Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh please. Men who don't get married are considered eternal adolescents by this society. Doesn't bother me particularly, but it is an insult to many men who chose the single life.
Interesting. I don't see that, at all. Can you give me a "for instance"?
I only posted here because this thread was full of old people blaming everything on men. Who refuse to even take into consideration the issues being raised.
I didn't see anyone blaming anything on men. Can you site examples.
And what makes you thing everyone is old.
I think some of the issues have been considered. Just because posters dont agree with your analogy of marriage and divorce doesn't men its not been considered. Most of the statements I read by men concerning divorce were not factual according to actual divorce laws and statistics. Sure some men have had bad marriages and divorces, paid alimony, struggled financially but so have women.
Imagine 50 years into the future. What do you see? Are things better?
Something "could" be done. But I am absolutely convinced that nothing "will" be done.
To understand the future, all you have to do is understand how we got to where we are. Basically, why have things become what they are?
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri
We can blame lack of education and our system (largely unregulated capitalism and consumerism and materialism) for much of this.
Unlike my right-wing compatriots, I absolutely despise capitalism. Almost all of the social-problems we see today are the inevitable byproduct of capitalism. But socialism(at least of the left-wing variety) would make all of these problems even worse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri
Without a creed human beings are lost.
I agree that they're lost. But the only time individuals matter, is when they are a threat to the system. Whether people are happy or unhappy, it only really matters if they continue to show up at work, and continue to spend money.
The truth is, MGTOW is completely irrelevant. But that doesn't mean they're wrong. They're irrelevant because they don't matter.
So what if a bunch of men stop having kids? We can just import more immigrants. So what if a bunch of young women stop having children to protest climate-change? We can just import more immigrants. So what if a bunch of man-hating SJW's become lesbians and get men to cut their balls off? We can just import more immigrants.
None of these people are a threat to the system. And there are literally billions of people who would gladly take my place. And they are, and they will.
You are failing to understand the psychology that has taken place in recent years. And while I have often emphasized the role of unfair laws, a lot of the problems have nothing to do with institutions or government.
Take social-media for example. What effects does social-media have on relationships? What about apps like Tinder?
You should watch this video called "Paradox of Choice".
It is true that people were often "stuck in bad relationships". But how does "being stuck" affect your perception of your relationship?
Let us pretend that you are "stuck" with your car. Would you treat it differently than if you could swap it out for a new model every few months?
In the above video, he explains how the more choices you have, the less happy you are, because when you have more choices, you have more wrong choices, but not more right choices.
In this video he discusses the phenomenon as well. And adds the aspect of "being able to change your mind".
Basically, if we have to make a decision and we are stuck with that decision, we are far more-likely to believe we made the right decision. But if we can change our minds as much as we want, we become far less-happy with our decisions.
There is a strong-correlation between marital-happiness and the number of sexual-partners a woman has had. The fewer lifetime sexual-partners, the happier the woman. With women having only one sexual partner being significantly-happier.
No one wants to be stuck in a bad relationship. So in the past, people often compromised because they basically had to. But now that you can leave at any time plus alimony plus child-support, why compromise?
I could name a dozen other causes of the high relationship failure-rate. For instance, in the distant past, people often knew each other most of their lives. You would marry someone from your church, or from some small town where you knew everyone, and they all knew you. And you tended to live closer to your family, so they were much more involved.
But regardless of the cause, I don't think you're going to be able to put that genie back in the bottle. Nothing can be done.
Im going to begin by saying I dont base life on internet videos.
You cant quantify happiness related to one variable.
The psychology is BS. Nicholas Wolfinger is a nutter and his "studies" are biased. And your article was based on his BLOG which used general survey data on number of sexual partners. There is nothing scientific that correlates that with happiness.
There is no genie. People have always had good relationships and bad relationships, no relationships, divorced, had affairs, etc. The acceptance of these things and the method we go about them is the only thing that has changed.
Status:
"Repub's IVF ruling is anti-family and anti-America"
(set 22 hours ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,781 posts, read 3,560,973 times
Reputation: 5681
About 10 years ago, when I first ran across MGTOW, I at first thought it was just a socio-cultural proclamation - fighting back against social stigma of refusing to have a wife, kids, and perhaps by implication abandoning mainstream definitions of "normal behavior" and "respect-worthy person" in general - and doing just that: going their own way in the face value sense of the term. On that basis, I even proclaimed myself a MGTOW - for a little while.
But then it turned into a lot (not all, of course but a lot) of men spewing disgust toward at least the majority of women. The divorce law part, a legitimate topic, however debatable (i.e. perhaps the law in some respects doesn't reflect the best way to do things in the 21st century. To repeat, an appropriate debate topic, regardless of which side you fall on). The off the rails railing about "95 to 99% of women being this [outrageous adjective here]", I could not stomach. I even tried to reason with them. Finally, I just gave up and rejected any further association with them.
So yes, I'm still a (all-lower-case) mgtow - I reject mainstream conventional ways of "normal" and "abnormal", "respect-worthy" and "disrespect-worthy", and sometimes even "moral" and "immoral"; and live my life as I see fit as long as it doesn't hurt or degrade others. If that means rejecting the all-American picture-perfect ideal of polished-looking family, house in the suburbs, and being respectable to the mainstream - then so be it (I deep down never understood mainstream way of sizing up the worth of activities, lives, and personal worth; and found the polite [or even fairly impolite] ways hypocritical anyway). So I say Effit! And I've become happier for it.
IMO, that's more truly mgtow than anything MGTOW proclaims (at the risk of committing a No True Scotsman Fallacy).
A better way for me to express the "relationship failure-rate" would be the probability that a person will have only one sexual-partner in their lifetime.
I would assume that nearly everyone in the pre-industrial era had only one sexual-partner in their lifetimes. While today, I think we can safely assume that almost no one has only one sexual-partner in their lifetimes. And presumably, every sexual-relationship has a chance of ending in child-support.
The problem with using marriage as a reference-point, is that fewer and fewer people are getting married. And of the small percentage who do get married, and especially the ones who stay married, are hardly representative of the average.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Objection. Assuming facts not in evidence, your honor. I don't and never have paid my ex-wife alimony. My brother pays no alimony. My wife never received alimony from her first husband. Child support? Sure. Why would you expect to father a child and then bear no financial responsibility for that child?
I think you would agree that there is a huge difference between spending your money to raise your own child the way you think he ought to be raised, and writing a check to someone else to raise your child.
This might sound bad, but if I was to get a girl pregnant, that is MY kid. It is an extension of me. I'm not going to allow some woman to ruin my kid while taking my money. And certainly the courts tend to favor women.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Your worldview is not the majority worldview.
I never said it was. But should it be?
Last edited by Redshadowz; 04-19-2019 at 09:12 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
