>he "hates feminism"
>he posts a pointless thread
>>5341724
Here is your reply.
>>>/trash/
>>>/pol/
>>5341724
Well, in that kind of topic, what does /lgbt/ thinks of mgtow, out of sheer curiosity?
Sage doesn't work on this board, so just let the threads sink by not replying to them, morons.
>>5347919
iunno like it's cool but it must get annoying to just refuse to deal with women
often I feel almost lucky that I don't like women b/c it means I won't have to submit myself to being in a relationship w/ them. MGTOW is very much out there in terms of doctrines but I guess I understand why they do what they do
Imma sage but this will reach bump limit
>>5347924
Sage works just fine - what it does just isn't that impressive.
Allowing you to post without bumping a thread back to page 1 isn't a meaningful objection to a troll topic. Would normally advise reporting, but I think we've run out of janitors again.
>>5348003
I know what it usually does.
But it still lifts the thread on this particular board.
>>5348019
It does not. Just ask ftmg for their self-sage success story.
>>5348033
I put sage in options field and it still bumps the thread. What am I doing wrong?
>>5348116
You just did, and it clearly didn't bump the thread. I'm not sure why you thought otherwise.
>>5347919
I think it's stupid because everyone I know that considers themselves MGTOW can't resist making a big deal about it, being an attention whore and telling everyone how terrible all women are. I mean, considering relationships not worth the trouble is fine, but just do that and don't make a big deal about it.
>>5348260
>It's a political movement, not just their personal choice. What these guys realy want is to combat feminazism.
Then they're not really "going their own way". They're just wasting their lives in some pointless crusade against some imagined enemy. Literally no one is forcing men to get into relationships, if you're not interested in dating, just don't.
>>5348311
>they're not really "going their own way"
No, they are not. It's only a public statement, not a lifestyle.
They want to be in a relationship, but use abstinence as a form of protest to absurd laws such as alimony or gender quotas.
>wasting their lives
Activism is a waste of life now? What the fuck are you doing in this community?
>imagined enemy
It is quite real.
>no one is forcing men to get into relationships
Never heard of peer pressure? Literally everyone is forcing you, from your parents and friends to society as a whole, be you man or woman.
>>5348680
>They want to be in a relationship, but use abstinence as a form of protest to absurd laws such as alimony or gender quotas.
And do they expect this protest to accomplish something? The men who feel a need to become MGTOW are those who are not considered desirable by women, otherwise they would be more successful in relationships. Which mean, their protest is meaningless, they're not depriving women of anything they want, if anything women are glad to see them go and get out of their lives. It's literally nothing more than sour grapes.
>>5348696
At least they got themselves heard. Maybe they could gain support over time from other people.
>>5348721
>At least they got themselves heard
Not really. No one really talks about them outside of the internet. And apart from the MGTOW community itself, the general opinion seems to be that they're just bitter guy too ugly/awkward/creepy to get laid.
>>5348745
All that identity politics crap starts as some insignificant crap on tumblr, but then we see them doing naked "slut walks" on the streets and preaching in universities by creating lgbticqbbq+ support groups.
>>5348765
Do you actually expect people to ASK to take jobs that literally no one wants? People only take those shitty jobs because nothing better is available. If the situation was reversed, men wouldn't be asking to take those jobs either.
>>5348787
I expect that people should be hired by their merit, not by their gender or race.
"Positive discrimination"/"affirmative action" is a great injustice, and it's not a surprise that people are speaking against it (if only on the internet for now).
Anyway, what I'm trying to say here is that I fully support MGTOW, even if I am already going my own way and not interacting with women because I'm not straight.
>>5348311
that is a false statement. The state NEEDS relationships and marriages because it is the backbone of every society. Why do you think tax breaks or privileges exist in marriages?
Regardless, none of that changes the fact that all MGTOWs have really done is made a fool of themselves. They don't really have a chance of changing anything, and if they are motivated by a desire to make women accept them, they aren't really "going their own way" at all, in any sense. Gays, asexuals, and celibates have a legitimate claim towards "going their own way", people who shift from whining about "why can't I get a girlfriend" to whining about "why are women so horrible, why does anyone want anything to do with them" doesn't. MGTOW is still a worldview that revolves around women, and in a personally unhealthy way; it is built around wanting something you can't have, and rather than seeking to improve oneself, it expects the world to change for them.
>>5348844
i'm pretty sure there is more than enough men whos not in MGTOW who will take care of that.
>>5348855
Rather than improve ourselves and become straight we fight for acceptance and expect the world to change for us.
>>5348863
His point was not about tax breaks, but about the fact that the government needs as much couples and children as possible (the more people = the more soldiers and taxpayers), and refusing to reproduce might be a viable form of protest.
But, since you don't really need most men to participate in reproduction (one man can impregnate hundreds of women), you only need them to provide for the children, the government is likely to raise taxes on men even more and put all women on welfare or quota jobs so that provision is accomplished indirectly even if men refuse to let women leech off them.
>>5348918
>Rather than improve ourselves and become straight we fight for acceptance and expect the world to change for us.
Becoming straight isn't an improvement. And, it's not a valid comparison anyway, pushing for gay rights is not about trying to convince people to fuck you. Whereas MGTOW is, it seems to be largely about unattractive guys refusing to have sex with women so that women feel pressured to have sex with them. Which is nonsensical in any case. Gays being beaten, killed, denied work, kicked out of their homes, denied government benefits, etc, all that counts as oppression. Not being able to find a girl who wants to have sex with you doesn't count as oppression.
>the government needs as much couples and children as possible (the more people = the more soldiers and taxpayers)
Not really, with the economy the way it is they'll just be a drain on society and the government. What the government actually needs is a more educated population, it's about quality rather than quantity.
>>5348955
>not about trying to convince people to fuck you
From what I understand, they don't want to convince anyone to fuck them.
They want women to stop stealing their money and labour. They want to combat feminism that is all about giving more power to women and taking it away from men.
Many of them are happy wanking to porn, going to hookers and playing videogames, and waiting for the day when VR or sexbots get invented.
But then come feminists and say all the things they like are RAPE and instead they should be serving them as eternal cuntslaves without even the possibility to ever get laid.
And a gay man can totally relate to that.
>oppression
Straights get beaten and killed too, the school shooters who have done what they've done because of bullying were most likely straight. It's a problem faced by anyone who's different.
And those government benefits shouldn't even exist to begin with. If you want to stimulate reproduction, give welfare per child.
>they'll just be a drain on society and the government
What's drain on society is a ton of old people on pensions that have no taxpaying young adults to support them (because the reproduction rates have been consistently low in the last decades).
A baby boom isn't gonna fix anything immediately of course, since the children have to grow up first, but higher reproduction rates are absolutely necessary.
>more educated population
The population is already overeducated!
Look at all those physics PhD's who can't find a job. Not to say about the people who get a useless degree in art and liberal studies and at best they can hope to work in a fast food chain.
Any developed country actually needs more cheap low skill workers, that's why they keep importing workforce from Mexico (the US) or Islamistans (Europe).
>>5349165
>They want women to stop stealing their money and labour.
The only time women could be argued to "steal" is if you enter a relationship and you feel that they are getting out more than they're putting in.
>Straights get beaten and killed too, the school shooters who have done what they've done because of bullying were most likely straight. It's a problem faced by anyone who's different.
Yes, but no one owes anyone sex. If you're going to shoot up a school because they feel they're owed sex, the only thing anyone owes them is a trip to the psychiatrist.
>What's drain on society is a ton of old people on pensions that have no taxpaying young adults to support them (because the reproduction rates have been consistently low in the last decades).
That's not a result of feminism though (unless you consider the industrial revolution to be a feminist agenda). It's an inherent consequence of societies becoming developed. High reproduction rates are no longer desirable because we are no longer living in an economy dependent on manpower. What we're dependent on is educated workers, so having more kids than you can afford to send to college is wasteful. The ONLY way we can get a younger population is to allow large-scale immigration, or literally start killing our senior citizens.
>>5349165
>The population is already overeducated!
>Look at all those physics PhD's who can't find a job. Not to say about the people who get a useless degree in art and liberal studies and at best they can hope to work in a fast food chain.
>Any developed country actually needs more cheap low skill workers, that's why they keep importing workforce from Mexico (the US) or Islamistans (Europe).
Then how come it's so hard for uneducated Americans to find work?
>>5349247
>only if you enter a relationship
The government supports women much more than men anyway.
Even if you do not care about women at all, you're still paying for them through taxes and you let them take jobs better suited for men in the name of perverted "equality".
For example, I'm helping them to get degrees they do not even need through state-payed universities or get abortions at state hospitals (not an issue for the US, since you have anything privatized anyway, but in many countries education and healthcare are public and universal).
And some countries (like mine) still have fucking conscription! And no one ever says that putting all men to what's basically prison for a whole year is inequality and injustice.
>how come it's so hard for uneducated Americans to find work
It's not hard. It's hard to find work that pays what you deem a good wage.
Because the migrants agree to work for 1/5th of that money (and they still get much more than they'd get for the same job in their home country). That's globalization for you.
>>5349313
>It's not hard. It's hard to find work that pays what you deem a good wage.
>Because the migrants agree to work for 1/5th of that money (and they still get much more than they'd get for the same job in their home country). That's globalization for you.
Why are we bringing in migrants? You earlier claimed it was because we didn't have enough people. Yet, unemployment implies there aren't enough people. Which is it?
MGTOW is the male equivalent of those feminazis who scream "WOMEN NEED MEN LIKE A FISH NEEDS A BICYCLE! I DON'T NEED A MAN!"
In the end, the ones who are in an intact relationship/marriage, are the ones who have the correct genes to pass on to the next generation. The ones who bitch and complain about being unattractive... well... natural selection.
>>5349349
Unemployment would imply there are too many people.
The thing is, there are plenty of jobs. And they need lots and lots of workers. Workers who wouldn't ask for much, who'd be productive and who'll procreate and make even more such undemanding workers.
You just don't want to work for the money they pay and thus get excluded.
>>5349368
Neither MGTOW nor feminism is about getting laid.
>>5349411
>You just don't want to work for the money they pay and thus get excluded.
That only applies when they'd have negative net earnings (i.e., they'd pay more for gas to get to work that they're actually earning). Otherwise, do you really think people are so stupid that they'd rather earn $0 than earn a low amount?
>Neither MGTOW nor feminism is about getting laid.
Then what exactly are MGTOW's trying to manipulate women to do by denying them sex?
>>5349429
>but muh net earnings
Cut your expenses. The immigrants get by just fine, so can you.
And if you can't find a job locally or spend too much on transport, then move.
>what exactly are MGTOW's trying
Have you even read the thread? I've posted countless examples of how society and the government is unfair to men and how women have it easier in life. Do you need me to post more or what? They want to end that, they want the female-controlled government of cvcks to leave them alone.
And it's not only sex they are "denying" them, they drop the whole chivalry attitude and treat them equally. Sex isn't really what straight women are after anyway.
>>5349619
>And if you can't find a job locally or spend too much on transport, then move.
>then move
Using what money?
>They want to end that, they want the female-controlled government of cvcks to leave them alone.
>And it's not only sex they are "denying" them, they drop the whole chivalry attitude and treat them equally. Sex isn't really what straight women are after anyway.
Most women don't really want "chivalry", since 99% of "chivalry" is ugly guys who think women owe them sex for being nice to them. Treating women equally like you say is simply not going to change any laws.
Explain to me why, as a male, I should support a movement that does not act in my best interests, and in fact often runs directly opposed to my best interests?
>>5349668
Which movement are you referring to?
>>5348787
Maybe you should be asking why more men than women wind up in situations where they have to take those "shitty jobs" in order to survive, whereas women do not.
>>5349675
Western Feminism.
>>5349683
The simple answer is that men are so desperate for sex that they'll support women so they never have to take those jobs.
>>5349666
>Using what money?
A bus/train ticket to the next bigger town doesn't cost that much.
>Most women don't really want "chivalry"
Getting nice things from men in exchange for the promise of sex is pretty much the summary of woman's existence.
When women are left alone by men who got tired of putting up with their shit, they start asking the government to redistribute goods from men to them through alimony, direct welfare, or affirmative action.
And start forming groups like feminists who want to deprive men of everything sexual so that their manipulation techniques work better and they can regain control.
>>5349766
>A bus/train ticket to the next bigger town doesn't cost that much.
And where are you supposed to live once you get there?
>>5349766
>When women are left alone by men who got tired of putting up with their shit, they start asking the government to redistribute goods from men to them through alimony, direct welfare, or affirmative action.
Most of that stuff doesn't affect just women. Sure, you can say you're opposed to income redistribution on principle, but it really doesn't have much to do with feminism. And it's not just women who are in favor of income redistribution.
>>5349781
Rent, obviously. Doesn't cost that much either. You'll need savings for the first month, if you're out of funds completely you can borrow.
>>5349788
Redistribution is a commie invention.
All leftists, including the feminazis and most regular women, support it.
Guess why? Because they are all useless and can't survive without it.
>>5349820
>Redistribution is a commie invention.
>All leftists, including the feminazis and most regular women, support it.
>Guess why? Because they are all useless and can't survive without it.
So you're actually just whining about leftists and feminism has nothing to do with it at all? You probably think we'd be better off without government, too.
Modern day Western Feminism feels a bit like women who want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to be treated equally in some ways, but to have advantages unique to them in other ways.
They are also EXTREMELY touchy if you say you aren't a Feminist (usually using the whole "If you believe women deserve the same rights as men, you're a feminist" shtick. And if you dare to say that men should have their own movement for dealing with their issues (IE: the MRM), hoo boy, they will go off on a tirade about how Feminism helps men too and can handle their issues as well (while doing their damnedest to ensure campuses can't have talks about men's rights issues or have officially recognized men's rights groups opposite their feminist ones).
That doesn't tell me they're interested in my rights or the issues I face as a man, that tells me they're interested in having a monopoly on the conversation.
>>5349833
>feminism has nothing to do with it at all
Feminism is just a subset of modern leftism. A particularly triggering subset for me, as a man who doesn't need women.
And redistribution isn't the only concern with big governments, the other one is prohibitions and limitations (I don't want porn to get banned because feminists think they'd have more control over men's wallets if they keep them sexually frustrated).
>You probably think we'd be better off without government
No, not really. I like my borders keeping at least some of the mudslime trash away and my police protecting me at least from some violence, thank you.
>>5349888
>A particularly triggering subset for me, as a man who doesn't need women.
It shouldn't be triggering at all. That's like someone allergic to bananas being triggered that the government is banning bananas.
>the other one is prohibitions and limitations
What about prohibitions on denying service to lgbt people? Or parents kicking out or beating lgbt youth? Should lgbt conversion therapy be legalized?
>>5349926
>That's like someone allergic to bananas being triggered that the government is banning bananas.
Bad metaphor.
It's more like someone allergic to bananas being triggered by the fact that his tax money is used to subsidize huge banana industry and everyone who doesn't like bananas is considered a shitlord and a rapist.
>What about prohibitions on denying service to lgbt people?
Boo hoo they won't make your wedding cake with two drag queens riding unicorns on top of it?
I should be free to deny anyone of service unless I'm bound by a contract. It's my own expense.
>Or parents kicking out or beating lgbt youth?
That's violence. It should always be illegal. I'm not saying we should drop all laws and dismantle the government, that isn't what libertarians believe.
>Should lgbt conversion therapy be legalized?
Why not? As long as no one is "converted" against their will.
We have faith healing and homeopathy and new age shit with crystals and other fake medicine, and it isn't banned.
>>5350042
>It's more like someone allergic to bananas being triggered by the fact that his tax money is used to subsidize huge banana industry
That would be justified if the banana industry was overall beneficial to the country, even if you personally didn't eat bananas.
>and everyone who doesn't like bananas is considered a shitlord and a rapist.
It's really not that common for people who aren't attracted to women to be labeled shitlords and racists. Those kind of labels are more commonly applied to straight men, and in some cases its arguably justified.
>Boo hoo they won't make your wedding cake with two drag queens riding unicorns on top of it?
>I should be free to deny anyone of service unless I'm bound by a contract. It's my own expense.
What about things like medical care (where you're literally going to die if the nearest hospital refuses to provide service) or electricity (where there is only one group providing a service in a given region)?
>That's violence. It should always be illegal. I'm not saying we should drop all laws and dismantle the government, that isn't what libertarians believe.
Is kicking kids out of their homes really a form of violence?
>Why not? As long as no one is "converted" against their will.
What about homophobic parents who force their kids to get conversion therapy?
>>5350088
>That would be justified if the banana industry was overall beneficial to the country, even if you personally didn't eat bananas
Except feminism isn't beneficial.
If the women used their privileges given to them by men they manipulate and by the government to reproduce and to raise more children, it would be. But they want it all for themselves.
>medical care or electricity
Well, for once I'd have to side with leftists here. Public health care, education and utilities are a good idea. As well as some other public services and also worker rights. But they should have stopped at that point. And there are many ways to improve the system.
>Is kicking kids out of their homes really a form of violence?
Is abandoning your baby on a street a form of violence? Is neglecting them to the point they get harmed and die? Of course it fucking is.
As a parent you are bound to care for your children as they cannot provide for themselves.
You may relieve yourself of that duty by giving them to state care (again, a useful service), but unless you do they are your responsibility.
>What about homophobic parents who force their kids to get conversion therapy?
There are hippie parents whose kids die because they try to cure their children with some voodoo magic. Same shit, it's harming non-consenting children, it should be illegal.
>>5350213
>If the women used their privileges given to them by men they manipulate and by the government to reproduce and to raise more children, it would be. But they want it all for themselves.
Increased population growth wouldn't really be beneficial for modern western countries.
>>5350231
>Increased population growth wouldn't really be beneficial for modern western countries.
It would if the population growth consisted of whites producing more white children.
>>5350273
>It would if the population growth consisted of whites producing more white children.
Not really, it might reduce the crime and poverty rates, but that's kind of an illusion (because we're just enlarging the population, not actually fixing any problems, instead sweeping them under the rug) and would not solve our unemployment problems.
MGTOWS are also called herbivore men in Japan and it's really rattling the nerves of their government because they rely heavily on money that can be acquired from families.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbivore_men
>>5350299
Anything that increases the population of hunky Nordic men is beneficial to the world as a whole, IMO.
>>5350329
Not when there's not enough resources or employment opportunities for them.
>>5350299
Not sure about the US, but in my country all the unemployed people I know are unemployed by choice: they have enough savings/support from family to get by, and simply don't want to accept jobs that are "below them".
And that's with a horde of migrants taking the least desirable ones like toilet cleaning and street swiping.
>>5350231
It would be. You just need to accept lower living standards and stop with all that consumerism, you fucking privileged twats.
>>5350326
>women are equal to men
>can't survive without the man's money
>>5350354
>Not sure about the US, but in my country all the unemployed people I know are unemployed by choice: they have enough savings/support from family to get by, and simply don't want to accept jobs that are "below them".
>And that's with a horde of migrants taking the least desirable ones like toilet cleaning and street swiping.
I don't think that's the case in the US, given that there are actual homeless people.
>It would be. You just need to accept lower living standards and stop with all that consumerism, you fucking privileged twats.
And what is the benefit? Why would anyone support this?
