14 ms·

Why Do These Straight Men Want Nothing to Do with Women?

81 points by ca98am79 10y ago

sotojuan 10y ago
Thought this was going to be about Wizardchan; interesting subculture.
ivraatiems 10y ago
It's the flipside of the worst aspects of the "SJW"/gender politics & identity subculture. People who accept labels in exchange for reassurance. Basically: "You're okay as you are. It's everyone else who's wrong. Fight them instead of yourself." Just as you can go from dealing with valid issues around identity to smearing people for the pronouns they use, you can go from saying "traditional concepts of marriage and relationships oppress both men and women" to "I am perfect as I am regardless of what other people think, and a system that questions that is inherently wrong" shockingly quickly, especially online.
s_kilk 10y ago
> Meet the brotherhood of “Men Going Their Own Way,” a burgeoning movement of guys who believe womankind has let them down. Gaaaaahahahahaha. "Womankind has let them down"? Wow, the entitlement practically radiates off these guys. Spoiler warning guys: womankind owes you nothing.
- dudul 10y ago
  Just like these men owe nothing to women I guess.
- UK-AL 10y ago
  That's the reporters writing. The whole point of these people is that they couldn't give a toss about what womankind does or does not owe them. They've chosen not to play the game.
  - eropple 10y ago
    If this were true, there would be a lot fewer electrons perturbed by the depth and breath of the efforts that this "movement"'s purveyors go to to convince everybody that, no, no, they're fine, they're really fine. They totally don't care, even though they can't stop writing about how much they don't care. (And then you actually read what they write, and it becomes obvious that it's MRA-style misogyny buried beneath a veneer of "those grapes were sour anyway.")
  - x0x0 10y ago
    I don't think that's true at all; I think for many this is an extended whinge that they aren't getting what they think they deserve. viz the (wildly misogynistic) picture of the "international symbol for marriage" which shows a man giving a woman cash. Personally, I don't care much about the structure of other peoples' relationships: who earns more, who contributes more in other ways, etc. But the thing is, you pick your partner. So if these guys think women are just after their cash, maybe they should pick different partners. But my strong guess is they generally have low incomes, low physical attractiveness, poor social skills, and poor personalities; think they deserve really attractive women who make a ton of money and love doing housework; and are pissed that these women aren't showing up.
- jimmywanger 10y ago
  > Spoiler warning guys: womankind owes you nothing. Counter spoiler warning: mankind owes you nothing. Yet I see tons of women complaining about "where have all the good men gone?" The MGTOW mindset is that they're just removing themselves from the dating pool and doing stuff they find more fulfilling and valuable. Yeah, they view dating as kind of silly and useless, but it's just another hobby, sort of like model trains. A "you do your thing, and I'll do mine".
smallnamespace 10y ago
One interesting question this article brings up is -- is there a legitimate place for gender-segregated institutions in our society? It's a bit ironic that people will justify women-only spaces (e.g. a train car[1] or taxi[2]) as creating a safe space for women, but in the same breath deny the legitimacy of traditionally male spaces as being sexist and degrading to women, e.g. the push to make fraternities and sororities co-ed [3][4]. IMO, men have their own insecurities and worries, often with respect to their relationship with women, and having a 'safe space' to work out those issues is not only useful, but symmetrically fair. [1] http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2016/04/04/472997605/why-i-love-riding-on-the-women-only-car-on-delhis-metro http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2016/04/04/47299760... [2] http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/chariot-for-women-female-only-taxi-ridesharing-uber-boston-app-launch-a6978591.html http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/new... [3] http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/09/16/should-college-fraternities-and-sororities-be-coed http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/09/16/should-colle... [4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-harvard-shouldnt-push-its-all-male-final-clubs-to-go-co-ed/2016/04/22/4ad93da6-0286-11e6-9203-7b8670959b88_story.html?utm_term=.46271dadbce5 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-harvard-shouldnt...
- dmix 10y ago
  As long as it's voluntary and the other genders can just as easily make their own spaces then I don't see there being a problem with it. But I fear that this won't be the case. I can't imagine male-only organizations/services/etc being take lightly. There is a lot of historical baggage that gets lumped onto these ideas when you reframe it to be for a non-historically oppressed group. These have to be looked at individually with more context than just gender division. Such as why they exist, in the case of female only subway cars for safety in Mexico city. Having experienced the chaos and overcrowding of subways in Mexico city I'm not surprise at all this was done. But I did notice the women's cars were far emptier so these compromises always have trade-offs that need to be considered so they don't add resentment, or further create societal divisions, and end up fueling the problem. There have been white only organizations at universities that were shut down even though the same schools had black-only and asian-only organizations, but there was more context to this issue than just race as the white groups political positions of white empowerment were seen as masking a racist movement (the founder later joined a white nationalist group after leaving school). So it wasn't a straight forward comparison of race equality as they wanted it to seem. So I don't think the idea can be easily accepted/dismissed at a high level without context.
dudul 10y ago
So, as far as I understand what they describe, they are just preaching for men what feminists have been preaching for women: do what you want, and what makes you happy. You owe nothing to anybody. At least, it seems consistent to me.
- ianai 10y ago
  I got the impression this article added more inflammatory rhetoric to the point of view than it should have.
  - dudul 10y ago
    A little yeah, but TBH, after I started understanding what it was about I was expecting worse. It's a little difficult to see the differences really between MGTOW and "pick-up artists". They seem pretty similar to me, but look like they hate each other.
    - danielvinson 10y ago
      There is a distinct difference in the attitudes of indifference, anarchy, and non-conformity in the MGTOW described in the article vs. the aggression, control, and exaggerated masculinity in PUA community.
      - whamlastxmas 10y ago
        >aggression, control, and exaggerated masculinity in PUA I don't think this is a fair characterization for what a lot of people refer to as "the PUA community". Accurate words would be confidence, independence, and leadership. Some people choose to view these attitudes as controlling/aggressive because when comparing these actions to themselves, it erodes their own confidence or self esteem. But that's their problem and they're trying to blame someone else for it.
        danielvinson 10y ago
        I'm not closely familiar with the current PUA/Red Pill community, just the one of 5+ years ago when I was a bit involved with it, back when it was just a few forums and guys trying to learn from the few people who were successful. The attitude back then, which may be well disguised these days, was incredibly sociopathic - that females only belonged in men's lives from their pleasure, that you would only succeed when you stopped respecting them, and that happiness was achieved by blatantly disregarding whatever was stopping you. This is why negging was so popular as a learning technique - it taught men that there is little downside to just being as asshole to women. The community certainly helped (and helps) a lot of men who suffer from confidence issues, but it also did/does so in a very flawed way, and threw everyone else (namely, all women) under the bus.
AnimalMuppet 10y ago
They seem to think that happiness will be found in selfishness. Long term, I don't think that works very well.
- snerbles 10y ago
  It won't yield long-term happiness for most of them, but knowing that doesn't deal with the hazards these men have observed in marriage. I've seen enough of my peers (male and female, to be fair) be put through the divorce ringer to be leary of commitment like that. Once bitten, twice shy.
  - whamlastxmas 10y ago
    >It won't yield long-term happiness for most of them For "Red Pill" stuff specifically, maybe not MGTOW, this seems to be entirely false in the experiences I've read about. Men are overwhelmingly happier and in better places in life after learning to take responsibility for their life and recognizing/fixing their shortcomings.
- forgottenpass 10y ago
  It's only selfish in the same sense that people call suicide "selfish." It's a decision for personal behavior, that societal attitudes say do not meet their obligations to the rest of humanity. But describing what exactly someone's obligations to humanity are gets a bit muddy when you're talking about it, even at the point of positively positing that they may exist (rather than only talking about them when someone fails to meet them by killing themselves).
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    No, I didn't mean it in that sense at all. Let us agree, for purposes of this discussion, that they have no obligation to anyone, either to individuals or to society as a whole. Their decision is not "selfish" in the sense of "not meeting their obligations to others". But, from the article, "Most MGTOW will tell you it’s more of a philosophy than a movement, punctuated with a serious helping of ZFG (“zero fucks given”). MGTOW are unapologetically selfish..." That's selfish in a different sense - I'm going to make my decisions in a way that cares only about myself, and deliberately avoids any circumstance that might lead to me caring about anyone else. Why does that not lead to happiness? After all, I get to make all my own decisions purely for my own benefit. But it turns out that happiness largely comes from being close to a few other people, mattering to them and having them matter to you.
jimmywanger 10y ago
I think the article is definitely definitely inflammatory. There are good points though. "Womankind has let them down". That's a fairly valid concern. If you get married to somebody, you both have to sacrifice certain of your desires to make the relationship better. The guy can't constantly be jetting off to Vegas, for instance, because now he has a mortgage maybe, and to make relationships work you're going to have to spend a lot of time together, even if you don't particularly feel like it. However, these days, a lot of women (Western feminists) don't feel like sacrificing. They're brought up on the thoughts that you can have your cake and eat it too. You can play around when you're younger and make your career your priority. Then when you actually do want to settle down, what do you have? Rather, what do you have to offer? Can you listen, sacrifice your spare time to listen to somebody else's problems, do you mind doing chores for a shared house? Contrary to most belief, most men are not terribly impressed with a woman's ability to have a career. They're more interested in having a life partner that you can share burdens with, and once you have so much invested in your career, you're not going to give that up. If you lack any of the skills to be good in a relationship (whether from lack of practice or inclination), you're not going to be a good partner, and you shouldn't expect a good partner.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- RangerScience 10y ago
  I think you're rather horribly wrong. For one, in the last year or so, the "sex appeal" of financial stability has shot up drastically. Mostly because I'm watching two friends take a year off (and likely more, since another is in the oven) to raise a baby. > "Womankind has let them down". ...No? I mean, I see where they're coming from, but... Privilege is being used to being the target audience. Women don't owe men anything. People can only let you down if you're expecting something from them. > If you get married to somebody, you both have to sacrifice certain of your desires to make the relationship better To be frank, you have shitty role models for marriage. First, doesn't that occur in relationships in general? I want pizza. My buddy wants thai. Second, the better a fit you and someone else are, the less you have to sacrifice. Third, the more you're into that other someone, the less you give a shit about that sacrifice. > They're brought up on the thoughts that you can have your cake and eat it too. You can play around when you're younger and make your career your priority. Yeah, because you can. I mean, that's the expected story for men, right? Means women can do it too. > Can you listen, sacrifice your spare time to listen to somebody else's problems, do you mind doing chores for a shared house? Sounds like having friends and roommates. Also completely compatible with NOT settling down. > They're more interested in having a life partner that you can share burdens with Sounds like everyone. Wouldn't you expect women to be more interested in life partners that you can share burdens with? Isn't this part of the definition of a best friend? Here's a thing you should do. Add gender to each of your sentences: "If a woman lacks any of the skills to be good in a relationship (whether from lack of practice or inclination), she's not going to be a good partner, and she shouldn't expect a good partner." and then invert it: "If a man lacks any of the skills to be good in a relationship (whether from lack of practice or inclination), he's not going to be a good partner, and he shouldn't expect a good partner." and you'll notice what you're horribly wrong about.
lets-tryagain 10y ago
God what happened to HN? Seeing so much drivel on this site lately.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
nrinaudo 10y ago
I thought the concept entertaining, up until I read the bit about "rape causing little to no long lasting harm to the victim". Shame, this could have been a fun, if weird and selfish, thing.
- zzalpha 10y ago
  The worst part is they have some legitimate points (the issues surrounding family law are very well established). And then they poison the well with that absurdity...
- Icedcool 10y ago
  Yea that sentence on rape was, in my eyes, just as diminishing to rape as I imagine they feel the impact is of false rape accusations.
- div0 10y ago
  To quote that in its entirety: “[Rape] ends in just a few minutes with little-to-no harm caused to the victim. Meanwhile, false accusations of rape have a long-term and much more devastating impact on the victim.” - That's really sick.
  - StavrosK 10y ago
    Yeah, and burglary ends in a few minutes with the victim not even being there. Meanwhile, I have friends who now are having trouble sleeping just because of the mere idea of violation to their personal space. I don't know what the author was thinking writing the above, but wow.
- whamlastxmas 10y ago
  The author showed his or her bias with this. There are lots of sexists and idiots on the internet talking about anything. It's fine if the author wanted to discuss systemic issues of sexism in MGTOW, but quoting a single douchebag like he somehow speaks for all men learning MGTOW is stupid.
- Digit-Al 10y ago
  I clicked on the link given in the article and read the opinion piece and the following comments. From my reading, this article totally misrepresented the views of the community on this issue. Yes, the person who wrote the opinion piece linked to made that exact argument, but many of the commenters disagreed and said the crimes were as bad as each other. So saying this is one of the views of the group as a whole seems disingenious at best. At worst, a blatant lie. As a disclaimer - I have never heard of this group before so have no skin in the game.
scarmig 10y ago
In principle, MGTOW makes a lot of sense--straight men should not require the sexual affections of the opposite sex in order to live happy, healthy lives. In practice, for a bunch of men with the philosophy "a man needs a woman like a fish needs a bicycle," they sure do spend a lot of time talking about how crappy the bicycles are for the fish.
- RangerScience 10y ago
  Amazing. I hope one day to have the opportunity to steal this phrase of yours.
- eludwig 10y ago
  I hear you. It feels like the male version of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_lady_doth_protest_too_much,_methinks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_lady_doth_protest_too_much... Movements like this are proof that everything creates its opposite. Mutual arising. Some would argue that these "reaction formations" are a precursor to eventually meeting in the middle. A sane, loving marriage of equals. Some of us have this, some don't, and some don't want it. The world is a big place. Plenty of room for everyone (for now).
- whamlastxmas 10y ago
  >they sure do spend a lot of time talking about how crappy the bicycles are for the fish Because it's extremely contrary to what 99.9% of men are brought up to believe. There are a lot of concepts that are difficult to learn, understand, and embrace. It's an experience that takes some men years to adopt. And there's a constant influx of men who are new to the concept and need help understanding it. It makes sense there would be a lot of discussion.
  - scarmig 10y ago
    Hypothesis: given two similar groups of men who rely too much on external validation for their own happiness, exposing the experimental group to MGTOW will result in inferior outcomes over the course of a year compared to a no treatment control.
wyager 10y ago
While I wouldn't go full MTGOW, I guess I see where these guys are coming from as a collegiate 20-something; the economics of serious long-term romantic relationships are kind of unfavorable right now. Men lose a lot of autonomy in most relationships in my peer group (e.g. no more wild parties, more limited free time, many feel obligated to bring their partner to social events even if their partner is not in the relevant social group, etc.). On the other hand, there is not much to gain; sex is easily accessible even without being in a long-term relationship, and with much lower cost and effort. Emotional fulfillment, to whatever degree that applies, usually isn't a sufficient incentive. Children are extremely difficult for both men and women; they are a huge expense, and raising one without a dedicated caretaker is practically very difficult. Most of my peer group in serious long-term relationships, even those married and around traditional child-rearing ages, seem to be quite confident that they won't have children. I think we will see a serious social restructuring around family life, but it's not yet clear to me how that will look.
- RangerScience 10y ago
  You need a different peer group. Then again, in a recent accounting, I noticed that most of my friends are or have been poly. I'm not saying my life is normal. I am saying that my peer group isn't losing much autonomy to their relationships, even the monogamous ones; it's possible I'm already seeing the social restructuring you're expecting. (Or, one potential restructuring).
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
bcheung 10y ago
Men in modern society, and especially in Silicon Valley tend to be more emasculated. There is no need to throw off women, what is needed is knowing what you really want, knowing your boundaries and having the courage to stick to it. If you don't want to have a long term relationship and just want something casual, to see multiple people, etc, then that is something you need to communicate and not cave into a relationship that you don't really want and waste everyone's time in a relationship that isn't really what you want. Men often think that they need to fit into some "feminist" ideal (the man hating kind, not the equality kind). Who wants to be in a relationship with someone who hates themselves? Too many men are approaching relationships from the "feminist" rulebook. That's a recipe for failure. The solution is not to simply avoid women, it's to be honest with yourself about what you want and not put yourself in situations where you compromise your integrity.
- matt4077 10y ago
  Too many have a terribly distorted view of "the feminist rulebook". Among them the idea that women are dead-set on monogamous, till-death-do-us-part relationships. If you're into open relationships or poly or whatever you want to call it, you may be surprised to find that there is any number of women sharing your conviction. It's just rarely visible because it's not among the approved topics for light dinner conversation. What usually doesn't work is to convince people of that idea. You can maybe bring it up and there's chance if they have never considered it before, but jealousy seems to be, from my experience, a rather fundamental emotion and while you can pressure some people into an open relationship, you're going to make them and yourself miserable. I've also seem men who convinced their girlfriends and ended up regretting it when they embraced it and got a lot more use out of it than their bfs. Now if, for some reason, you expect to find a 20-year old beauty queen who'll stay at home and make breakfast for you when you come home and congratulate you on that night's conquest... That's not going to work, I'm sorry. I don't even get that idea, though. It's beyond me how you could enjoy the company of someone who apparently has no interests in life except baking and babies.
- Icedcool 10y ago
  I agree with you, in that there seems to be a.... lack of quality role models and certain cultural norms that play into men feeling like they have to be a certain way. Especially a very loud minority of women, who have certain men wanting to live up to those standards... and find themselves miserable as a result. I think the biggest point of this is that, it is possible to get what you want, and there are others who want that. And generally that if it is a quality point it is applicable to both genders. To be happy and get what they want, people need to be clear on what it is they DO want. To have a successful relationship, people need to have good boundaries and know where they are willing to compromise. etc etc... Women aren't the oppressors... or... whatever else. It is a person's agreement (because they don't know any other options) to be oppressed that is the real oppression. That they limit themselves.
adrianlmm 10y ago
At these days a man who wants a wife who wants to stay home with the children is a tyrant according to feminists, and women who want to marry and stay home with the children are told by feminist they are a shame for the gender and bully them, the funny thing, is that we had warnings that this will happen in the 60's.
- matt4077 10y ago
  I'll take whatever harm you're implying over the world of the 60ies where half of the population were relegated to 2nd class citizen, I couldn't have found a life partner I would want to spend time with because none of them were allowed to get an adequate education and scientific and technological progress were willingly cut on half because only men were given the chance to participate. (or the 1920ies, because what people were apparently warning we would lose in the 60ies had already been lost during WWII)
  - adrianlmm 10y ago
    I said we were warned, simple as that, you are extrapolating, and when you get warned you can take measures to make the less negative inpact, not to stop it at all, looks like you are assuming I'm not ok with married women working, witch is false, but I dislike feminists who dont' respect the desition of other women.
- colemickens 10y ago
  >At these days a man who wants a wife who wants to stay home with the children is a tyrant according to feminists Complete and utter bullshit projecting on your part. I've literally never heard such a load of crap from any feminist on any side of the spectrum.
lesolorzanova 10y ago
Get out of parenthood by having a lot of sex and if the girl gets pregnant... well... her problem. Seems to me like they just wanted to have a movement. Their rights hvent been violated all through history, they just want to be able to be as bitchy as their female counterparts.
- whamlastxmas 10y ago
  There is no large or rational part of MGTOW that advocates this. If a single idiot somewhere mentioned it and some idiots agreed, it doesn't represent MGTOW. Red Pill (similar to MGTOW) is a strong advocate of being a family leader and taking care of your kids and wife and I have to imagine MGTOW is overwhelmingly in support of this too.
NTDF9 10y ago
As a millennial male, I have changed from being a man who grew up wanting a family life, kids and a happy family to a lone-wolf don't-give-a-fuck man in a span of just 2 years Basically, I changed from being "Dad material" to "A guy who has fun all the time". I just don't have the motivation to be with women for anything besides fun and harmless dating. Why did this happen? How did this happen? - I studied/worked hard all my life to be able to provide for "future family" - Realized women my age just want to have a bit of fun instead of a good guy with head straight. They would literally go for guys who had a bad track record with relationships, just because they "felt" something with them. Relationship was just feelings for them. Marriage unfortunately isn't just feelings. - Also, most women with all their scholarships and opportunities really don't plan for a future life. I am not taking that burden on me. Why should I? - Realized that I don't owe women anything....especially not to women who just want to have fun and select for guys who just party and have fun - Understood the double standards women impose on dating very well. Women want to have fun in their youth, date the hottest guys, explore their life and when they got old, end up in the arms of a great stable person....essentially, they want to do whatever they want, whenever they want. Well, so do I. I still want to be a father. But not with the women out there. Maybe I should check out the MGTOW community.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  > I still want to be a father. But not with the women out there. Maybe I should check out the MGTOW community. I don't think you're going to find the woman you do want in the MGTOW community...
  - NTDF9 10y ago
    > I don't think you're going to find the woman you do want in the MGTOW community... Surrogate, adoption, orphanages. I love kids. But I don't care about my 'lineage'
- hiram112 10y ago
  >Understood the double standards women impose on dating very well. Women want to have fun in their youth, date the hottest guys, explore their life and when they got old, end up in the arms of a great stable person....essentially, they want to do whatever they want, whenever they want. This is known as "alpha fucks, beta bucks“. It sounds somewhat crude at first, but as a guy dating quite a bit now in my 30s, it's an accurate description for many women these days.
dredmorbius 10y ago
A possible counterpoint: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Thousand_and_One_Nights https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Thousand_and_One_Nights
chiefalchemist 10y ago
Media hype. In a country of 300+ million, it's easy to find a sizable handful of fringe. This had always existed. It's just now publishable.
anotherevan 10y ago
A lot of the time this just sounds like men who are bitter that women want nothing to do with them, then a genuine thing.

81 points by ca98am79 10y ago

Thought this was going to be about Wizardchan; interesting subculture.

It's the flipside of the worst aspects of the "SJW"/gender politics & identity subculture. People who accept labels in exchange for reassurance. Basically: "You're okay as you are. It's everyone else who's wrong. Fight them instead of yourself." Just as you can go from dealing with valid issues around identity to smearing people for the pronouns they use, you can go from saying "traditional concepts of marriage and relationships oppress both men and women" to "I am perfect as I am regardless of what other people think, and a system that questions that is inherently wrong" shockingly quickly, especially online.

s_kilk 10y ago

> Meet the brotherhood of “Men Going Their Own Way,” a burgeoning movement of guys who believe womankind has let them down. Gaaaaahahahahaha. "Womankind has let them down"? Wow, the entitlement practically radiates off these guys. Spoiler warning guys: womankind owes you nothing.

dudul 10y ago
Just like these men owe nothing to women I guess.
UK-AL 10y ago
That's the reporters writing. The whole point of these people is that they couldn't give a toss about what womankind does or does not owe them. They've chosen not to play the game.
- eropple 10y ago
  If this were true, there would be a lot fewer electrons perturbed by the depth and breath of the efforts that this "movement"'s purveyors go to to convince everybody that, no, no, they're fine, they're really fine. They totally don't care, even though they can't stop writing about how much they don't care. (And then you actually read what they write, and it becomes obvious that it's MRA-style misogyny buried beneath a veneer of "those grapes were sour anyway.")
- x0x0 10y ago
  I don't think that's true at all; I think for many this is an extended whinge that they aren't getting what they think they deserve. viz the (wildly misogynistic) picture of the "international symbol for marriage" which shows a man giving a woman cash. Personally, I don't care much about the structure of other peoples' relationships: who earns more, who contributes more in other ways, etc. But the thing is, you pick your partner. So if these guys think women are just after their cash, maybe they should pick different partners. But my strong guess is they generally have low incomes, low physical attractiveness, poor social skills, and poor personalities; think they deserve really attractive women who make a ton of money and love doing housework; and are pissed that these women aren't showing up.
jimmywanger 10y ago
> Spoiler warning guys: womankind owes you nothing. Counter spoiler warning: mankind owes you nothing. Yet I see tons of women complaining about "where have all the good men gone?" The MGTOW mindset is that they're just removing themselves from the dating pool and doing stuff they find more fulfilling and valuable. Yeah, they view dating as kind of silly and useless, but it's just another hobby, sort of like model trains. A "you do your thing, and I'll do mine".

smallnamespace 10y ago

One interesting question this article brings up is -- is there a legitimate place for gender-segregated institutions in our society? It's a bit ironic that people will justify women-only spaces (e.g. a train car[1] or taxi[2]) as creating a safe space for women, but in the same breath deny the legitimacy of traditionally male spaces as being sexist and degrading to women, e.g. the push to make fraternities and sororities co-ed [3][4]. IMO, men have their own insecurities and worries, often with respect to their relationship with women, and having a 'safe space' to work out those issues is not only useful, but symmetrically fair. [1] http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2016/04/04/472997605/why-i-love-riding-on-the-women-only-car-on-delhis-metro http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2016/04/04/47299760... [2] http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/chariot-for-women-female-only-taxi-ridesharing-uber-boston-app-launch-a6978591.html http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/new... [3] http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/09/16/should-college-fraternities-and-sororities-be-coed http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/09/16/should-colle... [4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-harvard-shouldnt-push-its-all-male-final-clubs-to-go-co-ed/2016/04/22/4ad93da6-0286-11e6-9203-7b8670959b88_story.html?utm_term=.46271dadbce5 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-harvard-shouldnt...

dmix 10y ago
As long as it's voluntary and the other genders can just as easily make their own spaces then I don't see there being a problem with it. But I fear that this won't be the case. I can't imagine male-only organizations/services/etc being take lightly. There is a lot of historical baggage that gets lumped onto these ideas when you reframe it to be for a non-historically oppressed group. These have to be looked at individually with more context than just gender division. Such as why they exist, in the case of female only subway cars for safety in Mexico city. Having experienced the chaos and overcrowding of subways in Mexico city I'm not surprise at all this was done. But I did notice the women's cars were far emptier so these compromises always have trade-offs that need to be considered so they don't add resentment, or further create societal divisions, and end up fueling the problem. There have been white only organizations at universities that were shut down even though the same schools had black-only and asian-only organizations, but there was more context to this issue than just race as the white groups political positions of white empowerment were seen as masking a racist movement (the founder later joined a white nationalist group after leaving school). So it wasn't a straight forward comparison of race equality as they wanted it to seem. So I don't think the idea can be easily accepted/dismissed at a high level without context.

dudul 10y ago

So, as far as I understand what they describe, they are just preaching for men what feminists have been preaching for women: do what you want, and what makes you happy. You owe nothing to anybody. At least, it seems consistent to me.

ianai 10y ago
I got the impression this article added more inflammatory rhetoric to the point of view than it should have.
- dudul 10y ago
  A little yeah, but TBH, after I started understanding what it was about I was expecting worse. It's a little difficult to see the differences really between MGTOW and "pick-up artists". They seem pretty similar to me, but look like they hate each other.
  - danielvinson 10y ago
    There is a distinct difference in the attitudes of indifference, anarchy, and non-conformity in the MGTOW described in the article vs. the aggression, control, and exaggerated masculinity in PUA community.
    - whamlastxmas 10y ago
      >aggression, control, and exaggerated masculinity in PUA I don't think this is a fair characterization for what a lot of people refer to as "the PUA community". Accurate words would be confidence, independence, and leadership. Some people choose to view these attitudes as controlling/aggressive because when comparing these actions to themselves, it erodes their own confidence or self esteem. But that's their problem and they're trying to blame someone else for it.
      - danielvinson 10y ago
        I'm not closely familiar with the current PUA/Red Pill community, just the one of 5+ years ago when I was a bit involved with it, back when it was just a few forums and guys trying to learn from the few people who were successful. The attitude back then, which may be well disguised these days, was incredibly sociopathic - that females only belonged in men's lives from their pleasure, that you would only succeed when you stopped respecting them, and that happiness was achieved by blatantly disregarding whatever was stopping you. This is why negging was so popular as a learning technique - it taught men that there is little downside to just being as asshole to women. The community certainly helped (and helps) a lot of men who suffer from confidence issues, but it also did/does so in a very flawed way, and threw everyone else (namely, all women) under the bus.

AnimalMuppet 10y ago

They seem to think that happiness will be found in selfishness. Long term, I don't think that works very well.

snerbles 10y ago
It won't yield long-term happiness for most of them, but knowing that doesn't deal with the hazards these men have observed in marriage. I've seen enough of my peers (male and female, to be fair) be put through the divorce ringer to be leary of commitment like that. Once bitten, twice shy.
- whamlastxmas 10y ago
  >It won't yield long-term happiness for most of them For "Red Pill" stuff specifically, maybe not MGTOW, this seems to be entirely false in the experiences I've read about. Men are overwhelmingly happier and in better places in life after learning to take responsibility for their life and recognizing/fixing their shortcomings.
forgottenpass 10y ago
It's only selfish in the same sense that people call suicide "selfish." It's a decision for personal behavior, that societal attitudes say do not meet their obligations to the rest of humanity. But describing what exactly someone's obligations to humanity are gets a bit muddy when you're talking about it, even at the point of positively positing that they may exist (rather than only talking about them when someone fails to meet them by killing themselves).
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  No, I didn't mean it in that sense at all. Let us agree, for purposes of this discussion, that they have no obligation to anyone, either to individuals or to society as a whole. Their decision is not "selfish" in the sense of "not meeting their obligations to others". But, from the article, "Most MGTOW will tell you it’s more of a philosophy than a movement, punctuated with a serious helping of ZFG (“zero fucks given”). MGTOW are unapologetically selfish..." That's selfish in a different sense - I'm going to make my decisions in a way that cares only about myself, and deliberately avoids any circumstance that might lead to me caring about anyone else. Why does that not lead to happiness? After all, I get to make all my own decisions purely for my own benefit. But it turns out that happiness largely comes from being close to a few other people, mattering to them and having them matter to you.

jimmywanger 10y ago

I think the article is definitely definitely inflammatory. There are good points though. "Womankind has let them down". That's a fairly valid concern. If you get married to somebody, you both have to sacrifice certain of your desires to make the relationship better. The guy can't constantly be jetting off to Vegas, for instance, because now he has a mortgage maybe, and to make relationships work you're going to have to spend a lot of time together, even if you don't particularly feel like it. However, these days, a lot of women (Western feminists) don't feel like sacrificing. They're brought up on the thoughts that you can have your cake and eat it too. You can play around when you're younger and make your career your priority. Then when you actually do want to settle down, what do you have? Rather, what do you have to offer? Can you listen, sacrifice your spare time to listen to somebody else's problems, do you mind doing chores for a shared house? Contrary to most belief, most men are not terribly impressed with a woman's ability to have a career. They're more interested in having a life partner that you can share burdens with, and once you have so much invested in your career, you're not going to give that up. If you lack any of the skills to be good in a relationship (whether from lack of practice or inclination), you're not going to be a good partner, and you shouldn't expect a good partner.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
RangerScience 10y ago
I think you're rather horribly wrong. For one, in the last year or so, the "sex appeal" of financial stability has shot up drastically. Mostly because I'm watching two friends take a year off (and likely more, since another is in the oven) to raise a baby. > "Womankind has let them down". ...No? I mean, I see where they're coming from, but... Privilege is being used to being the target audience. Women don't owe men anything. People can only let you down if you're expecting something from them. > If you get married to somebody, you both have to sacrifice certain of your desires to make the relationship better To be frank, you have shitty role models for marriage. First, doesn't that occur in relationships in general? I want pizza. My buddy wants thai. Second, the better a fit you and someone else are, the less you have to sacrifice. Third, the more you're into that other someone, the less you give a shit about that sacrifice. > They're brought up on the thoughts that you can have your cake and eat it too. You can play around when you're younger and make your career your priority. Yeah, because you can. I mean, that's the expected story for men, right? Means women can do it too. > Can you listen, sacrifice your spare time to listen to somebody else's problems, do you mind doing chores for a shared house? Sounds like having friends and roommates. Also completely compatible with NOT settling down. > They're more interested in having a life partner that you can share burdens with Sounds like everyone. Wouldn't you expect women to be more interested in life partners that you can share burdens with? Isn't this part of the definition of a best friend? Here's a thing you should do. Add gender to each of your sentences: "If a woman lacks any of the skills to be good in a relationship (whether from lack of practice or inclination), she's not going to be a good partner, and she shouldn't expect a good partner." and then invert it: "If a man lacks any of the skills to be good in a relationship (whether from lack of practice or inclination), he's not going to be a good partner, and he shouldn't expect a good partner." and you'll notice what you're horribly wrong about.

lets-tryagain 10y ago

God what happened to HN? Seeing so much drivel on this site lately.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

nrinaudo 10y ago

I thought the concept entertaining, up until I read the bit about "rape causing little to no long lasting harm to the victim". Shame, this could have been a fun, if weird and selfish, thing.

zzalpha 10y ago
The worst part is they have some legitimate points (the issues surrounding family law are very well established). And then they poison the well with that absurdity...
Icedcool 10y ago
Yea that sentence on rape was, in my eyes, just as diminishing to rape as I imagine they feel the impact is of false rape accusations.
div0 10y ago
To quote that in its entirety: “[Rape] ends in just a few minutes with little-to-no harm caused to the victim. Meanwhile, false accusations of rape have a long-term and much more devastating impact on the victim.” - That's really sick.
- StavrosK 10y ago
  Yeah, and burglary ends in a few minutes with the victim not even being there. Meanwhile, I have friends who now are having trouble sleeping just because of the mere idea of violation to their personal space. I don't know what the author was thinking writing the above, but wow.
whamlastxmas 10y ago
The author showed his or her bias with this. There are lots of sexists and idiots on the internet talking about anything. It's fine if the author wanted to discuss systemic issues of sexism in MGTOW, but quoting a single douchebag like he somehow speaks for all men learning MGTOW is stupid.
Digit-Al 10y ago
I clicked on the link given in the article and read the opinion piece and the following comments. From my reading, this article totally misrepresented the views of the community on this issue. Yes, the person who wrote the opinion piece linked to made that exact argument, but many of the commenters disagreed and said the crimes were as bad as each other. So saying this is one of the views of the group as a whole seems disingenious at best. At worst, a blatant lie. As a disclaimer - I have never heard of this group before so have no skin in the game.

scarmig 10y ago

In principle, MGTOW makes a lot of sense--straight men should not require the sexual affections of the opposite sex in order to live happy, healthy lives. In practice, for a bunch of men with the philosophy "a man needs a woman like a fish needs a bicycle," they sure do spend a lot of time talking about how crappy the bicycles are for the fish.

RangerScience 10y ago
Amazing. I hope one day to have the opportunity to steal this phrase of yours.
eludwig 10y ago
I hear you. It feels like the male version of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_lady_doth_protest_too_much,_methinks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_lady_doth_protest_too_much... Movements like this are proof that everything creates its opposite. Mutual arising. Some would argue that these "reaction formations" are a precursor to eventually meeting in the middle. A sane, loving marriage of equals. Some of us have this, some don't, and some don't want it. The world is a big place. Plenty of room for everyone (for now).
whamlastxmas 10y ago
>they sure do spend a lot of time talking about how crappy the bicycles are for the fish Because it's extremely contrary to what 99.9% of men are brought up to believe. There are a lot of concepts that are difficult to learn, understand, and embrace. It's an experience that takes some men years to adopt. And there's a constant influx of men who are new to the concept and need help understanding it. It makes sense there would be a lot of discussion.
- scarmig 10y ago
  Hypothesis: given two similar groups of men who rely too much on external validation for their own happiness, exposing the experimental group to MGTOW will result in inferior outcomes over the course of a year compared to a no treatment control.

wyager 10y ago

While I wouldn't go full MTGOW, I guess I see where these guys are coming from as a collegiate 20-something; the economics of serious long-term romantic relationships are kind of unfavorable right now. Men lose a lot of autonomy in most relationships in my peer group (e.g. no more wild parties, more limited free time, many feel obligated to bring their partner to social events even if their partner is not in the relevant social group, etc.). On the other hand, there is not much to gain; sex is easily accessible even without being in a long-term relationship, and with much lower cost and effort. Emotional fulfillment, to whatever degree that applies, usually isn't a sufficient incentive. Children are extremely difficult for both men and women; they are a huge expense, and raising one without a dedicated caretaker is practically very difficult. Most of my peer group in serious long-term relationships, even those married and around traditional child-rearing ages, seem to be quite confident that they won't have children. I think we will see a serious social restructuring around family life, but it's not yet clear to me how that will look.

RangerScience 10y ago
You need a different peer group. Then again, in a recent accounting, I noticed that most of my friends are or have been poly. I'm not saying my life is normal. I am saying that my peer group isn't losing much autonomy to their relationships, even the monogamous ones; it's possible I'm already seeing the social restructuring you're expecting. (Or, one potential restructuring).

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

bcheung 10y ago

Men in modern society, and especially in Silicon Valley tend to be more emasculated. There is no need to throw off women, what is needed is knowing what you really want, knowing your boundaries and having the courage to stick to it. If you don't want to have a long term relationship and just want something casual, to see multiple people, etc, then that is something you need to communicate and not cave into a relationship that you don't really want and waste everyone's time in a relationship that isn't really what you want. Men often think that they need to fit into some "feminist" ideal (the man hating kind, not the equality kind). Who wants to be in a relationship with someone who hates themselves? Too many men are approaching relationships from the "feminist" rulebook. That's a recipe for failure. The solution is not to simply avoid women, it's to be honest with yourself about what you want and not put yourself in situations where you compromise your integrity.

matt4077 10y ago
Too many have a terribly distorted view of "the feminist rulebook". Among them the idea that women are dead-set on monogamous, till-death-do-us-part relationships. If you're into open relationships or poly or whatever you want to call it, you may be surprised to find that there is any number of women sharing your conviction. It's just rarely visible because it's not among the approved topics for light dinner conversation. What usually doesn't work is to convince people of that idea. You can maybe bring it up and there's chance if they have never considered it before, but jealousy seems to be, from my experience, a rather fundamental emotion and while you can pressure some people into an open relationship, you're going to make them and yourself miserable. I've also seem men who convinced their girlfriends and ended up regretting it when they embraced it and got a lot more use out of it than their bfs. Now if, for some reason, you expect to find a 20-year old beauty queen who'll stay at home and make breakfast for you when you come home and congratulate you on that night's conquest... That's not going to work, I'm sorry. I don't even get that idea, though. It's beyond me how you could enjoy the company of someone who apparently has no interests in life except baking and babies.
Icedcool 10y ago
I agree with you, in that there seems to be a.... lack of quality role models and certain cultural norms that play into men feeling like they have to be a certain way. Especially a very loud minority of women, who have certain men wanting to live up to those standards... and find themselves miserable as a result. I think the biggest point of this is that, it is possible to get what you want, and there are others who want that. And generally that if it is a quality point it is applicable to both genders. To be happy and get what they want, people need to be clear on what it is they DO want. To have a successful relationship, people need to have good boundaries and know where they are willing to compromise. etc etc... Women aren't the oppressors... or... whatever else. It is a person's agreement (because they don't know any other options) to be oppressed that is the real oppression. That they limit themselves.

adrianlmm 10y ago

At these days a man who wants a wife who wants to stay home with the children is a tyrant according to feminists, and women who want to marry and stay home with the children are told by feminist they are a shame for the gender and bully them, the funny thing, is that we had warnings that this will happen in the 60's.

matt4077 10y ago
I'll take whatever harm you're implying over the world of the 60ies where half of the population were relegated to 2nd class citizen, I couldn't have found a life partner I would want to spend time with because none of them were allowed to get an adequate education and scientific and technological progress were willingly cut on half because only men were given the chance to participate. (or the 1920ies, because what people were apparently warning we would lose in the 60ies had already been lost during WWII)
- adrianlmm 10y ago
  I said we were warned, simple as that, you are extrapolating, and when you get warned you can take measures to make the less negative inpact, not to stop it at all, looks like you are assuming I'm not ok with married women working, witch is false, but I dislike feminists who dont' respect the desition of other women.
colemickens 10y ago
>At these days a man who wants a wife who wants to stay home with the children is a tyrant according to feminists Complete and utter bullshit projecting on your part. I've literally never heard such a load of crap from any feminist on any side of the spectrum.

lesolorzanova 10y ago

Get out of parenthood by having a lot of sex and if the girl gets pregnant... well... her problem. Seems to me like they just wanted to have a movement. Their rights hvent been violated all through history, they just want to be able to be as bitchy as their female counterparts.

whamlastxmas 10y ago
There is no large or rational part of MGTOW that advocates this. If a single idiot somewhere mentioned it and some idiots agreed, it doesn't represent MGTOW. Red Pill (similar to MGTOW) is a strong advocate of being a family leader and taking care of your kids and wife and I have to imagine MGTOW is overwhelmingly in support of this too.

NTDF9 10y ago

As a millennial male, I have changed from being a man who grew up wanting a family life, kids and a happy family to a lone-wolf don't-give-a-fuck man in a span of just 2 years Basically, I changed from being "Dad material" to "A guy who has fun all the time". I just don't have the motivation to be with women for anything besides fun and harmless dating. Why did this happen? How did this happen? - I studied/worked hard all my life to be able to provide for "future family" - Realized women my age just want to have a bit of fun instead of a good guy with head straight. They would literally go for guys who had a bad track record with relationships, just because they "felt" something with them. Relationship was just feelings for them. Marriage unfortunately isn't just feelings. - Also, most women with all their scholarships and opportunities really don't plan for a future life. I am not taking that burden on me. Why should I? - Realized that I don't owe women anything....especially not to women who just want to have fun and select for guys who just party and have fun - Understood the double standards women impose on dating very well. Women want to have fun in their youth, date the hottest guys, explore their life and when they got old, end up in the arms of a great stable person....essentially, they want to do whatever they want, whenever they want. Well, so do I. I still want to be a father. But not with the women out there. Maybe I should check out the MGTOW community.

AnimalMuppet 10y ago
> I still want to be a father. But not with the women out there. Maybe I should check out the MGTOW community. I don't think you're going to find the woman you do want in the MGTOW community...
- NTDF9 10y ago
  > I don't think you're going to find the woman you do want in the MGTOW community... Surrogate, adoption, orphanages. I love kids. But I don't care about my 'lineage'
hiram112 10y ago
>Understood the double standards women impose on dating very well. Women want to have fun in their youth, date the hottest guys, explore their life and when they got old, end up in the arms of a great stable person....essentially, they want to do whatever they want, whenever they want. This is known as "alpha fucks, beta bucks“. It sounds somewhat crude at first, but as a guy dating quite a bit now in my 30s, it's an accurate description for many women these days.

dredmorbius 10y ago

A possible counterpoint: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Thousand_and_One_Nights https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Thousand_and_One_Nights

chiefalchemist 10y ago

Media hype. In a country of 300+ million, it's easy to find a sizable handful of fringe. This had always existed. It's just now publishable.

anotherevan 10y ago

A lot of the time this just sounds like men who are bitter that women want nothing to do with them, then a genuine thing.