, dreams and wealth. This way of life is not to be confused with groups such as INCEL who are mainly men who are involuntarily celibate, hence the acronym. MGTOW are usually highly driven men who have high sexual value and have been in relationships or have goals that they wish to protect by abstaining from committed relationships. Contrary to what some have suggested, MGTOW (Men going their own way) do not necessarily refrain from sex nor do they hate women. Their primary aim to to protect themselves and their livelihoods from the government by not entering into legal contracts with women. Can't they just get a pre-nup or something? I definitely notice a lot of mature men not wanting relationships because they have been 'fleeced' once, but I think it's sad - there is a great deal to be gained from cohabiting IMO, and I don't think bad relationships should influence the possibility of entering good ones too much. Just get a contract and have at it lol! Excellent question. The issue with prenups is that they have been thrown out of court and are therefore not secure and reliable. Surely there is something that can be devised that is or does the new law overule? If not then someone needs to change the laws - I quite agree with a long term partner who has maybe given up work to raise children being given a fair proportion of assets, but not someone who has just moved in." To my knowledge, there are jurisdictions in some countries that may uphold a prenuptial contract, but the general rule is that judges are not bound to abide by them. Yes, the main issue is that a woman can literally contribute nothing and walk away any time she desires with the man's hard earned wealth and assets acquired. I haven't seen any discontent with fair compensation for partners who have equal earning potential and have sacrificed time and sweat in the relationship. The main issue is that there is a monetary incentive to divorce. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why the need for more labels? Do what you want. If you don't want to have kids or get married then don't! No need to make a club for it. Do they get a car sticker if they join up? MGTOW is specifically men refusing to participate due to laws and not for any other reason primarily. There's nothing to 'join up' to. MGTOW is not a movement or a club. There are no meetings or marches. It is simply a set of principles for men to live by in a hypergamous culture that fucks men over in divorce and family courts. The 'label' is descriptive, men going their own way.. So basically not getting a woman pregnant or cohabiting? " No, not basically that at all. There are numerous reasons why a person may not want children or live with someone else. They do not marry either. There's a difference between someone abstaining from eating meat because they don't like it vs. one abstaining because the industry is corrupt. MGTOW abstain because the laws are corrupt and misandric. Its important to note that these are people who highly value relationships and family. The abstention is a conscientious one. So, it does not suffice to say that they basically don't get women pregnant or live with them. Players do the same thing. I don't think it can be essentislised as such. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's not just issues with money. Another issue is the bias in favour of women in family court. It is also about equality. " Ironically that's what feminists want. I think any movement or group that demonises another is inherently full of broken people and in my thinking would be given a wide berth on my part. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's basically successful men who have no desire to take the risk of being fucked by the pro feminist laws that take their children and hard earned wealth away from them when their spouse decides that she'll just up and leave since 'no fault divorce' became legal. Basically all your hard earned wealth and properties can be taken away from you even if your wife was cheating on you and there was no abuse etc. The current culture of 'securing the bag' from men and devaluing of men by hypergamous women who 'trade up' and monkey branch is the main reason cited by men who go their own way. MGTOW is not a movement, as many have mistaken. It does not seek to change laws or confront these women or even other men who support the system. It is a set of principles to live by which, at its core, is grounded upon refusal to marry, procreate or cohabit with women, under the present laws which virtually offer zero benefit to a man to get married. The rationale is that there is absolutely nothing in it for men and that they are unnecessarily and illogically putting all of their investments into the hands of one woman which can - and according to divorce statistics of 75% initiated by women - destroy their livelihood, reputation, dreams and wealth. This way of life is not to be confused with groups such as INCEL who are mainly men who are involuntarily celibate, hence the acronym. MGTOW are usually highly driven men who have high sexual value and have been in relationships or have goals that they wish to protect by abstaining from committed relationships. Contrary to what some have suggested, MGTOW (Men going their own way) do not necessarily refrain from sex nor do they hate women. Their primary aim to to protect themselves and their livelihoods from the government by not entering into legal contracts with women. Can't they just get a pre-nup or something? I definitely notice a lot of mature men not wanting relationships because they have been 'fleeced' once, but I think it's sad - there is a great deal to be gained from cohabiting IMO, and I don't think bad relationships should influence the possibility of entering good ones too much. Just get a contract and have at it lol!" Pre-nup's don't nessersarly work and have been overturn by courts in some occasions. So they are not nesersary a protection if they are deemed 'unfair'. I'm not sure if it's a case of getting fleeced per se. More a case of same income but far bigger individual costs. When you marry you combine forces. The combined income pot pays for one property, one set of bills. Then you split and your income is the same but now two properties need funding and two sets of bills need paying for with no extra money. Then if you factor in children they still need funding and although you may have split up you still have a joint enterprise regarding the kids. So it follows that the resident parent need the lions share of your combined wealth and a suitable property. In my case I was by far the biggest earner but I was also the resident parent with sole financial responsibility. So I my case I kept most of wealth I'd acquired over my life and our family home. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's not just issues with money. Another issue is the bias in favour of women in family court. It is also about equality. Ironically that's what feminists want. I think any movement or group that demonises another is inherently full of broken people and in my thinking would be given a wide berth on my part. " It's one thing to break people, it's yet another round of unjust infliction to deem them ineligible of being heard or incapable of being rational due to their brokenness. Voices of reason are perpetually born out of oppressive circumstances that require justified indignation. That said, I would hardly classify people who have found ways to live and survive as merely "broken". It seems to suggest that those who do not protest or defend themselves are "whole". To quote Jiddu Krishnamurti, "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I guess it's a question of what you value more in life and how you would like to be remembered. Personally I value others in my life, my kids, partners etc. When I die I'd like to be surrounded by family and loved ones, not a cold pile of gold. " And you're saying that marriage secures that fate? Lol How naive, my friend. Trust me, if a woman steals your gold and your children, you will not be happy to have her at your death bed. Besides, there are more loved ones than the ones you procreate or marry. You can still love people without marrying, having children with or living with them. I should qualify what I'm saying here though. I don't see these things as not being valued by those who are MGTOW. I see it as a painful compromise. You are not going to be happy in a climate which pretty much guarantees that your dream of family life (read fairytale) will be utterly decimated! No one wants to be a slave to a previous partner or a present one who holds the keys to your fate. Fuck that! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What are your thoughts? Ok.. showing my ignorance
Men Going Their Own Way.
"Brilliant, leaves more women for normal men. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Men who choose money before love then. Fair enough. " You can't love someone without marrying, having children or living with them with a government contract? Since when does the government bestow certificates of love? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What are your thoughts? Ok.. showing my ignorance
Men Going Their Own Way.
Brilliant, leaves more women for normal men. "When you say "for", in what capacity will these women be had by these men? Sex? Marriage? MGTOW aren't celibate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Men who choose money before love then. Fair enough. You can't love someone without marrying, having children or living with them with a government contract? Since when does the government bestow certificates of love? " At some point you will want to waking up daily as a spoon if you really love them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What are your thoughts? Ok.. showing my ignorance
Men Going Their Own Way.
Brilliant, leaves more women for normal men.
When you say "for", in what capacity will these women be had by these men? Sex? Marriage? MGTOW aren't celibate. "I'm happy to fuck men who don't want to procreate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I guess it's a question of what you value more in life and how you would like to be remembered. Personally I value others in my life, my kids, partners etc. When I die I'd like to be surrounded by family and loved ones, not a cold pile of gold. And you're saying that marriage secures that fate? Lol How naive, my friend. Trust me, if a woman steals your gold and your children, you will not be happy to have her at your death bed. Besides, there are more loved ones than the ones you procreate or marry. You can still love people without marrying, having children with or living with them. I should qualify what I'm saying here though. I don't see these things as not being valued by those who are MGTOW. I see it as a painful compromise. You are not going to be happy in a climate which pretty much guarantees that your dream of family life (read fairytale) will be utterly decimated! No one wants to be a slave to a previous partner or a present one who holds the keys to your fate. Fuck that! " It sounds very much like you have bought into the concept fully. Personally though it still very much sounds to me like a very selfish premise that puts wealth and control of assets over personal relationships. If that's what works for you and others that feel the same way then that's great, I hope that you live with no regrets, I certainly don't. To my mind some things have a higher value than cash. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Men who choose money before love then. Fair enough. You can't love someone without marrying, having children or living with them with a government contract? Since when does the government bestow certificates of love? At some point you will want to waking up daily as a spoon if you really love them. " Is that not possible without marrying, having children or living in the same residence? I'll give an example.. Let's say there's a woman a man loves. She owns or has her own accommodation, he owns his own home, they are not registered as living in the range residence so there is no government involvement in what they choose to do together. They can sleep in each other's arms as many nights as they want to and wake up spooning as many mornings as their hearts desire. At the end of the day, she has no rights to take his property because its not her house. How does that sound? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Men who choose money before love then. Fair enough. You can't love someone without marrying, having children or living with them with a government contract? Since when does the government bestow certificates of love? At some point you will want to waking up daily as a spoon if you really love them. Is that not possible without marrying, having children or living in the same residence? I'll give an example.. Let's say there's a woman a man loves. She owns or has her own accommodation, he owns his own home, they are not registered as living in the range residence so there is no government involvement in what they choose to do together. They can sleep in each other's arms as many nights as they want to and wake up spooning as many mornings as their hearts desire. At the end of the day, she has no rights to take his property because its not her house. How does that sound? " That's essentially what we do. Both of us had previous live in relationships where finances were mixed and unravelling them was a nightmare. We now each have our own houses and don't mix finances at all. We prefer it that way, but we can do it as we are both fairly well off. For people less well off living together may well be a better option | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Men who choose money before love then. Fair enough. You can't love someone without marrying, having children or living with them with a government contract? Since when does the government bestow certificates of love? At some point you will want to waking up daily as a spoon if you really love them. Is that not possible without marrying, having children or living in the same residence? I'll give an example.. Let's say there's a woman a man loves. She owns or has her own accommodation, he owns his own home, they are not registered as living in the range residence so there is no government involvement in what they choose to do together. They can sleep in each other's arms as many nights as they want to and wake up spooning as many mornings as their hearts desire. At the end of the day, she has no rights to take his property because its not her house. How does that sound? " Expensive! Running two houses like that  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I guess it's a question of what you value more in life and how you would like to be remembered. Personally I value others in my life, my kids, partners etc. When I die I'd like to be surrounded by family and loved ones, not a cold pile of gold. And you're saying that marriage secures that fate? Lol How naive, my friend. Trust me, if a woman steals your gold and your children, you will not be happy to have her at your death bed. Besides, there are more loved ones than the ones you procreate or marry. You can still love people without marrying, having children with or living with them. I should qualify what I'm saying here though. I don't see these things as not being valued by those who are MGTOW. I see it as a painful compromise. You are not going to be happy in a climate which pretty much guarantees that your dream of family life (read fairytale) will be utterly decimated! No one wants to be a slave to a previous partner or a present one who holds the keys to your fate. Fuck that! It sounds very much like you have bought into the concept fully. Personally though it still very much sounds to me like a very selfish premise that puts wealth and control of assets over personal relationships. If that's what works for you and others that feel the same way then that's great, I hope that you live with no regrets, I certainly don't. To my mind some things have a higher value than cash. " What the hell does my money and assets have to do with my personal relationships? Why does my money and assets have to be assailable by another person? You're not making any sense! You're making a false dichotomy here. I can be in a personal relationship without a government contract that turns out into a business relationship. Essentially what you're saying is that personal relationships must be business relationships with financial clauses. How is that predicated upon love and dedication? It isn't! I've been married so I have the right to speak. I have participated in the government contract. You can have personal relationships without the courts involvement. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Men who choose money before love then. Fair enough. You can't love someone without marrying, having children or living with them with a government contract? Since when does the government bestow certificates of love? At some point you will want to waking up daily as a spoon if you really love them. Is that not possible without marrying, having children or living in the same residence? I'll give an example.. Let's say there's a woman a man loves. She owns or has her own accommodation, he owns his own home, they are not registered as living in the range residence so there is no government involvement in what they choose to do together. They can sleep in each other's arms as many nights as they want to and wake up spooning as many mornings as their hearts desire. At the end of the day, she has no rights to take his property because its not her house. How does that sound? Expensive! Running two houses like that "Who's running two houses? I'm running mine, she's running hers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All the people saying it's because of money it's not. That's what a pre-nup is for. I pretty am what OP questioned about. I don't want kids as I've never liked kids.....ever. And to me marriage is just 2 ring, a piece of paper and one big party at the beginning which will just end up in divorce within 10yrs. I know many women who feel the exact same so shouldn't be an issue" Never liked kids? Ever. Or do you mean never liked to have kids? Because how on earth can you not like kids??? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For people less well off living together may well be a better option " Indeed it is.... Until she decides to leave, take half the assets and the children leaving you with two households to run and poorer, essentially making you nothing more than a money dispenser. The ideal situation is the family. The issue is that the current laws do not support this arrangement and create a high risk situation for men. Looks like you and the Mrs have worked out a great arrangement between each other that's what I aspire to.
I think most people aren't grasping the heavy damage that has been inflicted upon men and on children and families and consequently upon women as well. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW /'m?gta?/) is a mostly pseudonymous online community of men supported by websites and social media presences cautioning men against serious romantic relationships with women, especially marriage. The community is part of what is more broadly termed the manosphere." Their is no I in husband, but there is one in both wife and divorce. Bitter, me? Yeah! I like my ale!  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Men who choose money before love then. Fair enough. You can't love someone without marrying, having children or living with them with a government contract? Since when does the government bestow certificates of love? At some point you will want to waking up daily as a spoon if you really love them. Is that not possible without marrying, having children or living in the same residence? I'll give an example.. Let's say there's a woman a man loves. She owns or has her own accommodation, he owns his own home, they are not registered as living in the range residence so there is no government involvement in what they choose to do together. They can sleep in each other's arms as many nights as they want to and wake up spooning as many mornings as their hearts desire. At the end of the day, she has no rights to take his property because its not her house. How does that sound? Expensive! Running two houses like that
Who's running two houses? I'm running mine, she's running hers. "Dont forget you're in love now. (Supposedly) Its We. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For people less well off living together may well be a better option Indeed it is.... Until she decides to leave, take half the assets and the children leaving you with two households to run and poorer, essentially making you nothing more than a money dispenser. The ideal situation is the family. The issue is that the current laws do not support this arrangement and create a high risk situation for men. Looks like you and the Mrs have worked out a great arrangement between each other that's what I aspire to.
I think most people aren't grasping the heavy damage that has been inflicted upon men and on children and families and consequently upon women as well. "I am afraid I don't agree with your "it's all a conspiracy against men" approach. If two people of whatever sex decide to merge their property and then later decide to un merge, then obviously if the parties can't reach agreement someone else has to decide on the division. There's quite valid financial and emotional reasons for young people who expect to have children to merge things. We are oldies who are financially secure and who are not going to have children with each other, hence it suits us not to merge. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All the people saying it's because of money it's not. That's what a pre-nup is for. I pretty am what OP questioned about. I don't want kids as I've never liked kids.....ever. And to me marriage is just 2 ring, a piece of paper and one big party at the beginning which will just end up in divorce within 10yrs. I know many women who feel the exact same so shouldn't be an issue Never liked kids? Ever. Or do you mean never liked to have kids? Because how on earth can you not like kids??? "I find not liking kids really easy when I see what little arrogant little self-absorbed shits they seem to be in general these days. But to the individual woman/couple - of course, yours are wonderful | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I guess it's a question of what you value more in life and how you would like to be remembered. Personally I value others in my life, my kids, partners etc. When I die I'd like to be surrounded by family and loved ones, not a cold pile of gold. And you're saying that marriage secures that fate? Lol How naive, my friend. Trust me, if a woman steals your gold and your children, you will not be happy to have her at your death bed. Besides, there are more loved ones than the ones you procreate or marry. You can still love people without marrying, having children with or living with them. I should qualify what I'm saying here though. I don't see these things as not being valued by those who are MGTOW. I see it as a painful compromise. You are not going to be happy in a climate which pretty much guarantees that your dream of family life (read fairytale) will be utterly decimated! No one wants to be a slave to a previous partner or a present one who holds the keys to your fate. Fuck that! It sounds very much like you have bought into the concept fully. Personally though it still very much sounds to me like a very selfish premise that puts wealth and control of assets over personal relationships. If that's what works for you and others that feel the same way then that's great, I hope that you live with no regrets, I certainly don't. To my mind some things have a higher value than cash. What the hell does my money and assets have to do with my personal relationships? Why does my money and assets have to be assailable by another person? You're not making any sense! You're making a false dichotomy here. I can be in a personal relationship without a government contract that turns out into a business relationship. Essentially what you're saying is that personal relationships must be business relationships with financial clauses. How is that predicated upon love and dedication? It isn't! I've been married so I have the right to speak. I have participated in the government contract. You can have personal relationships without the courts involvement. " We're coming at this from opposite angles. You see sharing your life with a person and having children as a business transaction, I see that as what makes life worth living. I still maintain my original point; any group or thought process that demonises or seeks to undermine another group (in this case women and their fair and equitable rights), however its dressed up, is at its very heart an inherently negative venture. Many other groups have sought to stand on the rights of others throughout history, a certain young artist in Germany wrote a book about it... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's not just issues with money. Another issue is the bias in favour of women in family court. It is also about equality. " That cant be a factor if these silly accronym people have decided NOT to have children, then they dont go to family court. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All the people saying it's because of money it's not. That's what a pre-nup is for. I pretty am what OP questioned about. I don't want kids as I've never liked kids.....ever. And to me marriage is just 2 ring, a piece of paper and one big party at the beginning which will just end up in divorce within 10yrs. I know many women who feel the exact same so shouldn't be an issue Never liked kids? Ever. Or do you mean never liked to have kids? Because how on earth can you not like kids???
I find not liking kids really easy when I see what little arrogant little self-absorbed shits they seem to be in general these days. But to the individual woman/couple - of course, yours are wonderful "Ah no. Honestly my 3 are self absorbed selfish utters bastards BUT! That’s my fault, society’s faul not there’s. I personally love children. Give me a handful of them over a handful of adults any day of the week! Monkey see monkey do.....get me? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All the people saying it's because of money it's not. That's what a pre-nup is for. I pretty am what OP questioned about. I don't want kids as I've never liked kids.....ever. And to me marriage is just 2 ring, a piece of paper and one big party at the beginning which will just end up in divorce within 10yrs. I know many women who feel the exact same so shouldn't be an issue Never liked kids? Ever. Or do you mean never liked to have kids? Because how on earth can you not like kids???
I find not liking kids really easy when I see what little arrogant little self-absorbed shits they seem to be in general these days. But to the individual woman/couple - of course, yours are wonderful
Ah no. Honestly my 3 are self absorbed selfish utters bastards BUT! That’s my fault, society’s faul not there’s. I personally love children. Give me a handful of them over a handful of adults any day of the week! Monkey see monkey do.....get me? "I suppose a handful of children are cheaper to feed and easier to muck-out than a handful of adults, but I'll stick with my animals | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sounds like another made up pile of crap. If you don’t like the system, don’t follow the system. Do your own thing." That's essentially what mgtow is "You make it sound like women are blood sucking vampires." Some of them definitely are and take full advantage of unjust and sexist laws. "Don’t forget who made up this bullshit system. Man. And man made us women have no choice but to follow the system." The current laws have been created by women and 3rd wave feminists, so I don't think it's accurate to say that men created it alone. Probably not helpful to say man or woman, just feminism. "Get married, have babies, whether the guy was a violent bastard or not, whether he was having affairs or not (because that’s just how it is)." I don't see where this is relevant to the topic. There are laws against violence towards women which has nothing to do with 'no fault divorce'. If you've been paying attention, 'no fault divorce' means neither party was abusive or violent or unfaithful to the other, and if they were, they could still get a 'no fault divorce' with no consequences for their behaviour in the relationship, thanks to 3rd wave feminism. Whereas, beforehand, you could divorce on the grounds of abuse. It would be a better solution to say that the abused spouse deserves compensation and reward whereas one who just wants to divorce because they found a new cock or vagina should not be able to walk away with the other's assets and children. You must see the fairness in that. Women oppressed men as well and cheated on them. They also participated in the enslavement of men for millenia. To say that men have just been oppressing women is nonsense. You had a lower status because men had to do all the hard work, die in wars, die doing dangerous jobs, forced to begin labor at young ages, spend all their money on the family and pay bills all in their own. You're focusing on what some from the wealthy class were able to do. The ordinary family man has never been allowed to do whatever he wants with his paycheck. That's bullshit! In fact, for many, the wife was the financier of the home and he turned his paycheck over to him. That extremist narrative you're spewing is utter cowshit, I'm sorry. I support equal rights but what you're suggesting is that men deserve to be treated unequal because of some warped misreading of a history that you never experienced yourself but support because it favors the superiority of your gender. I can't respect that. You're not a feminist, you're a gender sectarian and female supremacist. "If you don’t want to marry and have children, don’t. Just don’t blame us women and our feminist ways! We’ve been treated like shit for thousands of years. And now because we’re fighting back all the cry baby men are crapping their pants. G ( feminist) " They are not feminist ways,they are hypergamous ways and I don't believe you speak for all women. The vast majority in the UK will disagree with you. No one is "blaming women". If you were paying attention, you would understand that it's a system being addressed. I find it mildly amusing though, that you say the system is created by men, then you take credit for it by saying "women are now fighting back". That's a contradiction and, dare I say, an hypocrisy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW /'m?gta?/) is a mostly pseudonymous online community of men supported by websites and social media presences cautioning men against serious romantic relationships with women, especially marriage. The community is part of what is more broadly termed the manosphere. Their is no I in husband, but there is one in both wife and divorce. Bitter, me? Yeah! I like my ale! "...There not their...I used to be able to spell once  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
You know me do you? That’s the greatest thing about the forums. So many of you know others just by a teeny weeny bit of information.
But I was once called a feminazi...
Strangely though, I love men. I’ve more male friends than females. I see weakness in both sexes and greatness in both too.
I am a female going off how it is to be female. That is all. So there 
Thinking you know it all hahahaha! That’s the issue with people nowadays.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sounds like another made up pile of crap. If you don’t like the system, don’t follow the system. Do your own thing. That's essentially what mgtow is You make it sound like women are blood sucking vampires. Some of them definitely are and take full advantage of unjust and sexist laws. Don’t forget who made up this bullshit system. Man. And man made us women have no choice but to follow the system. The current laws have been created by women and 3rd wave feminists, so I don't think it's accurate to say that men created it alone. Probably not helpful to say man or woman, just feminism. Get married, have babies, whether the guy was a violent bastard or not, whether he was having affairs or not (because that’s just how it is). I don't see where this is relevant to the topic. There are laws against violence towards women which has nothing to do with 'no fault divorce'. If you've been paying attention, 'no fault divorce' means neither party was abusive or violent or unfaithful to the other, and if they were, they could still get a 'no fault divorce' with no consequences for their behaviour in the relationship, thanks to 3rd wave feminism. Whereas, beforehand, you could divorce on the grounds of abuse. It would be a better solution to say that the abused spouse deserves compensation and reward whereas one who just wants to divorce because they found a new cock or vagina should not be able to walk away with the other's assets and children. You must see the fairness in that. Women oppressed men as well and cheated on them. They also participated in the enslavement of men for millenia. To say that men have just been oppressing women is nonsense. You had a lower status because men had to do all the hard work, die in wars, die doing dangerous jobs, forced to begin labor at young ages, spend all their money on the family and pay bills all in their own. You're focusing on what some from the wealthy class were able to do. The ordinary family man has never been allowed to do whatever he wants with his paycheck. That's bullshit! In fact, for many, the wife was the financier of the home and he turned his paycheck over to him. That extremist narrative you're spewing is utter cowshit, I'm sorry. I support equal rights but what you're suggesting is that men deserve to be treated unequal because of some warped misreading of a history that you never experienced yourself but support because it favors the superiority of your gender. I can't respect that. You're not a feminist, you're a gender sectarian and female supremacist. If you don’t want to marry and have children, don’t. Just don’t blame us women and our feminist ways! We’ve been treated like shit for thousands of years. And now because we’re fighting back all the cry baby men are crapping their pants. G ( feminist) They are not feminist ways,they are hypergamous ways and I don't believe you speak for all women. The vast majority in the UK will disagree with you. No one is "blaming women". If you were paying attention, you would understand that it's a system being addressed. I find it mildly amusing though, that you say the system is created by men, then you take credit for it by saying "women are now fighting back". That's a contradiction and, dare I say, an hypocrisy. " Astonishing. I am afraid that I can't take seriously someone who denies that until virtually yesterday men as a class oppressed women as a class. In case you forget it wasn't that long ago that women could not enter into contracts, could not vote, could not enter into professions and could not hold property. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I guess it's a question of what you value more in life and how you would like to be remembered. Personally I value others in my life, my kids, partners etc. When I die I'd like to be surrounded by family and loved ones, not a cold pile of gold. And you're saying that marriage secures that fate? Lol How naive, my friend. Trust me, if a woman steals your gold and your children, you will not be happy to have her at your death bed. Besides, there are more loved ones than the ones you procreate or marry. You can still love people without marrying, having children with or living with them. I should qualify what I'm saying here though. I don't see these things as not being valued by those who are MGTOW. I see it as a painful compromise. You are not going to be happy in a climate which pretty much guarantees that your dream of family life (read fairytale) will be utterly decimated! No one wants to be a slave to a previous partner or a present one who holds the keys to your fate. Fuck that! It sounds very much like you have bought into the concept fully. Personally though it still very much sounds to me like a very selfish premise that puts wealth and control of assets over personal relationships. If that's what works for you and others that feel the same way then that's great, I hope that you live with no regrets, I certainly don't. To my mind some things have a higher value than cash. What the hell does my money and assets have to do with my personal relationships? Why does my money and assets have to be assailable by another person? You're not making any sense! You're making a false dichotomy here. I can be in a personal relationship without a government contract that turns out into a business relationship. Essentially what you're saying is that personal relationships must be business relationships with financial clauses. How is that predicated upon love and dedication? It isn't! I've been married so I have the right to speak. I have participated in the government contract. You can have personal relationships without the courts involvement. We're coming at this from opposite angles. You see sharing your life with a person and having children as a business transaction, I see that as what makes life worth living. I still maintain my original point; any group or thought process that demonises or seeks to undermine another group (in this case women and their fair and equitable rights), however its dressed up, is at its very heart an inherently negative venture. Many other groups have sought to stand on the rights of others throughout history, a certain young artist in Germany wrote a book about it... " Now you're throwing accusations that are unfounded and unfair. What the hell does the marriage laws have to do with women's rights? Where did I say that I disagreed with women's rights? You're creating strawmen here. You're the one who made having children vs having money mutually exclusive. I'm simply arguing that under the current laws... get this.. LAWS.. it is an unfair risk for men. I'll give you an example.. remember in 'Braveheart' where the ruler had the right to sleep with the bride of every newlywed couple before they did with each other? Right, that's an example of an unjust SYSTEM imposing unjust laws on relationships. It does not make the men unjust who are unwilling to suffer that fate, nor does it make them people who do not deeply value and cherish family, marriage, love, relationships etc. for not participating under those laws. If you were paying attention, you would see that I've been saying that mgtow do not want their relationships becoming business transactions, but the courts have made it that way and many women have also. Look at the last who commented and said that women are "fighting back". So she definitely sees taking men's wealth and children away from them as a goal of her relationships with men. For you to overlook that means that you're actually not for gender equality. You agree with men being treated unfairly by the court systems. How about being true to your claimed principle "any group or thought process that demonises or seeks to undermine another group..."... Ok so why are you demonising men who are highlighting injustices in the laws? Where did I demonise women? I love women. I love children. I love marriage. I love equality. I support gender equality and the fundamental goals of feminism. I make a distinction between feminism (real feminism) and 3rd wave extremism, which is gender sectarianism, not true feminism. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That extremist narrative you're spewing is utter cowshit, I'm sorry. I support equal rights but what you're suggesting is that men deserve to be treated unequal because of some warped misreading of a history that you never experienced yourself but support because it favors the superiority of your gender. I can't respect that. You're not a feminist, you're a gender sectarian and female supremacist.
You know me do you? That’s the greatest thing about the forums. So many of you know others just by a teeny weeny bit of information.
But I was once called a feminazi...
Strangely though, I love men. I’ve more male friends than females. I see weakness in both sexes and greatness in both too.
I am a female going off how it is to be female. That is all. So there
Thinking you know it all hahahaha! That’s the issue with people nowadays. "I'm only responding to what you said. No, I don't know you and I would not presume to judge you based on this exchange alone. I'm sure you're a wonderful lady and I am a strong supporter of equal rights. I also empathise with the experience of women and have worked for equal treatment of women, not just lip service either! What I do not support is using feminism to usurp the rights of men. That has nothing to do with feminism but it seems that modern feminists think that it does. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sounds like another made up pile of crap. If you don’t like the system, don’t follow the system. Do your own thing. That's essentially what mgtow is You make it sound like women are blood sucking vampires. Some of them definitely are and take full advantage of unjust and sexist laws. Don’t forget who made up this bullshit system. Man. And man made us women have no choice but to follow the system. The current laws have been created by women and 3rd wave feminists, so I don't think it's accurate to say that men created it alone. Probably not helpful to say man or woman, just feminism. Get married, have babies, whether the guy was a violent bastard or not, whether he was having affairs or not (because that’s just how it is). I don't see where this is relevant to the topic. There are laws against violence towards women which has nothing to do with 'no fault divorce'. If you've been paying attention, 'no fault divorce' means neither party was abusive or violent or unfaithful to the other, and if they were, they could still get a 'no fault divorce' with no consequences for their behaviour in the relationship, thanks to 3rd wave feminism. Whereas, beforehand, you could divorce on the grounds of abuse. It would be a better solution to say that the abused spouse deserves compensation and reward whereas one who just wants to divorce because they found a new cock or vagina should not be able to walk away with the other's assets and children. You must see the fairness in that. Women oppressed men as well and cheated on them. They also participated in the enslavement of men for millenia. To say that men have just been oppressing women is nonsense. You had a lower status because men had to do all the hard work, die in wars, die doing dangerous jobs, forced to begin labor at young ages, spend all their money on the family and pay bills all in their own. You're focusing on what some from the wealthy class were able to do. The ordinary family man has never been allowed to do whatever he wants with his paycheck. That's bullshit! In fact, for many, the wife was the financier of the home and he turned his paycheck over to him. That extremist narrative you're spewing is utter cowshit, I'm sorry. I support equal rights but what you're suggesting is that men deserve to be treated unequal because of some warped misreading of a history that you never experienced yourself but support because it favors the superiority of your gender. I can't respect that. You're not a feminist, you're a gender sectarian and female supremacist. If you don’t want to marry and have children, don’t. Just don’t blame us women and our feminist ways! We’ve been treated like shit for thousands of years. And now because we’re fighting back all the cry baby men are crapping their pants. G ( feminist) They are not feminist ways,they are hypergamous ways and I don't believe you speak for all women. The vast majority in the UK will disagree with you. No one is "blaming women". If you were paying attention, you would understand that it's a system being addressed. I find it mildly amusing though, that you say the system is created by men, then you take credit for it by saying "women are now fighting back". That's a contradiction and, dare I say, an hypocrisy. Astonishing. I am afraid that I can't take seriously someone who denies that until virtually yesterday men as a class oppressed women as a class. In case you forget it wasn't that long ago that women could not enter into contracts, could not vote, could not enter into professions and could not hold property. " As I was saying above; I am a women talking about being a woman. I’m not arguing with anyone on Fab. Not via the internet. I’ve my views. You all have yours. And do you know what! Him shooting me down is typically the exact thing I primarily moaning about. It’s a perfect example. It is my view! No one said it’s the right one! You do not know my life. I’m 38. I’ve lived as a female for 38 yrs. I know there are cunts of women. In fact they can, in my opinion and experience, be the biggest! Ah whatever OP. Do what the fuck you like. Who actually cares. The forums are a bit of a mess and I think I’ll avoid them from now on. Sorry London.... for using your comment. This is for the “ professor “ above. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And men were allowed to use "reasonable force" on their wives, entitled (until the 1990s) and to have sex with them even if their wives refuse. " What. Does. This. Have. To. Do. With. The. Topic?? You're throwing red herrings my friend. The unfair treatment of women is reprehensible. Now can you agree that the unfair treatment of men is also reprehensible? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And men were allowed to use "reasonable force" on their wives, entitled (until the 1990s) and to have sex with them even if their wives refuse. What. Does. This. Have. To. Do. With. The. Topic?? You're throwing red herrings my friend. The unfair treatment of women is reprehensible. Now can you agree that the unfair treatment of men is also reprehensible? " Your argument was that men have not historucally oppressed women. That's utter nonsense. Until the 20th century men made all the laws and made damn sure women remained in a subordinate position. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As Monty Python’s Arthur said to the Black Knight “your a loony” MGTOW is daft, perhaps when we get equality they will go away! I sadly doubt it, but I suppose some guys will always struggle with not getting things there own way all the time... ""PERHAPS WHEN WE GET EQUALITY THEY WILL GO AWAY" Yaaay exactly! You just inadvertently admitted that we don't have equality and that true equality will diminish ideologies like MGTOW. How are you able to see this yet be so dissonant in your assessment of why they are choosing to retain from participating in an unjust system? It's not adding up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That extremist narrative you're spewing is utter cowshit, I'm sorry. I support equal rights but what you're suggesting is that men deserve to be treated unequal because of some warped misreading of a history that you never experienced yourself but support because it favors the superiority of your gender. I can't respect that. You're not a feminist, you're a gender sectarian and female supremacist.
You know me do you? That’s the greatest thing about the forums. So many of you know others just by a teeny weeny bit of information.
But I was once called a feminazi...
Strangely though, I love men. I’ve more male friends than females. I see weakness in both sexes and greatness in both too.
I am a female going off how it is to be female. That is all. So there
Thinking you know it all hahahaha! That’s the issue with people nowadays.
I'm only responding to what you said. No, I don't know you and I would not presume to judge you based on this exchange alone. I'm sure you're a wonderful lady and I am a strong supporter of equal rights. I also empathise with the experience of women and have worked for equal treatment of women, not just lip service either! What I do not support is using feminism to usurp the rights of men. That has nothing to do with feminism but it seems that modern feminists think that it does. "I am a massive fan of human rights. Like you would not believe. I’m no dolly. May not be academically “ intelligent “ but I am far more than a profile and a few words in the forum. I’ve an open, honest and positive mind. I am honestly going to stay away. This has actually really upset me. Good ole forums  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As Monty Python’s Arthur said to the Black Knight “your a loony” MGTOW is daft, perhaps when we get equality they will go away! I sadly doubt it, but I suppose some guys will always struggle with not getting things there own way all the time...
"PERHAPS WHEN WE GET EQUALITY THEY WILL GO AWAY" Yaaay exactly! You just inadvertently admitted that we don't have equality and that true equality will diminish ideologies like MGTOW. How are you able to see this yet be so dissonant in your assessment of why they are choosing to retain from participating in an unjust system? It's not adding up. "Equality means we all have it. At the moment as other posters have mentioned it does not exist. Women are still paid a lot less than men and it is only in this century that we are starting to see a re balancing in lawyers, accountants, doctors, judges, company directors and MPs. Once this is fully achieved then the law you don’t like will be an equal law affecting as many women as men. Could it be improved, no doubt yes, but in a macro context removing discrimination in society as a whole is more worthwhile. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I guess it's a question of what you value more in life and how you would like to be remembered. Personally I value others in my life, my kids, partners etc. When I die I'd like to be surrounded by family and loved ones, not a cold pile of gold. And you're saying that marriage secures that fate? Lol How naive, my friend. Trust me, if a woman steals your gold and your children, you will not be happy to have her at your death bed. Besides, there are more loved ones than the ones you procreate or marry. You can still love people without marrying, having children with or living with them. I should qualify what I'm saying here though. I don't see these things as not being valued by those who are MGTOW. I see it as a painful compromise. You are not going to be happy in a climate which pretty much guarantees that your dream of family life (read fairytale) will be utterly decimated! No one wants to be a slave to a previous partner or a present one who holds the keys to your fate. Fuck that! It sounds very much like you have bought into the concept fully. Personally though it still very much sounds to me like a very selfish premise that puts wealth and control of assets over personal relationships. If that's what works for you and others that feel the same way then that's great, I hope that you live with no regrets, I certainly don't. To my mind some things have a higher value than cash. What the hell does my money and assets have to do with my personal relationships? Why does my money and assets have to be assailable by another person? You're not making any sense! You're making a false dichotomy here. I can be in a personal relationship without a government contract that turns out into a business relationship. Essentially what you're saying is that personal relationships must be business relationships with financial clauses. How is that predicated upon love and dedication? It isn't! I've been married so I have the right to speak. I have participated in the government contract. You can have personal relationships without the courts involvement. We're coming at this from opposite angles. You see sharing your life with a person and having children as a business transaction, I see that as what makes life worth living. I still maintain my original point; any group or thought process that demonises or seeks to undermine another group (in this case women and their fair and equitable rights), however its dressed up, is at its very heart an inherently negative venture. Many other groups have sought to stand on the rights of others throughout history, a certain young artist in Germany wrote a book about it... Now you're throwing accusations that are unfounded and unfair. What the hell does the marriage laws have to do with women's rights? Where did I say that I disagreed with women's rights? You're creating strawmen here. You're the one who made having children vs having money mutually exclusive. I'm simply arguing that under the current laws... get this.. LAWS.. it is an unfair risk for men. I'll give you an example.. remember in 'Braveheart' where the ruler had the right to sleep with the bride of every newlywed couple before they did with each other? Right, that's an example of an unjust SYSTEM imposing unjust laws on relationships. It does not make the men unjust who are unwilling to suffer that fate, nor does it make them people who do not deeply value and cherish family, marriage, love, relationships etc. for not participating under those laws. If you were paying attention, you would see that I've been saying that mgtow do not want their relationships becoming business transactions, but the courts have made it that way and many women have also. Look at the last who commented and said that women are "fighting back". So she definitely sees taking men's wealth and children away from them as a goal of her relationships with men. For you to overlook that means that you're actually not for gender equality. You agree with men being treated unfairly by the court systems. How about being true to your claimed principle "any group or thought process that demonises or seeks to undermine another group..."... Ok so why are you demonising men who are highlighting injustices in the laws? Where did I demonise women? I love women. I love children. I love marriage. I love equality. I support gender equality and the fundamental goals of feminism. I make a distinction between feminism (real feminism) and 3rd wave extremism, which is gender sectarianism, not true feminism. " It's amazing how rhetoric can sound so great. I'm sure that you think that this is a wonderful thing, you've clearly bought into it as you're essentially defending and using arguments that are circuitous. The OP was asking what people thought of it, I've answered, as have others, as have you. I'm leaving this there. Tea Monkey out. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And men were allowed to use "reasonable force" on their wives, entitled (until the 1990s) and to have sex with them even if their wives refuse. What. Does. This. Have. To. Do. With. The. Topic?? You're throwing red herrings my friend. The unfair treatment of women is reprehensible. Now can you agree that the unfair treatment of men is also reprehensible? Your argument was that men have not historucally oppressed women. That's utter nonsense. Until the 20th century men made all the laws and made damn sure women remained in a subordinate position. " Ok you're going deeper down the rabbit hole of strawmanning in this discussion. There absolutely has been oppression against women in the past... Now may I suggest that you have misunderstood my entire argument? Does past oppression justify current oppression against men? Women oppressed men. White men AND WOMEN enslaved and oppressed black people. Didn't they? Were men not also oppressed by other men? Were there not different classes of men? For example, black men in the west have NEVER had the power over black women that white men had over everyone. So are you including black men in this history of "oppression of women" in the west? Men who are being oppressed by unjust laws at present? You're misreading history. It is not the role or status of women that was oppressive. That's simply how history was. Women could not, and were not asking to do what men had to do. You're essentialising the gender roles down to 'oppression' which is actually a betrayal of the true motives for equal rights. The world has developed where it is essential for women to have the choice of engaging in society as they do choose. Back in the day men did NOT have a choice EITHER! This is what you're not getting. Men were not free to choose the role they wanted. Both sexes had a role to play due to the basic needs for survival. Don't confuse this with oppression and abuse. That's a very separate thing. Otherwise, are you really suggesting that abuse can be resolved by simply changing laws? Abuse is a much bigger problem than that and I find it reprehensible that you would pretend that people don't still abuse each other because of some laws. These same things happen to women and men are being abused as well. You're strawmanning. This thread is about abuses experienced by men by the current divorce laws, NOT the laws against abusive men. If a man is abusive he deserves to be punished and the woman deserves to be compensated, period! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That extremist narrative you're spewing is utter cowshit, I'm sorry. I support equal rights but what you're suggesting is that men deserve to be treated unequal because of some warped misreading of a history that you never experienced yourself but support because it favors the superiority of your gender. I can't respect that. You're not a feminist, you're a gender sectarian and female supremacist.
You know me do you? That’s the greatest thing about the forums. So many of you know others just by a teeny weeny bit of information.
But I was once called a feminazi...
Strangely though, I love men. I’ve more male friends than females. I see weakness in both sexes and greatness in both too.
I am a female going off how it is to be female. That is all. So there
Thinking you know it all hahahaha! That’s the issue with people nowadays.
I'm only responding to what you said. No, I don't know you and I would not presume to judge you based on this exchange alone. I'm sure you're a wonderful lady and I am a strong supporter of equal rights. I also empathise with the experience of women and have worked for equal treatment of women, not just lip service either! What I do not support is using feminism to usurp the rights of men. That has nothing to do with feminism but it seems that modern feminists think that it does.
I am a massive fan of human rights. Like you would not believe. I’m no dolly. May not be academically “ intelligent “ but I am far more than a profile and a few words in the forum. I’ve an open, honest and positive mind.
I am honestly going to stay away. This has actually really upset me. Good ole forums "I don't understand why you're upset but it certainly was not my desire or intention and I do care that you're upset. Perhaps I missed your point or wasn't as kind and sensitive as I could have been while arguing my own points. As a woman, you definitely deserve equal treatment and that's actually what I'm arguing here.. fairness and equality. I hope you'll be ok. No hard feelings. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I guess it's a question of what you value more in life and how you would like to be remembered. Personally I value others in my life, my kids, partners etc. When I die I'd like to be surrounded by family and loved ones, not a cold pile of gold. And you're saying that marriage secures that fate? Lol How naive, my friend. Trust me, if a woman steals your gold and your children, you will not be happy to have her at your death bed. Besides, there are more loved ones than the ones you procreate or marry. You can still love people without marrying, having children with or living with them. I should qualify what I'm saying here though. I don't see these things as not being valued by those who are MGTOW. I see it as a painful compromise. You are not going to be happy in a climate which pretty much guarantees that your dream of family life (read fairytale) will be utterly decimated! No one wants to be a slave to a previous partner or a present one who holds the keys to your fate. Fuck that! It sounds very much like you have bought into the concept fully. Personally though it still very much sounds to me like a very selfish premise that puts wealth and control of assets over personal relationships. If that's what works for you and others that feel the same way then that's great, I hope that you live with no regrets, I certainly don't. To my mind some things have a higher value than cash. What the hell does my money and assets have to do with my personal relationships? Why does my money and assets have to be assailable by another person? You're not making any sense! You're making a false dichotomy here. I can be in a personal relationship without a government contract that turns out into a business relationship. Essentially what you're saying is that personal relationships must be business relationships with financial clauses. How is that predicated upon love and dedication? It isn't! I've been married so I have the right to speak. I have participated in the government contract. You can have personal relationships without the courts involvement. We're coming at this from opposite angles. You see sharing your life with a person and having children as a business transaction, I see that as what makes life worth living. I still maintain my original point; any group or thought process that demonises or seeks to undermine another group (in this case women and their fair and equitable rights), however its dressed up, is at its very heart an inherently negative venture. Many other groups have sought to stand on the rights of others throughout history, a certain young artist in Germany wrote a book about it... Now you're throwing accusations that are unfounded and unfair. What the hell does the marriage laws have to do with women's rights? Where did I say that I disagreed with women's rights? You're creating strawmen here. You're the one who made having children vs having money mutually exclusive. I'm simply arguing that under the current laws... get this.. LAWS.. it is an unfair risk for men. I'll give you an example.. remember in 'Braveheart' where the ruler had the right to sleep with the bride of every newlywed couple before they did with each other? Right, that's an example of an unjust SYSTEM imposing unjust laws on relationships. It does not make the men unjust who are unwilling to suffer that fate, nor does it make them people who do not deeply value and cherish family, marriage, love, relationships etc. for not participating under those laws. If you were paying attention, you would see that I've been saying that mgtow do not want their relationships becoming business transactions, but the courts have made it that way and many women have also. Look at the last who commented and said that women are "fighting back". So she definitely sees taking men's wealth and children away from them as a goal of her relationships with men. For you to overlook that means that you're actually not for gender equality. You agree with men being treated unfairly by the court systems. How about being true to your claimed principle "any group or thought process that demonises or seeks to undermine another group..."... Ok so why are you demonising men who are highlighting injustices in the laws? Where did I demonise women? I love women. I love children. I love marriage. I love equality. I support gender equality and the fundamental goals of feminism. I make a distinction between feminism (real feminism) and 3rd wave extremism, which is gender sectarianism, not true feminism. It's amazing how rhetoric can sound so great. I'm sure that you think that this is a wonderful thing, you've clearly bought into it as you're essentially defending and using arguments that are circuitous. The OP was asking what people thought of it, I've answered, as have others, as have you. I'm leaving this there. Tea Monkey out. " No, I'm just taking a representative stance in this thread but truthfully it's not as simple as that for me. I very much believe in the institution of marriage and because of that it makes my perspective very multi-layered and complex. I wouldn't say I would never marry or have children, but I would do so with an exceptional person who values family as I do. Not worth a hypergamous person who coldly sees it as a come up. You may find that were agreeing if you look deeper. Anyways, I appreciate the discussion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"sounds like a lot of pish" Pish is such a great word | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting topic, i am red pill but not mygtow. Fully aware of risks of marriage. 50 per cent of marriages fail and 75 per cent of divorces are instigated by women. The law has made it a very risky proposition. If you have a child, your wife has an affair, she gets 60 per cent of the assets, which could have contributed zero to. You will be paying her for possibly the next 18 years and see your child one weekend in 2. This is clearly not fair. With a 50 50 chance of a marriage ending in divorce, you can see why men are opting out." I'm neither but I'm able to empathise and represent the stances of these ideologies towards fair and just treatment of sexes. Why are people turning this into a discussion about women's rights and abuse of women? Are they suggesting that these current statistics are preventing abuse or are about gender equality? Who feels it knows, I suppose! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As Monty Python’s Arthur said to the Black Knight “your a loony” MGTOW is daft, perhaps when we get equality they will go away! I sadly doubt it, but I suppose some guys will always struggle with not getting things there own way all the time...
"PERHAPS WHEN WE GET EQUALITY THEY WILL GO AWAY" Yaaay exactly! You just inadvertently admitted that we don't have equality and that true equality will diminish ideologies like MGTOW. How are you able to see this yet be so dissonant in your assessment of why they are choosing to retain from participating in an unjust system? It's not adding up.
Equality means we all have it. At the moment as other posters have mentioned it does not exist. Women are still paid a lot less than men and it is only in this century that we are starting to see a re balancing in lawyers, accountants, doctors, judges, company directors and MPs. Once this is fully achieved then the law you don’t like will be an equal law affecting as many women as men.
Could it be improved, no doubt yes, but in a macro context removing discrimination in society as a whole is more worthwhile."Hogwash! How can women be getting paid less while at the same time you admit that they are working in different professions? Women are not getting paid less and if they were, there are laws against that and they can take their employer to court. Women EARN less when top earning women and men are compared, and that is because they make different decisions when balancing work life with personal life. Men work longer hours and in different professions which typically earn more. That's a whole lot different than suggesting that women are paid less. That has been debunked! It's false! What you're arguing is that women must be forced into professions that they just don't choose. In the common level, women are more educated than men and earn equal pay and more than men depending on the profession. For example, there are more women doctors and medical professionals. They are earning more than men in fields that earn less. No one, not a woman or man deserves to have their property stolen by a spouse who contributed nothing! That's unfair! It should be a case by case basis, not an outright given that just because you entered a contract that you sign your wealth over to someone. This is the reason why people can marry for the sake of financial gain.. to come up. People saying they value relationships are being hypocritical when they dismiss this arrangement which essentially makes the relationship a financial and business arrangement! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sorry I'm lost "Thank goodness I’m not alone. Just another group of people causing a fuss with there own beliefs. Feminism. Vegans. Men that go their own ...way? (That’s some name, catchy eh?) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's basically successful men who have no desire to take the risk of being fucked by the pro feminist laws that take their children and hard earned wealth away from them when their spouse decides that she'll just up and leave since 'no fault divorce' became legal. Basically all your hard earned wealth and properties can be taken away from you even if your wife was cheating on you and there was no abuse etc. The current culture of 'securing the bag' from men and devaluing of men by hypergamous women who 'trade up' and monkey branch is the main reason cited by men who go their own way. MGTOW is not a movement, as many have mistaken. It does not seek to change laws or confront these women or even other men who support the system. It is a set of principles to live by which, at its core, is grounded upon refusal to marry, procreate or cohabit with women, under the present laws which virtually offer zero benefit to a man to get married. The rationale is that there is absolutely nothing in it for men and that they are unnecessarily and illogically putting all of their investments into the hands of one woman which can - and according to divorce statistics of 75% initiated by women - destroy their livelihood, reputation, dreams and wealth. This way of life is not to be confused with groups such as INCEL who are mainly men who are involuntarily celibate, hence the acronym. MGTOW are usually highly driven men who have high sexual value and have been in relationships or have goals that they wish to protect by abstaining from committed relationships. Contrary to what some have suggested, MGTOW (Men going their own way) do not necessarily refrain from sex nor do they hate women. Their primary aim to to protect themselves and their livelihoods from the government by not entering into legal contracts with women. Crack on lads is what I say. I do the same thing myself "You go! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As Monty Python’s Arthur said to the Black Knight “your a loony” MGTOW is daft, perhaps when we get equality they will go away! I sadly doubt it, but I suppose some guys will always struggle with not getting things there own way all the time...
"PERHAPS WHEN WE GET EQUALITY THEY WILL GO AWAY" Yaaay exactly! You just inadvertently admitted that we don't have equality and that true equality will diminish ideologies like MGTOW. How are you able to see this yet be so dissonant in your assessment of why they are choosing to retain from participating in an unjust system? It's not adding up.
Equality means we all have it. At the moment as other posters have mentioned it does not exist. Women are still paid a lot less than men and it is only in this century that we are starting to see a re balancing in lawyers, accountants, doctors, judges, company directors and MPs. Once this is fully achieved then the law you don’t like will be an equal law affecting as many women as men.
Could it be improved, no doubt yes, but in a macro context removing discrimination in society as a whole is more worthwhile.
Hogwash! How can women be getting paid less while at the same time you admit that they are working in different professions? Women are not getting paid less and if they were, there are laws against that and they can take their employer to court. Women EARN less when top earning women and men are compared, and that is because they make different decisions when balancing work life with personal life. Men work longer hours and in different professions which typically earn more. That's a whole lot different than suggesting that women are paid less. That has been debunked! It's false!
What you're arguing is that women must be forced into professions that they just don't choose. In the common level, women are more educated than men and earn equal pay and more than men depending on the profession. For example, there are more women doctors and medical professionals. They are earning more than men in fields that earn less.
No one, not a woman or man deserves to have their property stolen by a spouse who contributed nothing! That's unfair! It should be a case by case basis, not an outright given that just because you entered a contract that you sign your wealth over to someone. This is the reason why people can marry for the sake of financial gain.. to come up. People saying they value relationships are being hypocritical when they dismiss this arrangement which essentially makes the relationship a financial and business arrangement! "It is worth actually reading what I wrote as you are making up much of it. I’m sorry if you have had a hard time in your personal life, but being unduly bitter does not attract any sympathy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When I die, I would rather look back on a life lived than a wealth accumulated. If you have no offspring, where does all this wealth that has been carefully preserved go to? And hardly a new concept. Cliff Richard has doggedly refused to procreate and has ensured his wealth is all his." You're very successfully making the case that getting married = loss of wealth! Can you not see that? Also, you lose your children in a divorce. Your wife will have your children being raised by another man who they will call daddy and you'll foot the bill for her lifestyle. So what happens to all that joy and fulfillment that you would rather look back on? This is the point that's being put forward! It's not that mgtow don't value having children and a family... it's that a hypergamous culture and unjust laws will take that away! Why is this so difficult to grasp? Look, you stand a VERY high chance of suffering this fate and you'll appreciate having your wealth when you need to raise another family after she steals your children and divorces you. It's not wealth for wealths sake. I would love to pour out all my hard work and earnings into supporting the woman I love and our children... but hell no I'm not doing that if she divorces me, not if I haven't abused her or been unfaithful. Why should I? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sounds like another made up pile of crap. If you don’t like the system, don’t follow the system. Do your own thing. You make it sound like women are blood sucking vampires. Don’t forget who made up this bullshit system. Man. And man made us women have no choice but to follow the system. Get married, have babies, whether the guy was a violent bastard or not, whether he was having affairs or not (because that’s just how it is) If you don’t want to marry and have children, don’t. Just don’t blame us women and our feminist ways! We’ve been treated like shit for thousands of years. And now because we’re fighting back all the cry baby men are crapping their pants. G ( feminist) " Ta da! I suppose you agree with equality of outcome? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As Monty Python’s Arthur said to the Black Knight “your a loony” MGTOW is daft, perhaps when we get equality they will go away! I sadly doubt it, but I suppose some guys will always struggle with not getting things there own way all the time...
"PERHAPS WHEN WE GET EQUALITY THEY WILL GO AWAY" Yaaay exactly! You just inadvertently admitted that we don't have equality and that true equality will diminish ideologies like MGTOW. How are you able to see this yet be so dissonant in your assessment of why they are choosing to retain from participating in an unjust system? It's not adding up.
Equality means we all have it. At the moment as other posters have mentioned it does not exist. Women are still paid a lot less than men and it is only in this century that we are starting to see a re balancing in lawyers, accountants, doctors, judges, company directors and MPs. Once this is fully achieved then the law you don’t like will be an equal law affecting as many women as men.
Could it be improved, no doubt yes, but in a macro context removing discrimination in society as a whole is more worthwhile.
Hogwash! How can women be getting paid less while at the same time you admit that they are working in different professions? Women are not getting paid less and if they were, there are laws against that and they can take their employer to court. Women EARN less when top earning women and men are compared, and that is because they make different decisions when balancing work life with personal life. Men work longer hours and in different professions which typically earn more. That's a whole lot different than suggesting that women are paid less. That has been debunked! It's false!
What you're arguing is that women must be forced into professions that they just don't choose. In the common level, women are more educated than men and earn equal pay and more than men depending on the profession. For example, there are more women doctors and medical professionals. They are earning more than men in fields that earn less.
No one, not a woman or man deserves to have their property stolen by a spouse who contributed nothing! That's unfair! It should be a case by case basis, not an outright given that just because you entered a contract that you sign your wealth over to someone. This is the reason why people can marry for the sake of financial gain.. to come up. People saying they value relationships are being hypocritical when they dismiss this arrangement which essentially makes the relationship a financial and business arrangement!
It is worth actually reading what I wrote as you are making up much of it.
I’m sorry if you have had a hard time in your personal life, but being unduly bitter does not attract any sympathy."Could you please commit yourself to an objective and evidence - based discussion and refrain from making personal attacks or taking wild shots with what you subjectively think about how my life is? 'Unduly' is quite a dismissive and unjust description of my impetus for representing this stance on inequality indignantly. The last thing I care for in this life is "sympathy". Sympathy is the most impotent currency there is and I have no desire for it nor does my experience deserve it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sounds just like so many other internet blogs....a vehicle to get its founders rich without having to work for it. Men going their own way eh? How very millenial and retro in one go. "Sorry ladies we just ain't that into you"....or to translate that into plain English...(certainly for most of the fan boys hanging off that site)..."we've shagged the few easy ones and don't have a hope in hell of getting anywhere near the rest"....or "we're not getting many shags and for those we do get we've got no bloody intention of accepting responsibility for our part in any relationship". Pity most of them choose to be anonymous. Always nice to know who to avoid when possible. Looking on the bright side it's good news for most of the remaining blokes: less competition for those lovely ladies out there." It's not that they are not into ladies, it's that they have been badly burned by one or more or can't get one. It's like incels with self esteem. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As Monty Python’s Arthur said to the Black Knight “your a loony” MGTOW is daft, perhaps when we get equality they will go away! I sadly doubt it, but I suppose some guys will always struggle with not getting things there own way all the time...
"PERHAPS WHEN WE GET EQUALITY THEY WILL GO AWAY" Yaaay exactly! You just inadvertently admitted that we don't have equality and that true equality will diminish ideologies like MGTOW. How are you able to see this yet be so dissonant in your assessment of why they are choosing to retain from participating in an unjust system? It's not adding up.
Equality means we all have it. At the moment as other posters have mentioned it does not exist. Women are still paid a lot less than men and it is only in this century that we are starting to see a re balancing in lawyers, accountants, doctors, judges, company directors and MPs. Once this is fully achieved then the law you don’t like will be an equal law affecting as many women as men.
Could it be improved, no doubt yes, but in a macro context removing discrimination in society as a whole is more worthwhile.
Hogwash! How can women be getting paid less while at the same time you admit that they are working in different professions? Women are not getting paid less and if they were, there are laws against that and they can take their employer to court. Women EARN less when top earning women and men are compared, and that is because they make different decisions when balancing work life with personal life. Men work longer hours and in different professions which typically earn more. That's a whole lot different than suggesting that women are paid less. That has been debunked! It's false!
What you're arguing is that women must be forced into professions that they just don't choose. In the common level, women are more educated than men and earn equal pay and more than men depending on the profession. For example, there are more women doctors and medical professionals. They are earning more than men in fields that earn less.
No one, not a woman or man deserves to have their property stolen by a spouse who contributed nothing! That's unfair! It should be a case by case basis, not an outright given that just because you entered a contract that you sign your wealth over to someone. This is the reason why people can marry for the sake of financial gain.. to come up. People saying they value relationships are being hypocritical when they dismiss this arrangement which essentially makes the relationship a financial and business arrangement! "I'm one of those women who " contribute nothing" due to the fact that I'm a housewife. Funnily, my husband feels I make huge contributions. It's a marriage, not a financial and business arrangement. Marriage isn't for everyone but not all of us who are married have such a negative and bitter view. And not all women are money grabbing or pop kids just to torture men with in court at a future time. Mrs | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Guys that decide to go their own way, do so for a number of different reasons. The current wave of feminism is the biggest guilty party. They don't realise that they are harming women. The current wave do not want equality. They want superiority. Equality and pay gap is a nonsense and has been proven to be so. Although conveniently ignored. Men are just fed up. Some men just don't want to play societies game at the moment. Men are told they are the oppressor, men are told that they are toxic and women are the victims and the oppressed and have been since the dawn of time. Men are not oppressors and are not toxic but society panders to this and the leftist ideology that pushes it. So some men have said fuck it. No more. " What would you know you straight white male you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As Monty Python’s Arthur said to the Black Knight “your a loony” MGTOW is daft, perhaps when we get equality they will go away! I sadly doubt it, but I suppose some guys will always struggle with not getting things there own way all the time...
"PERHAPS WHEN WE GET EQUALITY THEY WILL GO AWAY" Yaaay exactly! You just inadvertently admitted that we don't have equality and that true equality will diminish ideologies like MGTOW. How are you able to see this yet be so dissonant in your assessment of why they are choosing to retain from participating in an unjust system? It's not adding up.
Equality means we all have it. At the moment as other posters have mentioned it does not exist. Women are still paid a lot less than men and it is only in this century that we are starting to see a re balancing in lawyers, accountants, doctors, judges, company directors and MPs. Once this is fully achieved then the law you don’t like will be an equal law affecting as many women as men.
Could it be improved, no doubt yes, but in a macro context removing discrimination in society as a whole is more worthwhile.
Hogwash! How can women be getting paid less while at the same time you admit that they are working in different professions? Women are not getting paid less and if they were, there are laws against that and they can take their employer to court. Women EARN less when top earning women and men are compared, and that is because they make different decisions when balancing work life with personal life. Men work longer hours and in different professions which typically earn more. That's a whole lot different than suggesting that women are paid less. That has been debunked! It's false!
What you're arguing is that women must be forced into professions that they just don't choose. In the common level, women are more educated than men and earn equal pay and more than men depending on the profession. For example, there are more women doctors and medical professionals. They are earning more than men in fields that earn less.
No one, not a woman or man deserves to have their property stolen by a spouse who contributed nothing! That's unfair! It should be a case by case basis, not an outright given that just because you entered a contract that you sign your wealth over to someone. This is the reason why people can marry for the sake of financial gain.. to come up. People saying they value relationships are being hypocritical when they dismiss this arrangement which essentially makes the relationship a financial and business arrangement!
I'm one of those women who " contribute nothing" due to the fact that I'm a housewife. Funnily, my husband feels I make huge contributions. It's a marriage, not a financial and business arrangement. Marriage isn't for everyone but not all of us who are married have such a negative and bitter view. And not all women are money grabbing or pop kids just to torture men with in court at a future time.
Mrs"
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Guys that decide to go their own way, do so for a number of different reasons. The current wave of feminism is the biggest guilty party. They don't realise that they are harming women. The current wave do not want equality. They want superiority. Equality and pay gap is a nonsense and has been proven to be so. Although conveniently ignored. Men are just fed up. Some men just don't want to play societies game at the moment. Men are told they are the oppressor, men are told that they are toxic and women are the victims and the oppressed and have been since the dawn of time. Men are not oppressors and are not toxic but society panders to this and the leftist ideology that pushes it. So some men have said fuck it. No more. What would you know you straight white male you? " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Guys that decide to go their own way, do so for a number of different reasons. The current wave of feminism is the biggest guilty party. They don't realise that they are harming women. The current wave do not want equality. They want superiority. Equality and pay gap is a nonsense and has been proven to be so. Although conveniently ignored. Men are just fed up. Some men just don't want to play societies game at the moment. Men are told they are the oppressor, men are told that they are toxic and women are the victims and the oppressed and have been since the dawn of time. Men are not oppressors and are not toxic but society panders to this and the leftist ideology that pushes it. So some men have said fuck it. No more. " Most sane and sound women seem quick to distance themselves from feminism these days. There are still cultural aftershocks but most don't want to be associated in anyway with the rabid element of manhating cranks. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Guys that decide to go their own way, do so for a number of different reasons. The current wave of feminism is the biggest guilty party. They don't realise that they are harming women. The current wave do not want equality. They want superiority. Equality and pay gap is a nonsense and has been proven to be so. Although conveniently ignored. Men are just fed up. Some men just don't want to play societies game at the moment. Men are told they are the oppressor, men are told that they are toxic and women are the victims and the oppressed and have been since the dawn of time. Men are not oppressors and are not toxic but society panders to this and the leftist ideology that pushes it. So some men have said fuck it. No more. What would you know you straight white male you? " Do straight white males have less knowledge than everyone else? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ps Doctorpepper won the debate above by a country mile "If you consider gathering monetary assets being the only goal in life, and holding onto them at all costs. Then yes | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Guys that decide to go their own way, do so for a number of different reasons. The current wave of feminism is the biggest guilty party. They don't realise that they are harming women. The current wave do not want equality. They want superiority. Equality and pay gap is a nonsense and has been proven to be so. Although conveniently ignored. Men are just fed up. Some men just don't want to play societies game at the moment. Men are told they are the oppressor, men are told that they are toxic and women are the victims and the oppressed and have been since the dawn of time. Men are not oppressors and are not toxic but society panders to this and the leftist ideology that pushes it. So some men have said fuck it. No more. Most sane and sound women seem quick to distance themselves from feminism these days. There are still cultural aftershocks but most don't want to be associated in anyway with the rabid element of manhating cranks. " The manhating cranks you refer to are not feminists. Feminists do not hate men. At least the real feminists that I have met do not and they are perfectly sane and sound of mind. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Guys that decide to go their own way, do so for a number of different reasons. The current wave of feminism is the biggest guilty party. They don't realise that they are harming women. The current wave do not want equality. They want superiority. Equality and pay gap is a nonsense and has been proven to be so. Although conveniently ignored. Men are just fed up. Some men just don't want to play societies game at the moment. Men are told they are the oppressor, men are told that they are toxic and women are the victims and the oppressed and have been since the dawn of time. Men are not oppressors and are not toxic but society panders to this and the leftist ideology that pushes it. So some men have said fuck it. No more. What would you know you straight white male you? Do straight white males have less knowledge than everyone else?" Yeah they are scumbags. Bunch of creeps | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Guys that decide to go their own way, do so for a number of different reasons. The current wave of feminism is the biggest guilty party. They don't realise that they are harming women. The current wave do not want equality. They want superiority. Equality and pay gap is a nonsense and has been proven to be so. Although conveniently ignored. Men are just fed up. Some men just don't want to play societies game at the moment. Men are told they are the oppressor, men are told that they are toxic and women are the victims and the oppressed and have been since the dawn of time. Men are not oppressors and are not toxic but society panders to this and the leftist ideology that pushes it. So some men have said fuck it. No more. Most sane and sound women seem quick to distance themselves from feminism these days. There are still cultural aftershocks but most don't want to be associated in anyway with the rabid element of manhating cranks. The manhating cranks you refer to are not feminists. Feminists do not hate men. At least the real feminists that I have met do not and they are perfectly sane and sound of mind." That's just the party line. That's how feminism has been too successful...a soft message seeking hard outcomes. But most people see through it now....if you are equality minded you can't ignore massive disparities in fairness come divorce time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ps Doctorpepper won the debate above by a country mile
If you consider gathering monetary assets being the only goal in life, and holding onto them at all costs. Then yes "I personally know of a few middle aged men that have been sunk into poverty and made a fool of by vindictive ex wives ....so there's a survival aspect to it, not just greed for shiny things. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maximum gross take off weight?" Must be a flier... That’s what I got! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What are your thoughts? Ok.. showing my ignorance
Men Going Their Own Way.
Brilliant, leaves more women for normal men.
When you say "for", in what capacity will these women be had by these men? Sex? Marriage? MGTOW aren't celibate. "No they're just a little sad, and most normal women aren't just supplying themselves for sex to men who are scared of committing. I think it's an incredibly sad way to live your life, always scared if you're being taken for a ride and also very selfish. But a positive effect for me so I'm happy. In general women don't do very well from divorce compared to what they put in to a marriage, especially if they subsequently take on the relationships kids full time. Sadly most men are just too self centred to realise what's involved in running a household and kids, this movement just proves it, dint understand, don't want to so run away and hide. In addition most of these men doing this aren't going it alone, they stay at home with mummy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Guys that decide to go their own way, do so for a number of different reasons. The current wave of feminism is the biggest guilty party. They don't realise that they are harming women. The current wave do not want equality. They want superiority. Equality and pay gap is a nonsense and has been proven to be so. Although conveniently ignored. Men are just fed up. Some men just don't want to play societies game at the moment. Men are told they are the oppressor, men are told that they are toxic and women are the victims and the oppressed and have been since the dawn of time. Men are not oppressors and are not toxic but society panders to this and the leftist ideology that pushes it. So some men have said fuck it. No more. Most sane and sound women seem quick to distance themselves from feminism these days. There are still cultural aftershocks but most don't want to be associated in anyway with the rabid element of manhating cranks. The manhating cranks you refer to are not feminists. Feminists do not hate men. At least the real feminists that I have met do not and they are perfectly sane and sound of mind. That's just the party line. That's how feminism has been too successful...a soft message seeking hard outcomes. But most people see through it now....if you are equality minded you can't ignore massive disparities in fairness come divorce time. " This thread has quite a few sweeping generalisations thrown about... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Guys that decide to go their own way, do so for a number of different reasons. The current wave of feminism is the biggest guilty party. They don't realise that they are harming women. The current wave do not want equality. They want superiority. Equality and pay gap is a nonsense and has been proven to be so. Although conveniently ignored. Men are just fed up. Some men just don't want to play societies game at the moment. Men are told they are the oppressor, men are told that they are toxic and women are the victims and the oppressed and have been since the dawn of time. Men are not oppressors and are not toxic but society panders to this and the leftist ideology that pushes it. So some men have said fuck it. No more. Most sane and sound women seem quick to distance themselves from feminism these days. There are still cultural aftershocks but most don't want to be associated in anyway with the rabid element of manhating cranks. The manhating cranks you refer to are not feminists. Feminists do not hate men. At least the real feminists that I have met do not and they are perfectly sane and sound of mind. That's just the party line. That's how feminism has been too successful...a soft message seeking hard outcomes. But most people see through it now....if you are equality minded you can't ignore massive disparities in fairness come divorce time. " Agree, equality should go both ways. I believe in equality of opportunity not equality of outcome. Feminism has turned into a trade union for women and not equality. Not heard of many feminists denouncing the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia, but will happily protest against a film highlighting men's rights e.g red pill documentary by Cassie, a feminist before filming. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Guys that decide to go their own way, do so for a number of different reasons. The current wave of feminism is the biggest guilty party. They don't realise that they are harming women. The current wave do not want equality. They want superiority. Equality and pay gap is a nonsense and has been proven to be so. Although conveniently ignored. Men are just fed up. Some men just don't want to play societies game at the moment. Men are told they are the oppressor, men are told that they are toxic and women are the victims and the oppressed and have been since the dawn of time. Men are not oppressors and are not toxic but society panders to this and the leftist ideology that pushes it. So some men have said fuck it. No more. Most sane and sound women seem quick to distance themselves from feminism these days. There are still cultural aftershocks but most don't want to be associated in anyway with the rabid element of manhating cranks. The manhating cranks you refer to are not feminists. Feminists do not hate men. At least the real feminists that I have met do not and they are perfectly sane and sound of mind. That's just the party line. That's how feminism has been too successful...a soft message seeking hard outcomes. But most people see through it now....if you are equality minded you can't ignore massive disparities in fairness come divorce time. This thread has quite a few sweeping generalisations thrown about..." You could always make an argument in that case. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What are your thoughts? Ok.. showing my ignorance
Men Going Their Own Way.
Brilliant, leaves more women for normal men.
When you say "for", in what capacity will these women be had by these men? Sex? Marriage? MGTOW aren't celibate.
No they're just a little sad, and most normal women aren't just supplying themselves for sex to men who are scared of committing. I think it's an incredibly sad way to live your life, always scared if you're being taken for a ride and also very selfish. But a positive effect for me so I'm happy.
In general women don't do very well from divorce compared to what they put in to a marriage, especially if they subsequently take on the relationships kids full time.
Sadly most men are just too self centred to realise what's involved in running a household and kids, this movement just proves it, dint understand, don't want to so run away and hide.
In addition most of these men doing this aren't going it alone, they stay at home with mummy "Speak to some divorced men and solicitors for men going through divorce and your opinion will change. Agree women do contribute at home and this shouldn't be undervalued. The whole system is faulty | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is also part fight back to some nonsense from the feminist movement." So by not being in a relationship they're 'fighting back'..? Forgive me if I've simplified it or got it wrong.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What are your thoughts? Ok.. showing my ignorance
Men Going Their Own Way.
Brilliant, leaves more women for normal men.
When you say "for", in what capacity will these women be had by these men? Sex? Marriage? MGTOW aren't celibate.
No they're just a little sad, and most normal women aren't just supplying themselves for sex to men who are scared of committing. I think it's an incredibly sad way to live your life, always scared if you're being taken for a ride and also very selfish. But a positive effect for me so I'm happy.
In general women don't do very well from divorce compared to what they put in to a marriage, especially if they subsequently take on the relationships kids full time.
Sadly most men are just too self centred to realise what's involved in running a household and kids, this movement just proves it, dint understand, don't want to so run away and hide.
In addition most of these men doing this aren't going it alone, they stay at home with mummy "I dont know of any women who are massively better off for a split either, quite the opposite infact. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I guess it's a question of what you value more in life and how you would like to be remembered. Personally I value others in my life, my kids, partners etc. When I die I'd like to be surrounded by family and loved ones, not a cold pile of gold. " But stuff is apparently really important. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is also part fight back to some nonsense from the feminist movement. So by not being in a relationship they're 'fighting back'..? Forgive me if I've simplified it or got it wrong.. " It is quite lame I agree. Male cat ladies basically. I'd sooner "risk" a relationship with someone of good character but I probably wouldn't get married. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I guess it's a question of what you value more in life and how you would like to be remembered. Personally I value others in my life, my kids, partners etc. When I die I'd like to be surrounded by family and loved ones, not a cold pile of gold. But stuff is apparently really important. "Clearly. I keep picturing Smaug on his pile of gold... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is also part fight back to some nonsense from the feminist movement. So by not being in a relationship they're 'fighting back'..? Forgive me if I've simplified it or got it wrong.. It is quite lame I agree. Male cat ladies basically. I'd sooner "risk" a relationship with someone of good character but I probably wouldn't get married. " I think it's a sad reaction to what are some issues, we've had centuries of male dominated everything and I sort of see this latest hissy fit as an over reaction towards feminism.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is also part fight back to some nonsense from the feminist movement. So by not being in a relationship they're 'fighting back'..? Forgive me if I've simplified it or got it wrong.. It is quite lame I agree. Male cat ladies basically. I'd sooner "risk" a relationship with someone of good character but I probably wouldn't get married. I think it's a sad reaction to what are some issues, we've had centuries of male dominated everything and I sort of see this latest hissy fit as an over reaction towards feminism.. " Whereas I see feminism as a naive attempt to get vengeance on the current generation for the mistakes of people now long dead. "For centuries" = vacuous argument | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is also part fight back to some nonsense from the feminist movement. So by not being in a relationship they're 'fighting back'..? Forgive me if I've simplified it or got it wrong.. It is quite lame I agree. Male cat ladies basically. I'd sooner "risk" a relationship with someone of good character but I probably wouldn't get married. I think it's a sad reaction to what are some issues, we've had centuries of male dominated everything and I sort of see this latest hissy fit as an over reaction towards feminism.. Whereas I see feminism as a naive attempt to get vengeance on the current generation for the mistakes of people now long dead. "For centuries" = vacuous argument " It may be in your opinion but for centuries its been the reality that society has not and is in some areas still not equal.. Why are people usually blokes scared of equality for our wives, daughters etc? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is also part fight back to some nonsense from the feminist movement. So by not being in a relationship they're 'fighting back'..? Forgive me if I've simplified it or got it wrong.. It is quite lame I agree. Male cat ladies basically. I'd sooner "risk" a relationship with someone of good character but I probably wouldn't get married. I think it's a sad reaction to what are some issues, we've had centuries of male dominated everything and I sort of see this latest hissy fit as an over reaction towards feminism.. Whereas I see feminism as a naive attempt to get vengeance on the current generation for the mistakes of people now long dead. "For centuries" = vacuous argument It may be in your opinion but for centuries its been the reality that society has not and is in some areas still not equal.. Why are people usually blokes scared of equality for our wives, daughters etc? " I'm not scared of equality...I grew up with it. It's fantastic. I'm afraid of the effect of untethered bad ideology hooked up to the internet and polluting the minds of young people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Statistically more women vote than men, women live longer than men, have the ultimate choice of becoming pregnant or not, choose who the father is, have equal pay, earn more than men on average, up until they have children and more women than men attend university. Feminism is still pushing for more, not to be equal but to be more powerful than men. " That may be the case with extreme feminism, but in some parts of the world, the fundamentals of feminism are the difference between life and death for a lot of women. So no, it's not about power, it's about life. Mrs | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Statistically more women vote than men, women live longer than men, have the ultimate choice of becoming pregnant or not, choose who the father is, have equal pay, earn more than men on average, up until they have children and more women than men attend university. Feminism is still pushing for more, not to be equal but to be more powerful than men. " I don't really mind that...a little over correction is ok.. so long as personal agency is protected and people get where they are going without quotas and other unfair leg ups. What I'm not ok with is the message in the media that demonises males and oversensitises everyone to the treat of each other...there are double standards aplenty, exhibited daily in this forum as much as anywhere else. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Statistically more women vote than men, women live longer than men, have the ultimate choice of becoming pregnant or not, choose who the father is, have equal pay, earn more than men on average, up until they have children and more women than men attend university. Feminism is still pushing for more, not to be equal but to be more powerful than men. That may be the case with extreme feminism, but in some parts of the world, the fundamentals of feminism are the difference between life and death for a lot of women. So no, it's not about power, it's about life. Mrs" Agreed...that's where the real work to be done is...in cultures that are ACTUALLY patriarchal | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Statistically more women vote than men, women live longer than men, have the ultimate choice of becoming pregnant or not, choose who the father is, have equal pay, earn more than men on average, up until they have children and more women than men attend university. Feminism is still pushing for more, not to be equal but to be more powerful than men. " What has the fact that men can't be arsed to vote to do with it.. So there is no gender pay gap? Really.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Statistically more women vote than men, women live longer than men, have the ultimate choice of becoming pregnant or not, choose who the father is, have equal pay, earn more than men on average, up until they have children and more women than men attend university. Feminism is still pushing for more, not to be equal but to be more powerful than men. What has the fact that men can't be arsed to vote to do with it.. So there is no gender pay gap? Really.. " Yes really....it's a clever trick. Fool people with gross averages. Devil is in the detail, it has been robustly debunked from every angle. There is a gender play gap here though | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Statistically more women vote than men, women live longer than men, have the ultimate choice of becoming pregnant or not, choose who the father is, have equal pay, earn more than men on average, up until they have children and more women than men attend university. Feminism is still pushing for more, not to be equal but to be more powerful than men. What has the fact that men can't be arsed to vote to do with it.. So there is no gender pay gap? Really.. Yes really....it's a clever trick. Fool people with gross averages. Devil is in the detail, it has been robustly debunked from every angle. There is a gender play gap here though "By whom | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Statistically more women vote than men, women live longer than men, have the ultimate choice of becoming pregnant or not, choose who the father is, have equal pay, earn more than men on average, up until they have children and more women than men attend university. Feminism is still pushing for more, not to be equal but to be more powerful than men. What has the fact that men can't be arsed to vote to do with it.. So there is no gender pay gap? Really.. Yes really....it's a clever trick. Fool people with gross averages. Devil is in the detail, it has been robustly debunked from every angle. There is a gender play gap here though "
Mrs | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Statistically more women vote than men, women live longer than men, have the ultimate choice of becoming pregnant or not, choose who the father is, have equal pay, earn more than men on average, up until they have children and more women than men attend university. Feminism is still pushing for more, not to be equal but to be more powerful than men. What has the fact that men can't be arsed to vote to do with it.. So there is no gender pay gap? Really.. " Gender pay gap is the result of choices made eg to be pregnant or not or lower paid prefessions. With regards voting women live longer and vote more. For political parties, female friendly policies will help them get elected or stay elected. The policies are influenced by feminism, which can be at the detriment of men. It's a deep and fascinating subject. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Statistically more women vote than men, women live longer than men, have the ultimate choice of becoming pregnant or not, choose who the father is, have equal pay, earn more than men on average, up until they have children and more women than men attend university. Feminism is still pushing for more, not to be equal but to be more powerful than men. What has the fact that men can't be arsed to vote to do with it.. So there is no gender pay gap? Really.. Gender pay gap is the result of choices made eg to be pregnant or not or lower paid prefessions. With regards voting women live longer and vote more. For political parties, female friendly policies will help them get elected or stay elected. The policies are influenced by feminism, which can be at the detriment of men. It's a deep and fascinating subject. " You'll be interested in an effect called the tyranny of the vocal minority. Google it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What are your thoughts? Ok.. showing my ignorance
Men Going Their Own Way.
Brilliant, leaves more women for normal men.
When you say "for", in what capacity will these women be had by these men? Sex? Marriage? MGTOW aren't celibate.
No they're just a little sad, and most normal women aren't just supplying themselves for sex to men who are scared of committing. I think it's an incredibly sad way to live your life, always scared if you're being taken for a ride and also very selfish. But a positive effect for me so I'm happy.
In general women don't do very well from divorce compared to what they put in to a marriage, especially if they subsequently take on the relationships kids full time.
Sadly most men are just too self centred to realise what's involved in running a household and kids, this movement just proves it, dint understand, don't want to so run away and hide.
In addition most of these men doing this aren't going it alone, they stay at home with mummy
Speak to some divorced men and solicitors for men going through divorce and your opinion will change. Agree women do contribute at home and this shouldn't be undervalued. The whole system is faulty"You Thibk I haven't already, or been divorced twice myself, so I've done plenty of research. In general it is extremely fair. When it isn't is when one of the parties is a dickhead and involves solicitors. So my last divorce, financial separation order cost us £500 or we could have used a solicitor and spent £15k each. Solicitors are the issue, not divorces or courts, just dodgy solicitors out for only one thing, a big invoice. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What are your thoughts? Ok.. showing my ignorance
Men Going Their Own Way.
Brilliant, leaves more women for normal men.
When you say "for", in what capacity will these women be had by these men? Sex? Marriage? MGTOW aren't celibate.
No they're just a little sad, and most normal women aren't just supplying themselves for sex to men who are scared of committing. I think it's an incredibly sad way to live your life, always scared if you're being taken for a ride and also very selfish. But a positive effect for me so I'm happy.
In general women don't do very well from divorce compared to what they put in to a marriage, especially if they subsequently take on the relationships kids full time.
Sadly most men are just too self centred to realise what's involved in running a household and kids, this movement just proves it, dint understand, don't want to so run away and hide.
In addition most of these men doing this aren't going it alone, they stay at home with mummy
Speak to some divorced men and solicitors for men going through divorce and your opinion will change. Agree women do contribute at home and this shouldn't be undervalued. The whole system is faulty
You Thibk I haven't already, or been divorced twice myself, so I've done plenty of research. In general it is extremely fair. When it isn't is when one of the parties is a dickhead and involves solicitors. So my last divorce, financial separation order cost us £500 or we could have used a solicitor and spent £15k each. Solicitors are the issue, not divorces or courts, just dodgy solicitors out for only one thing, a big invoice. "Agree with the solicitors part, they add fuel to the fire in alot of cases. They apply the rules fairly, but the rules are not fair. Our opinions are based on experiences, i have maybe seen more of the negative side in my life. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What are your thoughts? Ok.. showing my ignorance
Men Going Their Own Way.
Brilliant, leaves more women for normal men.
When you say "for", in what capacity will these women be had by these men? Sex? Marriage? MGTOW aren't celibate.
No they're just a little sad, and most normal women aren't just supplying themselves for sex to men who are scared of committing. I think it's an incredibly sad way to live your life, always scared if you're being taken for a ride and also very selfish. But a positive effect for me so I'm happy.
In general women don't do very well from divorce compared to what they put in to a marriage, especially if they subsequently take on the relationships kids full time.
Sadly most men are just too self centred to realise what's involved in running a household and kids, this movement just proves it, dint understand, don't want to so run away and hide.
In addition most of these men doing this aren't going it alone, they stay at home with mummy
Speak to some divorced men and solicitors for men going through divorce and your opinion will change. Agree women do contribute at home and this shouldn't be undervalued. The whole system is faulty
You Thibk I haven't already, or been divorced twice myself, so I've done plenty of research. In general it is extremely fair. When it isn't is when one of the parties is a dickhead and involves solicitors. So my last divorce, financial separation order cost us £500 or we could have used a solicitor and spent £15k each. Solicitors are the issue, not divorces or courts, just dodgy solicitors out for only one thing, a big invoice.
Agree with the solicitors part, they add fuel to the fire in alot of cases. They apply the rules fairly, but the rules are not fair. Our opinions are based on experiences, i have maybe seen more of the negative side in my life. "The problem is they don't really apply them fairly, they act like tax avoidance councillors looking to bend the rules as much as poosie in favour of their client and in favour of stretching it out for more billable hours, I'm not a fan at all. And then charge you £300 or so per hour! What other skilled individual charges that! Clmaore it to an equally hifgly trained plumber, IT technician or any other trade that takes years to qualify! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is also part fight back to some nonsense from the feminist movement. So by not being in a relationship they're 'fighting back'..? Forgive me if I've simplified it or got it wrong.. It is quite lame I agree. Male cat ladies basically. I'd sooner "risk" a relationship with someone of good character but I probably wouldn't get married. I think it's a sad reaction to what are some issues, we've had centuries of male dominated everything and I sort of see this latest hissy fit as an over reaction towards feminism.. Whereas I see feminism as a naive attempt to get vengeance on the current generation for the mistakes of people now long dead. "For centuries" = vacuous argument It may be in your opinion but for centuries its been the reality that society has not and is in some areas still not equal.. Why are people usually blokes scared of equality for our wives, daughters etc? " Women have had equality of rights for years in western society. Feminism wants more. Greedy and selfish like that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is also part fight back to some nonsense from the feminist movement. So by not being in a relationship they're 'fighting back'..? Forgive me if I've simplified it or got it wrong.. It is quite lame I agree. Male cat ladies basically. I'd sooner "risk" a relationship with someone of good character but I probably wouldn't get married. I think it's a sad reaction to what are some issues, we've had centuries of male dominated everything and I sort of see this latest hissy fit as an over reaction towards feminism.. Whereas I see feminism as a naive attempt to get vengeance on the current generation for the mistakes of people now long dead. "For centuries" = vacuous argument It may be in your opinion but for centuries its been the reality that society has not and is in some areas still not equal.. Why are people usually blokes scared of equality for our wives, daughters etc? Women have had equality of rights for years in western society. Feminism wants more. Greedy and selfish like that. " You mean unlike the grown up and adult men running away and hiding from relationships in case they lose their toys. That's not greedy and selfish and childish at all is it. Couldn't personally Thibk of anything more greedy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is also part fight back to some nonsense from the feminist movement. So by not being in a relationship they're 'fighting back'..? Forgive me if I've simplified it or got it wrong.. It is quite lame I agree. Male cat ladies basically. I'd sooner "risk" a relationship with someone of good character but I probably wouldn't get married. I think it's a sad reaction to what are some issues, we've had centuries of male dominated everything and I sort of see this latest hissy fit as an over reaction towards feminism.. Whereas I see feminism as a naive attempt to get vengeance on the current generation for the mistakes of people now long dead. "For centuries" = vacuous argument It may be in your opinion but for centuries its been the reality that society has not and is in some areas still not equal.. Why are people usually blokes scared of equality for our wives, daughters etc? Women have had equality of rights for years in western society. Feminism wants more. Greedy and selfish like that. You mean unlike the grown up and adult men running away and hiding from relationships in case they lose their toys. That's not greedy and selfish and childish at all is it. Couldn't personally Thibk of anything more greedy. " Men are doing their own thing. Why? Women are increasingly making the idea of a relationship unattractive. That's why anyone walks away from anything. It's not of benefit to them. So instead of being some feminist cuck and splurging these childish statements of nonsense. It may help to do some research and find the actual causes of what is a growing perspective. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is also part fight back to some nonsense from the feminist movement. So by not being in a relationship they're 'fighting back'..? Forgive me if I've simplified it or got it wrong.. It is quite lame I agree. Male cat ladies basically. I'd sooner "risk" a relationship with someone of good character but I probably wouldn't get married. I think it's a sad reaction to what are some issues, we've had centuries of male dominated everything and I sort of see this latest hissy fit as an over reaction towards feminism.. Whereas I see feminism as a naive attempt to get vengeance on the current generation for the mistakes of people now long dead. "For centuries" = vacuous argument It may be in your opinion but for centuries its been the reality that society has not and is in some areas still not equal.. Why are people usually blokes scared of equality for our wives, daughters etc? Women have had equality of rights for years in western society. Feminism wants more. Greedy and selfish like that. You mean unlike the grown up and adult men running away and hiding from relationships in case they lose their toys. That's not greedy and selfish and childish at all is it. Couldn't personally Thibk of anything more greedy. Men are doing their own thing. Why? Women are increasingly making the idea of a relationship unattractive. That's why anyone walks away from anything. It's not of benefit to them. So instead of being some feminist cuck and splurging these childish statements of nonsense. It may help to do some research and find the actual causes of what is a growing perspective. " Who asked why, not me, couldn't care less, and why should I do some research into it, it isn't a topic that interests me in the slightest. I know why, they are immature, greedy, selfish people scared of commitment. You posted a topic asking people their thoughts on it, did you really mean agree with me or I'll try and browbeat you into agreeing with me like every other discussion on this forum. Don't tell people how to think when you've asked for an opinion. What research have you done in to existentialism? None presumabky, because your not interested, lol. I have lots of female friends, almost exclusively in fact as women allow other people to have an opinion rather than feeling its a mission to convert you to their way of thinking so a conversation isn't about work, xsporg or convincing you of their beliefs, it can be fun, laid back and about anything not boring. Plus I'm in a very happy marriage and been divorced twice, what more research should I do, listen to a load of child-men who can't form a decent relationship, no that's OK thanks. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
