MGTOW- Men going their own Way
Options
Comments
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »The fact that a movement like this even exists says a lot. Men need to man up.
what do you think it says??? and since when have men not manned up
From the OP:Anyone hear of it or seen any videos on youtube? Seems to be a growing movement among men.
MGTOW (”Men Going Their Own Way”) is a way of life which refuses to defer to women in defining the worth of men. Instead, it focuses on positive male aspects, inviting men to go their own way in life.
When have men deferred to women in defining their own self worth? When did men need to dwell on positive aspects of men? post feminism When did men need to be invited to go their own way? Post feminism This ? sounds like the male version of feminism, like some petty "If they have a movement, we need a movement too" type ? . If you need a movement just to do the ? that you should already be doing as a man, you're not manned up. You're being a ? .
This gender wars ? is stupid. If men were being the leaders we were supposed to be, we'd be deading it altogether, not getting on some ? for tat ? .
Traditionally men were not considered real men until they got married so our relationship with women has always defined our worth. why do you think in movies they always ask a man if he has a wife or children before they send him on a suicide mission??? well it's not just in the movies mgtow argues that men with wives were valued more by traditional mainstream society because society needed that man to provide resources for that woman. Now post feminism the role of men has basically been replaced by the state , therefore men are no longer really needed but we continue to try and fit into our old gender role even if it is have disastrous effects on our lives
The comparison of Mgtow to feminism makes no ? sense at all they are really diametrically oppose ideologies. Feminism engages society mgtow is about not engaging with society. Now i am not mgtow but i do understand what they are talking about You just mischaracterized the whole ideology, mgtow is not M.R.A. what we should be doing as men is what mgtow questions. You say men are supposed to be leaders but post feminism that notion is considered antiquated by mainstream society
Mgtow is not a men's rights movement. MRA is analogousness to feminism. Mgtow is not a movement is seems to be just a new social ideology.
What you're saying is dubious right out of the gate. I don't know of any tradition where a man wasn't considered "real" until he got married. Marriage in general was attached to adulthood, so yeah it was expected as you become an adult you would get married and start a family. But that was the case for women just as much as men.
lol I mean you literally just asked why they would ask a man if he has a wife and children before sending him on a suicide mission? You don't think the presence of dependents is something to question before sending someone on a mission they probably won't be coming back from. That has nothing to do with defining a man's manhood based on his marriage.
I'm not comparing MGTOW ? to feminism in terms of the proposed effect on society. I'm comparing them in the way that they both seem to focus as much on bashing the other gender as uplifting the one they are supposed to support. Half the videos in the OP aren't even about promoting better mindsets for men. They seem to just be bashing women. That's pretty much the exact way we characterize radical feminism
I don't know anything about this thing in general. I'm just going based on what was presented in this topic, and what I see seems like ? to me. If you have to listen to all that to feel like a man, you got problems. -
Yo, I don't know why........but this ? had me cracking up:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyEmeeikXOg
Lol @ these women been reduced to nothing but a fat ? with legs. -
I've seen the vids on yt before. In a nutshell it's about women killing the game and men tired of all women bs, in response, eventually deciding to not deal with them at all, walking away, and leaving them do everything by themselves or some ? .
Many of the vids point out major problems with women and attempts to enlighten men that going their own way is the better route, and many subscribers think this is eventually what all good men will do leaving women to fend for themselves. various ? are already starting to embrace this mgtow ? as a way of life.
They might be onto something but I personally don't agree with it as a lifestyle.
This is in THE WAY of life, but this is definitly a way of thinking and acting when you cross the path of certain type of women.
So much men are ruining their lifes potential for women who dont care about them, we all witness it errday. Had they used 50 % of time , energy and dedication they would have been successfull in much aspects and ironically attract these type of women.
But no, they dont improve ther lifestyle, financial status, knowledge, health. All they care is giving likes in facebook, instagram, vine. All they care is sending DMs without results.
If you dont get smiles from women something is wrong with you. If you dont conclude your dates , or even get ones, then stop simping and ANALYSE, REEVALUATE YOUR LIFE. Eventually you will see some improvements.
But keeping on losing and and not changing your game is not good and healthy.
Changing lifeplan for ? is not good.
Hypertexting women who dont care is not good.
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »The fact that a movement like this even exists says a lot. Men need to man up.
what do you think it says??? and since when have men not manned up
From the OP:Anyone hear of it or seen any videos on youtube? Seems to be a growing movement among men.
MGTOW (”Men Going Their Own Way”) is a way of life which refuses to defer to women in defining the worth of men. Instead, it focuses on positive male aspects, inviting men to go their own way in life.
When have men deferred to women in defining their own self worth? When did men need to dwell on positive aspects of men? post feminism When did men need to be invited to go their own way? Post feminism This ? sounds like the male version of feminism, like some petty "If they have a movement, we need a movement too" type ? . If you need a movement just to do the ? that you should already be doing as a man, you're not manned up. You're being a ? .
This gender wars ? is stupid. If men were being the leaders we were supposed to be, we'd be deading it altogether, not getting on some ? for tat ? .
Traditionally men were not considered real men until they got married so our relationship with women has always defined our worth. why do you think in movies they always ask a man if he has a wife or children before they send him on a suicide mission??? well it's not just in the movies mgtow argues that men with wives were valued more by traditional mainstream society because society needed that man to provide resources for that woman. Now post feminism the role of men has basically been replaced by the state , therefore men are no longer really needed but we continue to try and fit into our old gender role even if it is have disastrous effects on our lives
The comparison of Mgtow to feminism makes no ? sense at all they are really diametrically oppose ideologies. Feminism engages society mgtow is about not engaging with society. Now i am not mgtow but i do understand what they are talking about You just mischaracterized the whole ideology, mgtow is not M.R.A. what we should be doing as men is what mgtow questions. You say men are supposed to be leaders but post feminism that notion is considered antiquated by mainstream society
Mgtow is not a men's rights movement. MRA is analogousness to feminism. Mgtow is not a movement is seems to be just a new social ideology.
What you're saying is dubious right out of the gate. I don't know of any tradition where a man wasn't considered "real" until he got married. Marriage in general was attached to adulthood, so yeah it was expected as you become an adult you would get married and start a family. But that was the case for women just as much as men.
lol I mean you literally just asked why they would ask a man if he has a wife and children before sending him on a suicide mission? You don't think the presence of dependents is something to question before sending someone on a mission they probably won't be coming back from. That has nothing to do with defining a man's manhood based on his marriage.
I'm not comparing MGTOW ? to feminism in terms of the proposed effect on society. I'm comparing them in the way that they both seem to focus as much on bashing the other gender as uplifting the one they are supposed to support. Half the videos in the OP aren't even about promoting better mindsets for men. They seem to just be bashing women. That's pretty much the exact way we characterize radical feminism
I don't know anything about this thing in general. I'm just going based on what was presented in this topic, and what I see seems like ? to me. If you have to listen to all that to feel like a man, you got problems.
You may not know of that tradition but that doesn't mean it did not exist and it's not surprising that you don't know about it because we live in a post feminist western society where have seemed to forgotten how things used to be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtvfHnZMcOY
THE WORTH of a male to society increases when he is married mgtow questions why men should be valued this way. preferring to send an unmarried man to die is the result of this valuation, You are more of a man if you are married and society treats you as having more worth.
You are confusing personal attacks by angry mgtow males that are venting their frustration with what the ideology is actually about. You are correct you clearly don't know what mgtow is about in general -
numbaz...80's baby wrote: »Yo, I don't know why........but this ? had me cracking up:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyEmeeikXOg
All jokes aside, everything dude's saying is true.
Dude wasn't lying.....
It's a lot of one-sided finger pointing though. Look we all know that these hoes aint ? . The enablers(Simps/Tricks) need to be held equally responsible. They're just as much at fault for the fuckery.
Dude went in on them too.
'Didn't spare anybody. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »The fact that a movement like this even exists says a lot. Men need to man up.
what do you think it says??? and since when have men not manned up
From the OP:Anyone hear of it or seen any videos on youtube? Seems to be a growing movement among men.
MGTOW (”Men Going Their Own Way”) is a way of life which refuses to defer to women in defining the worth of men. Instead, it focuses on positive male aspects, inviting men to go their own way in life.
When have men deferred to women in defining their own self worth? When did men need to dwell on positive aspects of men? post feminism When did men need to be invited to go their own way? Post feminism This ? sounds like the male version of feminism, like some petty "If they have a movement, we need a movement too" type ? . If you need a movement just to do the ? that you should already be doing as a man, you're not manned up. You're being a ? .
This gender wars ? is stupid. If men were being the leaders we were supposed to be, we'd be deading it altogether, not getting on some ? for tat ? .
Traditionally men were not considered real men until they got married so our relationship with women has always defined our worth. why do you think in movies they always ask a man if he has a wife or children before they send him on a suicide mission??? well it's not just in the movies mgtow argues that men with wives were valued more by traditional mainstream society because society needed that man to provide resources for that woman. Now post feminism the role of men has basically been replaced by the state , therefore men are no longer really needed but we continue to try and fit into our old gender role even if it is have disastrous effects on our lives
The comparison of Mgtow to feminism makes no ? sense at all they are really diametrically oppose ideologies. Feminism engages society mgtow is about not engaging with society. Now i am not mgtow but i do understand what they are talking about You just mischaracterized the whole ideology, mgtow is not M.R.A. what we should be doing as men is what mgtow questions. You say men are supposed to be leaders but post feminism that notion is considered antiquated by mainstream society
Mgtow is not a men's rights movement. MRA is analogousness to feminism. Mgtow is not a movement is seems to be just a new social ideology.
What you're saying is dubious right out of the gate. I don't know of any tradition where a man wasn't considered "real" until he got married. Marriage in general was attached to adulthood, so yeah it was expected as you become an adult you would get married and start a family. But that was the case for women just as much as men.
lol I mean you literally just asked why they would ask a man if he has a wife and children before sending him on a suicide mission? You don't think the presence of dependents is something to question before sending someone on a mission they probably won't be coming back from. That has nothing to do with defining a man's manhood based on his marriage.
I'm not comparing MGTOW ? to feminism in terms of the proposed effect on society. I'm comparing them in the way that they both seem to focus as much on bashing the other gender as uplifting the one they are supposed to support. Half the videos in the OP aren't even about promoting better mindsets for men. They seem to just be bashing women. That's pretty much the exact way we characterize radical feminism
I don't know anything about this thing in general. I'm just going based on what was presented in this topic, and what I see seems like ? to me. If you have to listen to all that to feel like a man, you got problems.
You may not know of that tradition but that doesn't mean it did not exist and it's not surprising that you don't know about it because we live in a post feminist western society where have seemed to forgotten how things used to behttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtvfHnZMcOY
THE WORTH of a male to society increases when he is married mgtow questions why men should be valued this way. preferring to send an unmarried man to die is the result of this valuation, You are more of a man if you are married and society treats you as having more worth.
You are confusing personal attacks by angry mgtow males that are venting their frustration with what the ideology is actually about. You are correct you clearly don't know what mgtow is about in general
True ether:
-
LEMZPOCALYPSE wrote: »I've seen the vids on yt before. In a nutshell it's about women killing the game and men tired of all women bs, in response, eventually deciding to not deal with them at all, walking away, and leaving them do everything by themselves or some ? .
Many of the vids point out major problems with women and attempts to enlighten men that going their own way is the better route, and many subscribers think this is eventually what all good men will do leaving women to fend for themselves. various ? are already starting to embrace this mgtow ? as a way of life.
They might be onto something but I personally don't agree with it as a lifestyle.
This is in THE WAY of life, but this is definitly a way of thinking and acting when you cross the path of certain type of women.
So much men are ruining their lifes potential for women who dont care about them, we all witness it errday. Had they used 50 % of time , energy and dedication they would have been successfull in much aspects and ironically attract these type of women.
But no, they dont improve ther lifestyle, financial status, knowledge, health. All they care is giving likes in facebook, instagram, vine. All they care is sending DMs without results.
If you dont get smiles from women something is wrong with you. If you dont conclude your dates , or even get ones, then stop simping and ANALYSE, REEVALUATE YOUR LIFE. Eventually you will see some improvements.
But keeping on losing and and not changing your game is not good and healthy.
Changing lifeplan for ? is not good.
Hypertexting women who dont care is not good.
Yea, I think more men should assume more responsibility behind how these women behave. ? gotta understand some of the reasoning why these women behave a certain type of way is because they believe that's what men want. There are women out there that believe men like being dogged out. until men quit running from responsibility and decide to teach like they supposed, simply walking away from women will not effect much change. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »The fact that a movement like this even exists says a lot. Men need to man up.
what do you think it says??? and since when have men not manned up
From the OP:Anyone hear of it or seen any videos on youtube? Seems to be a growing movement among men.
MGTOW (”Men Going Their Own Way”) is a way of life which refuses to defer to women in defining the worth of men. Instead, it focuses on positive male aspects, inviting men to go their own way in life.
When have men deferred to women in defining their own self worth? When did men need to dwell on positive aspects of men? post feminism When did men need to be invited to go their own way? Post feminism This ? sounds like the male version of feminism, like some petty "If they have a movement, we need a movement too" type ? . If you need a movement just to do the ? that you should already be doing as a man, you're not manned up. You're being a ? .
This gender wars ? is stupid. If men were being the leaders we were supposed to be, we'd be deading it altogether, not getting on some ? for tat ? .
Traditionally men were not considered real men until they got married so our relationship with women has always defined our worth. why do you think in movies they always ask a man if he has a wife or children before they send him on a suicide mission??? well it's not just in the movies mgtow argues that men with wives were valued more by traditional mainstream society because society needed that man to provide resources for that woman. Now post feminism the role of men has basically been replaced by the state , therefore men are no longer really needed but we continue to try and fit into our old gender role even if it is have disastrous effects on our lives
The comparison of Mgtow to feminism makes no ? sense at all they are really diametrically oppose ideologies. Feminism engages society mgtow is about not engaging with society. Now i am not mgtow but i do understand what they are talking about You just mischaracterized the whole ideology, mgtow is not M.R.A. what we should be doing as men is what mgtow questions. You say men are supposed to be leaders but post feminism that notion is considered antiquated by mainstream society
Mgtow is not a men's rights movement. MRA is analogousness to feminism. Mgtow is not a movement is seems to be just a new social ideology.
What you're saying is dubious right out of the gate. I don't know of any tradition where a man wasn't considered "real" until he got married. Marriage in general was attached to adulthood, so yeah it was expected as you become an adult you would get married and start a family. But that was the case for women just as much as men.
lol I mean you literally just asked why they would ask a man if he has a wife and children before sending him on a suicide mission? You don't think the presence of dependents is something to question before sending someone on a mission they probably won't be coming back from. That has nothing to do with defining a man's manhood based on his marriage.
I'm not comparing MGTOW ? to feminism in terms of the proposed effect on society. I'm comparing them in the way that they both seem to focus as much on bashing the other gender as uplifting the one they are supposed to support. Half the videos in the OP aren't even about promoting better mindsets for men. They seem to just be bashing women. That's pretty much the exact way we characterize radical feminism
I don't know anything about this thing in general. I'm just going based on what was presented in this topic, and what I see seems like ? to me. If you have to listen to all that to feel like a man, you got problems.
You may not know of that tradition but that doesn't mean it did not exist and it's not surprising that you don't know about it because we live in a post feminist western society where have seemed to forgotten how things used to behttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtvfHnZMcOY
THE WORTH of a male to society increases when he is married mgtow questions why men should be valued this way. preferring to send an unmarried man to die is the result of this valuation, You are more of a man if you are married and society treats you as having more worth.
You are confusing personal attacks by angry mgtow males that are venting their frustration with what the ideology is actually about. You are correct you clearly don't know what mgtow is about in general
True ether:
That story is precisely why mgtow came into being. The video i posted is correct in that marriage does improve most men, however the video leaves out the current social context, unlike our grandparents generation and generations past women today are much more likely to not respect the male gender role, women commit adultery and get paid for it via divorce and child support because society has become very accepting of female irresponsibility. -
THE WORTH of a male to society increases when he is married mgtow questions why men should be valued this way. preferring to send an unmarried man to die is the result of this valuation, You are more of a man if you are married and society treats you as having more worth.
You are confusing personal attacks by angry mgtow males that are venting their frustration with what the ideology is actually about. You are correct you clearly don't know what mgtow is about in general
The worth people in general have traditionally increased when they were married. Hell, in past women's whole value was tied to being married and having children, so what's your point? You're crossing points though. Traditionally, men have been the primary breadwinners for families, so of course whether or not a man has a family is going be a consideration with whether or not that man is sent of to die. It's not because the family man is a more valuable person than the unmarried man in general. It's because the consequences of the family man dying would have a harsher effect on the lives of other people than would the unmarried man's death.
And you could be right about my confusion. Like I said, I'm only going by what I saw in the OP, and that just seemed to be a bunch of woman bashing. But even when you explain what it's supposed to be, it still sounds like some ? ass ? to me. I don't know why a real man would even need something like this. It sounds like the ? females do.
-
My boy brought up MGTOW last night in a conversation, he said one of his boys is a devoted MGTOW after he let a woman take everything from him and leave him out on the street homeless. He said he agrees with some points of MGTOW though
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »
THE WORTH of a male to society increases when he is married mgtow questions why men should be valued this way. preferring to send an unmarried man to die is the result of this valuation, You are more of a man if you are married and society treats you as having more worth.
You are confusing personal attacks by angry mgtow males that are venting their frustration with what the ideology is actually about. You are correct you clearly don't know what mgtow is about in general
The worth people in general have traditionally increased when they were married. Hell, in past women's whole value was tied to being married and having children, so what's your point? You're crossing points though. Traditionally, men have been the primary breadwinners for families, so of course whether or not a man has a family is going be a consideration with whether or not that man is sent of to die. It's not because the family man is a more valuable person than the unmarried man in general. It's because the consequences of the family man dying would have a harsher effect on the lives of other people than would the unmarried man's death.
And you could be right about my confusion. Like I said, I'm only going by what I saw in the OP, and that just seemed to be a bunch of woman bashing. But even when you explain what it's supposed to be, it still sounds like some ? ass ? to me. I don't know why a real man would even need something like this. It sounds like the ? females do.
FIRST of all it's not my point i am just explaining to you the ideology of mgtow And since you clearly don't really care to look into it there no need for me to explain it to you so this will be my last post to you..... anyway your criticism are weak because a life is a life married or unmarried and if we are going to pretend to live in an equal society martial status should be of no concern. that unmarried men are sent more easily off to die exposes the whole hypocrisy of t of society
It is precisely because we live in a gynocentric society and because we are a sexually dimorphic species that martial status is a gauge of human valuation. -
Marriage......lol.....suckers
-
This ? is just pathetic imo. Creating the Sotomayors of tomorrow
-
I Am Jay ? wrote: »My boy brought up MGTOW last night in a conversation, he said one of his boys is a devoted MGTOW after he let a woman take everything from him and leave him out on the street homeless. He said he agrees with some points of MGTOW though
What's ironic is that the bolded makes a case for.........and against........MGTOW at the same time. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »
THE WORTH of a male to society increases when he is married mgtow questions why men should be valued this way. preferring to send an unmarried man to die is the result of this valuation, You are more of a man if you are married and society treats you as having more worth.
You are confusing personal attacks by angry mgtow males that are venting their frustration with what the ideology is actually about. You are correct you clearly don't know what mgtow is about in general
The worth people in general have traditionally increased when they were married. Hell, in past women's whole value was tied to being married and having children, so what's your point? You're crossing points though. Traditionally, men have been the primary breadwinners for families, so of course whether or not a man has a family is going be a consideration with whether or not that man is sent of to die. It's not because the family man is a more valuable person than the unmarried man in general. It's because the consequences of the family man dying would have a harsher effect on the lives of other people than would the unmarried man's death.
And you could be right about my confusion. Like I said, I'm only going by what I saw in the OP, and that just seemed to be a bunch of woman bashing. But even when you explain what it's supposed to be, it still sounds like some ? ass ? to me. I don't know why a real man would even need something like this. It sounds like the ? females do.
FIRST of all it's not my point i am just explaining to you the ideology of mgtow And since you clearly don't really care to look into it there no need for me to explain it to you so this will be my last post to you..... anyway your criticism are weak because a life is a life married or unmarried and if we are going to pretend to live in an equal society martial status should be of no concern. that unmarried men are sent more easily off to die exposes the whole hypocrisy of t of society
It is precisely because we live in a gynocentric society and because we are a sexually dimorphic species that martial status is a gauge of human valuation.
It's not a criticism. It's a reason. And yes a life is a life, no one is suggesting anything different. The point is that one life has other lives that depend on it and the other life doesn't. So if one life is lost, it will have a greater negative impact on the lives of others. That is a worthwhile consideration but it doesn't in any way mean that the life of one is greater than the live of other. I just means the collateral damage from one life lost is greater than that of the other life. -
The fuckery is rampant
I dont even know where to start
As a man im slightly offended -
Men should have a fair chance when there is a divorce? Right?
If a man wants to bang all the females he can and not get married, what's the problem really? Society looks down on unmarried men, they are looked at as strange or ? (most married men downlowthe irony)
A part of it is doing what YOU want to do, not what society thinks you should do or thinks what is right for you. If a brother wants to travel and not have kids I ain't going to judge the man and jump to conclusions.....that's what women do, no gossip......kids are overrated and marriage is a social construct made up by man, its not a requirement -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »
THE WORTH of a male to society increases when he is married mgtow questions why men should be valued this way. preferring to send an unmarried man to die is the result of this valuation, You are more of a man if you are married and society treats you as having more worth.
You are confusing personal attacks by angry mgtow males that are venting their frustration with what the ideology is actually about. You are correct you clearly don't know what mgtow is about in general
The worth people in general have traditionally increased when they were married. Hell, in past women's whole value was tied to being married and having children, so what's your point? You're crossing points though. Traditionally, men have been the primary breadwinners for families, so of course whether or not a man has a family is going be a consideration with whether or not that man is sent of to die. It's not because the family man is a more valuable person than the unmarried man in general. It's because the consequences of the family man dying would have a harsher effect on the lives of other people than would the unmarried man's death.
And you could be right about my confusion. Like I said, I'm only going by what I saw in the OP, and that just seemed to be a bunch of woman bashing. But even when you explain what it's supposed to be, it still sounds like some ? ass ? to me. I don't know why a real man would even need something like this. It sounds like the ? females do.
FIRST of all it's not my point i am just explaining to you the ideology of mgtow And since you clearly don't really care to look into it there no need for me to explain it to you so this will be my last post to you..... anyway your criticism are weak because a life is a life married or unmarried and if we are going to pretend to live in an equal society martial status should be of no concern. that unmarried men are sent more easily off to die exposes the whole hypocrisy of t of society
It is precisely because we live in a gynocentric society and because we are a sexually dimorphic species that martial status is a gauge of human valuation.
It's not a criticism. It's a reason. And yes a life is a life, no one is suggesting anything different. The point is that one life has other lives that depend on it and the other life doesn't. So if one life is lost, it will have a greater negative impact on the lives of others. That is a worthwhile consideration but it doesn't in any way mean that the life of one is greater than the live of other. I just means the collateral damage from one life lost is greater than that of the other life.
You are not paying attention mgtow says that the bold is not a good consideration because no man should be of less value because he does not provide for a woman. the collateral damage maybe less if unmarried men are sacrificed but that does nothing to benefit the guy with no wife that just died. why should he give a ? ??? and why is the notion that men should sacrifice themselves for women always promoted as a good and noble thing???
and you are contradicting yourself because on one hand you say that the collateral damage from sacrificing unmarried man is less, so then how the ? can society see the lives of unmarried men as equal to that of unmarried men. Obviously the latter is more valuable than the former -
You are not paying attention mgtow says that the bold is not a good consideration because no man should be of less value because he does not provide for a woman. the collateral damage maybe less if unmarried men are sacrificed but that does nothing to benefit the guy with no wife that just died. why should he give a ? ??? and why is the notion that men should sacrifice themselves for women always promoted as a good and noble thing???
and you are contradicting yourself because on one hand you say that the collateral damage from sacrificing unmarried man is less, so then how the ? can society see the lives of unmarried men as equal to that of unmarried men. Obviously the latter is more valuable than the former
If the MGTOW movement can't understand this simple logical exercise, then it and those who subscribe to it are stupider than I thought. If you have to people that are of essentially equal value on their own merits, the more expendable one will be the one that has less external value. You keep making it about a woman, but it's not just that. Kids also count. Sickly parents count. Any dependent counts. The point is not that one person is more valuable because having a woman adds value. The point is that one death may only disrupt the life of that one person whereas the other death might doom multiple people. It's simple mathematics. Ending one life + ruining multiple lives > Ending one life. Why is that so hard to understand? If someone has to be selected, you're going to select the person whose death would have the least impact. That's perfectly logical.
You're trying to apply value to the lives of the men and ignoring the value of the lives of the people that depend on the men, and that's your problem. Again, the value of the lives of the men is not increased by having dependents, but in a scenario like the one you're describing the value of the lives of the dependents is also considered because they will be directly affected by that decision. As stated before, when all things are equal, you have to pick the person whose death will cause less collateral damage. In a situation like that, someone is going to get the shaft. All you can do is minimize the effect. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »
You are not paying attention mgtow says that the bold is not a good consideration because no man should be of less value because he does not provide for a woman. the collateral damage maybe less if unmarried men are sacrificed but that does nothing to benefit the guy with no wife that just died. why should he give a ? ??? and why is the notion that men should sacrifice themselves for women always promoted as a good and noble thing???
and you are contradicting yourself because on one hand you say that the collateral damage from sacrificing unmarried man is less, so then how the ? can society see the lives of unmarried men as equal to that of unmarried men. Obviously the latter is more valuable than the former
If the MGTOW movement can't understand this simple logical exercise, then it and those who subscribe to it are stupider than I thought. If you have to people that are of essentially equal value on their own merits, the more expendable one will be the one that has less external value. You keep making it about a woman, but it's not just that. Kids also count. Sickly parents count. Any dependent counts. [/i] The point is not that one person is more valuable because having a woman adds value. The point is that one death may only disrupt the life of that one person whereas the other death might doom multiple people. It's simple mathematics. Ending one life + ruining multiple lives > Ending one life. Why is that so hard to understand? If someone has to be selected, you're going to select the person whose death would have the least impact. That's perfectly logical.
You're trying to apply value to the lives of the men and ignoring the value of the lives of the people that depend on the men, and that's your problem. Again, the value of the lives of the men is not increased by having dependents, but in a scenario like the one you're describing the value of the lives of the dependents is also considered because they will be directly affected by that decision. As stated before, when all things are equal, you have to pick the person whose death will cause less collateral damage. In a situation like that, someone is going to get the shaft. All you can do is minimize the effect.
Nothing is wrong with your logic.... but so what??? just because a perspective is logically doesn't mean it's correct or profitable. What makes him more expendable??? not having a wife??? and the questions is why should men willingly throw themselves on their swords for anybody that is not directly linked to their benefit??? for what??? what do we get out of the deal???
Your entire last paragraph is a contradiction -
Is anybody else reading what this guy is saying?? and paying attenion to our discussion??? what is your opinion on his opinion??
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »
You are not paying attention mgtow says that the bold is not a good consideration because no man should be of less value because he does not provide for a woman. the collateral damage maybe less if unmarried men are sacrificed but that does nothing to benefit the guy with no wife that just died. why should he give a ? ??? and why is the notion that men should sacrifice themselves for women always promoted as a good and noble thing???
and you are contradicting yourself because on one hand you say that the collateral damage from sacrificing unmarried man is less, so then how the ? can society see the lives of unmarried men as equal to that of unmarried men. Obviously the latter is more valuable than the former
If the MGTOW movement can't understand this simple logical exercise, then it and those who subscribe to it are stupider than I thought. If you have to people that are of essentially equal value on their own merits, the more expendable one will be the one that has less external value. You keep making it about a woman, but it's not just that. Kids also count. Sickly parents count. Any dependent counts. [/i] The point is not that one person is more valuable because having a woman adds value. The point is that one death may only disrupt the life of that one person whereas the other death might doom multiple people. It's simple mathematics. Ending one life + ruining multiple lives > Ending one life. Why is that so hard to understand? If someone has to be selected, you're going to select the person whose death would have the least impact. That's perfectly logical.
You're trying to apply value to the lives of the men and ignoring the value of the lives of the people that depend on the men, and that's your problem. Again, the value of the lives of the men is not increased by having dependents, but in a scenario like the one you're describing the value of the lives of the dependents is also considered because they will be directly affected by that decision. As stated before, when all things are equal, you have to pick the person whose death will cause less collateral damage. In a situation like that, someone is going to get the shaft. All you can do is minimize the effect.
Nothing is wrong with your logic.... but so what??? just because a perspective is logically doesn't mean it's correct or profitable. What makes him more expendable??? not having a wife??? and the questions is why should men willingly throw themselves on their swords for anybody that is not directly linked to their benefit??? for what??? what do we get out of the deal???
Your entire last paragraph is a contradiction
There is nothing contradictory about my last paragraph, and if you feel there is pint out the exact contradiction.
Also, if you're not willing to throw yourself on the sword for anyone, why would you ever be in a position where you have to go on a suicide mission? The only people that are expected to do things like that are people who have taken on that kinda role (e.g. soldiers, firefighters, etc...). Women in those roles are subject to the same deals. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »
You are not paying attention mgtow says that the bold is not a good consideration because no man should be of less value because he does not provide for a woman. the collateral damage maybe less if unmarried men are sacrificed but that does nothing to benefit the guy with no wife that just died. why should he give a ? ??? and why is the notion that men should sacrifice themselves for women always promoted as a good and noble thing???
and you are contradicting yourself because on one hand you say that the collateral damage from sacrificing unmarried man is less, so then how the ? can society see the lives of unmarried men as equal to that of unmarried men. Obviously the latter is more valuable than the former
If the MGTOW movement can't understand this simple logical exercise, then it and those who subscribe to it are stupider than I thought. If you have to people that are of essentially equal value on their own merits, the more expendable one will be the one that has less external value. You keep making it about a woman, but it's not just that. Kids also count. Sickly parents count. Any dependent counts. [/i] The point is not that one person is more valuable because having a woman adds value. The point is that one death may only disrupt the life of that one person whereas the other death might doom multiple people. It's simple mathematics. Ending one life + ruining multiple lives > Ending one life. Why is that so hard to understand? If someone has to be selected, you're going to select the person whose death would have the least impact. That's perfectly logical.
You're trying to apply value to the lives of the men and ignoring the value of the lives of the people that depend on the men, and that's your problem. Again, the value of the lives of the men is not increased by having dependents, but in a scenario like the one you're describing the value of the lives of the dependents is also considered because they will be directly affected by that decision. As stated before, when all things are equal, you have to pick the person whose death will cause less collateral damage. In a situation like that, someone is going to get the shaft. All you can do is minimize the effect.
Nothing is wrong with your logic.... but so what??? just because a perspective is logically doesn't mean it's correct or profitable. What makes him more expendable??? not having a wife??? and the questions is why should men willingly throw themselves on their swords for anybody that is not directly linked to their benefit??? for what??? what do we get out of the deal???
Your entire last paragraph is a contradiction
There is nothing contradictory about my last paragraph, and if you feel there is pint out the exact contradiction.
Also, if you're not willing to throw yourself on the sword for anyone, why would you ever be in a position where you have to go on a suicide mission? The only people that are expected to do things like that are people who have taken on that kinda role (e.g. soldiers, firefighters, etc...). Women in those roles are subject to the same deals.
I already called out the the contradiction in your position a few posts ago.
I introduced the suicide mission thing as an example of how society creates a valuation of men based on their relationship to women. It was an extreme example but the same principle filters through all of society and this valuation is also why men who have wives are often promoted above unmarried men.
lol when the ? in normal society are women ever expected to sacrifice their lives for the greater good with no profit coming to them?? the only time and place that ? happens is in the military and even the women who go into the military don't go there with the intention of ever actually risking their lives. -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qxfl-knc46U
I haven't fully watched this video but check out this guy's videos. Also I don't respect dudes talking ? about women on videos and don't reveal who they are. -
Is anybody else reading what this guy is saying?? and paying attenion to our discussion??? what is your opinion on his opinion??
it's a lot of layers to what yall discussing, i haven't decided about the accuracy of each yall assessment, but what both yall saying makes sense.
