FintanMcluskey wrote: » Personally I think MGTOW stems from the high divorce rate and lack of fairness towards men in divorce cases subsequently. In the UK 60% of opposite sex marriages are expected to end in divorce before the 20th wedding anniversary. The marriages that end in divorce are unhappy/dissatisfied, whats more alarming is a lot of the ones that don't end in divorce are just as unhappy/dissatisfied but stay together for the kids/mortgage etc.
Feisar wrote: » Anyway... I thought MGTOW was a lock of Japanese lads withdrawing from society to avoid the "salaryman" trap. However it seems to be a grouping that think feminism is/has ruined society. Where does this feminism hang out, I only ever come across it on the internet? As Wibbs said are we importing a load of crap from the US that will only start bleeding into the mainstream here over the next while? To me it all seems a bit incel ish. I doubt there are many tall attractive successful men heading up this outfit.
IAMAMORON wrote: » Essentially the reason for MgTow developing globally has been accelerated by the internet. It has helped and enabled plenty of men who are unsuccessful with women to make more positive choices about their future. The fact remains that women are the owners of natural selection and as it stands only 20% of the global population are getting selected. Regrettably the other 80% still get ridiculed, they are in a no win scenario. A previous poster nailed it succinctly, if a male tries he gets ridiculed for not being good enough, if he doesn't try he is shamed for being an opt out or coward. The real crank women have about MGTOW is that they have no control over it, they obviously don't like that.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » I don't think it's enabled anything. I think that some men are realising that they can make positive choices for themselves, their bodies and their mental health and can have a sense of self-worth that has nothing to finding a partner. I don't think MGTOW has spread at all. Most people haven't heard of it as far as I can tell.
IAMAMORON wrote: » In fact, the more that young men are educated and made aware of the current pitfalls of chasing potentially fickle partners over a cliff, the better. There is more to life than an unhappy marriage and kids, much more.
IAMAMORON wrote: » Maybe enabled may not be a good choice of word, how about "empowered". I do think it is spreading though, more and more men are shrugging their shoulders and realising that there is more to life than crying into their pillows at night over birds that were never ever in their league in the first place. It is a lot more appealing these days for men to blow their wealth on international travel or a nice car... as opposed to maintenance payments on children who they only see twice a fortnight and are losing a bond with daily. In fact, the more that young men are educated and made aware of the current pitfalls of chasing potentially fickle partners over a cliff, the better. There is more to life than an unhappy marriage and kids, much more.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » I would again disagree. I doubt most people have heard of MGTOW and modern trends tend to be towards eating healthier and having experiences instead of bingeing and buying stuff.
FintanMcluskey wrote: » Exactly. So many men sleepwalk into marriages and only wake up when its too late. And I've seen that happen so often over the last 15-20 years. But you must live the life of a singleton to the fullest, travel, hobbies, learn an instrument, become a great dancer, do more than nothing.
Feisar wrote: » What do these lads do for the ride?
FintanMcluskey wrote: » Are you talking about men married a few years and getting the ride once every six month's if fortune allows? If I can give anyone any advice its dump the attitude above which suggests marriage is a ticket to regular sex. It causes a lot of disappointment
Feisar wrote: » No I was referring to these lads that go out of their way to exclude women from their lives.
FintanMcluskey wrote: » I was being sarcastic.:pac:
Feisar wrote: » Woops! So clear now!
Wibbs wrote: » Not all women, but yeah remarkably common to see alright. Less in play when younger but by 30 it changes up a gear. I've long considered it to be a domestication process of sorts and I would reckon it's something built into our species going way back and actually what made modern humans different to previous ones, but that's a subject for another day. Find a guy that's "fixable", domesticatable for the want of a better word and mould him into suburban husband and father material. As I noted with some tongue in cheek action in another thread on here ages ago: Now the wild oats were sown, the draw to the burbs hit like salmon mindlessly rushing upstream to the rivulet of their birth and they were looking for the domesticated kind of cereal. A man of a type that would pass muster among her peers, who would look fine in FaceBook photos of their all pine and promise scandi kitchen on tick, but would slowly go out of focus over time, to be replaced in the foreground by pics of her kids. I have seen that play out so many times. The courtship can be rushed if it's in the thirties, quite often the woman will pull some crazy moments to see if A) he can take it and will chase her to make sure he's doing things right. Then it's mortgages and brunch after wandering around aimlessly in Ikea being asked for a foregone opinion on light fixtures that if you gave your actual opinion would result in the silent treatment. I've noted the men are generally content enough with this arrangement, with the usual occasional bitching about The Missus and all that, but it has no weight behind it. They're quite terrified of being left(well if you look at cultures where divorce is more common and easy it's overwhelmingly the woman who asks for them). The women (and a couple have been mates of mine) are happy enough with the domesticity and kids, but the Dear Husband is usually in the background. The fun seems to be in the taming maybe? I dunno, but not for me. Maybe, actually no maybe about it, when I was in my 20's I'd have probably locked into the above situation easily enough. Well I couldn't get arrested in my 20's, or completely missed hints, so would have likely considered myself "so lucky" or some nonsense, but my 30's were very different on that score and I had both relationships; bad and good, and fun; bad and good. Being 100% honest here? Caveat: the chances are very high I was selecting for a particular personality type so this is no way a reflection on the general experience. But yeah being honest after a while I found "proper" longer term relationships quite hard work. In the sense of being always on. There was always something that needed doing, or fixing. Not relaxing at all. I have found *generalisation alert again* women never bloody relax for very long and don't like men on idle time about the place. EG if you've been working like a galley slave for weeks or whatever and you get the "oh you look tired and worn out of late you should relax at the weekend" I could nearly guarantee that will last about maybe a few hours of you doing nothing of a Saturday before something will need your attention. Then if you have kids... Kids naturally need a lot of your attention and there's always something going on, both good and bad, thankfully mostly good it seems, but you're generally always on the clock as it were. TL;DR? After my years of generally putting it about and relationships of different sorts I increasingly found myself not being too pushed TBH. Friends with benefits and other mates in general is a lot easier of a life, at least for me anyway.
Dickie10 wrote: » you sound soooo like me its unbeliveable
worded wrote: » After marriage .... Women want men to change but they don’t Men hope women won’t change, but they do
tylercheribini wrote: » The archaic institution of marriage is entirely incompatible with modern, western society. Especially in this country, it was entwined with religion which is in rapid decline, no coincidence then that people that see out the full tour of marriage are generally from generations born in that holy, Catholic Ireland.
IAMAMORON wrote: » For a lot of modern women it is no more than a day out and an aspirational box ticked. Spending weeks organising and a lifetime of dreaming over some phucking white dress they are hoping to get nods of approval from their female peers over. Boasting over a honeymoon somewhere exotic, there are no virgins these days either.
FACE IT wrote: » What it all comes down to, and what no one wants to acknowledge, is your looks. No amount of personality, or confidence or charm can fix a bad face. No exercise can give you a stronger jaw. If you have a bad face, like me, then it's over.
FACE IT wrote: » I mean, do you seriously think the reason you get no results on Tinder is because your bio is not 'well crafted'?...come on!
FACE IT wrote: » I agree women are attracted to status, money and power, but most men will not have these. Most men have to trade on their looks. A woman will not settle for an ugly IT nerd because he has a well paid job.
Also, these things might get you a woman, but will they get you love? Can a woman really love a man if she is only attracted to his status?
IAMAMORON wrote: » Not necessarily true. Women do like handsome and attractive men, but there are bigger motivators to their sexual selection and finding a partner. The biggest of those is POWER which basically turns into MONEY in the modern world. That includes your ability to earn money down the line.
nthclare wrote: » It's funny how women often ditch white knights and nice guys and go for bastard's like myself. Female friends of mine who split up with their men, went for more alpha guys the next time and prefer a manly man who's independent,has some hobbies and isn't following her around like a pleb. Myself and my girlfriend see each other now and again, and have plenty of space because we prefer that. Year's ago men would go to war or go hunting and gathering, fishing etc for day's on end and the women would be at home and enjoy their friends and have great banter and craic. Any man who'd stay at home would be either ill disabled or a priest or law man. This probably declined 300 year's ago + gradually. In fairness 300 year's isn't a long time in terms of evolution.
Feisar wrote: » I don't understand the modern interpretation of "nice guy". Simpering little bitch more like.
