One of the reasons so many men jumped on the Feminism bandwagon, in my experience, in the 1970’s, was that it was supposed to put an eagerly voluntary pussy in every man’s bed. A string of them in fact.
If only women were more sexually assertive rather than “oppressed” by Christianity, her parents, social standards, etc., then pussy would be everywhere and thereby ordinary men wouldn’t have to work too hard for it. It would be “free” to all.
For example, men wouldn’t have to be professionally successful, admired by their peers, good looking, healthy, with good character and values, interested in commitment, mature, or really anything. It was one great big Kindergarten party. Everybody in the pool!
Naturally, this wasn’t an experience which turned out to be universal and understandably a lot of men became resentful or otherwise felt duped by the rhetoric and propaganda, not to mention hot pants, tube tops, midriff-baring tops, bralessness, bikinis, see-though blouses, erotic dancing, exotic dancing, pornography, singles bars, etc.; ‘Where’s the party?’
Contrary to the Feminist delusion of “Patriarchy,” men didn’t seem to feel a need to help their brethren score or otherwise provide assistance in getting a leg up on the competition, except in vague terms or for consideration of friendship or other exchange. Naturally, some men supported each other to even include some nasty sorts of things like gangrape, but those weren’t the ones with character and values. Unfortunately, the universal application of character and values onto any demographic is an impossibility, despite universalist propaganda to the contrary.
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs continues to prevail despite whatever “education” or propaganda that may be imposed onto the public may promise.
Sexual and relationship outcomes entitlement reigned back in the ’70’s then as now, among both men and women.
It is unfortunate that it would seem that plenty of men going MGTOW today are expecting some sort of reward from women that wasn’t forthcoming when such men seemed to be available. Standoffishness or the intended image of it isn’t any more effective as a seduction strategy all by itself than is it effective for female hypergamy.
Education on anti-feminism is also a poor seduction strategy in my experience. While it might be fun to attempt to educate and debate Feminists, such isn’t likely to reap sexual rewards within the actual debate. That said, one never knows who might be observing such an exchange, and that’s where the discussion might possibly bear sweeter fruit. The same would apply to me, an anti-feminist woman attempting to educate brainwashed, pussy-whipped men. I might teach them something, but it won’t be enough or otherwise pave the way for a relationship.
Meanwhile, a man intending to seduce me by insulting me or almost any woman by declared references to his unavailability or standards in a relationship has already missed the point. Actions mean more that any rhetorical protestation and neither men nor women are inclined to say what they mean when it comes to the mating game.
However, the notion that universal outcomes are available to all those following a mass movement script seems to be part and parcel of The American Experience. Seemingly, it is still women who police the various etiquette standards or lack thereof which provide entrée to the inner circles of the various demographic choices available.
That said, I don’t think most women of my experience have a clear idea of exactly what standards they are supposed to be promoting particularly when popular media and pop culture seem to have taken over that role right out from under the feet of women, and imprinted upon it a Leftist, Socialist, or Egalitarian view.
Feminists who call the male sense of entitlement to sexual outcomes “rape culture” are also missing the point. There’s some truth to the observation of various PUA writers that women are constantly giving out hypergamy signals in terms of sexual availability but yet, such men who are not up to female “standards” no matter how unrealistic or arbitrary, are considered shameworthy for even trying to catch the lofty female’s attention on his own terms.
When celebrities walk around and allow themselves to be photographed in designer clothes that don’t fully cover their assets, ordinary women often assume that such a costume signals social status, while perhaps ordinary men just see it as pornography or otherwise “open season”. Meanwhile, given the effort such a woman has exercised in order to appear “glamorous” and otherwise above her own realistically-assessed social station, she might feel a sense of outrage that a lowly, unemployed, young, etc. man doesn’t give her the dignity she imagines that celebrities are afforded (News Flash: celebrities ordinarily employ bodyguards).
This is one of the many downstream social effects of rampant consumerism combined with Socialist propaganda. It’s not “Patriarchy” but rather Consumerism as filtered through the Feminist lens. Unfortunately, it would seem MGTOW is largely also a Feminist or Feminist-backlash movement which accedes to the same Socialist script for the promise of egalitarianism or equality of outcome.
On the other hand, those men who have arrived upon a winning seduction formula, whether by use of MGTOW, Feminism, or any other supposed adherence to form, aren’t obligated to reveal their secrets to other men and certainly not to women.