Why Do These Straight Men Want Nothing to Do with Women?

I'm sure I'm exaggerating, but bear with me: A lot of the traditional men's spaces look like avenues for social advancement that are closed to women. This may be incidental because men have historically run things and the politicking and networking naturally occurred in spaces where men congregated, but incidental or not, attempting to bar women from traditionally male spaces today has the effect of locking women out of society, so to speak. In a vacuum, a club where men hang out exclusively is no different than a club where women hang out exclusively, but in reality the sheriff and mayor are rubbing elbows at the elk lodge, not at the women's gym down the road. As long as men hold the reins, locking women out of the spaces where men hobnob is another tool of control.

These have to be looked at individually with more context than just gender division. Such as why they exist, in the case of female only subway cars for safety in Mexico city. Having experienced the chaos and overcrowding of subways in Mexico city I'm not surprise at all this was done. But I did notice the women's cars were far emptier so these compromises always have trade-offs that need to be considered so they don't add resentment, or further create societal divisions, and end up fueling the problem.

There have been white only organizations at universities that were shut down even though the same schools had black-only and asian-only organizations, but there was more context to this issue than just race as the white groups political positions of white empowerment were seen as masking a racist movement (the founder later joined a white nationalist group after leaving school). So it wasn't a straight forward comparison of race equality as they wanted it to seem.

So I don't think the idea can be easily accepted/dismissed at a high level without context.

And the idea is just what you're talking about, and really, it's just an application of the support group idea: A group of people with a shared experience get together to talk about it.

There is an experience of "being a man", and there's an experience of "being a woman". Things really only get tricky when you have people with both experiences.

I'm sure that an equivalent men-only train car or taxi could be established if necessary. At least I haven't heard about any resistance to making that kind of safe space. I don't think anybody is trying to justify gender biased transportation; the difference is simply due to lack of demand.

That negative experience aside I think it is fine for men and women to spend time apart if it is voluntary.

When a member of the opposite sex, even one, is in a group of the other sex then the atmosphere changes. I don't have a better way to describe it, but unsurprisingly it suppresses some activities.

I think what I hate most, and I really do mean hate, about the left is how they have damaged something which used to be much stronger, which is male friendship. They associated male friends with homoerotic implications because gay sexuality is their fixation. There is nothing wrong with being gay, I support all forms of civil liberties for gays including marriage, I voted for it in the Irish election recently even though I had to visit 4 polling stations to get it in properly. Nonetheless I believe also that platonic male friendship has suffered badly in the last few decades for no good reason. Gay sexuality does not threaten male friendship, but the politically motivated and constant insertion of it into everyday life, especially through the media has been destructive. Many many men have not evolved a deeper friendship because they were afraid of being sniggered at as homosexuals, and I think that is wrong.

If you read books about generations gone by it is obvious that many men had much deeper friendships than they do today. Today those sorts of friendships are not really possible without stupid irrelevant discussions about sexuality.

For one, in the last year or so, the "sex appeal" of financial stability has shot up drastically. Mostly because I'm watching two friends take a year off (and likely more, since another is in the oven) to raise a baby.

> "Womankind has let them down". ...No? I mean, I see where they're coming from, but... Privilege is being used to being the target audience. Women don't owe men anything. People can only let you down if you're expecting something from them.

> If you get married to somebody, you both have to sacrifice certain of your desires to make the relationship better To be frank, you have shitty role models for marriage. First, doesn't that occur in relationships in general? I want pizza. My buddy wants thai. Second, the better a fit you and someone else are, the less you have to sacrifice. Third, the more you're into that other someone, the less you give a shit about that sacrifice.

> They're brought up on the thoughts that you can have your cake and eat it too. You can play around when you're younger and make your career your priority. Yeah, because you can. I mean, that's the expected story for men, right? Means women can do it too.

> Can you listen, sacrifice your spare time to listen to somebody else's problems, do you mind doing chores for a shared house? Sounds like having friends and roommates. Also completely compatible with NOT settling down.

> They're more interested in having a life partner that you can share burdens with Sounds like everyone. Wouldn't you expect women to be more interested in life partners that you can share burdens with? Isn't this part of the definition of a best friend?

Here's a thing you should do. Add gender to each of your sentences: "If a woman lacks any of the skills to be good in a relationship (whether from lack of practice or inclination), she's not going to be a good partner, and she shouldn't expect a good partner."

and then invert it: "If a man lacks any of the skills to be good in a relationship (whether from lack of practice or inclination), he's not going to be a good partner, and he shouldn't expect a good partner."

and you'll notice what you're horribly wrong about.

I can't speak for "most men", but personally I find lack of ambition to be a huge turnoff when I'm considering whether I want to try and enter a relationship with a woman. You state that men are more interested in having someone with whom to share their burdens, but how is someone supposed to understand my career ambitions, concerns, and mindset when they have none of their own?

Women do not have careers to impress men.

The argument underlying here in more blunt terms: men bring careers to the relationship and women bring emotional support/cleaning. (and these duties are apparently exclusive - he assumes a women with a career is less likely to be emotionally supportive, so we must assume a man with a career is less likely to be emotionally supportive as well - so we're really dead centre of the 1950s here)

Yours is a deeply weird and poorly reasoned comment. I don't know if you meant to, but the sentiment you have managed to convey is that "men prefer women who lack agency".

I don't think you're going to find the woman you do want in the MGTOW community...

This is known as "alpha fucks, beta bucks“.

It sounds somewhat crude at first, but as a guy dating quite a bit now in my 30s, it's an accurate description for many women these days.

If you're into open relationships or poly or whatever you want to call it, you may be surprised to find that there is any number of women sharing your conviction. It's just rarely visible because it's not among the approved topics for light dinner conversation.

What usually doesn't work is to convince people of that idea. You can maybe bring it up and there's chance if they have never considered it before, but jealousy seems to be, from my experience, a rather fundamental emotion and while you can pressure some people into an open relationship, you're going to make them and yourself miserable. I've also seem men who convinced their girlfriends and ended up regretting it when they embraced it and got a lot more use out of it than their bfs.

Now if, for some reason, you expect to find a 20-year old beauty queen who'll stay at home and make breakfast for you when you come home and congratulate you on that night's conquest... That's not going to work, I'm sorry. I don't even get that idea, though. It's beyond me how you could enjoy the company of someone who apparently has no interests in life except baking and babies.

I think the biggest point of this is that, it is possible to get what you want, and there are others who want that.

And generally that if it is a quality point it is applicable to both genders.

To be happy and get what they want, people need to be clear on what it is they DO want. To have a successful relationship, people need to have good boundaries and know where they are willing to compromise. etc etc...

Women aren't the oppressors... or... whatever else. It is a person's agreement (because they don't know any other options) to be oppressed that is the real oppression. That they limit themselves.

Because it's extremely contrary to what 99.9% of men are brought up to believe. There are a lot of concepts that are difficult to learn, understand, and embrace. It's an experience that takes some men years to adopt. And there's a constant influx of men who are new to the concept and need help understanding it. It makes sense there would be a lot of discussion.

Movements like this are proof that everything creates its opposite. Mutual arising.

Some would argue that these "reaction formations" are a precursor to eventually meeting in the middle. A sane, loving marriage of equals. Some of us have this, some don't, and some don't want it.

The world is a big place. Plenty of room for everyone (for now).

Then again, in a recent accounting, I noticed that most of my friends are or have been poly.

I'm not saying my life is normal. I am saying that my peer group isn't losing much autonomy to their relationships, even the monogamous ones; it's possible I'm already seeing the social restructuring you're expecting. (Or, one potential restructuring).

In fact, if you search for the phrase, you'll find it posted here: https://www.mgtow.com/forums/topic/why-false-rape-is-far-wor...

It's the opinion of one poster named "Supremo," yet the author presents it as the opinion of the MGTOW movement.

And if you read the responses, you'll find many people disagree with it.

So don't let this single, secondary source make up your mind for you. Do your own due diligence.

Any movement, tendency or idea that seeks to "change things" is always immediately attacked with suspicion. Think of when the iPod or Dropbox came out! It's just people testing the authenticity and sincerity of the beliefs.

And then they poison the well with that absurdity...

Yes, the person who wrote the opinion piece linked to made that exact argument, but many of the commenters disagreed and said the crimes were as bad as each other.

So saying this is one of the views of the group as a whole seems disingenious at best. At worst, a blatant lie.

As a disclaimer - I have never heard of this group before so have no skin in the game.

(or the 1920ies, because what people were apparently warning we would lose in the 60ies had already been lost during WWII)

Complete and utter bullshit projecting on your part. I've literally never heard such a load of crap from any feminist on any side of the spectrum.

Once bitten, twice shy.

It's a decision for personal behavior, that societal attitudes say do not meet their obligations to the rest of humanity.

But describing what exactly someone's obligations to humanity are gets a bit muddy when you're talking about it, even at the point of positively positing that they may exist (rather than only talking about them when someone fails to meet them by killing themselves).