MGTOW = “men going their own way”

Sn@kebite wrote: »

I do think this but I'll concede it's concentrated into daytime TV such as sitcoms and adverts where the useless husband or the idiot dad who can't do anything right while the woman is always hardworking and struggling after marrying such a loser. It's become fashionable in the last 2 decades or so for a woman to cut her man down as "my husband would never survive without me" or "men are useless" this has definitely been introduced into this toxic feminist narrative.

Actually that's long been a TV trope. Many decades in fact, at least in US media, but not restricted to there. Hell, look at the Flintstones cartoon that first came out in 1960 and Fred is the lovable dope and his missus Wilma is the bright one. Another cartoon the Simpsons runs with a similar theme. Actually I can't think of any sitcom from anywhere going way back to the start of TV that didn't follow this theme.

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Hi, could you please elaborate on this?

When I first read your initial post I assumed that you may have had 2 partners which ran consecutively? But from this post you are insinuating that your partners are simultaneous and even "together". Are you saying they are lovers also?

Yes - we are an going "truple" household. 4 relationships I guess if you think about it.

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

You asking out women your own age?

Mostly, sometimes younger.

FintanMcluskey

Deleted User wrote: »

To jump on the self-indulgent bandwagon... :pac:

I've had 5 chances ever from internet dating to go on a date. I've gone on all of them. Including one with someone who was badly disfigured who seemed nice online. Not so much in person. At the age of 32 I think it might be fair enough of me to think that maybe living in a place on my own, having a car, well-paying job, all that stuff doesn't matter so much when you're not a good looking guy. It's almost like looks are the most important thing. :pac:
Also I've asked out a few girls in person. Mostly got no's, got one yes that obviously didn't follow up. Female friends are like "that's so great that you're able to do that" to which I reply "Why? What benefit has it brought to me?".
I made a point to a friend about something (don't want to be too specific because it'd be easily identifiable) but I made the point that even in joking terms I don't even register with women and got "Yeah but that's because they don't see you as a joke". Again, so what? And how many times have I seen women I know get with guys they said they never would for many reasons and relationships often come out of it. But hey, I get "respect" and sit on my own every single night of my life.

You asking out women your own age?

To jump on the self-indulgent bandwagon... :pac:

I've had 5 chances ever from internet dating to go on a date. I've gone on all of them. Including one with someone who was badly disfigured who seemed nice online. Not so much in person. At the age of 32 I think it might be fair enough of me to think that maybe living in a place on my own, having a car, well-paying job, all that stuff doesn't matter so much when you're not a good looking guy. It's almost like looks are the most important thing. :pac:
Also I've asked out a few girls in person. Mostly got no's, got one yes that obviously didn't follow up. Female friends are like "that's so great that you're able to do that" to which I reply "Why? What benefit has it brought to me?".
I made a point to a friend about something (don't want to be too specific because it'd be easily identifiable) but I made the point that even in joking terms I don't even register with women and got "Yeah but that's because they don't see you as a joke". Again, so what? And how many times have I seen women I know get with guys they said they never would for many reasons and relationships often come out of it. But hey, I get "respect" and sit on my own every single night of my life.

Sn@kebite

Errashareesh wrote: »

Crikey I don't think most people think that! I know there is some degree of it but a general unspoken consensus? And that a man is a lucky ****er for her to condescend to settling for him? Yaysus!

And also, in the cases of that happening, I think how much men propagate it should be taken into consideration too. I mean, in a thread about a scummy couple who attacked a man in Australia, if you saw the amount of "She's hot though".

I do think this but I'll concede it's concentrated into daytime TV such as sitcoms and adverts where the useless husband or the idiot dad who can't do anything right while the woman is always hardworking and struggling after marrying such a loser. It's become fashionable in the last 2 decades or so for a woman to cut her man down as "my husband would never survive without me" or "men are useless" this has definitely been introduced into this toxic feminist narrative.

If you look at sociology feminist lecturers or even a TED talk feminist in her 20s it's loaded with this type of thing; white women acting like they are paragons of morality. It's all part of woke culture.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I’m also an introvert and my hobbies are almost exclusively solitary. If your mate’s an extrovert, I think that hands him an advantage.

Actually thinking about it he's not an extrovert. He'd be quite introverted though at the milder end. I suppose he'd be average. He'd be an introvert compared to me that's for sure. On the social cues angle he's actually pretty hopeless, though got much better over time. Though maybe that stood to him too as he was more likely to plough on during interactions with women, so was more likely to find someone who was interested. Without getting creepy though. He was never creepy.

The other thing is that dating, for me at least, seems to revolve heavily around the reading of cues and the taking of hints. Like anything, this is a skill which takes practice to master.

This is a biggie alright and IMHO anyway it's both an inherited thing and a practised one. My dad would put the talk on anyone, my mum was very much the opposite. A social phobic if anything(who would occasionally give him static over his gregariousness actually).

I was quite bashful as a child, but made an active decision when I was 14(I remember the exact moment) to make an effort and so I did and took to it easily enough after a fair few cringe moments. Then again at 14 you're allowed nay expected to be gauche and awkward in a way that's endearing at that age, that is "weird" and "odd" even off putting at say 30. Plus in your teens you're surrounded by equally awkward people, boys and girls.

I have found that Women(tm) in a dating attraction mindset are generally much less accommodating of social awkwardness in men than the other way around. Indeed a bashful woman is often seen as more attractive to many men than an extroverted one. Even the introverted women I know tended to go for more extroverted men. Not always, but generally. Maybe it's an instinctive thing? That a socially adept man is a) more generally liked at least on the surface and being widely socially liked is a big draw and b) because he's more clued into social cues is safer and easier to be around. This might explain why women's sexual "hints" are much more subtle than mens(though if you learn to read them they're very obvious, sometimes more obvious than men, who tend towards a scattergun approach at anyone with boobs). It's a way to weed out the non socially aware? This is much less of a concern for men. Men don't tend to give much of a thought to how safe a woman is to them, on the physical level anyway.

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Are you sure about that? I thought it was 50% of marriages in the last 10 years fail in the US?

It hit a peak in the 80's of around 50% over a lifetime, but has been steadily dropping since. It also depends on the demographic. University educated people are much less likely to divorce(IIRC it's in the 20% range). They also tend to marry later which also strongly influences the rate of divorce. Younger marriages make it much more likely and Americans marry at younger ages than Irish people. A trend which has been long with us. 40 years ago Ireland had the highest age for marriage in the world. I'd not be surprised to find it's still near the top today. Depends on ethnic, religious and even geographical location, so in the square states of the Us divorce is rarer. Even so their dating and mating culture is not applicable to here on a few levels.

ancapailldorcha

Wibbs wrote: »

And youth too. If that mate of mine I mentioned could get a date and likely something more if he was single and in his 50's why couldn't you?

I appreciate that much of what follows is going to come across as making excuses or self-indulgent but feck it.

I had to move about a fair bit in my twenties so the dating thing was just never that much of a priority for me then. Towards the end, I’d read a few of TaxAHcruel’s posts about self-improvement which I only seriously made any sort of progress in in the last few years. Something about the whole “30” milestone meant I was a lot more relaxed in my attitude to certain things and dating was one of them. I’m eating better, trying to get out for walks more and my gym is open so I can do that as well as there’s one near the house.

I’m also an introvert and my hobbies are almost exclusively solitary. If your mate’s an extrovert, I think that hands him an advantage. If I were huge into my music and attending niche gigs in the city, I think I would get an advantage from that as well. But as I said, they’re pretty much solitary pursuits like gaming, the cinema, hiking and so on. I do go to a few meetups but they’ve been nuked by the current Coronavirus situation.

The other thing is that dating, for me at least, seems to revolve heavily around the reading of cues and the taking of hints. Like anything, this is a skill which takes practice to master.

Finally, I just don’t meet that many women I’m interested in spending a lot of time with. When I was younger, I’d have gone out with anyone but I don’t think I’ve asked anyone out now for several years. A lot more people on both sides tend to be coupled up by 30 as well. I think there are a few single girls at work I might have a shot with but it’s a university and one has to be careful there. Was working up the nerve one day to ask a visiting researcher out and I bottled it. C’est la vie.

FintanMcluskey

Wibbs wrote: »

Even so most US marriages don't end in divorce.

Are you sure about that? I thought it was 50% of marriages in the last 10 years fail in the US?

Again the plain fact is most men and women end up with someone. Those that stay single for life are very much a minority. If you find yourself in that minority and want to not be in it then it's in your hands to make changes.

Now it's going to be hard if you're an extreme introvert, because that's about the biggest negative in trying to rustle up a date and relationship. Much more so if you're a bloke as you're expected to do the approaching, at least the overt sort. Therapy might help? And I personally would rarely recommend that, tends to lead to neurotic navel gazing in my experience, but might be a good option here. Become a joiner not an observer. The more people you meet the more chances and options you have.

Also, know your options. There are indeed "leagues" and soft around the middle 5'5 Paddy in cubicle 4 won't have the same options as 6'4 Jim Manjaw head of accounts. And where do you lie in the league tables? Well if you'd had relationships and flings over the years then the most objectively attractive woman in that line up is your "league". If you've never had even a fling then who knows.

Don't think of failure or rejection as an end, think of it as a part of the learning process to success. Fcukups often teach us more about ourselves than lucky successes.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Well, I have my health I suppose.

And youth too. If that mate of mine I mentioned could get a date and likely something more if he was single and in his 50's why couldn't you?

H3llR4iser wrote: »

There are, lots of them as a matter of fact - but guess what? It is an universally accepted fact, by mainstream media, that their plight be the fault of men.

Woman can't find a guy? It's because there aren't any "real men" left. She has one or multiple off-putting characteristics that objectively restrict her pool? It's the fault of men for basically not lowering their standards and accept her as she is.

There's a few angles to this stuff. Almost all of it coming from American culture(both dating and the wider culture) that yet again we've hoovered up wholesale and applied it to here. Though the very nature of online dating, again an American thing in origin, tends to drive things the same way. Add in the same American daft "feminism" which has both women and men confused with mixed signals and here we are. For the craic I looked up "real man meme" and here's an example of the confusion I'm talking about.

Note the hastag empoweringwomennow. Yet the "real man" in that scenario is leading her, essentially treating her old style and she wants that. God forbid she'd think of organising things herself. "I got this" also almost certainly means he's paying for whatever "it" is. There's a quite large subsection of modern "feminists" that want to be treated like old fashioned pre feminist women(minus the more prickly requirements and consequences) and that's confusing to both men and women. Though again this is much more an American cultural thing imported to here. American culture has few social safety nets so a man's ability to provide and flash the cash is much more in play, because an unexpected pregnancy, or even an expected one with a guy who can't could easily enough lead to food stamps and what few social supports there are.

The same anti marriage stuff is also American in origin. Well for good reasons over there as men are much more likely to lose financially, socially and emotionally, never mind access to their kids post US divorce and in over 70% of cases it's women who call for divorce. If I were an American man with his sh1t together and much to lose, I'd be very wary of marriage over there. Even so most US marriages don't end in divorce.

BrianD3

Nice guys? Some may be assholes in disguise, many are just fairly timid guys lacking in confidence. Insults directed at these guys by women include
-he's gay
-he's a fanny
-he's harmless

As for the assholes in disguise, I read a study once (can't remember where) that found that women overestimate their abilities to read people. They think that they have a talent in this area which could explain why Psychology degrees are female dominated.

When you combine this with the "almighty vagina" mentality, problems arise. The man who is nice to a woman is a creep because he just wants to ride her - just like every other man. When a man says he's a MGTOW - well he's just a liar as he wants to ride her too. Alternatively, he's just rationalising his inability to get a woman. But wait, what if he's genuine? Oh no - my vagina isn't as almighty as I thought it was!

ancapailldorcha

Sn@kebite wrote: »

It seems a general unspoken consensus that just be being female (especially if she's white, middle-class and a feminist) is an absolute treasure chest in itself that a man is a lucky fcker for her to condescend to settling for him (as I'm sure you were alluding to).

It seem a general embedded view of underneath everything women are good (sugar, spice and all things nice) while men underneath everything are bad. This is how feminism ironically set it's foundations especially academically that men bring a damage and destruction to the world and women bring a healing and nurturing virtue to the world. It's patriarchy (goldie-locks and the three bears/little red riding hood) and benevolent sexism but it's upheld by women and male feminist types (Obama/Biden and that idiot Jackson Katz).

I wasn't alluding to anything at all, at least not intentionally.

Years of being on dating sites and seeing profiles with either no effort or a lit of criteria that must be met it a man expects any sort of response have just made me a bit cynical. Anyone can have whatever criteria they want but they've only themselves to blame if they rigidly enforce said criteria.

There seems to be less of an appetite for compromise (if that's the correct term) amongst women compared to men. Just my experience of course.

Errashareesh

Sn@kebite wrote: »

It seems a general unspoken consensus that just be being female (especially if she's white, middle-class and a feminist) is an absolute treasure chest in itself that a man is a lucky fcker for her to condescend to settling for him (as I'm sure you were alluding to).

It seem a general embedded view of underneath everything women are good (sugar, spice and all things nice) while men underneath everything are bad. This is how feminism ironically set it's foundations especially academically that men bring a damage and destruction to the world and women bring a healing and nurturing virtue to the world. It's patriarchy (goldie-locks and the three bears/little red riding hood) and benevolent sexism but it's upheld by women and male feminist types (Obama/Biden and that idiot Jackson Katz).

Crikey I don't think most people think that! I know there is some degree of it but a general unspoken consensus? And that a man is a lucky ****er for her to condescend to settling for him? Yaysus!

And also, in the cases of that happening, I think how much men propagate it should be taken into consideration too. I mean, in a thread about a scummy couple who attacked a man in Australia, if you saw the amount of "She's hot though".

Deleted User wrote: »

Followed. This should be fun to read tomorrow.

Keep it up folks.

I’m pretty much done. I’m already regretting interjecting in the first place.

worded

Two jokes if I may, offend some people

1 ===

Son says ... dad in some countries you don’t know who your wife is until you get married

Father replies ... it’s like that everywhere son

2 ===

Father says to son

Today is a very special day, you will always cherish and cherish this day

Sons says .... but dad, I’m not getting married until tomorrow

Father says ... I know

Followed. This should be fun to read tomorrow.

Keep it up folks.

Deleted User wrote: »

For example if I say "Women are just as shallow as men" that's an instant "Uh-oh, loser"/"You hate women".

Okay, we are talking about different things then. By “nice” guys, I’m talking men for whom the nice facade quickly falls away when a women rejects them along the lines of “Well, you weren’t such hot shit anyway”.

Nobody is entitled to sex or a date. And I say that as somebody who if I were a single woman tomorrow, I’d likely never date again because life circumstances have placed me firmly at the bottom of the dating barrel. It wouldn’t be remotely fair but it would be my reality.

Sn@kebite

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

And not once will you ever hear an appraisal of what she brings to the table. Only her criteria.

It seems a general unspoken consensus that just be being female (especially if she's white, middle-class and a feminist) is an absolute treasure chest in itself that a man is a lucky fcker for her to condescend to settling for him (as I'm sure you were alluding to).

It seem a general embedded view of underneath everything women are good (sugar, spice and all things nice) while men underneath everything are bad. This is how feminism ironically set it's foundations especially academically that men bring a damage and destruction to the world and women bring a healing and nurturing virtue to the world. It's patriarchy (goldie-locks and the three bears/little red riding hood) and benevolent sexism but it's upheld by women and male feminist types (Obama/Biden and that idiot Jackson Katz).

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

How do you mean? This is me being genuinely curious now, not confrontational!

For example if I say "Women are just as shallow as men" that's an instant "Uh-oh, loser"/"You hate women".

In the spirit of not being confrontational the rush to label and for want of a better term, "blame" guys for having any slightly undesirable ideas helps push them toward the reddit/4chan losers. Women who have negative experiences with guys are told it's not their fault and guys are assholes. Guys who make any complaint about women (regardless of experience) are told they're wrong, get over themselves, why do you think you're "entitled" to anything anyway? Etc.

Deleted User wrote: »

I've been told I'm in the category. Generally I find stating facts that are not flattering to women gets one called names quite quickly.

How do you mean? This is me being genuinely curious now, not confrontational!

I've been told I'm in the category. Generally I find stating facts that are not flattering to women gets one called names quite quickly.

Deleted User wrote: »

No I immediately strut into town with Walking on Sunshine blaring from a car following me at walking pace like any normal person would.

Okay then, maybe you are who I’m talking about after all. You seem determined to steer yourself into that category for some reason.

Deleted User wrote: »

It's like there are three types of nice guys. The arseholes who think their being nice entitles them to women and they're bitter, the lads in middle who are just nice and lack any sort of "game" and can't see a woman being interested, and the nice guys who do. The ones in the middle end up friendzoning themselves but don't expect that the woman should like them romantically just because they get on well.

Just my opinion.

And of course the first category aren’t actually nice at all.

It's like there are three types of nice guys. The arseholes who think their being nice entitles them to women and they're bitter, the lads in middle who are just nice and lack any sort of "game" and can't see a woman being interested, and the nice guys who do. The ones in the middle end up friendzoning themselves but don't expect that the woman should like them romantically just because they get on well.

Just my opinion.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Do you act sullen and bitter when rejected? If not, then you are not who I’m talking about.

No I immediately strut into town with Walking on Sunshine blaring from a car following me at walking pace like any normal person would.

Deleted User wrote: »

Because I'm one of the losers who can't get a woman despite the fact that I would consider myself a decent person. If I say I'm nice then does that not get put in inverted commas?

Do you act sullen and bitter when rejected? If not, then you are not who I’m talking about.

Mongfinder General

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Men-Strike-Boycotting-Marriage-Fatherhood/dp/1594037620

Men on strike was a book written a few years ago. It basically sets out the reasons why men aren't arsed about getting married nowadays. There's too much to lose. They don't gain anything by getting married. So why do it?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Did you miss the part where I said your average, genuinely nice guy doesn’t have those expectations? It’s weird that my post prompted your post. If you are just a sound guy, why would you even think I was talking about you?

There is a particular strain of “nice” guy - that’s who gets mocked. In reality they turn out to be quite sullen and bitter (and it’s thankfully pretty obvious, pretty quickly) because the nice thing didn’t work. Thankfully they are not that commonplace.

Because I'm one of the losers who can't get a woman despite the fact that I would consider myself a decent person. If I say I'm nice then does that not get put in inverted commas?