You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

1
1

[–] AnmanIndustries 1 point 1 point (+2|-1) ago 

I am only using you as a placeholder for the ideas you are portraying, as one would when taking sides. Yes, I would be assuming if I was purposely attacking you. I am not.

And, youve only made your whole position worse with one line:

It is asking yourself critically in every moment, "how does this benefit me?"

Which is exactly what feminism is. And everything wrong with society. Family sizes are smaller because children prevent selfishness. 60-80% of people are overweight (depending on which western country), because of selfishness. People get divorced so often, because of selfishness. Marriages start their stead decline because of selfishness. Everything that is ruining the world today is because people are going, fuck every one else, I just want to do what I want.

MGTOW isnt just "how does this benefit me", its purposely designed to push the almost smart men who are on the fence, over it to the wrong side.

0
2

[–] BlackAdamRedLantern [S] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

OK. That's fair.

Feminism is about creating and taking advantage of those laws to unjustly assert power and benefits for as little effort and negative consequence as possible. There's a tremendous difference.

Everything that you listed does fall under the umbrella of selfishness, true, however, I insist that a more accurate descriptor is laziness.

A truly selfish person would be vain to the point of self-idolatry. Their body would be treated like a temple with the most nutritious and fresh foods and they would take care of their body with exercise to not only maintain their health but to please themselves aesthetically. People eat too much because it's "cheap and easy." It's more comfortable to not exercise and the combination naturally leads to getting fatter. They can drive instead of walk or bike. Kids don't play and explore as often and have indoor distractions. Technology makes many things simpler by bringing information instead of investigation or even making a trip to the library and online shopping even brings physical goods. All of these can be, and are meant for good but if the convenience is abused to the point of absurdity becomes a recipe for disaster to oneself.

Family sizes are smaller because in healthier societies for many reasons. Plentiful access to birth control is the main one. Not wanting the responsibility for either parent is another. The last I'll mention is not being able to handle the commitment to properly provide for and care for the child. There are a great many reasons more and even a wealth of difference within the three listed above that may go into the decision. I'd argue that not having a child under certain circumstances is actually quite a selfless act since they would not cruelly bring a child into the world that they can not provide for.

People get divorced because two people come to the realization that tying themselves to one another is no longer beneficial. Marriage is a contract and if one party breaches the contract then the offended party is owed restitution. Since marriage is a special contract the main recourse is to mend or dissolve the partnership. Many times though, the partnership reaches a point where it no longer serves the initial purpose and for the betterment of both parties it is best to no longer continue and instead, allow them both the chance to do better. In that way, it too can be merciful.

So the wrong side is what? What benefits are there for a man in marriage? At best, being considered next-of-kin gives you certain medical rights such as power of attorney and tax-free inheritance, both of which could also tremendously backfire. Social proof bumps a little and you may appear more tied to the community for making the commitment.

Understand, I love women and enjoy women and the idea of a family can be a beautiful thing. The risk of marriage though doesn't make sense. The risk of having children is there too but is more manageable.

Things that are dangerous must have reward. The risk/reward ratio is too heavily skewed for it to be viable for any sane individual. Contracts entered into under duress are unenforceable. I'd go as far as to say that love or the dopamine spike is an altered state of being that cause one to act against their own self-interest and the duress of potentially losing a mate that they've invested time and energy into along with the social pressure to marry causes an inherently void agreement that cannot realistically be upheld, especially so at this time.

1
1

[–] AnmanIndustries 1 point 1 point (+2|-1) ago 

Sorry, I follow biblical principles that allow my life and that of my relationships to be free of all the points you have raised. If these points must be considered, it means you are not of God and you will fall victim to the very things you are explaining. I am sorry that you have gone to the effort of expressing yourself in detail, but unfortuantly to me it just shows me that you are just another cog in the decadence of society. Everything you have said is still formed in selfishness and from it.

There is no contract in marriage. Two become one. Two create one. Two live as one. Two exist as one. Two suffer as one. This is the problem with the MGTOW movement. They are are just an offshoot of any other selfish ideology. There are not two parties anymore. Until people who share the views you have described and I assume they are yours too now, you will suffer from all the things you have listed. I and my kind do not.