Thread: The friction between manosphere and MGTOW

Originally Posted by Juggernaut

The way I see it is, the actual manosphere "figures" (aka mouthpieces) are the ones against MGTOW because their game is idolatry. They want to be revered by every one of their subjects and anything that can cause a distraction from their like/follow/subscriber count and bank balance going up is a threat. They chase the same thing the females chase (despite being very vocal about females doing it, demonstrating a lack of self awareness coupled with some envy sprinkled in) with the attention and validation of others ~ that they translate into fame/money/body count etc.

In other words they chase status and luxury life. They do it just like the women do. And calim that they are somehow smarter than women and other men while doing the same exact things.

They say "You have to get cars, jacked, a lot of money and a high body count". And when you ask them why, they nervously laugh and say "That's what real men do".

But all I see is vanity. An empty, shallow and meaningless existance with no morals. Hedonism and indulgance.

Originally Posted by Witch Doctor

I see a lot of hate towards MGTOW coming from the rest of the manosphere. I figured out why that is.

The reason they hate us is because they want to achieve the status of a "high value man". To get there you have to be better than most men. But to be able to get there, others need play the status game. In other words, to be a successful in the status game you need to stand over a bunch of betas. And when men decide to opt out they get angry. Because less players in the status game means it is harder to get to the top %.

If they are all going to be high status, who is going to build their roads, fix their plumbing or build a house? They don't want everyone happy and contempt. They want everyone to desperatley fight for their position in the status hierarchy.

Did you notice this as well?

Yup but then again most men are worshippers of women. That includes most men in the manosphere.

Those men see it as a personal attack when we point out the fact that women are not worth it and live without women validation. So they throw insults our way shame us back to the plantation.

It pretty funny when you think about it, but then again men are most easy to manipulate when they strongly desire women

I have no friction in the manisphere, it takes concern to be heated by friction, and when it comes to concern I only accept applicants on a personal level, like the SLPC painting us with a broad brush of radical misogynists, even going as far as calling us a potential for terrorists and setting presidents in the legal community that could potentially have FBI HLS knocking at my door.

The manisphere is just static on the radio between the clear and present channels of concern. We've all seen how motivated and determined the FBI and Justice department can be when they go on a political raid supported by radical leftists.

Originally Posted by Witch Doctor

I see a lot of hate towards MGTOW coming from the rest of the manosphere. I figured out why that is.

The reason they hate us is because they want to achieve the status of a "high value man". To get there you have to be better than most men. But to be able to get there, others need play the status game. In other words, to be a successful in the status game you need to stand over a bunch of betas. And when men decide to opt out they get angry. Because less players in the status game means it is harder to get to the top %.

If they are all going to be high status, who is going to build their roads, fix their plumbing or build a house? They don't want everyone happy and contempt. They want everyone to desperatley fight for their position in the status hierarchy.

Did you notice this as well?

I get it because I'm ex PUA. PUA worked for me in as far as it got me laid. It didn't get me a regular girlfriend (though that's possible). What it did was get my dick inside of some sleazy, slovenly, pervy, revolting, despicable, trampy, white-trashy slatterns. It wasn't worth it, so I went MGTOW. I got sick and tired of banging trash and then worrying if I had an STD. Today, I would also worry if she might also label our consensual sex rape.

A PUA would probably see MGTOW as giving up. Whatever. I see it as walking away because I don't want to end up with a gangrene dick that's about ready to fall off. If you want, you could memorize and practice a bunch of routines designed to attract women. You could work out (actually a good thing) and invest a bunch of money in nice clothes. And what do you get in return? Access for your dick to a yeast-infested warm hole that probably has other STDs, and it's connected to a purple-haired drunken blubber bucket with hairy armpits and tats. Sound like a great deal?

If the PUA want to continue to do that, whatever. I don't run their lives. You would think they would be okay with dudes opting out. It means more women for them. Plus, don't they know about freedom? We have the right to opt out if we want.

Originally Posted by MGTOWLife

It's true that the various manosphere groups have misconceptions about each other.

At the bottom of this post I'm linking an old video (from 2016) by Paul Elam, an MRA. He more or less directs it at MGTOW. He says that all humans like to "pair bond," and when MGTOWs swear off women it must be because they don't know how to handle women and are scared of them. So Elam then proceeds to give a lesson to MGTOW on how to handle women.

The video is actually quite good, and the lesson is a good one for blue-pill simps. But it doesn't necessarily address the real issues of MGTOW people, such as the legal problems that accompany women. And it doesn't address my own issues: I simply find the very presence of women to be irritating, much as I find the presence of children to be irritating. They're not rational adults, so I can't be bothered with dealing with them.

To sum it up: Elam's video is actually quite good, but it's based on a misconception of MGTOW. Elam thinks that MGTOW people just need a lesson on how to handle women. So he gives a lesson on how to handle women. But most MGTOW people aren't really worried about how to handle women; MGTOW is more about the various disruptions to life that accompany women. So the video ends up missing the mark.

Link to Elam's video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQGAsVT4TrM

Elam is an interesting guy. I admire his MRA work. I haven't seen that particular video, but I've seen others by Elam. I've read a couple of his books, too. He wrote a good history of MGTOW with Peter Wright.

I agree that men have a pair-bonding instinct but disagree that MGTOW are scared of women. Well, some probably are. People have all kinds of different motives for going MGTOW, and certainly avoidance based on fear is one of them. Elam is well-aware that MGTOW have concerns about legal risks (e.g., family court bias, alimony, child custody, false allegations, etc.), so I doubt he's dismissing those issues.

I've heard Elam say good things about MGTOW, so he's not a detractor in general. He understands the rationale.

They hate because they anus.

Originally Posted by Eddie Haskell

Elam is an interesting guy. I admire his MRA work. I haven't seen that particular video, but I've seen others by Elam. I've read a couple of his books, too. He wrote a good history of MGTOW with Peter Wright.

I agree that men have a pair-bonding instinct but disagree that MGTOW are scared of women. Well, some probably are. People have all kinds of different motives for going MGTOW, and certainly avoidance based on fear is one of them. Elam is well-aware that MGTOW have concerns about legal risks (e.g., family court bias, alimony, child custody, false allegations, etc.), so I doubt he's dismissing those issues.

I've heard Elam say good things about MGTOW, so he's not a detractor in general. He understands the rationale.

I agree, I'm a big admirer of Elam. I read his books "Men. Women. Relationships." and "Red Pill Psychology." The former makes the novel argument that modern gynocentrism is the fault of men and romantic chivalry rather than feminism. I thought the argument was convincing, and I've pretty much adopted that line myself.

I haven't read his history of the men's movement.

Concerning that video that I linked: As I said it's a good video about the need for men to have boundaries and insist that women honor them. The video should have been aimed at the general public. But for some reason Elam got irritated by some random critical comment from a MGTOW about another video, so he ended up aiming that particular video at MGTOW. Or at least used MGTOW to illustrate the mindset. As such, I think it was misdirected. But it is what it is.

I'm linking another video by Elam below, called "Changing her emotional diapers," concerning a similar subject. But he directs it at the general public this time. He tells men to quit catering to women and their overwrought emotions and rants. He says it's just emotional abuse by women. This video is probably my favorite Elam video of all time, and I figured I would take this opportunity to dredge it back up from the depths. It's Elam at his curmudgeonly best.

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1-wP3jyc8M

I was sorry when Elam quit making new videos a few years back. He started devoting his time to XYCrew on SubscribeStar and got back into counseling. At least, that's the last news I heard.

Originally Posted by MGTOWLife

Concerning that video that I linked: As I said it's a good video about the need for men to have boundaries and insist that women honor them. The video should have been aimed at the general public. But for some reason Elam got irritated by some random critical comment from a MGTOW about another video, so he ended up aiming that particular video at MGTOW. Or at least used MGTOW to illustrate the mindset. As such, I think it was misdirected. But it is what it is.

Reminds me of a recent vid of his on Briffault's Law: Briffault: Rules for the Rational Simp - YouTube

Same sort of theme - "guys who parrot Briffault's Law (MGTOW) aren't able to hold boundaries with women."

I thought he made some good points. Not about MGTOW but about Briffault's Law. As Peter Wright pointed out, Briffault explicitly said that his rule did not apply to humans. So it's a misapplication.

I'm linking another video by Elam below, called "Changing her emotional diapers," concerning a similar subject. But he directs it at the general public this time. He tells men to quit catering to women and their overwrought emotions and rants. He says it's just emotional abuse by women. This video is probably my favorite Elam video of all time, and I figured I would take this opportunity to dredge it back up from the depths. It's Elam at his curmudgeonly best.

Ha. I'll check it out.

I was sorry when Elam quit making new videos a few years back. He started devoting his time to XYCrew on SubscribeStar and got back into counseling. At least, that's the last news I heard.

Yeah, sad. The Briffault's Law vid above was one of his last.

I'd say it's the opposite. Lots of guys just stop dating in the mensrights sub, therefore became mgtow themselves, some not even knowing it.

Originally Posted by MGTOWLife

It's true that the various manosphere groups have misconceptions about each other.

At the bottom of this post I'm linking an old video (from 2016) by Paul Elam, an MRA. He more or less directs it at MGTOW. He says that all humans like to "pair bond," and when MGTOWs swear off women it must be because they don't know how to handle women and are scared of them. So Elam then proceeds to give a lesson to MGTOW on how to handle women.

The video is actually quite good, and the lesson is a good one for blue-pill simps. But it doesn't necessarily address the real issues of MGTOW people, such as the legal problems that accompany women. And it doesn't address my own issues: I simply find the very presence of women to be irritating, much as I find the presence of children to be irritating. They're not rational adults, so I can't be bothered with dealing with them.

To sum it up: Elam's video is actually quite good, but it's based on a misconception of MGTOW. Elam thinks that MGTOW people just need a lesson on how to handle women. So he gives a lesson on how to handle women. But most MGTOW people aren't really worried about how to handle women; MGTOW is more about the various disruptions to life that accompany women. So the video ends up missing the mark.

Link to Elam's video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQGAsVT4TrM

Great video.

I think you missed the point of it. From 1:55 too 2:40 he explains that he knows MGTOW guys and that he understands that this kind of thinking works for them but that he understands that most men are still choosing to pair bond and have LTR. Then he proceeds to explain why the comment is missing the point and doesn't really represent MGTOW.

The guy commenting is complaining how women will allways walk all over you and that you have no controll over it. This seems more like someone who never got what he wanted from a woman and is now angry at women.

He never says that walking away from LTR is wrong (like most other red pillers do), he is pointing out that complaining about women and having defeatist additude about them is not going to get you anywhere.

This is a great example of someone who understands MGTOW, doesn't side with it but doesn't use the femmenist shaming language to attack it either.

Originally Posted by Witch Doctor

Great video.

I think you missed the point of it. From 1:55 too 2:40 he explains that he knows MGTOW guys and that he understands that this kind of thinking works for them but that he understands that most men are still choosing to pair bond and have LTR. Then he proceeds to explain why the comment is missing the point and doesn't really represent MGTOW.

The guy commenting is complaining how women will allways walk all over you and that you have no controll over it. This seems more like someone who never got what he wanted from a woman and is now angry at women.

He never says that walking away from LTR is wrong (like most other red pillers do), he is pointing out that complaining about women and having defeatist additude about them is not going to get you anywhere.

This is a great example of someone who understands MGTOW, doesn't side with it but doesn't use the femmenist shaming language to attack it either.

I don't know. As I see it, Elam kind of dances around the subject: He says that he understands the MGTOW mentality while simultaneously taking potshots at it.

I'm sure he does understand the MGTOW mentality: He's red-pill and works in the psychology field after all. But he also highlights and eviscerates that particular critical comment from a MGTOW guy as being too wimpy and fearful around women. So I suspect he's kind of taking a few potshots at MGTOW along the way, perhaps out of frustration at a mindset that he doesn't share or particularly sympathize with. Elam is famously prickly and curmudgeonly.

But whatever. Perhaps I'm reading too much into it.

Either way, the overall message is a good one: Men need to have standards and then make sure their partners respect those standards. And I love Elam's work overall. I just think that particular video would have been cleaner and clearer if he left the MGTOW references out of it and treated the subject matter more like the material in the other video I posted ("Changing her emotional diapers").

Just my opinion, of course. Thanks for your response!

Originally Posted by MGTOWLife

I haven't read his history of the men's movement.

I was referring to "Go Your Own Way":

Go Your Own Way: Understanding MGTOW - Kindle edition by Wright, Peter, Elam, Paul, Golden, Tom. Health, Fitness & Dieting Kindle eBooks @ AmazonSmile.

p.s. I see it's really by Peter Wright "with" Paul Elam.

Originally Posted by MGTOWLife

But he also highlights and eviscerates that particular critical comment from a MGTOW guy as being too wimpy and fearful around women. So I suspect he's kind of taking a few potshots at MGTOW along the way, perhaps out of frustration at a mindset that he doesn't share or particularly sympathize with. Elam is famously prickly and curmudgeonly.

True! Yeah, he takes potshots at MGTOW. They take potshots at him, too.

But whatever. Perhaps I'm reading too much into it.

Either way, the overall message is a good one: Men need to have standards and then make sure their partners respect those standards. And I love Elam's work overall. I just think that particular video would have been cleaner and clearer if he left the MGTOW references out of it and treated the subject matter more like the material in the other video I posted ("Changing her emotional diapers").

Agreed.

I’ve been reading psychology lately and it seems to me MGTOW is very much aligned with Adler. Adler’s view was that preservation of the subject’s personal power is most important and this can mean removing value from objects. Now objects in this context are externals, including other people. The ability to assign and unassign value where we please seems like a great technique. Of course if it is because of fear or evasion of difficulty that might not actually benefit us. However if it is done because of cost / benefit analysis it seems completely legit. If something is bothering you it helps to ask yourself if you can simply devalue it, ask yourself especially if some part of you thinks it is indispensable.

Diogenes was a master of this. “If I could only also alleviate my hunger by rubbing my belly”. When asked what Alexander the Great could do for him “move away you are blocking the sun”.

So following on this one thing we can devalue is identity itself. Don’t identify as MGTOW. Why should you? If a woman offers you a billion dollars to get married (for example ..your conditions will vary), and you never have to see her again or deal with her would you accept? You’re just extremely selective. Identity is a trap. It’s unnecessary. MGTOW as a philosophy has value, as an identity, maybe not. The less identification we have the lower the attack surface.

Originally Posted by Witch Doctor

I see a lot of hate towards MGTOW coming from the rest of the manosphere. I figured out why that is.

The reason they hate us is because ....

As someone who regularly overthinks things..... I think you're overthinking this.

It's simple: every guy that goes MGTOW means one less YT channel subscriber, one less website hit, one less potential high-dollar client for "red pill life coaching."

Basically, MGTOW is bad for PUA's bottom line.

Now, the red pill is the larger category, under which we have PUA, MRA, and MGTOW....but as you noted, there are huge differences between the groups.

Even a guy like Rollo Tomassi, who I generally admire, says "men and women are better off together." If you believe that, then you'll keep tuning in to his (and other) channels....

Rollo reminds me of Chris Jericho (the wrestler/musician)

Originally Posted by pool-boy

I’ve been reading psychology lately and it seems to me MGTOW is very much aligned with Adler. Adler’s view was that preservation of the subject’s personal power is most important and this can mean removing value from objects. Now objects in this context are externals, including other people. The ability to assign and unassign value where we please seems like a great technique. Of course if it is because of fear or evasion of difficulty that might not actually benefit us. However if it is done because of cost / benefit analysis it seems completely legit. If something is bothering you it helps to ask yourself if you can simply devalue it, ask yourself especially if some part of you thinks it is indispensable.

Diogenes was a master of this. “If I could only also alleviate my hunger by rubbing my belly”. When asked what Alexander the Great could do for him “move away you are blocking the sun”.

So following on this one thing we can devalue is identity itself. Don’t identify as MGTOW. Why should you? If a woman offers you a billion dollars to get married (for example ..your conditions will vary), and you never have to see her again or deal with her would you accept? You’re just extremely selective. Identity is a trap. It’s unnecessary. MGTOW as a philosophy has value, as an identity, maybe not. The less identification we have the lower the attack surface.

I agree.

I think a lot of it comes down to introversion versus extraversion. Carl Jung called Adler's views an "introverted" psychology. By contrast, Jung considered Freud's views to be an "extraverted" psychology.

Introverts tend to focus on the things that are important to THEMSELVES, whereas extraverts tend to focus on things that are important to THE WORLD. In other words, introverts focus on the "subject" (themselves and their own values), whereas extraverts focus on the "object" (the world and its values).

Neither approach is better or worse than the other. Introverts tend to be the deep "thinkers" who come up with new ideas and philosophies. Whereas extraverts tend to be the "doers" who go out and accomplish things in the world (conquer, explore, build corporations, etc.)

It makes sense that a lot of MGTOWs will probably be introverts.

And yes, labels are a thing of the world, in other words, an extraverted concept. In a pinch, I personally could drop the MGTOW label if it was a problem. But labels can be good if they help direct us to other people out in the world who think the same way as us.

See Wikipedia for more on the subjection of Introversion versus Extraversion. Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrav...d_introversion