patrick.net

If this is what it means, then it seems like a good thing:

We are men going our own way by forging our own identities and paths to self-defined success; cutting through collective ideas of what a man is.

Immediately ran across this and love that subreddit already:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/is-there-really-no-rape-culture-in-the-west-10314028.html

This pic is an excellent illustration of truth and beauty against lies and ugliness:

georgeliberte says

It's biology. My sibling tried the whole "no pink" thing and even reprimanded me for buying my niece some pink toys. She later said "I like pink". It's biological. Liking pink does not make a girl weak. It's OK for girls to be into girly things. They can still do science. Contrary to the conservative left talking points, science has nothing to do with gender or cultural preferences.

when are people going to stop buying these lies and see reality?

Dan8267 says

Contrary to the conservative left talking points, science has nothing to do with gender

I do think men are more inclined to analytical thinking though, and women to wholistic.

rando says

I do think men are more inclined to analytical thinking though, and women to wholistic.

That is true, which is why more men are attracted to some sciences like physics and more women are attracted to other sciences like ecology.

However, science itself knows no gender, political, cultural, or species boundary. The science that applies here on Earth is the exact same science that applies billions of light-years away in a distant galaxy. If we ever are to contact intelligent extraterrestrial life, it will be the language of science and mathematics that we use to communicate with them.

As for gender dichotomy, I think of traits as not being male or female, but simply as being traits that statistically are more likely to be found in males or females for genetic or environmental reasons. Most mental traits not related to reproduction can differ in this gender dichotomy when you cross species. For example, larger size is often consider male, but female TRexes were larger. Hence largeness is not inherently male even if it most commonly male. In contrast, the desire to impregnate as many mates as possible is inherently male. There is no female desire to be impregnated by as many males as possible in our species. (Caveat: some bird species use this strategy to gain more provisioning or to provide safety for their offspring).

Dan8267 says

As for gender dichotomy, I think of traits as not being male or female, but simply as being traits that statistically are more likely to be found in males or females for genetic or environmental reasons.

Yes, everything is a bell curve, but sometimes the curves do not have much overlap.

I think a lot of people who identify as MGTOW are really just unsuccessful in the dating market, and MGTOW puts a positive spin on the sour grapes.

Unlike many Red Pill men, I don't feel animosity toward this type of MGTOW; I think most of them will come around eventually, sometimes not till their 30s when their sexual market value is peaking while their female cohorts are past their prime.

Once a man has experienced abundance in the dating market, the mindset is much different between relationships. A man who spends these periods working on his mission and enjoying life and hobbies, not pining or thirsty for a woman, is the ideal implementation of MGTOW in my opinion.

rando says

Yes, everything is a bell curve, but sometimes the curves do not have much overlap.

True, and this does not matter if your priority is an even playing field rather than equal outcomes. Let the chips fall where they will based on people's intrinsic abilities, their interests, and their efforts to develop skills. I have no problem with 100% of physicists being male and 100% of ecologists being female or vice versa as long as people are free to do what they want and are good at, and no one is subjected to a systemic disadvantage. Such disadvantages include the conservative left's attempts to enforce quotas or false standards.

Quite frankly, unless I'm interested in having a sexual relationship with someone, I don't give a rat's ass about their gender or any other physical aspect of them.

Automan Empire says

I think most of them will come around eventually, sometimes not till their 30s when their sexual market value is peaking while their female cohorts are past their prime.

I can personally speak to reaching my 30s. My social market value skyrocketed and the value of women my age plummeted. I still had no desire to form a relationship with a woman over 29, and my preferences was and still is for women age 20 to 25. I am not unique.

Guys Like Women In Their Early 20s Regardless Of How Old They Get

Men, regardless of their age, tend to say women in their early 20s look best, while women are most attracted to men their own age.

The great thing about the Internet is that men can finally talk frankly and honestly with other men about life because of the anonymity. As a result, men are learning that their experiences are very common. This is how red pill started. Before the Internet, men could not talk about such personal things because of fear of being perceived as weak. With anonymity, that fear is gone and men now communicate with each other online as much as women communicated with each other since the dawn of time. This is causing men to become socially awakened.

Dan8267 says

The great thing about the Internet is that men can finally talk frankly and honestly with other men about life because of the anonymity.

Yes, for now, but lots of women really don't like men communicating openly about female sexual strategy, and will work hard to censor it.

We should all be archiving all this information for future generations.

These men believe they are jumping ship and won't be supporting women in their quest to have children be grow them to adulthood.
However, we have welfare and taxes that EVERYONE pays! Suckers! So some other dude is pumping out the kids while you just pay for them with your involuntary taxes. He's probably black and has a bigger dick than yours also.

Marriage ain't easy, but if done right can be a powerful partnership against a world indifferent to your personal struggles. Plus you usually get kids out of it, who while requiring great resource commitment, can grow into your greatest friends and allies. Blood is thicker than water.
My advice: don't marry a woman simply for looks. Make sure she's got a few brains in her head and knows how to do something for money or has a decent degree or something. At some point you're going to be done having kids and unless you want a woman sitting at home getting fat and indolent while waiting on the kids to get home from school, while getting bored and wondering what you're doing all day at work, and admiring the pool boy's abs....
Marry a woman who will pull her share. That will make all the difference.

Automan Empire says

I think a lot of people who identify as MGTOW are really just unsuccessful in the dating market, and MGTOW puts a positive spin on the sour grapes.

Unlike many Red Pill men, I don't feel animosity toward this type of MGTOW; I think most of them will come around eventually, sometimes not till their 30s when their sexual market value is peaking while their female cohorts are past their prime.

and MGTOW views the Red Pill ppl as simps who have not yet accepted reality.

there are no "winners" in this game that women have built. At best you end up chained to one for life, chained to a job to support the system as a whole. Those who were "unsuccessful at dating" were really just those who either couldn't or WOULDN'T live in terms of female society.

Red Pills are men who think they can exploit the system, MGTOWs are men who don't want to live in the system at all. There are varied views on the value of sex itself in MGTOW. Some enjoy it, some have "gone monk", but most importantly there is a critical discussion on how valuable it really is(unanimously the feeling is it's not very valuable). The idea that pussy is in short supply and good for you is really an idea pushed by women.

The Original Bankster says

what does this board think of MGTOW?

We love it!

The Original Bankster says

and MGTOW views the Red Pill ppl as simps who have not yet accepted reality.

You're projecting animosity between the groups where none exists from me. I consider myself a "Manosphere unificationist" because the small or medium differences between the various factions keep us from joining forces and effecting REAL change of the BIG problems that almost all men have in common in our female primary society.

"You do you" is often stated, but really only intermittently practiced on TRP.

Automan Empire says

I consider myself a "Manosphere unificationist"

theres really not many antagonisms between MGTOW and MRA, hope I didnt come off as suggesting that. MRAs are very typically divorced dads, sometimes men who have been severely harassed by women. MGTOW range from rich single men who want nothing to with marriage to lonely "incels". Mostly though the intelligence levels in MGTOW are very high. Of course women are swarming the place trying to locate beta orbiters and establish themselves as experts(and failing at it).

the TRP are people who believe "playing the game" is actually worth it, and mostly haven't been playing it(successfully) for very long. They treat the subject of women like a game that can be won. That's the difference between TRP and MGTOW.

Which one of you did this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MGTOW/comments/699vhy/mgtow_on_patricknet_mostly_san_franciscobay_area/

rando says

I do think men are more inclined to analytical thinking though, and women to wholistic.

If wholistic means "kinda stupid", then I agree.

komputodo says

If wholistic means "kinda stupid", then I agree.

notice women invented new "forms" of intelligence to mask the fact that they are just plain stupid and dont take responsibility for anything eg. Emotional Intelligence.