Seattle Traditionalist Introduction

Seattle Traditionalist · #31 27th-August-2008

I submitted previous post accidentally, before I intended to. Follow up/continuation of post coming soon.

**julie** · #32 27th-August-2008

ST, I, I, I, ......

Well, don't know what to say really.

But these guys have already been through the mill, time and time again.

Can you maybe present your work as an article on this site to show your way forward?

Seattle Traditionalist · #33 27th-August-2008

These quotes (from earlier post from Bachelors Declaration of Independence- from Outcast Superstars) indicate to me an extreme narcissism and a high level of hostility toward women in general. When I originally said that I think the MGTOW attitude is self-indulgent I largely had in mind the attitude expressed in those quotes. I'll admit, maybe MGTOW isn't fairly represented by one person's "Declaration of Independence" but if someone says they refuse to marry any woman in a braggadocious way like he is proud of being single, and then I read this manifesto going on and on about doing what I want to do, no responsiblites, no nagging, it seems to me that this MGTOW idea is wrongheaded. That it is shirking responsibilities men should take on, not run away from. The jumping up and down saying "I'm free! I'm free!" makes the self-indulgent egocentric mindset even more annoying.

As to the question of is it punishment against women to refuse to marry any woman? I thought punishment against women and indirectly "the system" was the whole point of MGTOW. How can you say it is not punishment to harm a woman by refusing to marry her when she has done nothing wrong, simply because you think the family courts are against you or you have some other complaint against society that the woman you refuse to marry has nothing to do with?

You can say that refusing to marry any woman makes which women you end up not marrying a hypothetical question since the actual woman harmed by your actions is unknown. It is true, which woman will be deprived of a husband because you refuse to marry is unknown, but some woman will be deprived, and that is what matters in terms of thinking about the morality of going the MGTOW way.

So, Celtic Druid, think of this post as being my do-over of the previous verbose confusing post I made earlier. If you wish to respond, that would be great!

(Also, consider this post and the prior two posts I have made to be joined into one. If I didn't accidentally press the Submit Reply button instead of the Preview Post button, that is how it would have appeared.)

shaazam · #34 27th-August-2008

"""I don't think of men as being more important to the well being of families than women. They simply have different roles to play, different and complementary equal roles to play, in the well being of families.""""

'They simply have different roles to play,' there is something really doctrinaire about this it seems to have a familiar feminit odour

of course the role with a bullet nowdays ( for the chauvinits piggies) is paying alimony and child maintenance and keeping well away from his kids on penalty of arrest

Seattle Traditionalist · #35 27th-August-2008

Bachelor Tom: You say you've been single for several decades, not according to plan but that is how it has turned out. First of all, unless you have had some major problems in your life that took decades to solve, I can't really see how you can be single that long "by accident". Accepting your statement at face value, then your situation is different from the MGTOW idea. The whole point of MGTOW is that you choose to be single. Of course, being single doesn't have to mean your life is worhtless, there are many positive things that people can do outside of a family life. Also, many men have made great contributions to the world beyond their role as husband and father, roles that could be said to be much more important than what an individual can achieve merely in their family life.

The idea though that one will purposely avoid fulfilling a role that is very important to society's well being, to ordinary common human happiness, without explicitly doing it for some grand alternative purpose, strikes me as very strange and self-defeating.

By going the MGTOW route you are intentionally failing in the family realm of life. To intentionally fail strikes me as a much greater sin than to try and then fail by accident.

Doesn't society have enough unmarried mothers already? The last thing we need is a bunch of men not marrying by choice and then bragging about how free they are!

Bachelor Tom:

Quote:

Politically the MGTOW idea is a response to radical feminist claims that men are useless or worse.

Why prove those feminists right? In addition, I sense that you are punishing those radical feminists by abandoning them. That your giving those damn feminists what they deserve! Attn. Celtic Druid.
Bachelor Tom:

Quote:

I think it's silly to condemn the single life, since modern society is structured to almost guarantee that many will not pair up as was done in pre-industrial times.

It's not silly at all to condemn men who intentionally engage in behavior that increases the number of fatherless children. MRAs constantly complain about all the problems that come from fatherless children, rightly so, so why intentionally cause even more children to be fatherless?
Bachelor Tom:

Quote:

Withdrawal from a hostile culture is hardly a new tactic, it can be seen as a variant of non-violent resistance.

Non-violent resistance is when peaceful marchers campaign against injustice, knowing they might be jailed but they are willing to risk that to further their cause. Non-violent resistance is where a politcal activist puts themselves at risk to change the laws of society to make the world better. It is public, militant, designed to change the law, and dangerous. In no way is refusing to get married so that you don't have to participate in taking care of children and so you can spend all your money on yourself the slightest bit the moral equivalent of non-violent resistance!

Damn, I must admit, saying what I really think feels good!

Seattle Traditionalist · #36 27th-August-2008

Shazaam: The idea that men and women have different roles to play in family life is a very ancient idea, perhaps since the beginning of time. Isn't it the feminists that oppose the idea of men going out to work to be the breadwinner and women staying at home to raise the kids. Aren't feminists the ones who oppose "gender stereotypes". How is it that "They simply have different roles to play" sounds feminist to you?

Also, I noticed you quoted me from by brilliant musings on the Chivalry thread. I am laboring under the burden of promoting Chivalry and bashing MGTOW at the same time. I think it is about time I tend to my chivalrous duty and see what is going on at the other thread now. Never fear, I will be back soon!

**Percy** · #37 27th-August-2008

Quote:

It is true, which woman will be deprived of a husband because you refuse to marry is unknown, but some woman will be deprived, and that is what matters in terms of thinking about the morality of going the MGTOW way.

This is an odd way of thinking, ST.

I like your way of pursuing the arguement and exploring various avenues, but this one is a dead end road with potholes in it.

If I marry, by your logic, I am depriving every other woman of me as a husband. And you think it a moral issue?

That some other woman cannot marry me is simply the consequence of a choice. I am not depriving anyone of anything. If I marry one woman, then, unfortunately 3000,000,000 others are going to be 'deprived' according to your logic and frankly that is not my business but simply a matter of normal choice consequence. You might just as well condemn me for being an accountant and depriving a city of my possible surgical skills or depriving the entire population of the world for the next three generations of the possible discovery of a cure for nasal hair that I might have made.

If I refuse to marry I am simply exercising my choice and my right to self-determination. To 'accuse' me of 'depriving' others is plain silly.

Nor am I punishing anyone. I am simply being true to myself. I have no wish to punish anyone in this matter. But I do reserve the right to avoid punishment.

If I refuse to put my hand in a fire, I am not 'punishing' the fire by 'depriving' it of roast hand, but I am preserving the integrity of my limb.

By the way, I have been married twice. Am I therefore a glutton? Or maybe I am generous.

(And I have been severely burned, twice.)

What do you think?

**bachelor tom** · #38 27th-August-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seattle Traditionalist

Bachelor Tom: You say you've been single for several decades, not according to plan but that is how it has turned out. First of all, unless you have had some major problems in your life that took decades to solve, I can't really see how you can be single that long "by accident". Accepting your statement at face value, then your situation is different from the MGTOW idea. The whole point of MGTOW is that you choose to be single. Of course, being single doesn't have to mean your life is worthless, there are many positive things that people can do outside of a family life. Also, many men have made great contributions to the world beyond their role as husband and father, roles that could be said to be much more important than what an individual can achieve merely in their family life.

The idea though that one will purposely avoid fulfilling a role that is very important to society's well being, to ordinary common human happiness, without explicitly doing it for some grand alternative purpose, strikes me as very strange and self-defeating.

By going the MGTOW route you are intentionally failing in the family realm of life. To intentionally fail strikes me as a much greater sin than to try and then fail by accident.

Doesn't society have enough unmarried mothers already? The last thing we need is a bunch of men not marrying by choice and then bragging about how free they are!

Bachelor Tom:

Why prove those feminists right? In addition, I sense that you are punishing those radical feminists by abandoning them. That your giving those damn feminists what they deserve! Attn. Celtic Druid.
Bachelor Tom:

It's not silly at all to condemn men who intentionally engage in behavior that increases the number of fatherless children. MRAs constantly complain about all the problems that come from fatherless children, rightly so, so why intentionally cause even more children to be fatherless?
Bachelor Tom:

Non-violent resistance is when peaceful marchers campaign against injustice, knowing they might be jailed but they are willing to risk that to further their cause. Non-violent resistance is where a politcal activist puts themselves at risk to change the laws of society to make the world better. It is public, militant, designed to change the law, and dangerous. In no way is refusing to get married so that you don't have to participate in taking care of children and so you can spend all your money on yourself the slightest bit the moral equivalent of non-violent resistance!

Damn, I must admit, saying what I really think feels good!

I don't understand why you see MGTOW as selfish when women have been encouraged to "go their own way" for decades (is it "their turn" now? are they entitled to compensation for millenia of male "oppression"?)

You say that raising families is good and useful and I agree - so why are feminists opposed to this? And why do you assume that fatherless children are always the result of male selfishness?

It's true that I didn't start with the intention of boycotting romance, but there was no MGTOW idea in the air thirty years ago. Now I consciously refuse to follow a relationship script which is disadvantageous to men emotionally and financially.

We all rationalize our choices, and I'm no better than the next man in that regard. But mindless acceptance of the dominant culture is surely too narrow an attitude, don't you agree? Or do you deny that politically correct liberalism/progressivism/modernism is the mainstream culture in the West today?

Seattle Traditionalist · #39 27th-August-2008

This MGTOW controversy appears to still have some life in it.

I am thinking it is odd for this MGTOW debate to be taking place under the Seattle Traditionalist Introduction heading in the introductions category of the site. I want to move the MGTOW debate to a new thread in the MGTOW category, so that people will know the debate is going on.

I think the introductions have already been done, everyone know I'm here, so this thread has served it's purpose. If people want to send me short messages or something to this thread that is fine, but I think the major discussions should take place more in public and that in general the introduction part of this thread should die.

I will start a new thread in the MGTOW category titled: MGTOW -selfishness or legitimate self-preservation? I will then make the first post describing my attitude, I will tell people they can get background information on the controversy by visiting the Seattle Traditionalist Introduction thread, and then this thread will be born again!

Julie: Sorry if you had more to say to me, I will respond to short messages or questions here and I'm sure I'll see you again on other threads.

**Percy** · #40 27th-August-2008

I put a little effort into my post above, ST, so don't just bugger off.

I did you the courtesy of responding to a point you made and I expect some in return.