Talk:Men Going Their Own Way

This page is automatically archived by Pibot
Archives for this talk page: <1>

Bias and reverts

I find it interesting that you guys will attack Conservapedia for their support of psuedoscience and fallacious reasoning but any attempt to remove the bias or fallacies from this article gets it reverted back to the biased version as evidenced by the Fossil Record page. You are no better than Conservapedia, really.^{— Unsigned, by: Faulk / talk / contribs} 13:13, 9 April 2013‎ (UTC)

Ok sunshine, tell me the logic in literally being so angry at woman that you want to uproot and go to a TOTALLY NOT GAY all male fantasy camp? --Revolverman (talk) 13:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I hope you see the absurdity of your statement, as separating yourself from women is a completely rational reaction to being "so angry at woman". This article is horribly biased.^{— Unsigned, by: 2.106.253.226 / talk / contribs 10:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)}

MGTOW has nothing to do with hatred of women. Simply men that opt out of traditional male gender roles. They aren't interested in putting a lot of efforts in courtship, working more hours, do physical tasks, because they consider the reward to be not worthy enough. It is very similar to herbivore men in japan. This is the rational, expected, event that comes with loss of men privileges over the years, without reconsidering men responsibilities. The cost/benefit ratio of the male gender reducing, many male are optin out. That is the most basic economy at work. These men aren't pro or against women, they simply don't want to bother with that as they think there is nothing for them. I was really surprised to find this kind of article in something that call itself rationalwiki. 103.4.96.77 (talk) 08:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

WEll, I frequent their sites, and that's all that is out there - and they very much hate women, and yet focus a HELL OF A LOT OF TIME on women, for men who have "given them up for lent" and all that. Sorry, but me thinks you have drank the cool-aid.Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 14:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Revolverman, go have a look at [1], a very fine expositionb of the usual; ad-hominems directed at men. Your little outburst, of course, is "Code Lavender". Is "LOL! U SO GAY!" really the best you can do? 124.178.225.104 (talk) 08:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• I don't know much about editing wikis and honestly don't really care, but if this lets me edit this then I just want to throw my two cents into this conversation. I totally agree that this article so severely biased and looks like it was written by either feminists, feminist-sympathizing men (also known as SIMPS) or some other lamers trying to preserve the "status quo". If you're going to have an article about MGTOW at least have an unbiased article that lists criticisms in the same manner that wikipedia articles do. This site is a joke. After seeing the blatant bias in this article I'm never coming here again. Hopefully someone can put up a real article about MGTOW on Wikipedia, where there is still some semblance of standards and respect for objectivity. And yeah you guys can call me whatever juvenile names you want because I don't fit society's stereotype of the average male and actually enjoy the idea of having some power over my own life, not letting women rule me and being able to turn them down when they hit on me. I don't go "talking shit about women" but I do call things out as I see them, which includes criticizing women where criticism is due. Sorry you don't like hearing criticism from someone with alternate views and that you resort to childish name calling in retaliation. Call me gay, virgin, whatever you want. None of those things are true and I could honestly give less than two flying fucks if you think that about me. Have a nice day.

• P.S. I love how you call this site "RationalWiki" when it is anything but rational. LOL. Maybe it was just a joke, I don't know. -A man^{— Unsigned, by: 50.184.5.44 / talk / contribs} 08:35, 7 May 2014‎ (UTC)

@The current description: "The Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) movement is an offshoot of the men's rights movement consisting of a weird type of straight male separatism" .... I like how the simple and straightforward idea that men own themselves (which ON THE FACE OF IT is obviously true) is described as "weird" in an overt ad hominem attack. That shows you just how completely mainstream society has now accepted the biased viewpoint of men as indentured ATMs for the state and women. So obviously biased and decidedly not 'rational'. Ad hominem doesn't belong on a 'RationalWiki', nor do descriptions of overtly factual positions as being "weird". 196.215.21.113 (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not the "owning yourself" bit that makes MGTOW weird, it's some of the beliefs they expound. Anyone who argues that (from [2])

• Our world is a corporate plantation and men are its primary slaves.
• You have unwittingly been programmed since birth to become a slave.
• A wife, a mortgage and kids almost always guarantees you a life of servitude.
• Men do not innately owe to women or society anything, but they still end up as slaves in sexless marriages with moody wives.
• The illusion of marriage from prior generations lures men into bondage.

is sufficiently non mainstream so as to be considered weird. But then, after a life of wife, mortgage and kids, I'm so deeply programmed that I must be one of the sheeple so what would I know. Innocent Bystander (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Kinda the point BON - who else must say "I own myself?" I mean, seriously?Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 17:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The article describes the MGTOW movement as "weird", not the "idea that men own themselves", which as you say is obviously true and not in doubt. This appears to be a movement built around mutual nurturing of butthurt, persecution complexes & hostility towards women. Frankly, it's pretty weird. That's not an ad hominem; it's a comment on the movement itself as typified in most of the sites & forums relating to it. ωεαşεζόίď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Description vs Criticism

I took the liberty of dividing such a sociopolitically heated subject into two categories: description (main body) and criticism. Elaborate, develop, add sub categories, but be sure you keep them separate: they are different things. Putting harsh criticism under "Criticism" is fine. Putting false words in someone else's mouth by trying to describe their views with the opposition's strawmans and overgeneralizations is not. I assume that is how we all expect an encyclopedia, moreover a rational one, to be conducted. ^{— Unsigned, by: 68.123.235.164 / talk / contribs} 07:50, 2 December 2013‎ (UTC)

I took the liberty of undoing that. This isn't an encyclopedia. Please see our newcomer's guide before making assumptions. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Care to give an example of what exactly was against the mission statements? Do you have a problem with the material I cited directly from the MGTOW website? Do you have a problem with having criticism subcategories despite articles of the same controversy having some form of them?^{— Unsigned, by: 68.123.235.164 / talk / contribs} 22:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Note that Weaseloid provides no rational or logical response to any of our questions. His MO is to simply quash doubt and discussion of anything that doesn't fit within his ideology or worldview. Reminds me of some fundamentalists I know. Welcome to IrrationalWiki. --Iridiumoxide (talk) 21:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Is this a glitch?

How come whenever I make a change to this page and I come back the next day, it goes back to its original text? This is the second time it happened.....? ^{— Unsigned, by: Username13 / talk / contribs}

Partly because the writing is really problematic, partly because you're removing a lot of the snark and criticism from the article. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 13:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a MGTOW site & pro-MGTOW articles/essays don't belong here. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. This site has decided to eschew any pretense at an equitable and rational description of anything that questions far-left feminism. What a joke. It might as well be named IrrationalWiki. --Iridiumoxide (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

More like we find people like you a failure at being a decent human being where women's interests are concerned, not that I can expect someone who thinks that particular approach is "far left" to understand that. As far as we're concerned, people like you are tilting at windmills and spraying the rest of us with shrapnel from your shattered lances. EVDebs (talk) 00:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

1. Doesn't this mean more wimminfolk for the rest of us?
2. Why waste time with Asian women? Unless you live in Asia and speak their language, they are only going to be corrupted by feminists in the West, learn English, get their citizenship and divorce you. Why not develop a relationship with Miss Porn-fantasy-woman? About as practical.
3. I wonder how a gender-reversal of this song would sound like—Amanda Marshall's Birmingham. "She's careful not to slam the door And as she drives she rubs her rosary She's never been so all alone, she's never felt so free."

Talk to Civic Cat 19:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally the #2 provides a means to gauge the popularity of this. I'm too lazy to find good recent statistic, but at least in 2000 (which I guess predates this internet stuff) Thailand had 100k more emigrating women than men [3]. --81.175.225.92 (talk) 04:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Whiney, passive-aggressive nonsense

Which bitter, unhappy feminist wrote this garbage? It's not trying to even give the illusion of being rational, so what on earth is it doing on this site? Why are people debating it instead of straight up deleting it? ^{— Unsigned, by: 188.226.192.137 / talk / contribs}

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink!

Now go make me a sandwich. Sophie^Wilder 18:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Passive aggresive? I don't think there's anything passive in straight-up mockery. :D

And yes, the article at the moment is a bit heavy on the satire, light on insight in their, ahem, condition.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Is this a fallacy?

The phrase "MGTOWers that also frequent Stormfront" seems like an Association fallacy used as an ad-hominem, specifically guilt by association. Also the implication that all MGTOWers are whiny also sound seems unfounded. ^{— Unsigned, by: 202.156.11.10 / talk / contribs}

To my knowledge only one has ever visited Stormfront and he is the local conspiracy kook on the MGTOWforums. Not representative of all of them. ^{— Unsigned, by: 69.221.162.2 / talk / contribs}