Are Men Going Their Own Way? (MGTOW)

Would that make him better or worse than Jesus?

Women do get paid the same as men for the same job and in actuality they get paid 11% more on average between the ages of 20 and 28, the big pay drop doesn't happen until after 30 and has long since been attributed to career selection. Man go after difficult careers that require long hours, lots of competition and higher stress while women pursue careers that have less of all those. The "77%" myth is comparing male petroleum engineers to female child care specialists.


I highly doubt this happened but if it did, then your awfully misogynistic. She chose to do that, regardless of her reason for doing so, she exercised her free will and chose to do that. Guaranteed she things your an a$$hole for getting high and mighty on her. People have the right to choose their actions, it's the only thing that separates us from the other animals. By denying her the right for choice, you have relegated her to the status of an animal.


You don't get to choose what other people are getting paid, in fact your seem to spend entirely too much of your time and energy focused on what other people are choosing to do vs your own self determination. A man isn't a man for fixing a car or playing a sport, he is a man for choosing something and then mastering it. Find a skillset or some purpose of your life, then spend your time and energy on it whilst ignoring the bullsh!t that others do.

I've actually heard the statistic that Saeval is bringing up, but I'd like to see a citation on it. Not in a contradictory way but more that I am very interested in the actual study/comparison, and don't know where it comes from.

A lot of studies just report the wage gap statistics in really stupid ways. They draw faulty conclusions and don't take into account factors that can heavily influence the data. Seems like must groups who run studies on it are too agenda driven to actually take the time to do it fairly and properly. They just run the numbers until they get what they want and rush off to the media with their findings.

Your slowly coming around, just give it awhile and you'll see how deep that rabbit hole goes.

About "*** shaming", that's mostly a women on women thing and not a man on women thing. Human sexual relationships can easily and accurately be modeled using free market economics. Men trade effort / time / resources for a women's sexual attention. The value of a particular mans effort / time / resources is directly correlated with this status. Justin Timberlake needs to trade much less effort / time / resources to get a particular girls sexual attention then a random 23yo college kid because Justin's status is just that much higher. This applies for anyone in a community of high status. The value of a women's sexual attention is directly related to her fertility markers, aka her physical beauty / attractiveness. All of this is in relationship to whats available in the local geographic area, someone who's high status in one area might not be high status in another.

So now that we've got a well defined market it's pretty easy to see how things fall apart. Men like slutty women because it lowers the "price" in time / effort / resources required to attain her sexual attention. It makes zero sense for a man to shame a women for having a low cost and "being easy". Other women though have all the incentive to shame each other and try to keep the price of sexual attention high. Women in western nations have created a cartel and fixed the market price to be obscenely high, so a girl who is off having easy recreational sex just serves to lower the market price.

Now there is exactly one scenario where a guy will care about how sexually active a girl was, and that's marriage. This is more a result of society abusively punishing men during divorce whilst rewarding women for doing the same. The man is looking for a women who will stay with him and he is risking his financial future, his own health and his future children on her loyalty. So the man, like any sane rational being, will review the women's sexual history to see how loyal she's been with past men as well as evaluate her ability to emotionally bond with him. The greater number of sexual partners the lower the bonding ability and the higher the chance of divorce. This is a fact that is born out by divorce statistics.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00444.x/abstract

http://socialpathology.blogspot.kr/2010/09/sexual-partner-divorce-risk.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/21/more-sexual-partners-unhappy-marriage_n_5698440.html

http://www.wf-lawyers.com/divorce-statistics-and-facts/


This is the fuel for the MGTOW movement, the ridiculous number of men who have had their lives utterly destroyed by women. The internet is making it easier for these guys to talk to other guys and all this information is becoming available.

A girl with a high number of sexual partners is still great for fun and hanging out, but any man marrying her would be taking a high risk on a depreciating asset. Some men might get lucky, but most would get financially and emotionally destroyed. The fact that men can talk about this rationally and make objective risk based decisions on it is called "hate speech" by feminists. Women wanted more power of choice and with that power comes the acceptance that some choices have long term consequences.

He can't cite it because it has never been published.

from a previous thread

time magazine article

Google foo would give it to you, it's been done dozens of times over and over again. Department of labor keeps all these numbers, then various university folks pour through them. The "75%" figure was taken by adding up all the money made by women in the USA, then divided by total women, same with men. It utterly failed to take into consideration that men and women tend to work different jobs and for different amounts of time. When occupation, experience, hours worked and qualification (education / certification) was taken into account the difference shrank to 5%, which vanished when taking into account that men are more likely to negotiate for a raise.



Has absolutely zero to do with teaching "gender roles", many Scandinavian countries, which are so feminized that some actually tried to make peeing while standing up illegal, have an obscene difference in job selection between men and women. Earlier I mentioned how evolution equipped each gender with a different set of adaptations and specialized tools. Those biological adaptations result in men and women having naturally occurring gifts towards different things. A women's intuition / social intelligence (which dwarfs a mans) enables her to easily handle any job dealing with reading people's emotional states and reacting to it. Conversely a man's neural wiring leads to a natural affinity for linear cause - effect reasoning (if X then Y) which results in him favoring those jobs. Also men are naturally more competitive and have an evolutionary drive to jockey for positions in a hierarchy then work in teams to accomplish a central goal (chasing down food and defending the women and children requires this), this leads to men constantly going for high profile professions and willingness to make great sacrifices to obtain those goals.

The different evolutionary drives for men and women manifested themselves differently

Men -> compete with other men, work with men to hunt and kill food, fight and die to protect women and children, provide food for women and children.

Women -> compete with other women, raise children, gather nearby food, support men

This isn't a bad thing, neither sex is greater then the other but neither are they equal nor interchangeable. Calling men and women equal is like calling a strawberry and potato equals. Other then both being a form of food, it just doesn't make sense. I have a "different but equal" stance in that I believe all should be treated the same legally, in fact I'd say to remove gender from all applications unless a particular gender is required for a job. If person A has the best qualifications for a job then they should get it, no bonus points being given for gender.

It's your ante, not mine.

More info about the different degree paths men and women chose.

Women

http://www.randalolson.com/2014/06/14/percentage-of-bachelors-degrees-conferred-to-women-by-major-1970-2012/

Men

http://www.randalolson.com/2014/06/15/the-double-edged-sword-of-gender-equality/

Women represent 60% of all degree's earned, they are now the majority of students in universities. That's right, men are now a minority in higher education but constitute the majority of drop outs, that is the result of rampant misandry / modern feminism. For their 60% share, women completely dominate the health and education fields whilst also getting a slight majority of biology degree's. Men on the other hand dominate anything having to do with math, science, technology or engineering, and I mean dominate as in 90% men 10% women type ratios. Those also happen to be fields that generate more income then the previously mentioned education / health / child care (falls under health or medical).

And thus the "77%" gender gap myth is created. Women were given the choice of which field to study, the the vast majority picked one that just felt more "natural" and that they enjoyed, which when considering the evolutionary advantages, makes complete sense. A few went against the trend, which is all well and good.

Okay, firstly, that did happen. I guess I forgot to get it on tape though, so I guess that's not good enough.

Secondly, my opinions were exactly that. I'm not using empirical data, here. My findings are completely anecdotal. It's way too late for me to try and find stats and figures to appease and dance the little monkey dance. I just flat out don't have it in me.

Thirdly, sure. Guys who throw the pigskin around are talented at throwing balls around for 3 hours a weekend. I'm sure if I did the same thing, I'd get some sorta prize for it, too. Instead, I'm going to devote my professional time doing something for society beyond entertainment value.

But, I guess we pay for our entertainment, and we pay for it to levels of excess. For my dollar though, I'd rather get involved in something else. Like... playing my guitar. Or whatever. So honestly, that's my take on it, and obviously I don't share the opinion of Joe Schmoe or a guy who's pretending to be a koala.

Lots of info from the links in here, I'm not going to go through and remunerate them all because there is a sh!t ton of information to parse though.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/01/no-women-don-t-make-less-money-than-men.html

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303532704579483752909957472

List of highest paid majors


Lowest paid majors


Notice an overwhelming trend here. Men are much more focused on making decisions with long term benefits even though they require short term sacrifices. Women on the other hand value "experiences" and thus focus on short term consequences for their decisions.

I provided solid information, what you do with it is entirely up to you. For now your going on the blist, the same as others who are only capable of responding emotionally when their feelings get hurt.

That may be what Feminism is supposed to be, but it would be awfully hard to convince the average person on the street that is what you mean if you identify yourself as one.

I spend a great deal of time on Tumblr, and the things I have seen from so-called "Feminists" there are outright disgusting. They pretend to be warriors of social justice and believe they are good and just for representing a perceived oppressed minority-- but the way they mirror hate groups (KKK, Neo-Nazis) in their rhetoric is mind-boggling. What they want is NOT equality. The way they talk, you'd think they'd expect every straight man to become some *** teen idol or die.

Be they men or women, black or white or sexually oriented however the *** ever-- you align yourself with this kind of "movement" and you find yourself on a path of intense self-entitlement and paranoia. I suppose five years from now we'll have "movements" for all the poor oppressed brown haired people out there that some statistic will show them how unfairly they are treated compared to blondes.

I'm a guy, I'm a humanist. I think the current generation of feminists and feminist sympathizers are horrendous hypocrites and *** artists.

I see the current feminist movement as hypocritical because they act like men don't have to worry about shitty gender roles the way that they do. They act like men are not objectified the same way as women. They seem all too happy to ignore the fact that a buff guy is a sexually attractive thing for women, and claim it's just a power fantasy for men. They see nothing wrong with the male always having to be the provider, protector, the sacrifice. It's not just men that perpetuate this ***, it's everyone. Any time you bring something like this up you get torn to shreds. And they tend to cherry pick and twist information to suit their argument, no matter how illogical or outdated it is.

I believe everyone regardless of color, gender, or wealth deserves equal rights and treatment. I'd be happy if we could just stop treating each other like crap, and stop taking advantage of one another. But that's human nature.

Basically I'm tired of tumblerina's and their white knights that do nothing but get off on spreading hatred, misinformation, and frustration.

I actually did a 9 page paper on "Income inequality, feminine consumer habits, and advertising tactics."

Here's an interesting statistic:
Meaning, H. G. S. (2013). Gender and Advertising. Controversies in Contemporary Advertising, 89.

It's an APA citation, so I don't have the link to the PDF offhand.

Google it if you must.

Not to mention when it comes to the higher paid jobs in a lot of those fields the ration swaps. For the same reasons you gave on jobs overall. This is going to change and already is changing though.

People acting like Saevel's debate came out like this...


When it was more like this...

Objective response:


My response:

Just like it's fine to be racist against black people, Asians, Arabs and white people, it's perfectly fine to be misandrist.

You'd have to completely rework Western governments while making sure that the people who are in charge next will defend equality.

The other solution is for "manly men" to go on a crusade to free their western men brothers who are too beta to be themselves nowadays and feel that they have to be some
I don't think either will happen but I don't really mind, not HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE women aren't that rare.

/enters

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/classify-mens-rights-movement-terrorist-group

/leaves

Human societies are inherently gynocentric due to male disposability. This has been the case throughout all of human history. What feminists and so-called "Social Justice Warriors" identify as "male privilege" is actual "male compensation" for how men were expected to do the virtually all of the dangerous, disgusting, difficult work, along with putting their bodies between home and war's ravages.

The problem is that as life in developed nations because increasingly comfortable, people became more and more removed from the conditions that spawned this set up. When more and more people have desk jobs, when there are fewer and fewer wars, and when there are fewer and fewer natural predators or other disasters, people forget the reasons for which such a thing came into existence.

The problem then becomes that such has been the conditions in which humans lived for virtually all their history. They are the conditions which molded and shaped us. They are the conditions to which we have become accustomed on an innate level. When these safe-guards which give men an artificially high value (since their innate value is extremely low) are removed, combined with the inbred human instinct to protect women (be it physically, or their feelings), what happens is societies that treat men like absolute ***and worship the alter of femininity.

Just look at how many young schoolboys are being medicated into girlish passivity because being rambunctious young men is "problematic". Our society views all males as defective females.

What is happening with MGTOW and such other related things is that in the past there was a social contract wherein a man would work and provide for a woman and their children, and the woman would bear children for the man and take care of the household. Agriculture, mining, and hunting, to name but three, are three activities that were necessary for a human society were dangerous, exhausting things that requires physical strength and carried a large risk of grievous bodily harm. Men did these jobs because they were both better suited to them and because men are disposable and women are not.

So in the past, in exchange for doing work and giving money to your wife so that she could spend it to run a household and raise your children, you were the head of the household, and given a certain amount of deference and respect.

In the present day, you, the male, are expected to go out and get a job. Your wife has the choice of whether or not she works. If she chooses to have a job, you're a sexist pig if you would rather she stay at home, and if she wants to stay at home, that's her choice, you just need to work faster. A "real man" should be able to support her. You are expected to treat a woman like an equal, except in any circumstances wherein she doesn't like being treated like an equal. You no longer have any safe spaces in which men can be men together without women, as any exclusion of women is sexist, misogynistic folly. Therefore there is no longer any space free of sexual selective pressure.

Now you have spent years working, generating money, which will be spent by your wife. Women make the vast majority of "financial decisions" in the US, which, in practice, boils down to "I needed this 200 dollar purse, you can keep wearing those 10 year old torn up work shoes for a few more years." Modern women (roughly those born in the 80's and on) have been raised to believe that they are awesome powerful superheroes who deserve the very best because they are magical princesses who can do anything. And this modern, liberated womyn will stick with a male as long as the male can provide things she wants.

The moment she decides that it's in her interest to leave you (I had one friend who put his wife through nursing school and then almost immediately afterwards, once she started earning more than he did, and had less tim ewith their children than he did, they got a divorce, for example), because either your value has dropped in relation to hers (she gets a new degree, a high paying job, etc), or yours falls in relation to hers, she will leave you to find a "better" man. She will take your children. Women are the de facto and de jure heads of the household, and have been for some time. Not only will she take your children, the state will force you to give her money, even if she makes more than you do. If she decides to "take you to the cleaners" may the Gods have mercy on your soul, because any accusation she makes, of infidelity, cruelty, or any other alleged abuse or deprivation will be believed virtually instantly without investigation or qualification.

You will live in a society where the husband, the father, the male-in-general is portrayed as a drooling, grunting retard who is incapable of functioning without his wise, patient, saintly wife, who is required to lead this bumbling troglodyte cave-dweller through life because he is incapable of doing so on his own. You live in a society where you are expected to shut up, "man up", "grow some balls" and do whatever you're being told, but women's feelings are inviolate. You will watch as your friends, your family, and you acquaintances in general enter into the trap that is a relationship with the "gentler" sex. You will watch them lose their friends, their hobbies, their free time, and their money, because any time not spent on their wife, or with their wife, or in service to their wife is resented, whereas her time with her friends is sacrosanct.

If, after years of seeing men around you being treated like ***and being told to suck it up and like it they should feel privileged to get kiss the ground an awesome empowered liberated womyn walks on, and you decide that you don't want to support a woman and would rather spend your time and your money on things you enjoy, you're still ***. Because the modern woman has married the government. Women make up the majority of the electorate, and they are using this position to divert tax funds, the majority of which come from men, to be used for women's wants and needs. If men are unwilling to enter into marriage, as it no longer serves it original purpose and is no longer of benefit to a man, then women will have the government hold a gun to men's heads to extract that money to spend it on women anyway. Look at all the government councils, programs, committees, etc, that focus on women's issues, when those issues they focus on are actually less of a concern for women than men, or smaller in scope or important that a similar problem facing men. Women "deserve" to have their problems taken seriously, whereas men are told to "shut up", "suck it up", "man up", "don't be a pussy", "be a real man", and "deal with it."

So let's say you look around you and you see that this is the shape of the world. There is no point in getting married, as you are essentially a slave, held hostage to the whims of your wife, you can have you deprived of liberty and freedom at any time she chooses when you fail to satisfy her demands. So family life is out, but there's still personal achievement, no? You could be a doctor, a lawyer, a captain of industry. Except, no. In any profession you enter in to, you will be expected to work longer and harder hours than your female counterparts, and you will be given less thanks (after all, doing your job is expected of a man, women still must be congratulated for doing what is required of them), and even if you chose not to have a family, the government will take money from you and give it to women anyway.

And anyway, much of the the impetus for male personal success was to impress/woo/make it easier to support a woman. With this impetus removed, fewer men are going to dedicated the long hours of study, the money required, and the years of work it takes to become a high paying (and highly useful to society) doctor, engineer, technician, or a myriad of other jobs. After all, it doesn't take a whole lot of money to have a small apartment -- you don't need a larger one, as you don't accumulate material possessions at the same rate a woman does, and, on average, value function and utility more than quantity -- and on a very modest income you can pay for your apartment, its utilities, and have all of your income left over for things you want and hobbies you enjoy, that you can enjoy with no nagging, or threat of violence, implied or explicit, against yourself, for failing to satisfy a woman's every whim and desire.

So the problem because that men are increasingly deciding women aren't worth it anymore, and are increasingly noticing that they can live much more happily working a minimum wage or low paying job and using all of their money for what they want, instead of working a higher paying, high pressure, high stress, high risk of bodily harm job for no thanks except the reward of seeing their money spent on frivolous *** and get to have their children taken away from them in a few years anyway.

A minimum wage job in the US, worked 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, will, after (federal) taxes, bring in 1131 dollars a month. Where I live, you can find a decent single or studio apartment for ~500 dollars a month. 600 dollars a month will include rent and most utilities. Let's say you spend 130 dollars a month on food, and 70 on high speed internet. We're up to 800 dollars a month. You now have three hundred dollars left over to do whatever you want with, along with all the free time you can do whatever you want. Many video games are very cheap, or outright free. Books can be had cheaply purchasing from second hand stores, and many older works (read: most things worth reading in the first place) are public domain. You can decorate your home however you want. You can enjoy your hobbies at whatever hour you want. You can even work whatever hours you want, and probably even make more money working graveyard shift. You can have your friends over whenever you want, you can go see them whenever you want. You can listen (or play) whatever music you want, watch whatever TV or movies you want, etc, etc, and all of it without nagging, being told you're a pathetic excuse for a man (because you won't bow to a woman's every wish), not worry about having false police charges levied against you as a form of extortion, not worry about having your home, your children, your savings, your freedom taken away from you at the drop of a hat.

So basically, what happened is that an increasingly large number of men are doing a cost-benefit analysis of modern marriage, and deciding that the cost is far, far higher than the benefit, and, therefore, as rational, self-interested actors, are acting in their own best interest and not getting married. Some are going further, and deciding that being in a relationship with a woman is in and of itself at any level not worth it (as in some jurisdictions just cohabiting with a woman long enough, even if you're not in a relationship, could qualify her to extract alimony from you for the rest of your life, along with all the horror stories (and most men will know someone that it has happened to) of things like "oops I know 'we' didn't want kids but I 'forgot' to take my pills, teehee :3" to name one very specific one.

So even though these men who have decided to opt-out, or drop out, of society's expectations of them represent a very, very, very small percentage at the present, it is extremely worrying for the powers that be, because if enough men realize what a raw deal they are getting in life, the current social order will collapse. That's why feminists are so eager to stamp such a thing out before it begins to catch on. Because if men stop regarding women as some special, mystical creature to be worshiped, and start regarding them as equals, and making realistic cost-benefit analyses of relationships with women like they do with a male friend, then women, who are increasingly having trouble finding mates, anyway, since they all have an over-inflated estimation of their own value, will have an even worse time finding a man to support them and their decisions, which will require the government to extract more and more resources from the male population, which can only go on for so long, as the worse that gets the more men notice it.

Better be careful Ivlila, you will be called a misogynistic pig for stating the obvious.

Also, what a perfect way to celebrate Mother's Day, amirite?

Was gonna be really disappointed if this wasn't posted in this threat at least once. Luckily it was posted on the first page.

Also I have no idea what this thread is about.

Will the feminization of American be its downfall?

Actually, at least here, women are predominant in science fields such as biology and chemistry, other than economics(most managers are female), architecture, psychology/sociology and linguistics.
The various types of engineering(mechanical, computer, aerospace, naval, materials..) are obviously known as a sausagefest instead, as well as math(a common joke is that engineers stay virgin till they finish university cause they never meet a woman).
Other fields are pretty much even(law, physics, medicine).
Dunno about geology, but there's probably only 20 of them anyway so who cares.

So saying that women aren't attracted to science or research is false. While it's true that men are almost alone in the development of new technologies.
It's also not true that women are attracted to low pay jobs. The problem is that the ones in architecture, psychology and linguistics skew the average, as well as the majority of men being engineers which is one of the best paid jobs. But the women in pharmaceuticals and economics gets paid just as well. Not to mention doctors that are probably only second to politcians and high rank soldiers for wages.
Then again, a man who goes into math is going to be poor as *** cause all he can do is teach, and teaching is pretty bad.
Women also fill certain roles that men just consider too girly to do, such as esthetician or maid(how many butler are there compared to maids if any?). But someone has to do that too.

Women have a more varied distribution across fields, men less so.

But ultimately, does it even matter? As long as you have different brain types in every field all is fine in the world, doesn't matter which is more prevalent. And wage equality is to be judged only on the matter of the same exact job.
What's the point of comparing an engineer with an esthetician anyway?!