Friday, 26 December 2014

MGTOW—A boycotting of women

MGTOW—A boycotting of women





Observing Libertarian

I
am a Humanist small L libertarian Minarchist. In that order - As a
result of this philosophy: I cannot in good conscience condone the
actions of any group, movement or organization which seeks to oppress
another individuals human rights. By education I have an Associates of
Occupational Studies in Gunsmithing, and am qualified to testify in Open
Court on the State's behalf as a Firearms expert. I am also an NRA
Certified Firearm Instructor. I am currently in the Process of writing
two books on Philosophy, and have only recently joined the MHRM.



I was arguing with a guy today about MGTOW.

He made the assertion that I’m a misogynist who spouts anti-woman
rhetoric. So I challenged him to find anything I’d ever said that was
anti-woman. My aunt has as of late been worried about me as well; she’s a
little flighty but her heart’s in the right place. She means well, I
know she does.

Me saying “women aren’t worth my time” was what he came up with. I responded as follows.

“And they aren’t: that’s not because I -hate- them. Going to the
movies isn’t worth my time either: does that mean I hate movie theaters,
movies, actors, actresses, popcorn, Junior mints?

No, it means they’re not worth my time, my money, my effort. What’s
the logical progression of bothering? Go out, spend money, find a girl,
chat, buy drinks—Oh, no can’t do anything till we’re sober
again—otherwise it’s rape. So, meet her again, hang out. Maybe have a
good time (1). Maybe we start dating, maybe not.

Repeat process till I find a girl I actually want to date (2).
Start dating, it lasts a while but do we start living together or break
up before then? Chances are we break up. Repeated 1st and 2nd process
until I find a woman to live with (3). Great. Do we get married? Chances are not. Repeat 1st, 2nd and 3rd process until I find “the one. (4)” Now what happens? Divorce rate is over 50%—chances are, divorce.

Then what? I lose half my liquid assets, probably forced to move out
of an apartment I had since before I met her and there’s a good chance I
may have to pay alimony. Meaning I now live in serfdom paying forth
tribute to a queen who I never agreed to serve. Oh yeah—sounds
fantastic. Explain to me, why, any of that: is worth my time? It’s not
that I hate women: it’s that the game is rigged and there is no -win-
involved.

There’s no goal except to hope after marriage: she doesn’t decide to
throw me off the cliff. That’s the whole point. That’s the only possible
-good- outcome: is to eventually find someone who’s -not- going to take
advantage of no fault divorce and throw me over the cliff. I’m hoping
-to find someone- who is unwilling to pull the trigger on the gun
pointed at my head. Sounds, fucking, lovely.

The game is rigged, the deck is stacked. It’s entirely a waste of
time and a tremendous waste of money. And I’m -not- the only one who
thinks so: for the first time in this country’s history: there are more
unmarried adults than there are married adults. So quite -CLEARLY- I am
not the only one who thinks the entire process is a waste of time. That
entire process 1, process 2, process 3 then finally marriage: process 4,
only to be held at gunpoint the entire time: apparently doesn’t appeal
to a whole lot of other people, not just me.

We unmarried, are the majority in this country. Clearly, there’s
something wrong with the process, because it’s the first time it’s ever
happened in the past 238 years.

Non of that even takes in account how badly women -treat- men in relationships these days.

Which is most often horrible. They -constantly- insult and berate the
men they’re with. It’s common, they think nothing of treating him with
every discourtesy possible. They treat their male partners worse than
they’d treat complete strangers. If a woman talked to a female coworker
the way women most often talk to their partners: they’d be fired for
creating a hostile work environment.

And they think nothing of it. As the guy, you’re simply supposed to
ignore it. Insulted, degraded in conversations, being demeaned in front
of her female friends, being berated in front of your own friends and
you’re expected to ignore and deal with it.

Well I have a mild-mannered suggestion: leave me the fuck alone. The
entire game isn’t worth my time, and anyone who *expects* to be able to
treat me like trash and think I’ll do nothing about it? Rude awakening—I
have no use for you. No piece of tail is worth being treated miserably.

I’ve never hit a woman I was with, I’ve never forcibly restrained a
woman I was with, never conducted sexual activity without consent, never
cheated on a woman I was with. I’d do nice things, buy her something
just because I thought it was nice. Breakfast in bed when she slept in
on days off.

I once scored brownie points going on a guy’s night out pub crawl. I
was at my 3rd bar, place called wide open. I’m 5 doubles into the
evening (I’m Irish and Russian, it was only kahlua, 20% not enough to
get drunk on), I call up my Girlfriend at the time got her voice mail
“Hey babe, I’m having a great time. I’m five drinks in, surrounded by
beautiful women and I’m thinking of you. Wish you were here, see ya
later babe.” She sends me a text half an hour later, how she’s sitting
there with her girlfriends swooning over the message I left her.

She had a stomach ache before, I sat on the floor while she laid on
the couch and gently caressed her abdomen back and forth until she felt
better. Her all natural shampoo used to mat her hair so I’d sit on the
back of the couch and comb it out for her using my fingers so that her
hair wouldn’t snag. I’m a genuinely good guy, and I’ve always treated
women exceptionally well.

Of the women I’ve dated, which unfortunately is way too many, I’ve
only had two who didn’t treat me like shit. So if even a really good guy
like me is rarely treated right, something is desperately wrong.

So yeah, I don’t hate women—never have. They’re just not worth my
time because so few of them are going to treat me like a human being. If
marriage wasn’t an extortion scam: and more women actually gave men any
semblance of common courtesy—I wouldn’t have “thrown in the towel.”

There’s only 4 things a woman can provide a man.

1, A home: cook, clean, etc. That’s a home. Women
don’t like to be domestic these days, most of them can’t cook anyway.
And that’s fine, everybody has to work to get by these days, so that’s
fine. I get it, I do. No problem.

-I- can cook, I’m actually quite good at it. My mother taught me how
to cook so that I wouldn’t have to be reliant on women. Thanks, Mom.

2, Companionship. -IF- she treats you right… doesn’t
constantly intentionally say and do mean or degrading things to you
just because she can. Otherwise that’s not companionship. That’s living
with an asshole from college who has managed to stay too long. If she
doesn’t treat you with so much as common courtesy but instead is rude,
spiteful, hateful or demeaning to you on a regular basis—why would you
want to be around her?

I don’t want to be around someone who’s going to be mean to me: why would I? That doesn’t make any sense at all.

3, Sex. what women are convinced all men are
motivated by. Personally i wouldn’t want to be having sex with someone I
didn’t like, see #2. Remember, when a woman doesn’t want sex—you’re
just expected to deal with it. If however a man doesn’t want sex—it’s
considered abuse. “Withholding Sex.” I shit you not…

4, Children. I don’t want children, bless you if you
do, good luck with that. Just something else that can be used against
you in the divorce.

So that’s that. There isn’t anything a woman can offer me of value
except companionship and sex. Sex, I don’t particularly care, and
companionship would require a woman who doesn’t insult and degrade me
all the time. I’ve only come across two while dating. Both became
long-term relationships, both eventually ended. Different reasons, I’m
not bitter. Still in contact, we talk occasionally.

However—generally speaking: women just aren’t worth my time. Doesn’t
mean I hate women—just means I’m not interested in them. Feminists have
two important slogans: “her body her choice” and “She doesn’t owe you
anything”. Well, it goes both ways: “MY body, MY choice”, “I don’t owe
YOU anything.”

Until marriage is no longer legalized extortion and or until women
think it’s unacceptable to treat their male partners like disposable
trash—I’m not *going* to be interested either. Simple as that.”

Now, why do I think marriage is extortion? Simple.

Marriage has become legalized extortion.

“Extortion: The obtaining of property from another induced by
wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under
color of official right.”

Invalidation of prenuptial agreements + no fault divorce = seizure of liquid assets + alimony.

Marriage today, in America, is identical to the legal definition of
extortion. It is “The obtaining of property from another induced”—”under
color of official right.” The legal system has been manipulated to make
marriage the legal definition of extortion. No ands, ifs, or buts about
it. It is, by strict legal definition, extortion.

It doesn’t end there!

Women can actually bring palimony trials against men they’ve
cohabited with whom they were not married to. “Common Law Marriage,” it
varies by state, but the possibility remains. If a man is in a long-term
relationship and living with a woman, in the wrong state after breaking
up, he can be ordered to pay alimony to a woman he didn’t agree to
marry.

The only way to survive the game is by refusing to play when the odds are stacked against you.

Sorry, ladies, you’re just not worth the time, effort, money, or
potential risks. It’s a cost-to-benefit ratio—you’re not in the black:
it’s a huge deficit.

Domestic Violence

CDC Researchers discovered interesting facts when examining their own data.

The study, by CDC researchers
Daniel J. Whitaker, PhD, Tadesse Haileyesus, MS, Monica Swahn, PhD and
Linda S. Saltzman, PhD, found that a surprising 70% of cases of
non-reciprocal violence were perpetrated by women.

The researchers studied 11,370 18- to
28-year-olds who had been in a total of 18,761 heterosexual
relationships. They found that about 50% of cases of intimate partner
violence were reciprocal, which they define as “perpetrated by both
partners”, and 50% were non-reciprocal. Cases of violent women and
non-violent men accounted for 70% of non-reciprocal cases, whereas cases
of violent men and non-violent women accounted for 30% of
non-reciprocal cases.
Thus: 50% of all cases of intimate partner violence among heterosexuals involve violence by both partners
35% of all cases involve a violent woman and an non-violent man
15% of all cases involve a violent man and an non-violent woman”
Women are twice as violent in relationships, yet we have the Violence
Against Women Act and the “predominate aggressor policy.” You can
egregiously abuse a man, including mentally, emotionally, or even
physically, and if he hits you back, once, as response to anything but a
near life threatening injury, he goes to jail.

Rape

According to Hanna Rosin in “When Men Are Raped”:

Data hasn’t been calculated under the new
FBI definition yet, but Stemple parses several other national surveys
in her new paper, “The Sexual Victimization of Men in America: New Data
Challenge Old Assumptions,” co-written with Ilan Meyer and published in
the April 17 edition of the American Journal of Public Health. One of
those surveys is the 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence
Survey, for which the Centers for Disease Control invented a category of
sexual violence called “being made to penetrate.” This definition
includes victims who were forced to penetrate someone else with their
own body parts, either by physical force or coercion, or when the victim
was drunk or high or otherwise unable to consent. When those cases were
taken into account, the rates of nonconsensual sexual contact basically
equalized, with 1.270 million women and 1.267 million men claiming to
be victims of sexual violence.
I cover this in detail in my article “Rape Culture.
You can go there for more details on the topic. The point of me adding
it here is to dispel some of the feminist threat narratives concerning
men. I will, however, include the following as to why the CDC report on
the numbers of MEN being raped look so one-sided with female victimhood;

We have Mary P. Koss—you know, from the
fake “1 in 4″ statistic, same woman—to thank for having “made to
penetrate” be added to the roster of classifications in the above CDC
report. She lobbied the CDC to exclude male victims of female predators
as being classified as “rape.” Now, if you ask the common person: if you
are made to have sex with someone by being physically forced, or forced
at gunpoint/knifepoint, coerced with threats of violence, you are
unconscious, roofied, comatose, or any other form of incapacitation
whereby you are incapable of providing consent or the sexual activity is
committed directly against your will, is that rape? The vast majority
of people would say yes, that is rape. Anytime someone conducts sex with
you either against your consent or while you are incapable of providing
consent, it is rape.
But not according to the CDC. Due to the
actions taken by Koss, “made to penetrate” was created so that male
victims of female predators could be discluded, by definition, from
being “raped.” Therefore she could tout feminist statistics on female
rape victims while completely excluding figures of males having been
raped by women.
According to the CDC, a man cannot be
raped by a woman even if he is physically forced, forced at
gunpoint/knifepoint, coerced with threats, comatose, intoxicated, passed
out, roofied, or otherwise incapacitated by any other means. By legal
definition, he cannot be raped by a woman—no matter what. It’s instead
referred to as “made to penetrate” and is therefore constituted as a
form of sexual assault but not rape.”


1398261_789833424412762_3906715707290991290_o
Men are raped as often by women as women are by men: and the
definitions have been changed so that fictitious statistics do not show
that fact. So not only are men unjustly jailed and prosecuted using the
predominate aggressor policy when women are twice as violent, but men
are raped by women just as often as the reverse. We have a Violence
Against Women Act, which extends no protection for men. We are
victimized as often and more often than women, and we are not extended
the same legal protections. Ladies, is this what you want for your
brothers and cousins? Is this the society you want your sons to grow up
in? If not, help us.

Also, ladies, this has just been about dating and cohabiting. Men are in danger anytime a man even talks to you. No … really.

stopstreetharassment.org

“Overview: Street harassment is any action or comment between strangers
in public places that is disrespectful, unwelcome, threatening and/or
harassing and is motivated by gender or sexual orientation or gender
expression.”
“Types: It ranges from leers, whistles,
honks, kissing noises, gender-policing, and non-sexually explicit
evaluative comments, to more insulting and threatening behavior like
vulgar gestures, sexually charged comments, flashing, and stalking, to
illegal actions like public masturbation, sexual touching, assault, and
murder.
Gender-based street harassment can
intersect with racism, homophobia and transphobia, classism, and/or
ableism (as explored in Chapter 3 of the Stop Street Harassment book) to
create multi-layered harassment.”
A man stopping to say to a woman “Hey,
you look nice today” is street harassment under “non-sexually explicit
evaluative comments”
In fact! “non-sexually explicit evaluative comments”: Man A watches
Woman B parallel park a very tight spot and is genuinely impressed.
Woman B gets out of vehicle and Man A comments, “The competency
displayed by your vehicular maneuver was particularly exceptional and
denotes a degree of skill far superior to the average motorist, huzzah
to you, madam.” Woman B denounces Man A, emphatically pointing her
finger: “That’s street harassment!”

Elevatorgate

In July 2011, Rebecca Watson, the founder of the website Skepchick,
mentioned in a vlog an experience she’d had at a recent conference. A
man had approached her in an elevator and invited her to his hotel room
to talk over coffee. The invitation made Watson uncomfortable, and she
suggested to her audience that they not behave in a similar manner. As
it was just a note in a longer video about the conference, it went
mostly unnoticed, except for two other female atheists who disagreed
with Watson and believed the man’s comment wasn’t aggressive, and this
all ended up devolving into the typical nasty YouTube comment fare. Even
this did not cause anyone else to care.

A week later, while presenting at a Center for Inquiry conference,
Watson discussed the response to her video, citing some alarming
comments and emails directed at her. PZ Myers, a friend of Watson, would
later defend Watson, arguing in a blog post that the insults and slurs
directed at Watson were evidence of the sexism within the atheist
community.

The post’s comment thread was full of trolling and hysterics, when
Richard Dawkins decided to interject with a comment letter headed “Dear
Muslima.” Dawkins accused Watson of overreacting, comparing her
experience to those of women being forced to wear burkas or undergo
genital mutilation (a classic example of the not-as-bad-as fallacy).

Dawkins identifies as a strong supporter of women’s rights and is a
vocal opponent of the treatment of women by religion; however, his
comments drew the ire of many within the atheist movement.

Things generally devolved from there, with some of Watson’s defenders
repeatedly calling Dawkins a misogynist. A lot of big names, attempting
to show off their credentials, came out in support of either Watson or
Dawkins. The opinion of the lowly peon commenters was mixed, and
sometimes quite sexist. Everyone agreed it was an overreaction but
blamed the opposite side.

In a show of good faith, Dawkins arranged to provide childcare at
future atheist meetings, a move generally praised by the community.

Three years after, Dawkins apologized for the “Dear Muslima” letter
in passing on another blog post. Watson accepted it as better than
nothing.

All because a man invited her to his room, and even according to
Watson herself, he was very polite about it. She said now that he had
said, “All right then, have a nice night” and left, like a perfect
gentleman. I hate to inform you, ladies: men are in danger anytime they
are even NEAR you. Think I’m joking? Exaggerating? Hyperbole you say?
No, think again.

Donglegate

Two men were whispering jokes to each other during a boring tech
convention speech. A woman, who was NOT addressed or targeted by said
jokes, was offended. She launched a Twitter campaign against them. In
the war of words that resulted, all three people lost their jobs. Point
of interest: the jokes didn’t even involve a woman. Also,
Richards, the woman who took such offense, days earlier had in fact
tweeted “dongle” types jokes on her Twitter account.

Just for harmless, victimless jokes among themselves: two men lost
their jobs because a woman was offended. She wasn’t part of the
discussion, she wasn’t the target of their jokes, no woman, in fact, was
the target of their jokes. They weren’t discussing women’s anatomy,
they weren’t even jokes about women. They were bored, at a convention,
and whispering to each other to keep from falling asleep.

Yet because a woman was offended by a private conversation, making
the same kind of jokes she had made just days earlier on her own Twitter
account, a conversation she eavesdropped on, two men lost their jobs
and were publicly slandered, shamed, and harassed.

Men can be punished for talking to you or even talking near you. I do
mean punished, by the way, they can face real consequences—including
losing their careers—just for being anywhere near you. It all boils down
to this.

The problem is five-fold.

1, Feminists incite bigotry in women toward men, which causes further problems as you will see.

2, Feminists have lobbied for changes to the law system in order to
criminalize men. Made possible by the zeitgeist that men are evil.

3, Too many women are untrustworthy and perfectly willing to lie in
order to punish you for anything—false accusations are commonplace. And
rarely are they punished for this because man evil, woman good.

4, Even if not accused of wrongdoing by a woman, most women treat men
like disposable trash, including being violent against their partners
just because they’re angry—and they’re legally unaccountable for it.
Kelly Brook struck two former boyfriends in the face (punched not
slapped) and laughed about doing so on national TV. Man evil = he
deserves to be punished.

5, The danger presented by the sheer volume of women who do
scandalous things to get pregnant or married and put you on the hook for
money makes it very dangerous to have close associations.

Positive pregnancy tests on Craigslist, lying about taking the pill, using a safety-pin to poke holes in condoms, one woman saved the contents of oral sex, got herself pregnant, sued for child support, and won. Another a month ago admittedly emptied the contents of a discarded condom, got herself pregnant, sued for child support, and won. Men are responsible for women’s actions …

So how does one proceed in an intelligent manner?

Look at this way, accurately stated: You’re in a room with 300 wicker
baskets and five of them contain a precious gem. The relative value of
that gem depends, but with it, you will be happy for a time. If you get
the *right* gem, you can even be happy for the rest of your life.

In the rest of the 295 baskets, however, are venomous serpents, of
various types and with varying degrees of toxicity. Some will cause
pain, some will cause temporary paralysis, some will cause necrosis and
wither the limb you stick in the basket. Others are fatal and a few kill
quickly, while some kill slowly and with much pain and suffering.

So how exactly do you sort them out and decide which basket to stick
your hand in? They all look the same … most of them don’t have audible
hissing or rattling.

That’s why MGTOWs simply walk away. The ratio of good women worth our
time versus all the toxic ones we have to stumble over isn’t worth the
trouble or the risks. It only takes one bad choice to completely ruin or
even end our lives. Sorting out which one is which is murder. Choose
the wrong one and we could be battered, stabbed, mutilated, murdered,
slandered, arrested on false charges, imprisoned on false allegations,
coerced into marriage on false pretenses or forced to live in serfdom
because through no fault of our own we’ve been shackled with child
support payments.

Sorry, ladies, there’s a lot of good men who’d have been perfectly
willing to treat you right, who have simply decided to walk away and not
have anything to do with you. It’s not your fault, those of you
deserving of a good man: it’s the fault of the hundreds of toxic women a
guy could possibly stumble over instead of you. They’re dangerous,
there are real-life potentially grievous consequences for a man who
dates the wrong woman, or even speaks to the wrong woman: or even speaks
NEAR the wrong woman.

We know “not all women” are like that, we do: the problem is that ssssooooooo
many are. Good women are the exception to the rule. Someone who will
treat her male partner with kindness, dignity, compassion,
consideration: or hell, even just managing to treat him with basic
common courtesy… That’s not the standard, that’s the exception.

There are too few of you too scattered and we have no way of picking
you out of the crowd, so a man’s choice is to either play the game and
keep sticking his hand in the basket looking for a gem—only to get
bitten most of the time, and hope he survives long enough to find a
gem—or walk away.

MGTOWs don’t see a point in playing the game: the possible rewards do
not outweigh the risks of potential cost and harm. The game is
literally so rigged against us that even the end game—success—is not a win of any kind. So we don’t play, and it’s you who misses out.