TL;DR — MGTOW’s an anti-social, gender-divisive plague that will only grow if feminism isn’t retroactively discontinued and all of its “works” on society.
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) can best be defined as voluntary bachelorism. They tend to overlap with involuntary celibates (incels), their desire to have sex being the only major difference. MGTOW’s are generally alpha males, having had relationships and one night stands and gotten a reading on the pulse of your typical Western woman, ultimately deciding to distance themselves from their involvement with them, on the basis that they’ve become culturally brainwashed, receive far too much leniency in court, and have been conditioned by society into despising men through feminism.
The most notable dissenter surrounding your typical MGTOW is the NAWALT (not all women are like that, ya know) and the folks who point out the mundane paradox of going the way another man tells you.
MGTOW: You should be a MGTOW. Like me.
Regular guy: What’s a MGTOW?
MGTOW: A man going their own way.
Regular guy: I am a man “going my own way”.
MGTOW: And you have a stepson?
Regular guy: Yes …
MGTOW: … (brain combusts)
In all seriousness though, this is a tired argument. Of course, you’re still going your own way if you’re compelled by a MGTOW to change what that way is. MGTOW’s about changing that path you’re going in as a man, particularly if it’s headed in the direction of alimony, child support, divorce, cuckolding, bastard/illegitimate children, etc. We’re just looking out for ya, dudes.
And as for the ladies upset with MGTOW. I totally get that a lot of genuinely butthurt, beta cucks use MGTOW as a sort of troll shielding because they know deep down that they’re an incel. Many of them are simply “hurt” as you may put it. I acknowledge that.
However, being upset with MGTOW, in general, is not warranted. It’s necessary and lemme tell ya, it ain’t going away until you all start being women again. Stop listening to (((feminists))). They’ve brainwashed you and made you miserable, and only because they themselves became miserable through their own bad life choices and sought to drag you all down to their dykish, androphobic level.
You’re not a man. You will never achieve happiness or success in doing what men do, sexually, professionally, emotionally, and otherwise. In general; most of you. You’re women. You’re detail and socially orriented (unlike men) because it is your natural imperative to look after the tribe and until you all recognize that, MGTOW is only going to get uglier. We’re a mammalian, sexual team. You gotta work with us, not against us.
Are Women More Childlike?
TL;DR — Yes; blame nature (specifically human psychology).
If you’ve ever talked to a psychologist, you may have heard them at one point bring up OCEAN. It is the base of what we’ll be discussing here. It stands for Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism. OCEAN’s used with heavy accuracy in modern psychology to determine personality types, traits, characteristics, patterns, etc.
Of those five factors, the two most commonly associated with women (based on survey data) are: Agreeableness and Neuroticism. To be generally affectionate and welcoming towards everyone is to be agreeable. Neuroticism is the tendency to think negatively; to be possessed by timidness in the face of adversity and be hypersensitive to situations that aren’t proportionally as threatening, if at all.
Now, call me a fedora-wearing dudeth bro-heamieth from the misogynist dimension of misogynist misogynists. But I happen to notice a parallel between those traits and children. Think about it for a second. Do you doubt that most women in your life have or have had at some point manifested in these traits? I mean fuck. If that’s not true, then most of you are lucky to have come out decently as adults, huh? These are pretty helpful traits for house moms trying to raise their kids. Ya might even say it’s an evolutionary advantage!
There’s a myriad of ways to tell that these traits are bound to show up in most women. But there’s 4 words that sum it up nicely: rape and bad pay.
Most rapists go after weak, insecure, shut-in people, and this is the kicker—most people who get raped—are women. If agreeableness was just as common among men as it is women, where are all the male rape victims? They’re far few and in between. There’s always going to be rapists in the world, and that’s part of the reason why agreeableness and neuroticism do not help women, beyond raising children. The broader world is harsh and unwelcoming towards them, because their brains were not designed by nature expecting them to navigate through it. Women being housewives was naturally selected for because it works.
I only meant ‘bad pay’ ironically. What I meant was—bad work life. Confident and outgoing people (people high on the first three traits of OCEAN) earn more money because they do stuff. They don’t do what other people “suggest” for them, and more importantly—they don’t do just enough. They give it their all, they catch their breath, and they come back for more. Women. Don’t. Do this. They work hours and a pay that is comfortable and make an uncompromising effort to “balance” work life with family. Are there women out there who are trailblazers? Of course, but like stay-at-home fathers, they’re an exception; a cultural anomaly (not the rule).
Soyboys / Beta Males
Vegetarians and vegans often feed their children soy products. They also tend to be very left-leaning, teaching their children meaningless constructs like “tolerance, acceptance, diversity,” and all of that stuff. This is why men conditioned into such effiminate behavior—are referred to as soyboys. The term beta means “still working”. Alpha means “work finished”. In other words, a beta male is merely a man that is still developing (a boy).
What signs are there that one falls in line with this “beta” category? Simply take the behavior of your traditional American woman and see if they have anything in common. Are they a “good listener”? Do they act two-faced, for the sake of not hurting anyone’s feelings? Do they shy away from conflict? Do they prefer to let women seek them out because they—(*snicker*) “respect” them? If so, that’s not sweat coming off of them; it’s soy.
Alpha males (real men) embrace conflict; it’s in their nature, especially when the tribe is at stake. They don’t whine about trivial things. They seek women out, because that’s what all women want, whether they want to admit it or not. Just like all men want a woman that’ll do whatever they want them to. That goes even for men who are into (*shivers*) BDSM stuff. They’re still imagining in their minds a woman that is trained to please them sexually in every facet.
Women, on the other hand, don’t want control, and that look of frustration a woman has when you “don’t know what you’re doing” is deserved. They don’t want to take the wheel; they want you; the man if you are one that is–to rock. Their. World.
They are people-oriented; don’t you forget that. Meaning, when they encounter things every day, like their partners for instance—they’re always thinking of something different. Instinctively, they ask us how our day is, what we do for fun, and all that stuff–because any kind of information they can share back and forth with the tribe to keep it healthy and functional, they ought to have; because they are the people humans.
Men, on the other hand—are object-oriented. What they think of when they encounter something is generally static; they have a tinier brain within their brain (a box if you will) for every subject, every person in their life, everything of general importance that preoccupies their thinking. Depending on the situation, they change which box they operate from within. You could say they’re flexible in this sense, at least as workers. Women don’t think in our box system. Their every thought and action can be characterized as being that of loosely connected and stringy, almost like a giant wire. This is why they tend to overshare and talk a lot. They can’t really help it.
Feminism created MGTOW. It can destroy it as well. Question is: will it be adaptable and wise enough to make the changes necessary to do so? Or will all of its adherents continue to smell each other’s farts, blame men for all of society’s problems, and make this divisive bullshit fester even more? They’re two sides of the same coin, but feminism’s the heavier side, folks. It has all the (((funding))).
Feminism is Rape
Feminism doesn’t fight rape; it is rape. Rape of the family, tradition, morality, decency, culture, and everything we hold dearest. It turns women into sex-crazed witches that lose their minds trying to work and provide for their “families”. It turns men into selfish, fat, lazy slobs that lose their minds trying to “be the mom”. Anyone who tells you it’s about “choice”, “equality”, or any of these other uplifting buzzwords–is either naive or trying to indoctrinate you.
It taxes the other half of the population; gee, how convenient. Bet that had (((nothing))) to do with it. Speaking of triple parentheses, why is it that all the most prominent feminists throughout history have been Jews? Why is it that women can declare to be or not to be Jews whenever? Why is it that if a man has a Jewish mom, then he’s a Jew no matter what? Why do boys have their genitals mutilated at birth in Judeo-centric societies?
Because feminism is not only about female supremacy, but it and Judaism are more linked than most people realize. Judaism is anti-male. Our “shiskas” can be mated with of course. But we’re absolutely disposable to them. It doesn’t take a genius to realize feminism doesn’t help men in any way, and anyone who tries to tell you otherwise probably doesn’t think very highly of your intelligence.
Feminism is simply a refuge for women’s failure to be proper, modest, and fit for motherhood, much in the same way that MGTOW is a refuge for incels, men who “just can’t” get any women, or keep them happy. Feminism is Judaism fine-tuned just for women. Rich, (((“white”))) women that is. For everyone else, it’s like a Twinkie on a treadmill with equality written on it. Only we keep knocking each other off the treadmill, trying to get it for ourselves, and that’s sort of the purpose. (divide and conquer).
Feminism is (also) Lysenkoist in Nature
Trofim Lysenko was a man who taught “agrobiology” in (((Soviet))) Russia. From 1929 to 1964 — he sat alongside Stalin and company, carrying out legislation—particularly in regards to agriculture; specifically the minimization of water use on crops.
Now, surely it’s reasonable to expect that “minimization” of water use on crops probably isn’t a remotely good idea, let alone a concept that would increase crop production. If you pour a full cup of water in plant A, and a spoonful in plant B—using the same seeds, same conditions, and everything, they’re going to grow at vastly different rates, if at all. Most normal people with functional frontal lobes recognize this. It’s not something that needs explaining once one has an elementary understanding of nature.
But, in the same way, that feminists have managed to convince most Westerners that there’s no such thing as gender, with time, precision, propaganda, and good ol’ totalitarianism, Lysenko managed to woo people into the spook. That genes, DNA, natural selection, and all of that was all a lie perpetrated by the bourgeoisie (the rich in Soviet Russia)—and was made merely to oppress the proletariat, from which Lysenko hails from. They were in effect able to amass full governmental control over agriculture, leading to famine, mass starvation, and gulags.
It’s not even that feminism acts similarly to Lysenkoism. It is Lysenkoism, reincarnated. It is a competing view of reality (and a false one), rising to the ranks, effectively crushing all credible science and findings in its path.
We’re a sexually dimorphic species. There’s two forms of us. Man, and woman. If you deny that which you are a part of, you’re denying in a sense part of yourself, which is a known characteristic of psychopaths. It’s a concerning state of mind for someone to be in—to be able to believe with genuine conviction that there’s no such thing as male and female, that the fact 98% of the population comes out as one or the other, is just a coincidence. We should really all be somewhere in the “middle”; it’s a “spectrum” after all.
What our future looks like without the neo-reactionary movement (the Dark Enlightenment):
- Endless frivolous lawsuits over “misgendering” and subsequently the death of business.[Venezuela]
- Affirmative action will become harsher on whites than it is now and societal permission to denigrate whites will have surpassed greatly what it is already.
- Rape will eventually come to mean “penetration”; Think of what that entails for female predators.
- The number of people experiencing feelings of “transness” growing up and the subsequent mental issues are going to go up majorly, the more these “progressive” parents keep reproducing and enabling this Lysenkoist, science-denying, nature-defying culture.
- Which should concern anyone, considering that one’s odds of committing suicide as a gender dysphoric person go up from 21% to 42-46%, after they’ve had “surgery”.
- Pedophilia will become tolerated; I dare even say normalized. There’s already extreme fringes of the far left that advocate for it. They’re small now. But they’ll grow.
- Straight, white males will cease to be and subsequently, everything we have left.