I don't know how many of you have looked back to the beginnings of this MGTOW debate that started in my introduction thread, but I think it would be worthwhile to redo some of that material for our betterment. Part of what gave me a bad attitude about the MGTOW lifestyle was an essay I read called the Bachelors Declaration of Independence, put out by Outcast Superstars. Following are 9 quotes from this esaay:

Bachelors Declaration of Indpendence - from Outcast Superstars (all quotes from same source)
Quote:
We, like many other men, live the bachelor lifestyle where we live the way we want without anyone telling us what to do. There is no wife or girlfriend to nag us OR drag us into doing something we don't want to do. No kids to support. Probably not even a pet (well, maybe a dog or a great car).
Quote:
We, the great men of this world, are living proof that we don't have to have a 'significant other' in our lives. All the money we make is our decision to spend on whatever we want . . .
Quote:
This type of thinking will also make us men follow the same mentality as women, "it's all about me!" No ring! No wife! No kids! My life, woman! Not yours! I can do anything I want to do in life! I'm free! Yay!
Quote:
Worst of all is still being married to a fat, lazy AW/WW. Such disgustingness to an extent that even the man’s health decreases dramatically.
Quote:
Take all the money you've spent on a girlfriend/wife divided by the times she's given you an orgasm will always be higher than the amount it takes to spend the night with a prostitute.
Quote:
We have to say that we fully believe in prostitution because it's like a romantic love story but without the BS.
Quote:
Besides, we like to wake up each morning feeling a new woman.

Quote:
Yeah, I'd love to get married to a great girl. Here are my expectations in 4 lines or less...She'll always loyally support me while I quit my job and play videogames all day and night and I STILL get laid at night when she comes home from work! If she doesn't "give it up" and/or becomes fat and ugly, then I'm entitled to go get a hooker then. Also, in the event of a divorce, I get half of her assets and paid alimony for life.

Quote:
Those “some” happen to be everyone else, who are chasing that rat race dream of a job, career, wife, kids, big house, and dog – well, screw all that! We're going to make my own way and give the finger to all those who chose the rat race, the dying institution of marriage, and get away from all those gold digging, leach women. The middle finger is also for all the wage slave men who blindly married (chained) themselves to a chain and ball.
----------------------------------------------
Am I the only one who finds these quotes offensive? They are all about how fun it is to have no responsibilities, to only do things to please yourself, how men who take on family responsibilities are fools and losers, and lots of gratuitous insults of women are thrown in for good measure!

Quote from Seattle Traditionalist:
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.

Quote from Percy:

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?

I must admit Percy, your logic, at first glance, is quite appealing and seems perfectly legitimate and sane. I especially like the analogy of "punishing" the fire by "depriving" it of roast hand. That is hilarious!

So, does this mean I have totally changed my mind? Not so fast. I feel like this question is worthy of some kind of logic class on morality and philosophy that might be taught in college.

Imagine you are living in a small island society and on this island there are 10 men and 10 women who are of the same age cohort and are unmarried. Let's pretend that you suddenly get MGTOW religion, seeing that living single is the best route to self expression and to be the man you really want to be. Much better when you don't have a wife and kids to worry about. Now there are 10 women and 9 men who want to marry. 9 women and 9 men then fall in love and get married and have kids. 1 man, yourself, is going the MGTOW route to personal isolated self-fulfillment, 1 woman is scorned and without a husband, bereft of the support and love that she wanted in her life but cannot now achieve.

The scorned woman, without a husband, still wishes for motherhood, to be as close to a normal memeber of the community as possible. So, what does this woman do? She decides to have an affair with one of the 9 married men. At some point the wife of this married man finds out of her husbands treachery and there is great pain and drama for a year or two until she learns to forgive her husband for his infidelity. The single mother had two children, as two children is the norm on this island. Those two children are not like the other children around them born to married parents; their mother is single, they have no one to rely upon as their father. When those two children grow up they will have a more difficult time being able to create marriages for themselves since they did not see how a marriage works in their childhood.

So, why is it on this Island that there are 10 married men, 9 married women, 18 children with married parents, 2 children with only a single mother, 1 of the 9 marriages suffering from diffuculty because of the extramarital affair, 1 single woman who has been scorned, and 1 man who is living free following the MGTOW path to self-fulfillment?

Who, on this Island, is responsible for the unhappy lonely scorned woman, the two fatherless children, and the marriage damaged by adultery? Who?

So, the hypothetical. I have my particular desire for 'singlehood' and a.n.other woman has a desire for motherhood.

Her desire is not my problem or responsibility.

Were I to adopt the view that I am responsible for the desires of another, or providing for their desires contrary to my own, what of their autonomy and integrity?

I am not responsible - nor even to be called to account by you or anyone else - for someone elses infidelity and adultery.

I may have some compassion for the two fatherless children, but not a direct responsibility. Indeed, I may chose to play with them, building sandcastle. If I felt like it.

The scorned, unhappy women can play chess with me if she asks nicely and plays by the rules. I may even be peruaded to wash her back when she takes a bath.

You are providing me with faux-philosophy tasks, ST.

Quote from Seattle Traditionalist

Following are 9 quotes from this esaay:
Bachelors Declaration of Indpendence - from Outcast Superstars (all quotes from same source)
Quote:
We, like many other men, live the bachelor lifestyle where we live the way we want without anyone telling us what to do.
etc. etc.

----------------------------------------------
Am I the only one who finds these quotes offensive? They are all about how fun it is to have no responsibilities, to only do things to please yourself, how MEN who take on family responsibilities are fools and losers, and lots of gratuitous insults of WOMEN are thrown in for good measure!

You find it offensive, because it comes from men.
But what about if it comes from women? Will you still find it offensive?

I do not know about this 'declaration' but if I replace 'man' with 'woman' this text is rather similar to feminist demands...

We live the way we want...
Nobody has the right to tell anything to us...
We go out anytime we want...
We are dressing up as we like...
We sleep with any man we like...
We do not need big old fat bald losers...
Only some line about taking and spending money are a bit different maybe.

And using your own words:
Am I the only one who finds these quotes offensive? They are all about how fun it is to have no responsibilities, to only do things to please yourself, how WOMEN who take on family responsibilities are fools and losers, and lots of gratuitous insults of MEN are thrown in for good measure...

What you find offensive because it comes from men, you might find a 'wonderful, empowering writing' if it is coming from feminists...Yes?

Double standard? Isn't it?

Quote from Seattle Traditionalist

Who, on this Island, is responsible for the unhappy lonely scorned woman, the two fatherless children, and the marriage damaged by adultery? Who?

We have enough problems in our real life, we do not need artificial created ones on non-existing islands.

I would not call these children 'fatherless' - there is a father and a mother, both even living nearby in your example.

NO man is under any obligation to marry - same is true with any woman - you cannot blame the single man for the unhappy unwed mother and her children in your strange example.

The scorned woman, without a husband, still wishes for motherhood, to be as close to a normal member of the community as possible. So, what does this woman do? She decides to have an affair with one of the 9 married men.

First of all, responsible is the woman. If there is no unmarried man willing to marry her, available, then this is regrettable, but this does not give her the right to break into another family.

Responsible further is the married man, who accepts a relationship with this single woman - he should reject her request.

(original comment is from bachelor tom near the end of the Seattle Traditionalist Introduction thread)


Bachelor Tom:

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?

You say many interestings things in your response. Important things for me to address, I think.

"I don't understand why you see MGTOW as selfish when women have been encouraged to "go their own way" for decades . . ." The fact that women have been encouraged to go their own way for decades, which is a reasonable statement, has nothing to do with your responsibilities. That simply means that selfishness has been encouraged in women for decades. Both parties can be selfish at the same time. If you act the same way as a woman, and the woman is acting selfishly, then you are acting selfishly to.

"(is it "their turn" now? are they entitled to compensation for millenia of male "oppression"?)"

So, you are saying that if you pursue relationships with women while the women are acting selfishly, you are rewarding women who act selfishly, you are acknowledging that it is "their turn" and providing them compensation for the supposed millenia of male "oppression" that the feminists claim. This is therefore supporting a feminist assertion, rewarding feminists for their selfish behavior.

That is quite an assumption to make. You are loading an awful lot of baggage onto merely engaging in the normal human activity of pursuing romantic relationships with women. I don't see how pursuing relationships with women is rewarding women.

Relationships with women are the norm, or the default of expected behavior. If you abandon relationships with women that could indeed be seen as a punishment, because you are violating the normative behavior in a way that harms women.

So, pursuing relationships with women is not punishing women. The question then is, is it better to punish women for their bad, selfish, feminist behavior or not. First of all, you are not punishing individual women for their individual feminist selfish behavior. You are punishing all women for the societies selfish feminist behavior. Remember, you are not rejecting individual women, you are rejecting all women. So the question is, is it good to punish society or women in general for the sin of societal wide feminism? In order for me to come to a conclusion on this point, my reference is whether society as a whole will function better if you deliver the punishment of abandoning women or will the society function worse? Well, if you do a simple thought experiment, and say in one scenario 10 million men decide to go MGTOW, and in the other those 10 million men decide to reject MGTOW and pursue relationships with women like normal, then what is the difference? If 10 million men decided to abandon women all at once then the marriage rate would radically decline, out-of-wedlock births would jump very high, the number of children without fathers in their lives would increase dramatically, and it would obviously be very bad to society. I would say there is no question that if 10 million men suddenly abandoned marriage society would be worse off. If you then scale down the 10 million men abandoning women to just one man deciding whether or not he should abandon women, then the bad consequences are not as large since your talking about 1 person instead of 10 million but the principle is still the same. Damage to society will still be done. So, if we go back to the original question, is it right to punish women for the sin of societal feminism, I would say no because that action will leave society worse off.

How can punishment be legitimate if the harm caused by the act of punishment is greater than any benefit that you are supposedly trying to create with the punishment? Since the act of punishment is immoral, the whole concept that you propose, that failure to punish will be promoting feminism, is illegitimate. We have already established the harm of the punishment is greater than the benefit of the punishment, so the punishment is illegitimate and immoral whatever the punishment's purpose may be.

"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?"

Feminists are opposed to this, as you say, because they are selfish and immoral. If you agree with the feminist position or go along with the feminst behavior you are selfish and immoral as well.

Why do I assume that fatherless children are always the result of male selfishness? I assume no such thing. If a man engages in selfish behavior, and the result of the selfish behavior is a fatherless child, than the fact that the child is fatherless is 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."

It doesn't matter jack diddly squat that the "relationship script" may be "disadvantageous to men emotionally and financially." This behavior, or this choice you are making, is the very definition of selfishness. It has already been established that you punishing women in general by taking the MGTOW route is harmful to society and therefore immoral and illegitimate. If you chose to engage in a behavior that is already known to be immoral for a personal gain, such as avoiding a situation that is "disadvantageous to men emotionally and financially", then that is the very definition of selfishness! Harming other people for your own benefit is exactly what selfishness is, and that is exactly what you are doing with this choice you are making!

"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?"

I am not engaging in mindless acceptance of the dominant culture. I have decided that abandoning women is an immoral strategy to use to try to change the dominant culture, so therefore my oppostion to abandoning women in principle is based on me deciding that behavioral choice is immoral.

Do I deny that "politically correct liberalism/progressivism/ modernism is the mainstream culture in the West today?" Not at all. But the fact that feminism, the term I would use, is the mainstream culture in the West today has nothing to do with anything in regards to whether or not abandoning women is an OK thing to do. Again, it has been decided it is not okay, therefore, it is not okay!

Selfish, Selfish, Selfish! Check and Mate!

That was fun!

Quote from Seattle Traditionalist

So, if we go back to the original question, is it right to punish women for the sin of societal feminism, I would say no because that action will leave society worse off.

Society can go to Hell. If MGTOW really takes off, this society will be damaged. Hopefully it will perish, to be replaced by something more virtuous.

It's simple really. Would it be my moral duty to provide Nazi women with progeny?

S.T.

If 10 million men decided to abandon women all at once then the marriage rate would radically decline, out-of-wedlock births would jump very high, the number of children without fathers in their lives would increase dramatically, and it would obviously be very bad to society. I would say there is no question that if 10 million men suddenly abandoned marriage society would be worse off.

I do hope you have floated this idea on Feministing, ST.

After all, it is WOMEN in their tens of millions who have abandoned marriage and caused the out-of-wedlock births to 'jump'. It is the behaviour of women which is damaging society.

Have you put this to feminists?

Did you ring their bell on this matter 20 years ago?

Men are simply responding to a generation of abuse and it is not much use, frankly, complaining of damage that men 'might' cause to something that has already been severely buggered.

Taking your same conceptual stance on the individual level, would you recommend that a woman who is thrashed daily at 6.30pm leave home for an hour or two at 6, or bugger off altogether? Would you suggest that she is making matters worse by leaving?

The MGTOW chaps have decided to bugger off.

Maybe you could take the hint.

I have decided that abandoning women is an immoral strategy to use to try to change the dominant culture, so therefore my oppostion to abandoning women in principle is based on me deciding that behavioral choice is immoral.

I am happy for you that you have made a decision which satisfies you. However, that is insufficient for the stance to be right. Deciding something does not make it so. You haven't offered a convincing argument for that 'immorality' and I have already pointed that out. Have you decided on what green cheese the moon is made of?

ST, you are either a troll woman or the stupidest dumbass male I have ever heard of....off you go...go get married and have kids...some stupid arsed guys have to do it...

Seattle Tradionalist, I am a young semi-traditonal man and many members of this forum believe in true forced equality rather than Nature's views on gender so your opinions won't be accepted with open arms right off the bat. But I am here because I am frustrated by all the fat, ugly, mean-spirited, egoistical, egotistical, tat-plastered, plainly-dressed or sluttily dressed, girls (they're not women) who hate men, yet want to use them for all they got. Tha'ts why I see wise men like Percy and those like him as allies in this cruel world.

I want to find the right woman, too, but your methods for interacting with (Western) women are demonstrably debunked. Most members of this site have done exacty what you propose, but had their hearts, testicles, and snaity ripped out and thrown at a wall anyway by secret competitors (Western women).

A traditional man requires a traditional woman for true happiness in a relationship. There are little, if any, traditional women in North America and Western Europe. If you want a traditional woman, you must go to South America, Eastern Europe, the Former Soviet Union, and East Asia.

The other solution is to start a relationship with a teen girl and marry her when she is eighteen. That solution is verboten in the West and only works for men in their twenties. I don't know if this can actually work because the feminist propaganda machine works on her brain day and night and I have noticed (from media) that the older the girl gets, the less happy and innocent she becomes and then turns into just another worthless self-centered adult man with T&A. It's my life fantasy, though, because I dream of rescuing her from the stupidity of high school sex and showing her that men aren't useless like she's been taught to believe.

Please read the articles by GalacticLove on his blog Russian Women: The Real Truth. He eloquently explains how human nature works and why your methods for finding a decent woman are doomed to failure. http://russianwomen.wordpress.com

"....Don't we men"

but we guys have no doubt your not

MGTOW - selfishness or legitimate self-preservation?

As for that question I recommend people to read the The Tao of MGTOW thread which explains that.

Quote from Centrist

Seattle Tradionalist, I am a young semi-traditonal man and many members of this forum believe in true forced equality rather than Nature's views on gender

True equality is based on equal opportunity for everybody and the outcome is based on the individual's performance and choices.

What the feminists propagate is Gender Communism. Fixing outcomes and limiting people's performance or opportunities. It's communism, Marxism on a gender basis.

Quote from Centrist

The other solution is to start a relationship with a teen girl and marry her when she is eighteen. That solution is verboten in the West and only works for men in their twenties.

Course should be legal age from the get go. You don't have to marry at all. Marriage has become a defunct institution in the west. You can do everything without signing the bad business deal that is marriage. Times have changed.

Quote from Centrist

I don't know if this can actually work because the feminist propaganda machine works on her brain day and night and I have noticed (from media) that the older the girl gets, the less happy and innocent she becomes and then turns into just another worthless self-centered adult man with T&A. It's my life fantasy, though, because I dream of rescuing her from the stupidity of high school sex and showing her that men aren't useless like she's been taught to believe.

It's more use to fight feminism instead of curing one feminist indoctrinated individual.

Quote from Tyrael

As for that question I recommend people to read the The Tao of MGTOW thread which explains that.

True equality is based on equal opportunity for everybody and the outcome is based on the individual's performance and choices.

What the feminists propagate is Gender Communism. Fixing outcomes and limiting people's performance or opportunities. It's communism, Marxism on a gender basis.

Course should be legal age from the get go. You don't have to marry at all. Marriage has become a defunct institution in the west. You can do everything without signing the bad business deal that is marriage. Times have changed.

It's more use to fight feminism instead of curing one feminist indoctrinated individual.

That is true, Tyrael, but our society is changing for the better any time soon, and may not at all. The new West could be the Former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe if more Western men move there and have more children. We still need to enjoy our lives if we can.

It's not just feminism that is attacking the West, it's socialism and big government that is tightening its noose around us. In the USA where I live, traitors to the US Constitution have been passing victim disarmament laws and laws that infringe on our natural right to privacy, things that on in the bedroom, and "hate speech". This has been slowly happening since Abraham Lincoln's presidency when the federal government started its quest to become more powerful.

Unlike Europeans, we can still effectively resist our government because we still have our guns and there are many military veterans and experienced hunters among us. Unfortunately, we seem to be too scared to "start something" and we keep re-drawing our line in the sand. I'm afraid by the time those FEMA concentrations camps open up for business, it's too late. I never had a childhood; it was stolen from me by anxiety and depression. I could be dead at thirty because I would rather die than live in a greater hell. So, yeah, I do want to enjoy what I can in life, and that means finding a semi-tradional American girl for me because I can't afford to go abroad.

Quote from Centrist

Unlike Europeans, we can still effectively resist our government because we still have our guns and there are many military veterans and experienced hunters among us.

That's like a last resort method. If for example all hell breaks lose in any country I reside. I'd get out of there asap.

Meanwhile you can make a change for the better by supporting people who care about Men's Rights, MR organizations in general and by voting for the Libertarian Party (for more freedom, small government and low taxes), it's the third largest party in America and gradually starting up in Europe.

Quote from Centrist

So, yeah, I do want to enjoy what I can in life, and that means finding a semi-tradional American girl for me because I can't afford to go abroad.

You can live a fine life in the west as long as you avoid the pitfalls. You probably know a lot more than the average joe out there in this regard.