The Man Going His Own Way

[autumnnight]

As this thread is not about feminism, I won't address the obvious and tired deflection.

 

If a man wants to go his own way, great. If a man wants to join or create a website that is basically designed to whine about how awful women are, have at it. If a man wants to swallow "red pills" and beat his cheat, go for it.

 

Just don't complain when you can't get a date. Because all of the above pretty much guarantees that this man will not be attractive to any woman....unless of course he does what some people I know have mentioned: he is "nice to their face" when it comes to women while all the while secretly hating them.

 

Yeah, that's a real class act man there....

 

I've been treated shabbily in the past. I just choose not to allow it to run my life and define me and others.

[carhill]

Temper ideals, and especially the polarization often found on the internet, with the real and stir liberally with real life relationship experience. You'll find the path which speaks to you.

 

Grow your male and female friendships and, if you succeed in creating and maintaining those relationships in a healthy way, any romantic relationships will flow from that experience. Marriage is simply a legal partnership borne of, generally, romantic love. It can be borne of other relationships as well. No one is required nor compelled to get married. People can experience romantic love and relationships without marriage, and can experience love without relationships, and can experience life without romantic love. They choose which path, at any one time in life, they wish to walk. As long as they're alive, they can change their mind and walk a different path. That's the essence of going one's own way. Can people spin it into something else and create web sites to promote their definition? Sure! My spin would be I chose to go my own way not because of women but for myself, having done a lot in life because of women, freely chosen, I changed my mind to focus on self. You choose for yourself.

[WonderKid]

As this thread is not about feminism, I won't address the obvious and tired deflection.

 

If a man wants to go his own way, great. If a man wants to join or create a website that is basically designed to whine about how awful women are, have at it. If a man wants to swallow "red pills" and beat his cheat, go for it.

 

Just don't complain when you can't get a date. Because all of the above pretty much guarantees that this man will not be attractive to any woman....unless of course he does what some people I know have mentioned: he is "nice to their face" when it comes to women while all the while secretly hating them.

 

Yeah, that's a real class act man there....

 

I've been treated shabbily in the past. I just choose not to allow it to run my life and define me and others.

 

The men are implying that they'll get as many dates as they want, just not marry.

[autumnnight]

The men are implying that they'll get as many dates as they want, just not marry.

 

Of course, because they will use PUA tactics and bed as many as they can, because women are just evil objects to be used.

 

Like I said....classy group of men there.

[WonderKid]

Of course, because they will use PUA tactics and bed as many as they can, because women are just evil objects to be used.

 

Like I said....classy group of men there.

 

There's nothing wrong with being a bachelor or a bachelorette. Now if they are abusing that, then that's different.

[BlueIris]

The men are implying that they'll get as many dates as they want, just not marry.

 

So maybe women who just want a plaything for a bit will date them and have sex with them. Women who want a life partner will drop them- unless they lie, entrap.

 

Once you stereotype and denigrate a group, it is easier to lie to them and mistreat them. The stereotyping and denigration justifies thinking: "They're bad. They don't deserve to be treated fairly/decently/honestly."

 

As I said before, it doesn't bother me so long as they're honest AND candid.

 

If they think they're going to live in a dating nirvana, well, maybe. But maybe not. My 24 year old daughter has zero interest in having a lifetime partner right now. She has the cutest, most fun BF and they have fun together. Dang, that kid is cute! We're talking a "10" on the physical beauty scale. Now, since she is not seeking serious-lifetime-mate-guy, what do you think her criteria are for choosing a BF? Did I mention how good looking that kid is? Moral of the story- if anyone is interested ONLY in relationship-lite, the competition is fierce and it's gonna be tough out there.

[WonderKid]

It is not good to stereotype but naturally and generally it happens. Even when say it doesn't. It's human nature. If a man or woman just wants to have some male/female companionship, if they are upfront about it then it should be cool. If one wants a relationship, then it is up to them to turn away from the bachelor or bachelorette.

[sambolini]

Of course, because they will use PUA tactics and bed as many as they can, because women are just evil objects to be used.

 

Like I said....classy group of men there.

 

There are many false assumptions in this post.

 

As a MGHOW, I don't use PUA. Neither do I believe women are evil. The institution of marriage simply holds no benefits for me.

 

If men want to use PUA, that's their right. If women go for it, that's the choice they make. PUA's don't force or coerce women into bed with them. They make the conscious choice to have intercourse with these men.

 

We all are responsible for the individual choices we make, be they good or bad.

 

Women who have multiple partners are no different than men who have multiple partners. It's an individual lifestyle choice, and is by no means indicative of a person's ability to commit if they meet the right person.

[sambolini]

So maybe women who just want a plaything for a bit will date them and have sex with them. Women who want a life partner will drop them - unless they lie, entrap.

 

Once you stereotype and denigrate a group, it is easier to lie to them and mistreat them. The stereotyping and denigration justifies thinking: "They're bad. They don't deserve to be treated fairly/decently/honestly."

 

As I said before, it doesn't bother me so long as they're honest AND candid.

 

If they think they're going to live in a dating nirvana, well, maybe. But maybe not. My 24 year old daughter has zero interest in having a lifetime partner right now. She has the cutest, most fun BF and they have fun together. Dang, that kid is cute! We're talking a "10" on the physical beauty scale. Now, since she is not seeking serious-lifetime-mate-guy, what do you think her criteria are for choosing a BF? Did I mention how good looking that kid is? Moral of the story- if anyone is interested ONLY in relationship-lite, the competition is fierce and it's gonna be tough out there.

 

I find the bolded to be false. I have always been up front and honest with every woman I've dated that I never want to get married again, but that I am open to a committed, monogamous relationship. And I have never had a problem getting dates. Not every woman wants a ring and a ceremony.

 

The quality of women I've met has increased as time has gone on, in spite of the fact I don't want to marry.

 

You are welcome to your assumptions, but my experience does not bear them out.

[Grumpybutfun]

Yes, this is a bit about feminism....men go their own way because they can't force women to marry them and stay with them forever now due to independence. Women no longer have to do their wifely duty and have sex with us if they don't feel like it because they are equal under the law. Personally, I like knowing my wife isn't here because she has to be.

Bad marriages are made by indifferent or selfish people, not feminism. If men do not want to lose their money in divorce, they need to marry similar earners who share fifty-fifty childcare. If you are not aware that men provide in divorce what they provide in marriage, you haven't been paying attention. Most similar earners split assets and childcare down the middle. I've seen military women who are the main providers in marriages have to pay the man child support and alimony.

I agree that men who whine and blame should go their own way, for everyone's sake,

G

[lollipopspot]

If men do not want to lose their money in divorce, they need to marry similar earners who share fifty-fifty childcare. If you are not aware that men provide in divorce what they provide in marriage, you haven't been paying attention. Most similar earners split assets and childcare down the middle. I've seen military women who are the main providers in marriages have to pay the man child support and alimony.

 

Yes. The law is not gendered, it's about role within the relationship. Else, how do gay divorces work? If people feel the need, they can "protect" themselves from their spouse by ensuring economic and childcare parity in the relationship. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone! It's not some conspiracy against men - it's to ensure that the government doesn't have to pick up the slack because of personal relationship and family decisions that people made (then tried to get out of after a 25 year marriage - "she hasn't worked outside the home in a quarter century and raised our kids? Tough! I should get to keep all 'my' money!").

[sambolini]

Yes, this is a bit about feminism....men go their own way because they can't force women to marry them and stay with them forever now due to independence. Women no longer have to do their wifely duty and have sex with us if they don't feel like it because they are equal under the law. Personally, I like knowing my wife isn't here because she has to be.

Bad marriages are made by indifferent or selfish people, not feminism. If men do not want to lose their money in divorce, they need to marry similar earners who share fifty-fifty childcare. If you are not aware that men provide in divorce what they provide in marriage, you haven't been paying attention. Most similar earners split assets and childcare down the middle. I've seen military women who are the main providers in marriages have to pay the man child support and alimony.

I agree that men who whine and blame should go their own way, for everyone's sake,

G

 

This is diametrically opposite to the goals of men going their own way. If we truly wanted to force woment get married, eschewing marriage wouldn't achieve that goal. It literally does the exact opposite, which is what we really want.

 

Your own ideologies are completely misrepresenting the facts, and are blatantly false.

[sambolini]

"she hasn't worked outside the home in a quarter century and raised our kids? Tough! I should get to keep all 'my' money!").

 

Yes. This is exactly what I believe. If a person, male or female, chooses to be dependent upon their significant other during their relationship, then that is a choice they make. One assumes the risk when they make that decision.

 

This prevailing belief is a primary reason why I will never marry, and why I only seek women who earn at least as much as I do. I am not responsible for another adult.

 

I earned my money. Nobody else did. My paycheck has my name on it only. Therefore, it's mine. I do not believe another human adult should have rights to any asset I earn or acquire as a result of my labors.

 

You are entirely welcome to disagree. I have no interest in trying to change your mind. I simply choose to live my life according to what I believe is right, and make decisions on that accordingly.

 

Thus, I eschew marriage.

 

A common feminist tactic is to shame men who disagree with them. But it's impossible to shame someone who is indifferent to your indignance.

[lollipopspot]

If a person, male or female, chooses to be dependent upon their significant other during their relationship, then that is a choice they make. One assumes the risk when they make that decision.

 

If a person, male or female, chooses to financially support their significant other during the relationship, then that is a choice they make. One assumes the risk when they make that decision.

 

For people to be shocked when they get out of a relationship like that that they actually may have some financial responsibility for their dependents, is pure stupidity and lack of foresight. The rules did not suddenly change. This is the way they are, so that society doesn't have to pick up your slack.

 

I have no interest in trying to change your mind.

 

Oh sure you do, that's why you keep coming back at me and others.

 

A common feminist tactic is to shame men who disagree with them. But it's impossible to shame someone who is indifferent to your indignance.

 

I'm sure not trying to shame you, but you are anything but indifferent.

 

If you really wanted to "go your own way" and not change anyone's mind and you really were indifferent, your actions would show it. Instead you're debating it on the internet and accusing people of trying to "shame" you. Go your own way dude! I welcome it

[Grumpybutfun]

This is diametrically opposite to the goals of men going their own way. If we truly wanted to force woment get married, eschewing marriage wouldn't achieve that goal. It literally does the exact opposite, which is what we really want.

 

Your own ideologies are completely misrepresenting the facts, and are blatantly false.

 

My own views are mine and aren't false. Calling me a liar is juvenile at best. Are you going to pull lollipopspot's hair next? If you were actually going your own way, you would not date at all. Feminism was being discussed earlier in the thread...I wasn't replying to you. If you were really MGTOW, You wouldn't have to make statements about it or act like you are doing something noble for all men out there who have been wronged by the mean women. Do you not know what going your own way means?

G

[autumnnight]

This is diametrically opposite to the goals of men going their own way. If we truly wanted to force woment get married, eschewing marriage wouldn't achieve that goal. It literally does the exact opposite, which is what we really want.

 

Your own ideologies are completely misrepresenting the facts, and are blatantly false.

 

It may not fit the "ideals" of MGTOW, but the facts about how divorces work and finances and custody work are spot on.

 

And he is actually nicer than me. He said whiners and blamers should go their own way....I would prefer that they just go away period.

[sambolini]

If a person, male or female, chooses to financially support their significant other during the relationship, then that is a choice they make. One assumes the risk when they make that decision.

 

For people to be shocked when they get out of a relationship like that that they actually may have some financial responsibility for their dependents, is pure stupidity and lack of foresight. The rules did not suddenly change. This is the way they are, so that society doesn't have to pick up your slack.

 

 

 

Oh sure you do, that's why you keep coming back at me and others.

 

 

 

I'm sure not trying to shame you, but you are anything but indifferent.

 

If you really wanted to "go your own way" and not change anyone's mind and you really were indifferent, your actions would show it. Instead you're debating it on the internet and accusing people of trying to "shame" you. Go your own way dude! I welcome it

 

Your argument implies a human adult should be considered a dependent. That is where I disagree. If you choose to stay at home, then you assume that risk. My obligation towards you ends when the relationship ends.

 

If you are unable to care for yourself after the end of said relationship, the slack is your own.

 

I'm not "coming back" at you. I'm simply pointing out that your preconceived notions are false and don't stand up to scrutiny with those who are actively living the way of life you scrutinize.

 

Your posts are emotionally charged. Whereas I have no emotional investment in you whatsoever. I enjoy debate and discourse, and I believe that most problems can be solved through communication. But that implies the other person is receptive to new information, even if it might be contrary to their long-held ideological beliefs.

 

Talking is not indicative of a lack of indifference. An agitated emotional state, however, is.

 

I think the OP's question has been sufficiently answered. Thank you for the debate, Lollipop. While I ardently disagree with you, I have no animosity towards you.

 

I hope you all have a pleasant day.

[BlueIris]

I find the bolded to be false. I have always been up front and honest with every woman I've dated that I never want to get married again, but that I am open to a committed, monogamous relationship. And I have never had a problem getting dates. Not every woman wants a ring and a ceremony.

 

The quality of women I've met has increased as time has gone on, in spite of the fact I don't want to marry.

 

You are welcome to your assumptions, but my experience does not bear them out.

 

I get the impression that that trait- bolded- isn't typical of MGTOW. I just read some MGTOW sites a bit and a lot weren't aligned with you on that. C'est la vie. But, being anti-marriage is pretty common these days. Lots of folks are anti-marriage for other reasons.

[lollipopspot]

Are you going to pull lollipopspot's hair next?

 

Ouuuch!

 

Do you not know what going your own way means?

 

It occurs to me that maybe the MGTOW movement was mistitled and the rhetoric around it doesn't fit the intent, and that's part of the issue. It makes it seem that these people are indifferent or bravely forging a path and they're not.

 

Someone for whom this is their path to stay somewhat indifferently uncoupled (at least in the present) just does it. It's not a fight. Carhill comes to mind.

Edited October 16, 2015 by lollipopspot

[serial muse]

I mean, many times the benefits are on the women's side. They get more in a divorce than a man; and the scary thing is if she even commits infidelity she still gets it it in many cases. Not saying women cannot be victims I'm not excluding that.

 

But this also reads like somehow it's a special case when a woman gets the wrong end of the stick. That's just ridiculous. You're "not excluding that"? Well...thanks?

 

I think it's perfectly reasonable to want to argue for removing gender bias from divorce court, for example. But issues such as that one doesn't seem to be raised just as that, do they? They're almost always raised within a contextual atmosphere of women taking men to the cleaners, women using men, women getting all these mysterious benefits that men don't get out of marriage, politics, life, women basically being privileged and men being downtrodden. That is really ignorant of history.

 

That doesn't mean that there aren't ways in which the system could be more equitable for men. Certainly there are, and they deserve a good hard look and public discourse. But it's not necessary to negate centuries of experience of women having to deal with being considered lesser by men in order to achieve that. It just makes a mockery of the movement. It's actually quite counterproductive - which suggests that social change isn't really the point anyway.

 

Things don't always have to be in the context of anti-feminism. Feminists are actually allies in this ideological battle for equal rights. But they're a more convenient bugbear for these guys than a calm "let's battle through the system", and feminists naturally respond to the bullshxt that gets spouted at them by these movements by turning away. Not very surprising, I think.

 

I mean, what you said about feminism upthread, being about "I don't need a man" - that's just ignorant. There are fringe people who say that stuff, as there are fringe people who call for a return to removing women's right to vote. Lumping everyone in together is a crappy manipulative tool to sway the angry masses, not a move toward serious change, and it's why I don't take MRA and MGTOW seriously at all. It's just a blind for being anti-feminist, not for improving the welfare of men in a real way. Bah.

Edited October 16, 2015 by serial muse

[Woggle]

These guys are just the men's version of the more extreme elements of feminism. It's the make answer to the I don't need a man movement. I don't know why men would want to emulate that because women who are that bitter towards men don't seem anymore happy than these guys.

 

I do wish though that women would admit that men have a point with the gender bias in family courts. People have told me that though it is a long shot my ex technically could sue me for retroactive alimony. After all that happened why should she be entitled to a dime? No way in hell a man can shoot at his ex and possible be entitled to money.

[RedRobin]

I have looked around at real live males and guess what they are? Womanizers, abusers, and deceivers. The amount of positive males in my circle is very rare. Seeing how and where I've grown up. I've made few acquaintances who are happily married though. But me growing up I just did not see that a lot.

Not saying I can never get married, because well, you never know.

 

I'd recommend doing some volunteer work if you want to escape your current social sphere. You will find all kinds of good natured, positive people in those roles. Lots of them married to good people. You can observe first hand wives and husbands working together... Might give you a different take on relationships.

[autumnnight]

I'd recommend doing some volunteer work if you want to escape your current social sphere. You will find all kinds of good natured, positive people in those roles. Lots of them married to good people. You can observe first hand wives and husbands working together... Might give you a different take on relationships.

 

It also tends to cure people of self-centeredness.

[Got it]

Your argument implies a human adult should be considered a dependent. That is where I disagree. If you choose to stay at home, then you assume that risk. My obligation towards you ends when the relationship ends.

 

If you are unable to care for yourself after the end of said relationship, the slack is your own.

 

I'm not "coming back" at you. I'm simply pointing out that your preconceived notions are false and don't stand up to scrutiny with those who are actively living the way of life you scrutinize.

 

Your posts are emotionally charged. Whereas I have no emotional investment in you whatsoever. I enjoy debate and discourse, and I believe that most problems can be solved through communication. But that implies the other person is receptive to new information, even if it might be contrary to their long-held ideological beliefs.

 

Talking is not indicative of a lack of indifference. An agitated emotional state, however, is.

 

I think the OP's question has been sufficiently answered. Thank you for the debate, Lollipop. While I ardently disagree with you, I have no animosity towards you.

 

I hope you all have a pleasant day.

 

Except both people are agreeing that the one will be financially dependent because the risk/benefit analysis shows that it is better they stay home than both work. So because it is agreed upon the law states that in divorce financial restitution is required.

 

If one doesn't want the above scenario then don't have a spouse that stays home. It is really quite simple. May require paying more in child care, not having kids, having a spouse with a high level career, etc. but it is very simple solution. Shrug.

 

I can't figure out why when the marriage is great men PUSH for their wives stay home. I talk to many mid/upper management men who are proud their wife doesn't work and cares for their kids. But then are shocked when they decide to divorce that they actually are going to have to financially support. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

[Got it]

These guys are just the men's version of the more extreme elements of feminism. It's the make answer to the I don't need a man movement. I don't know why men would want to emulate that because women who are that bitter towards men don't seem anymore happy than these guys.

 

I do wish though that women would admit that men have a point with the gender bias in family courts. People have told me that though it is a long shot my ex technically could sue me for retroactive alimony. After all that happened why should she be entitled to a dime? No way in hell a man can shoot at his ex and possible be entitled to money.

 

People tell you this or individuals with an actual legal background to give you educated advice?

 

And saying something technically could be asked doesn't mean in reality it would happen. They also said a long shot. There are a lot of long shot scenarios, they are called long shots because statistically they are very unlikely to happen.

 

Sometimes we hear what we want to hear.