MGTOWrama : A FEMINIZM CONSEQUENCE
Options
Comments
-
"The two measurements are not necessarily related, and it’s tough to know why divorce rates are going down, but it could be that as co-habiting becomes less stigmatized, people don’t look to marriage to shore up an unstable relationship. Marriage rates had been declining for years in part because younger generations have waited longer to get married. But researchers have found that typical marriages still have about a 50% chance of lasting"
Yea i guess divorce rates would go down if people aren't getting married. Marriage rates would probably go up too if you account for ? marriage. Which we all know is not the purpose.
More women are marrying down in order to find companionship. These hoes gotta buy ? .
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.smh.com.au/comment/marrying-down-why-men-are-the-ones-now-looking-for-wealthy-wives-20170831-gy7ykl.html
Many more women are freezing their eggs
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/07/egg-freezing-women-30s-40s-lack-of-eligible-men-knights-shining-armour
Men aren't going to college they aren't going after high paying gigs, they aren't pursuing women beyond causal hook ups
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://amp.timeinc.net/fortune/2017/07/16/video-games-users-men&ved=0ahUKEwic9quv_arXAhUL4YMKHfDgCagQFggmMAA&usg=AOvVaw3v54VuBS8xjoMFnpiO-81U&cf=1
Men choosing video games over being an adult
https://www.google.com/amp/s/sociologyofvideogames.com/2016/09/24/new-research-finds-adult-men-are-choosing-video-games-over-full-time-work/amp/
Women complain that men would rather play video games than have sex
https://www.emaxhealth.com/1/3/30382/men-would-rather-play-video-games-have-sex.html
Women complain that male friendships threaten their relationships
https://www.google.com/amp/www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/10/12/rise-bromance-threatens-heterosexual-relationships-warn-social/amp/ -
There is a way to present a narrative that actually tells the story from multiple angles.
Then you save the garnish for the coup de grace.
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/american-women-more-likely-men-have-babies-multiple-partners
There are far more women than men who have children. These hoes sharing.
Men are opting out of society at all levels from jobs to relationships to reproducing. -
MGTOW is like the unabomber? He opted out of society. Big time.
-
LEMZIMUS_RAMSEY wrote: »
Saw this a few days ago.
This is one of the most unintentionally hilarious videos I've seen in a while.
Chick's name is Rebecca Pope and she's a matchmaker for women.
Basically, she's saying that she can't even lie and take these chicks' money anymore because they're too delusional and have unrealistic expectations.
She kinda told on herself though.
It wasn't just because they were delusional.
But also because she realized that those women felt like they were better than her...........despite being far less attractive than her.
Basically, the breaking point for her was when she realized that these crazy birds wouldn't even be satisfied if she introduced them to a man who was just like her husband.
Hence why she felt like her clients thought they were better than her. -
babelipsss wrote: »MGTOW is like the unabomber? He opted out of society. Big time.
"I.love.the.way.your.? .jiggle.babe.lips.sss"
"Does.my.hard.? .maybe.you.wet.bay.be?"
That doesn't turn you on? What's a matter with you? -
Well... I've been told I have a nice rack on more than one occasion. I didn't understand the rest of your post.
-
There is a way to present a narrative that actually tells the story from multiple angles.
Then you save the garnish for the coup de grace.
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/american-women-more-likely-men-have-babies-multiple-partners
There are far more women than men who have children. These hoes sharing.
Men are opting out of society at all levels from jobs to relationships to reproducing.
My man @BlackSamson said America was going to end up like Japan. I didn't want to acknowledge it but every day it's getting closer and closer to becoming a sexless, marriageless, society -
There is a way to present a narrative that actually tells the story from multiple angles.
Then you save the garnish for the coup de grace.
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/american-women-more-likely-men-have-babies-multiple-partners
There are far more women than men who have children. These hoes sharing.
Men are opting out of society at all levels from jobs to relationships to reproducing.
My man @BlackSamson said America was going to end up like Japan. I didn't want to acknowledge it but every day it's getting closer and closer to becoming a sexless, marriageless, society
Good.
-
BiblicalAtheist wrote: »
Yes protecting someone from danger automatically makes them incompetent in other facets of life. They shouldn't be allowed to vote, or go to school or have jobs cuz they need protection...... *rolls eyes* Men created the problem, men made the rules and now that women are saying ? that 'women CAN go their own way" men are ? .BiblicalAtheist wrote: »Maybe that's what this is about. Humans in general being fed up with the status quo and how things "ought be done". And to say women can't do this or that is short sighted for the fact women have always been under the thumb of men.
you have always been under the thumb of men because women historically were unable to protect yourselves against the dangers of this world which includes other men from different tribes of people therefore men had to take charge and with that comes male authority
The way things " ought be done" did not develop in a vacuum there are reasons why men have for the most part always been better suited to be leaders
In regards to the bolded, it's actually the other way around.
Based on what little bit I can tell about MGTOW, it's basically men saying they're not gonna play the game anymore.
Not necessarily saying that they're gonna leave women alone altogether.........just that they'll only deal with them on their own terms.
Meaning, they're not gonna settle for being some chick's contingency plan or fall victim to a chick "settling" for them.
Granted, it's something that should have been figured out without having to embrace MGTOW philosophy............but some of these cats would be lost without it. -
-
what up oldhead...welcome back
they did you wrong -
aint much to add to this.
-
babelipsss wrote: »Well... I've been told I have a nice rack on more than one occasion. I didn't understand the rest of your post.
Idk ether. I thought I posted a reply in the sex doll thread but when I went back my post was gone, or rather it was here, so I'm confused too wtf I was thinking. -
BiblicalAtheist wrote: »
Yes protecting someone from danger automatically makes them incompetent in other facets of life. They shouldn't be allowed to vote, or go to school or have jobs cuz they need protection...... *rolls eyes* Men created the problem, men made the rules and now that women are saying ? that 'women CAN go their own way" men are ? .BiblicalAtheist wrote: »Maybe that's what this is about. Humans in general being fed up with the status quo and how things "ought be done". And to say women can't do this or that is short sighted for the fact women have always been under the thumb of men.
you have always been under the thumb of men because women historically were unable to protect yourselves against the dangers of this world which includes other men from different tribes of people therefore men had to take charge and with that comes male authority
The way things " ought be done" did not develop in a vacuum there are reasons why men have for the most part always been better suited to be leaders
In regards to the bolded, it's actually the other way around.
Based on what little bit I can tell about MGTOW, it's basically men saying they're not gonna play the game anymore.
Not necessarily saying that they're gonna leave women alone altogether.........just that they'll only deal with them on their own terms.
Meaning, they're not gonna settle for being some chick's contingency plan or fall victim to a chick "settling" for them.
Granted, it's something that should have been figured out without having to embrace MGTOW philosophy............but some of these cats would be lost without it.
I see it as a result of women having more rights and demands, more freedom, more options and women aren't settling like they used to, put up with ? like they used to, or in general being subservient to men. -
BiblicalAtheist wrote: »BiblicalAtheist wrote: »
Yes protecting someone from danger automatically makes them incompetent in other facets of life. They shouldn't be allowed to vote, or go to school or have jobs cuz they need protection...... *rolls eyes* Men created the problem, men made the rules and now that women are saying ? that 'women CAN go their own way" men are ? .BiblicalAtheist wrote: »Maybe that's what this is about. Humans in general being fed up with the status quo and how things "ought be done". And to say women can't do this or that is short sighted for the fact women have always been under the thumb of men.
you have always been under the thumb of men because women historically were unable to protect yourselves against the dangers of this world which includes other men from different tribes of people therefore men had to take charge and with that comes male authority
The way things " ought be done" did not develop in a vacuum there are reasons why men have for the most part always been better suited to be leaders
In regards to the bolded, it's actually the other way around.
Based on what little bit I can tell about MGTOW, it's basically men saying they're not gonna play the game anymore.
Not necessarily saying that they're gonna leave women alone altogether.........just that they'll only deal with them on their own terms.
Meaning, they're not gonna settle for being some chick's contingency plan or fall victim to a chick "settling" for them.
Granted, it's something that should have been figured out without having to embrace MGTOW philosophy............but some of these cats would be lost without it.
I see it as a result of women having more rights and demands, more freedom, more options and women aren't settling like they used to, put up with ? like they used to, or in general being subservient to men.
Women have more freedoms without any obligations which makes you all in general entitled insufferable ? .
Whatever freedoms men had there were duties that went along with that. The most basic is universal male suffrage which was met with the tacit understanding that along with the right to vote you were expected as a man to serve your country when called upon in war time.
Men are also obliged to take care of their children. There are no opt out clauses or measures for men as with women who have the option of abortion, adoption or legal abandonment.
Men are also expected to be accountable and bear the full weight of reckless or criminal action. Women will often times receive only 60% of or even suspended prison terms for crimes that if a man had committed he would be under the jail. Need we have to recall the onslaught of female teachers committing statutory ? on male students and receiving probation or light sentences.
Women do not fight for equal representation in the down and ? jobs and hazardous careers that undergird the infrastructure of modern civilization. They only want fair treatment in comfortable safe environments air conditioned careers. -
and that has what to do with women going their own way?
-
BiblicalAtheist wrote: »and that has what to do with women going their own way?
Women don't go their own way. That's the most farcical statement ever uttered.
Women go which ever way that will subsidize their existence. Which is primarily through the state which is why most women vote democrat because that party always promises entitlements and subsidies that will inevitably bankrupt the state.
Women have never gone their own way. Anytime y'all pretend to express some semblance of independence it's generally a pale facsimile to something a man has done.
Freedom and independence are not in your code, safety and security are. Women going their own way is counter intuitive at every level.
In short, farcical -
Whatever you say, women have the right to get a job, vote, leave a marriage, and do practically whatever they want now.
-
BiblicalAtheist wrote: »BiblicalAtheist wrote: »
Yes protecting someone from danger automatically makes them incompetent in other facets of life. They shouldn't be allowed to vote, or go to school or have jobs cuz they need protection...... *rolls eyes* Men created the problem, men made the rules and now that women are saying ? that 'women CAN go their own way" men are ? .BiblicalAtheist wrote: »Maybe that's what this is about. Humans in general being fed up with the status quo and how things "ought be done". And to say women can't do this or that is short sighted for the fact women have always been under the thumb of men.
you have always been under the thumb of men because women historically were unable to protect yourselves against the dangers of this world which includes other men from different tribes of people therefore men had to take charge and with that comes male authority
The way things " ought be done" did not develop in a vacuum there are reasons why men have for the most part always been better suited to be leaders
In regards to the bolded, it's actually the other way around.
Based on what little bit I can tell about MGTOW, it's basically men saying they're not gonna play the game anymore.
Not necessarily saying that they're gonna leave women alone altogether.........just that they'll only deal with them on their own terms.
Meaning, they're not gonna settle for being some chick's contingency plan or fall victim to a chick "settling" for them.
Granted, it's something that should have been figured out without having to embrace MGTOW philosophy............but some of these cats would be lost without it.
I see it as a result of women having more rights and demands, more freedom, more options and women aren't settling like they used to, put up with ? like they used to, or in general being subservient to men.
cosign
and this argument laws have made marriage too big a risk for men and that is what is driving the marriage rate down does not really jive well with the facts
while there's probably some truth to the idea that certain men avoid marriage because of the financial risks
men with higher incomes, high earning potential and assets to lose in a divorce are getting married at a higher rate then lower income men
low income women with no college education are less likely to marry as well
-
Madame_CJSkywalker wrote: »BiblicalAtheist wrote: »BiblicalAtheist wrote: »
Yes protecting someone from danger automatically makes them incompetent in other facets of life. They shouldn't be allowed to vote, or go to school or have jobs cuz they need protection...... *rolls eyes* Men created the problem, men made the rules and now that women are saying ? that 'women CAN go their own way" men are ? .BiblicalAtheist wrote: »Maybe that's what this is about. Humans in general being fed up with the status quo and how things "ought be done". And to say women can't do this or that is short sighted for the fact women have always been under the thumb of men.
you have always been under the thumb of men because women historically were unable to protect yourselves against the dangers of this world which includes other men from different tribes of people therefore men had to take charge and with that comes male authority
The way things " ought be done" did not develop in a vacuum there are reasons why men have for the most part always been better suited to be leaders
In regards to the bolded, it's actually the other way around.
Based on what little bit I can tell about MGTOW, it's basically men saying they're not gonna play the game anymore.
Not necessarily saying that they're gonna leave women alone altogether.........just that they'll only deal with them on their own terms.
Meaning, they're not gonna settle for being some chick's contingency plan or fall victim to a chick "settling" for them.
Granted, it's something that should have been figured out without having to embrace MGTOW philosophy............but some of these cats would be lost without it.
I see it as a result of women having more rights and demands, more freedom, more options and women aren't settling like they used to, put up with ? like they used to, or in general being subservient to men.
cosign
and this argument laws have made marriage too big a risk for men and that is what is driving the marriage rate down does not really jive well with the facts
while there's probably some truth to the idea that certain men avoid marriage because of the financial risks
men with higher incomes, high earning potential and assets to lose in a divorce are getting married at a higher rate then lower income men
low income women with no college education are less likely to marry as well
because they usually the thots or waiting on they come up.
how many of those low income women have access to high income men?
an when they do, what happens? they talk with their body. everything the ? says is funny. and he dont look so funny in the light. only because they see a better life....not love.
and women in those higher income job or career dont really want to share their wealth....they want all they earned for themselves. they are just keep inhouse ? and companionship without access to the funds.
a high income male...usually does everything, ? dont have to work...has an allowance an can still find some ? to be mad about.
-
Madame_CJSkywalker wrote: »BiblicalAtheist wrote: »BiblicalAtheist wrote: »
Yes protecting someone from danger automatically makes them incompetent in other facets of life. They shouldn't be allowed to vote, or go to school or have jobs cuz they need protection...... *rolls eyes* Men created the problem, men made the rules and now that women are saying ? that 'women CAN go their own way" men are ? .BiblicalAtheist wrote: »Maybe that's what this is about. Humans in general being fed up with the status quo and how things "ought be done". And to say women can't do this or that is short sighted for the fact women have always been under the thumb of men.
you have always been under the thumb of men because women historically were unable to protect yourselves against the dangers of this world which includes other men from different tribes of people therefore men had to take charge and with that comes male authority
The way things " ought be done" did not develop in a vacuum there are reasons why men have for the most part always been better suited to be leaders
In regards to the bolded, it's actually the other way around.
Based on what little bit I can tell about MGTOW, it's basically men saying they're not gonna play the game anymore.
Not necessarily saying that they're gonna leave women alone altogether.........just that they'll only deal with them on their own terms.
Meaning, they're not gonna settle for being some chick's contingency plan or fall victim to a chick "settling" for them.
Granted, it's something that should have been figured out without having to embrace MGTOW philosophy............but some of these cats would be lost without it.
I see it as a result of women having more rights and demands, more freedom, more options and women aren't settling like they used to, put up with ? like they used to, or in general being subservient to men.
cosign
and this argument laws have made marriage too big a risk for men and that is what is driving the marriage rate down does not really jive well with the facts
while there's probably some truth to the idea that certain men avoid marriage because of the financial risks
men with higher incomes, high earning potential and assets to lose in a divorce are getting married at a higher rate then lower income men
low income women with no college education are less likely to marry as well
Yea those men are cannon fodder in ten years when the wife becomes eligible for alimony. These rich men all have the common hubris that their money will shield them away from female shenanigans when it's precisely their money that's painted a bullseye on them. -
Madame_CJSkywalker wrote: »BiblicalAtheist wrote: »BiblicalAtheist wrote: »
Yes protecting someone from danger automatically makes them incompetent in other facets of life. They shouldn't be allowed to vote, or go to school or have jobs cuz they need protection...... *rolls eyes* Men created the problem, men made the rules and now that women are saying ? that 'women CAN go their own way" men are ? .BiblicalAtheist wrote: »Maybe that's what this is about. Humans in general being fed up with the status quo and how things "ought be done". And to say women can't do this or that is short sighted for the fact women have always been under the thumb of men.
you have always been under the thumb of men because women historically were unable to protect yourselves against the dangers of this world which includes other men from different tribes of people therefore men had to take charge and with that comes male authority
The way things " ought be done" did not develop in a vacuum there are reasons why men have for the most part always been better suited to be leaders
In regards to the bolded, it's actually the other way around.
Based on what little bit I can tell about MGTOW, it's basically men saying they're not gonna play the game anymore.
Not necessarily saying that they're gonna leave women alone altogether.........just that they'll only deal with them on their own terms.
Meaning, they're not gonna settle for being some chick's contingency plan or fall victim to a chick "settling" for them.
Granted, it's something that should have been figured out without having to embrace MGTOW philosophy............but some of these cats would be lost without it.
I see it as a result of women having more rights and demands, more freedom, more options and women aren't settling like they used to, put up with ? like they used to, or in general being subservient to men.
cosign
and this argument laws have made marriage too big a risk for men and that is what is driving the marriage rate down does not really jive well with the facts
while there's probably some truth to the idea that certain men avoid marriage because of the financial risks
men with higher incomes, high earning potential and assets to lose in a divorce are getting married at a higher rate then lower income men
low income women with no college education are less likely to marry as well
Yea those men are cannon fodder in ten years when the wife becomes eligible for alimony. These rich men all have the common hubris that their money will shield them away from female shenanigans when it's precisely their money that's painted a bullseye on them.
yep...i can attest.
i already told my wife...take half...just leave me alone afterwards...aint no getting back together with half my ? .
-
Honestly who are y'all dating that you have to worry about y'all being stuck for bread in a divorce?
A lot of people make out better in a 50/50 divorce because they were able to aquire arrests that they wouldn't be able to alone. (At least in a shorter time span) -
Honestly who are y'all dating that you have to worry about y'all being stuck for bread in a divorce?
A lot of people make out better in a 50/50 divorce because they were able to aquire arrests that they wouldn't be able to alone. (At least in a shorter time span)
i think its coming from a point of why even marry when a woman can take half regardless if she helped or not. -
https://youtu.be/H6ONHDmDD8s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vvz-9qIfVJc
