[Albert]

It seems MGTOW is basically feminism for men.

[Godstud]

No. It's not, since men have never suffered inequality, had to fight for rights to vote, etc.

Cmon, @Albert. Don't fall for this persecution complex that these Incels and MGTOWs have. It's a mental lapse, and not anything based in reality.

[Victoribus Spolia]

It's not, since men have never suffered inequality, had to fight for rights to vote, etc.

Well, MGTOWs would say they have always been oppressed because they have been viewed as socially expendable.

They believe male political enfranchisement was merely a "courtesy" of the social contract given their having to be wage-slaves (often in dangerous jobs) to support women and as cannon-fodder to protect them in war.

This view inverts the male-privelage narrative, arguing that men have always been "forced" into a role against their will which fundamentally denies them a value equal to women.

So, for instance;

A traditionalist male might actually argue that women should be valued more than men and be treated like a ladies, protected, provided for, etc., at the male's expense, because of their unique nature and contribution as women (what has commonly been called chivalry).

a MGTOW would critique this by saying that such an admission reveals the problem: that men have always been socially viewed as less valuable than women and have even been expendable. A fact reinforced by notions like chivalry.

Ironically, MGTOWs and feminists would both critique the "benevolent sexism" discussed in the other thread on the same grounds that it perpetuates negative sexism, except unlike where feminists say its promotes negative sexism against women (that they need cared for etc), the MGTOWs would say it does so against men (that men should sacrifice themselves for women).

I am not agreeing with Albert that MGTOW is the same as feminism, but I think it should also be acknowledged that MGTOWs do have a philosophical system to account for their grievance that is far more complex than such sweeping comments could possibly cover in one line.

I mean, lets be honest, there is a point to the claim that men have been viewed as more socially expendable than women. That truth is actually hard to deny; whether the implications of that fact implies any form of society over another is a separate matter altogether.

[Godstud]

Men are not more socially expendable than women. That is not a "truth", in any way.Men just have always wanted to be the ones to shape the world and fight the wars, and they've always deemed women were inferior in these capacities. Thus men fight the wars, work the jobs, etc.

[Victoribus Spolia]

That is not a "truth", in any way.Men just have always wanted to be the ones to shape the world and fight the wars, and they've always deemed women were inferior in these capacities. Thus men fight the wars, work the jobs, etc.

How would you explain the expectation of self-sacrifice for women prevalent in societies, such as benevolent sexism (chivalry), the belief that men must work jobs, even dangerous ones, to care for women?

I mean, if it was just power-oppression male-chauvinism, why didn't men just stay home and make women work as slaves to both make the money and care for the home? Like lions do in the pride-system?

If traditional roles were just oppression for oppression's sake, why were men expected to lay their coats down for women and help them out of carriages? Why would hitting women be viewed as somehow wrong?

That seems like rather odd behavior for an attitude of unmitigated supremacy and a desire to oppress.

What says you? (I am curious, not looking for a fight, just want to see your perspective).

[SolarCross]

@Godstud
When the Titanic was sinking but there weren't enough lifeboats for everyone, the policy was "women and children" first, in that scenario men were exactly the most expendable in practice.

[Godstud]

@SolarCross nonsense. Men have always been seen as stronger and more capable of surviving, thus they'd have the weaker ones(children and women) protected first. It's not about "expendability" and I find the idea to be completely absurd, and likely not supported by more than your opinion.

How would you explain the expectation of self-sacrifice for women prevalent in societies, such as benevolent sexism (chivalry), the belief that men must work jobs, even dangerous ones, to care for women?

That's a choice. It's also a choice that's traditional.

I mean, if it was just power-oppression male-chauvinism, why didn't men just stay home and make women work as slaves to both make the money and care for the home? Like lions do in the pride-system?

Because, traditionally, women were not seen as being as capable as men. Would you trust your job to a person you deemed could not do it, and could not support you?

If traditional roles were just oppression for oppression's sake, why were men expected to lay their coats down for women and help them out of carriages? Why would hitting women be viewed as somehow wrong?

Men were not "expected" to do so, but it'd make them far more desirable in women's eyes if they did, so some men would. Impressing women is something men have always enjoyed doing.

For a long time hitting women was not seen as wrong, either...

[SolarCross]

@SolarCross nonsense. Men have always been seen as stronger and more capable of surviving, thus they'd have the weaker ones(children and women) protected first. It's not about "expendability" and I find the idea to be completely absurd, and likely not supported by more than your opinion.

That claim doesn't stand up for the Titanic because that ship was sinking in Arctic waters, not getting a ride on a lifeboat was an automatic death sentence, being bigger or stronger wouldn't help at all, and everybody knew that. Also it must be said if men are the more capable of surviving then that suggests by itself that they should get the lifeboats instead of women as they will have a better chance of making the most of them...

From the perspective of the mechanics of biological reproduction men are also more expendable, especially if polygamy is enabled, because a few men can fertilise many females but the reverse is not true. It's a fact that for a society to maintain its population across the generations it requires most or all of its wombs but it only really needs at minimum a small fraction of its sperm providers.

[One Degree]

Once again we see the views of new generations based upon ‘individuals’ who have rejected the views of all past generations.
Children come first because they are the future. Women come next because they care for the children. Men come last because they are the providers of the present. It was not oppression but a dedication to a better future above oneself. Probably the most altruistic characteristic of humans and we have been abandoning it.

[Victoribus Spolia]

That's a choice. It's also a choice that's traditional.

Of course it was a choice, obviously. I was asking you to explain why they made that choice given your argument that the dilenation of roles in traditional societies was grounded in the willful subjugation of women by men.

I mean, think about it, there was big difference between how a white plantation owner in the South treated his wife as compared to slaves, but if both institutions (gender roles and slavery) were fundamentally the same (acts of oppression by the dominant), what rational grounds is there for the difference?

Because, traditionally, women were not seen as being as capable as men. Would you trust your job to a person you deemed could not do it, and could not support you?

Technically blacks were not seen as capable as whites, but they were made to do the work anyway, this is true for anything.

Why not make them do it? Likewise, there are cases in more savage countries, especially sub-saharan africa and papua new guinea, where the males tend to make the women do almost everything with the exception of blood-sport.

Men were not "expected" to do so, but it'd make them far more desirable in women's eyes if they did, so some men would. Impressing women is something men have always enjoyed doing.

Yes but if they were merely supremacist and if gender roles were merely the imposition of this supremacism, getting favor was pointless, why not just physically force the women to have sex? If gender roles were merely institutionalized oppression why allow courtships and the possibility of rejection at all? It seems women had a great deal of power in this regards, why was it allowed?

It doesn't make sense, that is the point.

ALSO....

Men were not expected to act chivalrous to women? That is patently false, if one violated one of these social norms it could lead to being ostracized.

Likewise, the Titanic example is important, if men were not seen as more expendable it would make no sense to have a policy of women and children first, indeed, it would be nonsensical. If men viewed themselves as superior why didn't they save themselves first (especially if they were more capable to care for society as you put it)? Likewise, why would a man who violated this norm be ostracized and stigmatized as a coward had society become aware of it?

Because the expectation in fact existed that men were to sacrifice themselves for women and children.

The denial of this reality should not be the point of contention, only the why.

I want to know WHY this is the case.

That it WAS the case is hardly debatable.

[Hong Wu]

I think in traditional mindsets there is a presumption that most men are not rational. If you hold this view of most men, you'll naturally assume even worse of most women because women have smaller brains etc.

Like, I was once watching this Saudi guy who was like, women shouldn't drive because they have 1/3rd the brain of man. I was like, that's ridiculous, everyone knows that women have 75% of the brain of a man.

At some point, the presumption somehow became that most men are rational. If most men are rational, things like universal suffrage democracy make sense because two heads are better than one. The internet has reminded us of the terrible truth, most men are not rational and most women if left uncontrolled are sluts who are too dumb to even successfully reproduce, which appears to have been the main function for most of them. I could go on but I don't want to derail my own thread so...

I agree that there have always been "incels", what really interests me about this though is that we see men identifying and forming groups around this "incel" identity. I don't think that would have happened in the past. Obstacles to this include pride (it practically requires the internet and anonymity to do this) but also the lack of social roles other than "fuck bitches, make money." The left basically wanted the military, priest and ruler classes to disappear but they for some reason presumed that getting rid of everything but merchants and mother fuckers would get rid of those people and instead, those were predominantly the only people left around. Sad!

Like, if you look at China, communism is basically a cosmic joke that forces everyone to either become a bourgeoisie or die.

[Victoribus Spolia]

if you look at China, communism is basically a cosmic joke that forces everyone to either become a bourgeoisie or die.

The irony is strong with this one.

[Decky]

:lol: No. It's not, since men have never suffered inequality, had to fight for rights to vote, etc.

Yes because all men have had the vote from the beginning of time. Do people even think before they type?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartism

Chartism was a working-class movement for political reform in Britain that existed from 1838 to 1857. It took its name from the People's Charter of 1838 and was a national protest movement, with particular strongholds of support in Northern England, the East Midlands, the Staffordshire Potteries, the Black Country, and the South Wales Valleys. Support for the movement was at its highest in 1839, 1842, and 1848, when petitions signed by millions of working people were presented to the House of Commons. The strategy employed was to use the scale of support which these petitions and the accompanying mass meetings demonstrated to put pressure on politicians to concede manhood suffrage. Chartism thus relied on constitutional methods to secure its aims, though there were some who became involved in insurrectionary activities, notably in south Wales and in Yorkshire.

The People's Charter called for six reforms to make the political system more democratic:

A vote for every man twenty-one years of age, of sound mind, and not undergoing punishment for a crime.
The secret ballot to protect the elector in the exercise of his vote.
No property qualification for Members of Parliament in order to allow the constituencies to return the man of their choice.
Payment of Members, enabling tradesmen, working men, or other persons of modest means to leave or interrupt their livelihood to attend to the interests of the nation.
Equal constituencies, securing the same amount of representation for the same number of electors, instead of allowing less populous constituencies to have as much or more weight than larger ones.
Annual Parliamentary elections, thus presenting the most effectual check to bribery and intimidation, since no purse could buy a constituency under a system of universal manhood suffrage in each twelve-month period.

Chartists saw themselves fighting against political corruption and for democracy in an industrial society, but attracted support beyond the radical political groups for economic reasons, such as opposing wage cuts and unemployment.[1][2]

There was still a property qualification on votes for men in the UK till after the First World War. My Great Grandfather was considered good enough to get sent to be wounded in Belgium when he was conscripted in 1915 but not enough of a human being to be worthy of a vote.

[Godstud]

@Decky we're simply not discussing men from almost 200 yeas ago, but masculinity in the last 50+ years. I doubt masculinity was "threatened" in the 1830s.

[Decky]

When did I mention masculinity, reply to what I said not what you have imagined I said.

:lol: No. It's not, since men have never suffered inequality, had to fight for rights to vote, etc.

That was obviously moronic and I refuted it. Do try to keep up. Maybe you believe that man sprung from the primordial soup with the right to vote but some of us are more educated.

[Godstud]

OK @Decky I was wrong. I was not aware of that British thing. Now get back on topic. This isn't about men's voting rights, and my argument still stands, as women had to fight for it 100 years after men already had it.

[Decky]

Actually it is 10 years Godstud not 100 (full male suffrage didn't come till 1918 and full female suffrage on equal terms with men came in 1928). It's ok I don't blame you. I can only imagine what schools are like in the colonies.

[Godstud]

Well, for one thing, we didn't learn about British voter history(which apparently started later than the Colonies). Americans started in 1790 and Canada in 1867. - Off topic.

Now back to the topic, please.

[Decky]

Well, for one thing, we didn't learn about British voter history(which apparently started later than the Colonies).

Well why the hell not? Do the Commonwealth not learn about the mother country from whence all their civilisation stems from? It can't take more than a term to learn Canadian history after all. There is so little of it.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Listening to a Stalinist & Faux-Papist extol the virtues of British history (white anglo-saxon protestant/imperial-capitalist history) has to be one of the more amusing aspects of my evening thus far.