This is from late 2021 so it's hardly news, but I haven't seen anyone inside or outside the Manosphere talk about this. MGTOW was right about cohabitation, just like it was right about everything else. I don't know how much clearer this can be: These creatures are an existential threat to male wellbeing and men should act accordingly.
The issue I take with this is that avoiding women is just a short term solution and no one is discussing strategies for actually solving the problem.
"Just avoid women and die alone bro."
"Just avoid women and let civilization collapse bro."
"Just avoid women and end your family line bro."
Great. Avoid women to avoid getting fucked by the state. I get it. It's self preservation. But it does nothing to change anything, so the prescription is familial and societal suicide.
no one is discussing strategies for actually solving the problem.
Because the only real solution is violence. When the people that keep the state-sponsored extortion racket going are afraid it will cost them their lives, they will stop.
However, simply discussing it will get your posts deleted and you banned. And anyone that discusses/encourages it online is as likely to be a glowie as a real person.
If you want a better solution, you can go to Church, accept that the world belongs to the devil, forget about solving political problems, and become perfect enough in your sanctity so that a devoutly religious woman wants you.
It's the easy way out. I get if you have no kids it's easier to let it all collapse. I have children I love, so mgtow'ing away into a corner, ie letting the crazies convince you to die alone and forgo your society, isn't really an option.
Mgtow is male feminism. A death sentence for the men who follow it. Women are not your enemy. Women and men need each other.
It makes sense in the context that they are both ideological positions that result in the death of one's ability or willingness to find a mate and build a family.
Mgtow/feminism are both movements seeking to disrupt the family and traditional family pairing. Through both you teach to abandon the next generation through neglect.
Bull. Women need men to build civilization and keep them safe, even as women refuse to acknowledge this, and most men are forced to provide this via social shaming and/or threat of violence.
Men only need women to have children. That's it. Even then, said children can be taken away at any time should the woman start uttering the magic words to invoke the state's power. 'He hit me', 'He abused the kids', 'He's a deadbeat dad', and society will automatically defer to her judgement, explicitly because she's a woman.
Look, I get it. In a perfect world, there would be give and take, back and forth - a reciprocal arrangement where both men and women benefit from getting together, getting married, and having children. We do not have that. Not by default - a man nowadays has to vet women to such an extreme that it's insane, and all that vetting can be ruined in an instance should the women go off on a temper tantrum.
I'm not going to blame a man in the slightest if he looks at all of that and promptly GTFOs. You talk about forgoing society? Then give men a society they want to be apart of.
No one's going to give you anything. Demanding the moon and declaring that if you don't get it you're going to pout and refuse to do anything, is basically female behavior.
You quitting means you don't get an opinion anymore.
I'm pointing out the obvious. That you are casting aside any value you have as your starting point. If you refuse to have and raise children unless your ridiculous optimum conditions are met, then you are the snobby couple at the beginning of Idiocracy.
No, saying that you refuse to lift a finger unless someone else fixes it, is demanding the moon.
You're not requesting "the bare minimum" either. You've got your chicken and egg backwards. If you try to use walking away as blackmail, you have ensured that you'll never get what you want. You've invalidated yourself.
The future of civilization belongs to those who show up for it. You won't.
Mandela was sentenced because he was head of a terrorist group that had conducted many acts of terror culminating in a bombing that killed a bunch of people.
In his absence his wife Winnie Mandela took over and was the mastermind behind many "necklacings".
Yes, Imp is a victim political persecution. No he is nothing like Mandela.
What's funny about that is in most states there's still statutes covering when you can and can't declare a relationship a common law marriage (usually to prevent people from getting the benefits of marriage without being married), for example you have to be together 10 years, or you have to tell at least 3 people about your common law marriage. These pro-woman laws basically let the judge rule in favor of the woman because she said so.
A few years ago, Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the fact that Québec didn't fully financially rape men to the benefit of a woman he was in a relationship with but not married to was ''discriminatory''.
... but that this discrimination was not in violation of charter rights.
How this went to the Supreme Court is a joke. They were not married. They had kids, but the man was already liable for, and paying, a fat child support check.
The bitch just wanted half of the man's ressources for herself.
I'll let you guess the ethnicity of the fat female lawyer who toured the media to whine this was mysoginy and that the government had to forcefully make a man who has sex with a woman forever financially responsible for her.
She kept saying ''but think of the children, think of the children''. The mom already got alot of child support from the father. The children were fine. Stop (((lying))).
Canada has the same honeypot trap as well. The more a government supports women with socialism, the more incentives there are to dump the problem onto the nearest man.
Oh that's nothing. Several states let you put anyone's name on the birth certificate and sue them for child support.
The government takes a cut of the payments. They don't care who's being forced to pay or why, but they will make damned sure they get their cut.
This is from late 2021 so it's hardly news, but I haven't seen anyone inside or outside the Manosphere talk about this. MGTOW was right about cohabitation, just like it was right about everything else. I don't know how much clearer this can be: These creatures are an existential threat to male wellbeing and men should act accordingly.
The issue I take with this is that avoiding women is just a short term solution and no one is discussing strategies for actually solving the problem.
"Just avoid women and die alone bro."
"Just avoid women and let civilization collapse bro."
"Just avoid women and end your family line bro."
Great. Avoid women to avoid getting fucked by the state. I get it. It's self preservation. But it does nothing to change anything, so the prescription is familial and societal suicide.
Because the only real solution is violence. When the people that keep the state-sponsored extortion racket going are afraid it will cost them their lives, they will stop.
However, simply discussing it will get your posts deleted and you banned. And anyone that discusses/encourages it online is as likely to be a glowie as a real person.
Sadly I think this is an accurate synopsis.
If you want a better solution, you can go to Church, accept that the world belongs to the devil, forget about solving political problems, and become perfect enough in your sanctity so that a devoutly religious woman wants you.
It's the easy way out. I get if you have no kids it's easier to let it all collapse. I have children I love, so mgtow'ing away into a corner, ie letting the crazies convince you to die alone and forgo your society, isn't really an option.
Mgtow is male feminism. A death sentence for the men who follow it. Women are not your enemy. Women and men need each other.
This makes zero sense. Feminists want to control the behavior of other people. MGTOW do not.
It makes sense in the context that they are both ideological positions that result in the death of one's ability or willingness to find a mate and build a family.
It makes sense in the context that they are both ideological positions.
Exactly.
Mgtow/feminism are both movements seeking to disrupt the family and traditional family pairing. Through both you teach to abandon the next generation through neglect.
Bull. Women need men to build civilization and keep them safe, even as women refuse to acknowledge this, and most men are forced to provide this via social shaming and/or threat of violence.
Men only need women to have children. That's it. Even then, said children can be taken away at any time should the woman start uttering the magic words to invoke the state's power. 'He hit me', 'He abused the kids', 'He's a deadbeat dad', and society will automatically defer to her judgement, explicitly because she's a woman.
Look, I get it. In a perfect world, there would be give and take, back and forth - a reciprocal arrangement where both men and women benefit from getting together, getting married, and having children. We do not have that. Not by default - a man nowadays has to vet women to such an extreme that it's insane, and all that vetting can be ruined in an instance should the women go off on a temper tantrum.
I'm not going to blame a man in the slightest if he looks at all of that and promptly GTFOs. You talk about forgoing society? Then give men a society they want to be apart of.
No one's going to give you anything. Demanding the moon and declaring that if you don't get it you're going to pout and refuse to do anything, is basically female behavior.
You quitting means you don't get an opinion anymore.
Recognizing that there's a problem isn't 'demanding the moon'.
Have we really gotten to the point were requesting the absolute bare minimum is now see as 'female behavior'? Jesus fucking christ.
Men gotta be shamed. Shame, shame. At this point, anytime anybody tries to shame men at all makes them suspect.
You aren't being "shamed" lol.
I'm pointing out the obvious. That you are casting aside any value you have as your starting point. If you refuse to have and raise children unless your ridiculous optimum conditions are met, then you are the snobby couple at the beginning of Idiocracy.
You don't pass on your lineage, you don't matter.
Why would anyone give you what you say you want?
No, saying that you refuse to lift a finger unless someone else fixes it, is demanding the moon.
You're not requesting "the bare minimum" either. You've got your chicken and egg backwards. If you try to use walking away as blackmail, you have ensured that you'll never get what you want. You've invalidated yourself.
The future of civilization belongs to those who show up for it. You won't.
So you'll never get what you want.
We cannot have men without women. Or women without men. Period.
How long does TheImp1 have on his prison sentence?
He’s looking like a nelson mandella
I get what you mean.
But.
Mandela was sentenced because he was head of a terrorist group that had conducted many acts of terror culminating in a bombing that killed a bunch of people.
In his absence his wife Winnie Mandela took over and was the mastermind behind many "necklacings".
Yes, Imp is a victim political persecution. No he is nothing like Mandela.
What about a Gerry Adams?
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/irish-republican-gerry-adams-unlawfully-detained-u-k-court-rules-n1206081
Imp is a victim of his own inability to not be a 'sperg.
Imp was a jew shill. We don't need his deflection tactics to know women suck
Yea I should have said modern western women
i think he'll be out somewhere in july, since he caught something like 192 days in january
Oh yeah, and just like Mandela he's better off in prison.
Good post, still, this is the norm in most states.
NEVER cohabitate or engage in LTRs.
Renting is cheaper
A common-law marriage.
Basically if other people think of you as married and you've been living together then the courts can say you're married.
Since it's from common law there doesn't even need to be a state law, just judicial precedent.
What's funny about that is in most states there's still statutes covering when you can and can't declare a relationship a common law marriage (usually to prevent people from getting the benefits of marriage without being married), for example you have to be together 10 years, or you have to tell at least 3 people about your common law marriage. These pro-woman laws basically let the judge rule in favor of the woman because she said so.
Reasons why I moved from Seattle to Florida just got another one.
How do you do, fellow refugee!
Don't forget to buy guns; it was bad enough to move and those faggots aren't going to stop on their own.
It's so weird having to admit refugee is an accurate description.
I need a better paycheck before I start buying guns.
Remember to withdraw cash in odd intervals so your purchases can't be traced directly through a credit card.
A few years ago, Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the fact that Québec didn't fully financially rape men to the benefit of a woman he was in a relationship with but not married to was ''discriminatory''.
... but that this discrimination was not in violation of charter rights.
How this went to the Supreme Court is a joke. They were not married. They had kids, but the man was already liable for, and paying, a fat child support check.
The bitch just wanted half of the man's ressources for herself.
I'll let you guess the ethnicity of the fat female lawyer who toured the media to whine this was mysoginy and that the government had to forcefully make a man who has sex with a woman forever financially responsible for her.
She kept saying ''but think of the children, think of the children''. The mom already got alot of child support from the father. The children were fine. Stop (((lying))).
Canada has the same honeypot trap as well. The more a government supports women with socialism, the more incentives there are to dump the problem onto the nearest man.
This is just common law marriage. Not a new idea. Cancerous, yes, but not new.