While I am an anti-feminist, this does not imply that I agree with all things said by all anti-feminists, for I am a unique individual with a unique life and therefore a statistical outlier by most commonly-known metrics of today.
While I support the choice of a man to “go his own way” I find MGTOWs to be oddly conflicted, not the least of which is the presence of the “T” for “They” in MGTOW—as if MGTOW is a herd comprised of individuals swearing allegiance to that herd-mentality while denying the existence of authoritative hierarchy (a natural outgrowth of the older generation effectively betraying the younger, in so many ways, while not providing a particularly sustainable backlash).
Whereas Feminists use the sophistry of Not All Feminists Are Like That as a deflection from all rational charges of hypocrisy, apparently All MGTOWS Are Like That, or else they are kicked out of the club. I don’t blame them for this reaction given that “inclusiveness” gets old however intuitively, and dare I say maternally, wish to spare them from some of the pain I have encountered in the course of my own path.
Meanwhile, there really is no right answer or happy medium between “everyone should be a little girl forever and ever” and “you are either with us or against us.” Debates between the merits of kindergarten inclusiveness vs. militarism or other objective-oriented top-down cohesiveness need to concede that both dynamics are necessary and neither will ever be “equal” nor even “opposite”. However, when it comes to MGTOW, it isn’t clear to me whether a leader can possibly truly emerge (albeit there are plenty of pretenders) or whether it strives for a false “Communist” structure with members either being in “the party” or consigned toward slavery to it as a “good comrade”.
None for me, thanks.
Meanwhile, a statement by “Jim” tells me that I had best address this whole Patriarchy vs. Female Feral Behavior thing before notions of “one true way” male supremacy get out of hand:
Moment to moment female sexual choice needs to be forbidden, and Islam needs to be forbidden outside of Dar al Islam.
Have you guys learned nothing? Forbidding something makes it more desirable/sacred/etc. in the long run. There have got to be exceptions even if there’s no good reason to reveal such exceptions to children, our “glasnost” age notwithstanding. However, in a “democracy” all rhetoric has to be geared down to the lowest common denominator for maximum adherence thereto. Democracy has some serious drawbacks and requires revolution from time to time.
For the record (and I suppose I should have made this announcement before I caught the eyes of a bunch of Christian Bigots) I am not opposed to Islam. Nor Christianity. Nor Judaism! I’m not opposed to religions albeit, it is a given that every pyramid scheme eventually becomes corrupt.
As Rupert Sheldrake’s guru says:
All Paths Lead to God.
However, I’m not personally super-keen on monotheism myself, because I think that diversity of Gods is actually a good thing albeit probably not all at the same time. I believe that there ought to be seasonal Gods and rituals, with not all seasons being universal constructs. Location location location.
All utopias are destined to fail eventually and longevity is not its own reward. That said, of course, I can see the value in keeping most women on a short leash. Specifically most women are happiest with guaranteed outcomes; i.e., “security” and depending on men to provide it, at least until they grow the fuck up. Monogamy sounds like a reasonable trade-off for that security during a female’s reproductive prime. Exceptions to that rule however must apply to exceptional people such as my special snowflake self.
I would like to introduce the concept of the Gangbang vs. the “Mitzi Gaynor” dynamic, with the former being ideally (or at least historically—in my own lifetime) male dominated and the latter a dancing diva on a stage full of identically-dressed men who defer to Mitzi in every way (and might even be gay).
The female member of the first configuration is a slut and the latter is a whore. I realize that nowadays (and perhaps always) it is very difficult for the outside observer to tell the difference. Whores make a business of pretending to be sluts, and sluts who desire to live long often pretend to be whores. The relative weight of money vs. sex is the deciding factor.
If the point of an engineered utopia is to constantly increase population then:
Without implying any endorsement for the strategy, one must observe that a society that presents women with essentially three options — be a nun, be a prostitute, or marry a man and bear children — has stumbled upon a highly effective way to reduce the risk of demographic decline.
However, at some point, more babies is not better, and, in my view, overpopulation relative to opportunities and resources combined with the technology to hold-up a calcified dystopia invariably leads to some sort of “feminist” population correction mechanism a.k.a. “The Apocalypse”. More on the subject here: Population Sustainability
Moreover, as the quality of available men degrades, such as now, thanks to the estrogenization and shaming of men, forcing women to be faithful to these chemical-eunuchs is not going to work. Men who play rough will always be—at least secretly—in demand. I ought to know. Moreover a “Dominant” man willing to pay for the privilege of whipping a “slut” is a case of two oxymorons coming together.
Understandably, a man-boobed social reject is likely to throw a hissy fit and commit violence against someone to include himself. He’s been fooled, badly, by propaganda among other constructs. It is a sad state of affairs, however, in my view, let such men serve as living examples of the hazards of being born of an emasculating mother and an abandoning father.
Perhaps I embody a cautionary tale myself. Time will tell.
There are more than one, two, or three female archetypes. There are more than one, two, or three male archetypes. However, in monotheism, only certain archetypes are considered valid.
The Holy Father, Son, Virgin, and “Holy Spirit” are the only acceptable Christian archetypes, with that last undoubtedly standing in for “mother”, but, after some past Apocalypse, someone combined the female archetypes and removed the sexuality of the “goddess” as a means of staving off the next Apocalypse. My theory, of course. Alternatively, Christianity might simply be Judaism-Lite for the masses, because “give the people what they want” and that will repress peasant rebellion indefinitely. This simplistic view might be better applied to a particular brand of Christianity rather than another, but, I digress.
Removing the goddess archetype might seem like a grand idea however, eventually, all good ideas engender backlash. Nowadays, all sorts of women want to be goddesses, princesses, queens, etc. Fail!
I’m still trying to figure out which archetype am I but clearly, if I were to be forced to marry and be faithful to an effeminate man, I’d probably turn gay or celibate or crash planes full of civilians.
I’d rather be beaten and humiliated regularly and forced to gag on cock as a dietary regimen. Oh, did that sound sarcastic? I meant to say, I’d prefer… However, due to my awareness (among other reasons) of the Madonna/Whore disassociation of female archetypes in the male mind, I chose not to reproduce. I couldn’t take the chance of reproducing my father’s dysfunction in a man of my choice. Whereas my mother was clearly sexually available, my father it would seem barely acknowledged her once she adopted the maternal role in his mind. He might have preferred to sex it up with whores, perhaps, but given that his moral sensibilities didn’t permit that, he chose to use his daughters that way instead, but without corrupting us by any sort of compensation whatsoever. An extreme example for sure but meant to illustrate that “hypergamy” is not limited to women. Rather, narcissists of all sorts tend to disassociate or split archetypes rather than to love, honor, cherish, and fuck the same person at the same time. This being the case, prohibiting women from disassociating archetypes but permitting men to do so is bound to backfire eventually.
However, this one-sided disassociation is probably a really good idea if one wants an unbeatable utopia thanks to endless growth. Additionally, one might wish to avoid making a woman like me into some sort of role model for other women because productivity is likely to lapse.
The Virgin Mary is the ultimate in hypergamy given that she couples with the top dog of all, while remaining utterly “unsoiled” by mortal man. On the other hand, Lilith, the bad woman, seriously needs a good gangbang. That could have forestalled a whole lot of shenanigans, and there we would be, happily living a tribal, nomadic, hunter/gatherer life, without the need for crop rotations, fences, Great Big Walls, etc.
Meanwhile, Bacchus, that rolly polly God of hedonism and war, has no business getting married. Rather, what that man needs is a bunch of coke whores. As for me, however, I don’t respond well sexually to mere money nor gluttony, therefore, Bacchus is not the man for me. Rather, in my view, there is freedom in slavery. This particular Oracle likes to be whipped. Lacking such I issue all sorts of disruptive prophecy. Someone get that Oracle a gag! There goes the neighborhood.