"The Sexodus: The Men Giving Up On Women And Checking Out Of Society"

iptba

I thought this article discussed an interesting phenomenon that may not get discussed much:

THE SEXODUS, PART 1: THE MEN GIVING UP ON WOMEN AND CHECKING OUT OF SOCIETY
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/12/04/The-Sexodus-Part-1-The-Men-Giving-Up-On-Women-And-Checking-Out-Of-Society

I've no idea how common it is in different countries.

I have read before about some Japanese young men doing this.

There are also communities on the internet called MGTOW = Men Going Their Own Way. A lot of them seem to be men who are divorced and are not happy about how things worked out, rather than being young men.

For what it's worth, the author is gay so not actually an advocate of the position.

eviltwin

Don't see anything wrong with it. Some people are just happier on their own. Its sad if someone is turned off a partner because one ex treated them badly in the past, so many great people out there and they miss out on all of that out of fear or whatever. The opening paragraph of that article kinda says it all

My generation of boys is f**ked," says Rupert, a young German video game enthusiast I've been getting to know over the past few months. "Marriage is dead. Divorce means you're screwed for life. Women have given up on monogamy, which makes them uninteresting to us for any serious relationship or raising a family. That's just the way it is. Even if we take the risk, chances are the kids won't be ours. In France, we even have to pay for the kids a wife has through adulterous affairs.

Not all women are cheaters, not all women are fooling men into raising kids who are not their own. There are still many long lasting and successful relationships out there if you just look. But as I say, their call, the only ones they have to answer to are themselves.

ancapailldorcha

Funnily enough, I was wondering earlier today whether I should start a thread on MGTOW. Looks like you beat me to it!

The appeal is fairly obvious. I read (perhaps here) a quote which I found striking; "marriage is a contract no lawyer would advise you to sign". While the working world may be stacked against women, family law is stacked against fathers and husbands. I think I would like to get married someday but I've also come to enjoy my solitude. The fact that I could be stripped of much of what I've worked hard to attain simply because of my gender is horrifying.

I don't mean to say that women are happy to oust the men once they've got what they want of course but in the average case of both parents being able to offer a decent home, the court will usually side with the mother based on gender alone. Add to this the demonisation of men in society by the media and it makes perfect sense to forgo serious relationships and fatherhood altogether.

Ultimately, if a chap would like to "go his own way" and enjoys his own company and that of his friends then it'd certainly be the safer and more pragmatic. I recognise that there are positives to marriage and children, it'd be daft not to. If I based that most important of decisions on a risk and cost analysis of that path, there's no way I'd walk down it.

Pat Mustard

iptba wrote: »

There are also communities on the internet called MGTOW = Men Going Their Own Way.

Sure there are loads of them in rural Ireland, except people just call them old bachelors. By being the one chosen to stay back on the farm, some of these guys kind of 'opted out' whether they knew it or not, and a lot of them ended up remaining single.

In many cases, this may have happened more through inertia than by reasoned decision.

iptba

Even if we take the risk, chances are the kids won't be ours.

That's an over-the-top statement: I don't think anyone should think the rate of paternity fraud is as high as 50/50 or even close to it.

Anyway, just to be clear, that's just an extract from a bit of a rant at the start rather than the writer themselves.

Aswerty

A lot of what is raised in the article are genuine concerns but the article is just a rant. Also the entire thing is about how the Feminist movement has damaged society in relation to men but then in the last sentence it turns it on it's head and says women are the real victims. It's like the author doesn't actually know what he's trying to say.

And the title is a big fat mix of click bait and hyperbole. They also had an embedded video on autoplay; this means they are the devil incarnate.

tashiusclay

Aswerty wrote: »

Also the entire thing is about how the Feminist movement has damaged society in relation to men but then in the last sentence it turns it on it's head and says women are the real victims.

I didn't read the link yet, but I'm familiar with the principles of the 'mgtow' movement, so I've an idea what the general content of the link is. I'd say what is meant by the last sentence, is that feminism may be a victim of its own success in some ways, in that women are being encouraged by feminism to aim to 'have it all', if thats what they want, i.e. both the family and the career, instead of being reliant on men to be the sole providers and the women concentrating on raising the children, but if this precarious race against time fails, between achieving career successes and aims, and beating the biological clock, it can be quite a blow for women, particularly if the aim of starting a family isn't met.

Aswerty

Oh I don't doubt that is the angle he's going for. It's just gas that the entire article is on the impact of Feminism on men and the concluding paragraph is that women are the real victims. And I don't believe the author believes that is the case.

Mokuba

Heavily based off American culture - some valid points but some utter tripe as well as seems to be the case with most of that kind of stuff.

I do agree that men should be more careful in marriage, even here, and careful because fathers rights are nil. I can also agree that the feminist movement is a bit of a joke at this stage, and a lot of things do irk me like imposed quotas in corporations. But lets not tar all women with the same brush, and lets not get into generalised character assassinations.

Plenty of decent women out there, I just think men need to be more careful when picking one.

Lemming

Backspinswerve wrote: »

If so many women weren't on the pill I'd guess around 30% of babies would be the result of an adulterous sexual encounter.

This proves nothing other than that both genders like sex. Which tbh, doesn't tell us anything we don't already know, because we're here ...


... I think someone's been having sex since before we were born.

Wibbs

Lemming wrote: »

This proves nothing

I'd have stopped at that point L. 30%? where do figures like that come from? I mean seriously. Let's pull a figure out of our arses. It would be about as valid.

I dunno, I see an awful lot of paranoia within this "sexodus" and MGTOW stuff. I'm not saying it's entirely unwarranted. EG no way would I get hitched if I was a young man in the US for example, but the rest of the world isn't the US. Even in the US well over 60 odd per cent of marriages work. So rather than avoid the whole thing, maybe a better tack is get better at picking the kind of person you want to marry. TL;DR? Don't stick your *ahem* in crazy as the saying goes.

IMH another aspect of this "sexodus" caper is men who have near zero success with women, socially immature/inept/withdrawn men and rather than working on that choose to label their lack of success as an opting out tactic. Having such a label and fellow travelers on such a path is also appealing. Misery loves company and all that. Potentially dangerous though, like that nutcase whose name escapes who went on a killing spree because women didn't want him, but wanted other less "worthy" men(he killed more men than women).

The guy who has success with women, but choses to never commit longterm because of the possible perils of doing so is a different kettle of fish to the above.

Lemming

bear in mind as well that the US has a messed up relationship with Christianity; with a much lower generel age of marriage than elsewhere in the western world due (in part at any rate) to the whole "no sex before you're married" thing. So what do young God-fearin' folk do? They get married so they can have sex. QED. Then comes the rest of the QED moment when they realise they're not suited to each other.

Ok, that's an overly simplified take on the matter but you get the idea. I've had more than a few American friends (both sexes) make that observation too btw.

Wibbs

Thinking more on it, my worry is those apparently growing section of socially immature/inept/withdrawn men. Is it growing or has it become more noticeable? Hard to say. I'd personally reckon it's growing. The rise of more and more ways to be isolated, from yet at the same time connected to the world is fueling it(and issues like depressive/anxiety spectrum illness). Growing up I knew men who were good with women, men that were bad and the majority were kinda ok as it were. There was an expectation that sooner or later nigh on every straight guy would end up with someone, probably marriage and kids. Previous generations to me it was a near given. Today I'm not so sure. I can see and personally think of quite a number of bachelor men of different ages who are in that position and it's not of their choosing. Naturally that leaves a few women out of the fold too(though a few of them have kids so they have reproduced). Interesting demographic times ahead methinks.

ancapailldorcha

Wibbs wrote: »

I dunno, I see an awful lot of paranoia within this "sexodus" and MGTOW stuff. I'm not saying it's entirely unwarranted. EG no way would I get hitched if I was a young man in the US for example, but the rest of the world isn't the US. Even in the US well over 60 odd per cent of marriages work. So rather than avoid the whole thing, maybe a better tack is get better at picking the kind of person you want to marry. TL;DR? Don't stick your *ahem* in crazy as the saying goes.

I suppose it's no surprise that this originate in the US then so. I'd never even heard of it until a few days ago.

Blacktie.

Backspinswerve wrote: »

The 30% figure was an estimate based on the evidence I've seen, I stated that.

What evidence?

Wibbs

Indeed B, sources would be nice. Even if such a source did exist it would entirely be supposition. For the simple reason that because reliable contraception is around today there is no control group to get such numbers from. Contraception* itself would modify behaviour in a big way.






*reliable contraception. We've always had contraception going waaaay back(The Romans caused the extinction of a plant that had such properties).

Wibbs

Backspinswerve wrote: »

Studies and observations.

Personal observations aren't worth jack and links to studies would be nice. I'll hold my breath...

ancapailldorcha

Backspinswerve wrote: »

Studies and observations.

Go on...

FactCheck

Wibbs wrote: »

Thinking more on it, my worry is those apparently growing section of socially immature/inept/withdrawn men. Is it growing or has it become more noticeable? Hard to say. I'd personally reckon it's growing. The rise of more and more ways to be isolated, from yet at the same time connected to the world is fueling it(and issues like depressive/anxiety spectrum illness). Growing up I knew men who were good with women, men that were bad and the majority were kinda ok as it were. There was an expectation that sooner or later nigh on every straight guy would end up with someone, probably marriage and kids. Previous generations to me it was a near given. Today I'm not so sure. I can see and personally think of quite a number of bachelor men of different ages who are in that position and it's not of their choosing. Naturally that leaves a few women out of the fold too(though a few of them have kids so they have reproduced). Interesting demographic times ahead methinks.

I dunno, I think you are being a bit rosy about the past here. Someone above mentioned the bachelor farmers. Thing was, back in the day there was a LOT that could basically rule you out of the relationship market and the gene pool altogether. Bout of childhood polio? Hello lifelong celibacy. Untreated Asperger's, sight problems, inability to perform physical labour, the list goes on and on. It's not like 100 years ago the parish priest rounded up all the socially awkward people and assigned them a mate. If you were a bit weird, you were fecked.

The reality is that between the internet, modern medicine, and universal free education, people have the opportunity to help themselves more than they ever have. And more people than ever are doing so. I mean if you look at the figures - the marriage rate in Ireland is increasing. Divorce rates everywhere are dropping (bit hard to say anything meaningfully about Ireland, since we haven't had divorce for long enough).

And those rates - one of the sneakiest things about this is that comparisons for historic marriage rates usually start post-WWII. Well, the world didn't bloody start in the 1950s! That generation saw a genuinely unprecedented and unique recalibration of family life. If you want to look at marriage rates, look 100 years ago. Totally different story to the USA 50s baby boomers.

Divorce is another crazy misleading one. Sure, the headline rate might be high. But it isn't absolute, there are massive variations within different demographics. If you are over 25, have no children, have at least a bachelor's degree, have lived together, and have never been married before, your chance of divorce is miniscule. (Er, I hope I haven't offended anyone here. Obviously absolutely loads of people do not meet some or all or hell any of these criteria and still have lifelong happy marriages! I'm just saying, there is an element of choice and control and personal responsibility here - it is very possible to significantly reduce your chances of divorce).

But talking about controlling one's own personal circumstances, to go back to the first point - now we have the opportunity to help ourselves. If you're an awkward, scrawny, working class kid, nowadays you grow up, get a decent Leaving, get an IT degree and leave whatever backwater you grew up in. Boom, you have a good job and nobody remembers the awkward teenage years. If you want to get fit or overcome social anxiety, I'm not saying it's easy per se, it isn't, but it is easier than it ever has been.

And that's where I think some of the anger or bitterness is coming from. It's not that there are more men being left behind - on the contrary, we have more social mobility, healthcare, you name it, it has become so easy to get ahead that this is now expected. And so the people who don't want to get onboard with that, not only do they have the old difficulties, they now have the new difficulty which is everyone around them not just looking down on them for being awkward misfits, but judging them for not improving their own circumstances like most others are able to.

Pat Mustard

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Go on...

It's just a common rereg talking nonsense, looking for a reaction.

He didn't have any evidence, his posts have been deleted and now he is permanently sitebanned by Admins, yet again.

ancapailldorcha

The Mustard wrote: »

It's just a common rereg talking nonsense, looking for a reaction.

He didn't have any evidence, his posts have been deleted and now he is permanently sitebanned by Admins, yet again.

Thread looks a bit odd now though .

Pat Mustard

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Thread looks a bit odd now though .

Ah feck it. :pac:

ancapailldorcha

The Mustard wrote: »

Ah feck it. :pac:

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

Wibbs

FactCheck wrote: »

I dunno, I think you are being a bit rosy about the past here. Someone above mentioned the bachelor farmers. Thing was, back in the day there was a LOT that could basically rule you out of the relationship market and the gene pool altogether. Bout of childhood polio? Hello lifelong celibacy. Untreated Asperger's, sight problems, inability to perform physical labour, the list goes on and on. It's not like 100 years ago the parish priest rounded up all the socially awkward people and assigned them a mate. If you were a bit weird, you were fecked.

Oh I agree FC. I'm certainly not bigging up the past. Indeed our genetics tell this story because more male lines than female have died out in the human genome. IE a group of men were having more kids with more women over time.

It would also depend on culture. Ireland is a peculiar one regarding marriage anyway. In the 1930's 75% of Irish men between 20 and 35 were single, compared to 30% in the UK. Women traditionally tend to migrate/emigrate more than men(which you can often see to this day in small towns) and far more Irish women migrated/emigrated than men, so there was a shortfall of potential mates for Irish men, particularly rural men for much of the 20th century. We also tended to marry much later than the rest of the world(a record we still held until the 90's at least) and had wider age gaps. Again in the 30's nearly half of all marriages in Ireland had a 10 year age gap.

We were quite the outlier in cultural terms. I'm just positing that maybe we'll see similar again. Women migrating is still in play. The average woman is better educated and higher earning than the average man and that gap is widening. The increase in mental illness including social anxiety is increasing in men(interestingly or no, maybe we have previous here too. At the height of the gender disparity in Ireland we had a very high rate of admission to asylums for mental illness) which will reduce their chances of getting hitched/into a longtermer. Maybe what might happen is somewhat of a return to an "Irish past"?

Divorce is another crazy misleading one. Sure, the headline rate might be high. But it isn't absolute, there are massive variations within different demographics.

+1 and again cultures. Ireland has a very low divirce rate, lowest in the EU IIRC. Maybe because we tend to marry later on average so make better choices. Even in the US where these paranoid figures and reactions to them come from, nigh on two thirds of marriages don't fail. Even among second marriages which are usually trotted out as disasters half don't fail. In a culture where first marriages tend to be young it's not too surprising to hear of failures and second goes at the cherry.

But talking about controlling one's own personal circumstances, to go back to the first point - now we have the opportunity to help ourselves. If you're an awkward, scrawny, working class kid, nowadays you grow up, get a decent Leaving, get an IT degree and leave whatever backwater you grew up in. Boom, you have a good job and nobody remembers the awkward teenage years. If you want to get fit or overcome social anxiety, I'm not saying it's easy per se, it isn't, but it is easier than it ever has been.

And that's where I think some of the anger or bitterness is coming from. It's not that there are more men being left behind - on the contrary, we have more social mobility, healthcare, you name it, it has become so easy to get ahead that this is now expected. And so the people who don't want to get onboard with that, not only do they have the old difficulties, they now have the new difficulty which is everyone around them not just looking down on them for being awkward misfits, but judging them for not improving their own circumstances like most others are able to.

Interesting angle on it FC.

lazybones32

The Japanese 'herbivores' are reacting to extremely strong societal pressure and it's not fair to link them to the examples posted in that blog (I only read about half before having enough). Such pressures do not exist here and cannot be used as a legitimate argument for abandoning society. (How many 'herbivores' are attractive, charismatic young men, I wonder?)

If a young man genuinely believes that every woman is a golddigger; wants you to provide for her other-sired children or only wants to be with you in order to manipulate you, marry you, cheat with the neighbours on you and then divorce you while she keeps everything, then that young man is not ready to be in a relationship. I would say he is in need of psychological help.

Maybe a lot of the MGTOW is because the 'adherents' are unsuccessful in their interactions with females - if they even have the confidence to talk to them? - or perceive within themselves flaws and weakness and this is a form of 'rejecting them before they reject me'? I've had on-line interactions with MGTOW subscribers and I've yet to hear from one who wasn't motivated by bitterness or fear of women.

Wibbs

OSI wrote: »

This reminds me of a thread I read yesterday by an American Asian who was freaking out because a guy she had been seeing for around a year hadn't proposed to her yet, when they weren't even living together. US movies and TV are full of couples jumping into a marriage after just 6 months together, what do they expect.

A mate of mine went off to live in the states in his early 20's and he come home one time with his American(southern type) fiance at the time and she was gobsmacked that at 30 I wasn't married, hadn't been married, wasn't engaged and had no intention of wifing up my current girlfriend anytime soon. Like really suspish of me. She was too fond of the whole "Gawd" vibe for comfort so maybe that was it. But yep gobsmacked. Me being me I wound her up like a toy over it. Then again from very early on in my youth I was never the I want to get married type. Never appealed to me TBH. Girlfriends great, even living together but not marriage and all that. I was defo the outlier in this though. Even the fact I was conscious of it in the first place(beyond the common enough 2 odd year old bloke swearing he'd never get hitched. Often the first to do so). Most men I knew and know ended up married, save for the ones who to put it bluntly just couldn't attract a woman.

ancapailldorcha

To be honest, the first image this MGTOW thing conjured up in my head was a group of intelligent men in their late twenties and onwards who'd decided that the penalties of a failed marriage outweight the rewards of a successful one. For some reason, it never occurred to me that it would attract misogynists, bitter virgins and the like...

Wibbs

lazybones32 wrote: »

Maybe a lot of the MGTOW is because the 'adherents' are unsuccessful in their interactions with females - if they even have the confidence to talk to them? - or perceive within themselves flaws and weakness and this is a form of 'rejecting them before they reject me'? I've had on-line interactions with MGTOW subscribers and I've yet to hear from one who wasn't motivated by bitterness or fear of women.

Yep. TBH I can understand the older guys who got really fecked over in nasty divorces. I can see why they then preselect the worldview that all "Women are bitches(tm)". Divorce hits men particularly hard mentally and emotionally(and financially in many cases). The rate of suicide for men going through a divorce is three times higher than background for their age, whereas women's suicide rate doesn't change. I can understand where their fears come from and why they lash out.

What I don't see are why young men who haven't gone through that mill are coming out with the same stuff and your explanation that many are unsuccessful with women drives this rings true for me. They're rejected so they get in there first. There would be another group, the PUA types who learn how to be and become successful with a certain demographic of women and view all women through that demographic and mix up those three and you get much of what the MGTOW movement is all about. Though I would see your MGTOW and PUA/redpill types as different, the latter are at least proactive.

ancapailldorcha

Wibbs wrote: »

What I don't see are why young men who haven't gone through that mill are coming out with the same stuff and your explanation that many are unsuccessful with women drives this rings true for me. They're rejected so they get in there first. There would be another group, the PUA types who learn how to be and become successful with a certain demographic of women and view all women through that demographic and mix up those three and you get much of what the MGTOW movement is all about. Though I would see your MGTOW and PUA/redpill types as different, the latter are at least proactive.

If I'd to guess, I'd put it down to frustration. A lot of these chaps don't fancy the PUA tripe and haven't the time/cash/inclination to sort themselves out so they just give up and go it alone.

I guess it can only be a reflection on how out of touch I am.

If you read an article that told you little red imps had taken over the world and were running amok on the streets and destroying everything - and then you removed your mind from cyberspace and walked it outside to meat space - only to find everything working as normal - cars meandering along slowly on their way home - people walking glass eyed in every direction to their respective trains and buses - and life going on as normal - you would feel like I felt coming out of reading the article cited.

Because - just like that - as soon as I withdrew my mind from the article - and all the images and realities it conjured up in my imagination - and pulled myself back into the here and now - and looked at the world around me - both literally and in the sense of my mind wandering the social circles I move in - the groups I work with - the people I know - the experiences I have had - I could simply not map any of my experiences onto the majority of the claims of the article.

I would not normally think of myself as being that out of touch - especially given the extent of my social circles and work in society that puts me in contact with people of all ages and sexualities - but I genuinely can not map the majority of that articles onto the reality I know and experience both directly and vicariously.

How much of it is real? How much hyperbole and exaggeration? How much of it location based specifically (where the blog appears based) - and not mappable onto Ireland? And so forth? Or am I really simply somehow that out of touch and this article is a true and genuine representation of the male-female dynamic in the world today? I draw some consolation from a few comments on the thread that indicate they may be at least partially baffled as I am.

From the opening claims such as "Women have given up on monogamy" I am having trouble parsing and mapping much of the article onto the reality I experience. In fact so far is the disparity that I can not even find my way to the formation of an agreement OR a rebuttal to much of what is in it. It is like the description of an alien world.

Not that there is no truth at all in it I am sure. I imagine responses pointing out some X Y and Z that are true in the article - asking me how I can not relate to the article given things like that. And the X Y and Z that response might pick I fully expect will likely be entirely true.

But I refer to the article *as a whole* and as I keep saying I must be (either reading the article wrong or) entirely out of touch with reality in every way because I am just not seeing the world it describes reflected too acutely in the world around me - or around those around me.

Or perhaps it is not meant to? Perhaps this is the kind of article written for the people who have - as wibbs put it - partaken of some of the modern ways of self-isolation and they read the article and nod sagely at it without withdrawing to check if it maps on to any actual reality in the way I did when I finished it. A kind of textual "hug in" that allows people in that world to construct an explanation of their perceived place in that world.

All the sexual dynamics aside - I do genuinely think we have become a more insular world and our human relationships complicated by this - made awkward by it. We lock our selves in our house. Go to work locked in that bubble of isolation we call a car. Sit at desks. Then do it all again in reverse. Perhaps if there genuinely is a problem - even if not the depths described in the article - it is to be found not in the dynamics between the sexes - but generally in the dynamic of human interaction across all of our society. I think only of last weekend when I walked past a group of lads walking along the road together - each with their own phone and headphones. Physically together - but functionally entirely alone. And I think of some of the people who come before me through things like my meditation classes - and other things I do putting myself "out there" - and I do find isolation and loneliness *in general* to either be a recurring problem that comes before me - or a furling cause of the problem with which they come before me such as addictions and depressions and even anger issues.

Clearly there are problems - but I also clearly can not wrap my head around the kind of articles that feed those problems into a pre-existing framework or dynamic - of some kind of -ism or other like feminism - in order to parse them. Even when parsing them through that particular frame work makes little sense.

strobe

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I guess it can only be a reflection on how out of touch I am.

If you read an article that told you little red imps had taken over the world and were running amok on the streets and destroying everything - and then you removed your mind from cyberspace and walked it outside to meat space - only to find everything working as normal - cars meandering along slowly on their way home - people walking glass eyed in every direction to their respective trains and buses - and life going on as normal - you would feel like I felt coming out of reading the article cited.

Because - just like that - as soon as I withdrew my mind from the article - and all the images and realities it conjured up in my imagination - and pulled myself back into the here and now - and looked at the world around me - both literally and in the sense of my mind wandering the social circles I move in - the groups I work with - the people I know - the experiences I have had - I could simply not map any of my experiences onto the majority of the claims of the article.

I would not normally think of myself as being that out of touch - especially given the extent of my social circles and work in society that puts me in contact with people of all ages and sexualities - but I genuinely can not map the majority of that articles onto the reality I know and experience both directly and vicariously.

How much of it is real? How much hyperbole and exaggeration? How much of it location based specifically (where the blog appears based) - and not mappable onto Ireland? And so forth? Or am I really simply somehow that out of touch and this article is a true and genuine representation of the male-female dynamic in the world today? I draw some consolation from a few comments on the thread that indicate they may be at least partially baffled as I am.

From the opening claims such as "Women have given up on monogamy" I am having trouble parsing and mapping much of the article onto the reality I experience. In fact so far is the disparity that I can not even find my way to the formation of an agreement OR a rebuttal to much of what is in it. It is like the description of an alien world.

Not that there is no truth at all in it I am sure. I imagine responses pointing out some X Y and Z that are true in the article - asking me how I can not relate to the article given things like that. And the X Y and Z that response might pick I fully expect will likely be entirely true.

But I refer to the article *as a whole* and as I keep saying I must be (either reading the article wrong or) entirely out of touch with reality in every way because I am just not seeing the world it describes reflected too acutely in the world around me - or around those around me.

Or perhaps it is not meant to? Perhaps this is the kind of article written for the people who have - as wibbs put it - partaken of some of the modern ways of self-isolation and they read the article and nod sagely at it without withdrawing to check if it maps on to any actual reality in the way I did when I finished it. A kind of textual "hug in" that allows people in that world to construct an explanation of their perceived place in that world.

All the sexual dynamics aside - I do genuinely think we have become a more insular world and our human relationships complicated by this - made awkward by it. We lock our selves in our house. Go to work locked in that bubble of isolation we call a car. Sit at desks. Then do it all again in reverse. Perhaps if there genuinely is a problem - even if not the depths described in the article - it is to be found not in the dynamics between the sexes - but generally in the dynamic of human interaction across all of our society. I think only of last weekend when I walked past a group of lads walking along the road together - each with their own phone and headphones. Physically together - but functionally entirely alone. And I think of some of the people who come before me through things like my meditation classes - and other things I do putting myself "out there" - and I do find isolation and loneliness *in general* to either be a recurring problem that comes before me - or a furling cause of the problem with which they come before me such as addictions and depressions and even anger issues.

Clearly there are problems - but I also clearly can not wrap my head around the kind of articles that feed those problems into a pre-existing framework or dynamic - of some kind of -ism or other like feminism - in order to parse them. Even when parsing them through that particular frame work makes little sense.

This.






























(sorry, couldn't resist, good post.)

Standman

The MGTOW thing seems a tad passive aggressive to me. I'd be interested to know how many of these guys have had serious relationships or been successful with women in the past.

lazybones32

Wibbs wrote: »

Yep. TBH I can understand the older guys who got really fecked over in nasty divorces. I can see why they then preselect the worldview that all "Women are bitches(tm)". Divorce hits men particularly hard mentally and emotionally(and financially in many cases). The rate of suicide for men going through a divorce is three times higher than background for their age, whereas women's suicide rate doesn't change. I can understand where their fears come from and why they lash out.

Definitely. I don't blame the men for being bitter against their wives (and the Judge in many cases) but to see young men and teenagers adopt the view that 'all women are b!tches' does not make for healthy relationships and will make them as bitter. Also, the younger men are only getting one-side of the story and it is rare for someone to hold their hand up to their own responsibility in the breakdown of a relationship.

GalwayGuitar

Interesting article but what really caught my eye was the French ban on paternity tests. So your wife cuckolds you and you have to raise her children? Can't test to see if the kid is actually yours??

'French psychologists suggest that fatherhood is determined by society not by biology'(!)

Jesus. France will probably be better off when it becomes an Islamic society.

Delirium

GalwayGuitar wrote: »

Interesting article but what really caught my eye was the French ban on paternity tests. So your wife cuckolds you and you have to raise her spawn? Can't test to see if the kid is actually yours??

'French psychologists suggest that fatherhood is determined by society not by biology'(!)

Jesus. France will probably be better off when it becomes an Islamic society.

where does it say that in the linked article?

EDIT:
From what I can find, a court order is required to have a paternity test.

Pug160

FactCheck wrote: »

But talking about controlling one's own personal circumstances, to go back to the first point - now we have the opportunity to help ourselves. If you're an awkward, scrawny, working class kid, nowadays you grow up, get a decent Leaving, get an IT degree and leave whatever backwater you grew up in. Boom, you have a good job and nobody remembers the awkward teenage years. If you want to get fit or overcome social anxiety, I'm not saying it's easy per se, it isn't, but it is easier than it ever has been.

And that's where I think some of the anger or bitterness is coming from. It's not that there are more men being left behind - on the contrary, we have more social mobility, healthcare, you name it, it has become so easy to get ahead that this is now expected. And so the people who don't want to get onboard with that, not only do they have the old difficulties, they now have the new difficulty which is everyone around them not just looking down on them for being awkward misfits, but judging them for not improving their own circumstances like most others are able to.

You seem to be equating quality of life with romantic success. I can see where you're coming from but it doesn't always work that way IMO. It's quite often analytical type guys who may or may not have degrees who actually struggle when interacting with women and people in general. I do acknowledge that people who have gone to uni and have done well academically probably have an advantage when it comes to success with women - especially the ones who are naturally sociable anyway. But it is certainly no guarantee. A lot of young professionals don't actually have a lot of time on their hands either, which can be damaging. There was a recent report about men who use escorts in the UK, and I think it stated that young professional men between the ages of 25 and 34 were the most likely group to avail of an escort's services.

ZeitgeistGlee

SW wrote: »

where does it say that in the linked article?

EDIT:
From what I can find, a court order is required to have a paternity test.

IIRC the court order will only be made with the consent of the mother, and if said mother suspects her husband may not be the father of her child she's unlikely to give it.

Wibbs

Pug160 wrote: »

You seem to be equating quality of life with romantic success. I can see where you're coming from but it doesn't always work that way IMO. It's quite often analytical type guys who may or may not have degrees who actually struggle when interacting with women and people in general. I do acknowledge that people who have gone to uni and have done well academically probably have an advantage when it comes to success with women - especially the ones who are naturally sociable anyway. But it is certainly no guarantee. A lot of young professionals don't actually have a lot of time on their hands either, which can be damaging. There was a recent report about men who use escorts in the UK, and I think it stated that young professional men between the ages of 25 and 32 were the most likely group to avail of an escort's services.

Interesting stat that last one P.

Just going on personal experience here, which I realise isn't worth the pixels that are used displaying it but at the other end of the spectrum, the "player" type guy, I found little or no social or educational background difference that stood out with those guys. I would say though that the single most obvious thing they all had was confidence. Sometimes it was false confidence when you got down to it, but they had it publicly. They also very rarely got too emotionally involved, or seemed to be able to walk away with relative ease, again at least publicly. Some were game players and some were not funny enough and even funnier enougher(should be a word) some were obvious extroverts and some were quite introverted on the surface. But yea social confidence was very high. In some t'was near pathological in fact, quietly or no.

Of the guys I knew who had little or no success romantically they were actually more variable again in my experience. Some were very outgoing and sociable, but couldn't quite get beyond a certain point with women, unless the woman thought "feck this" and got tired of waiting and just jumped them. There was a barrier of sorts compared to the "players", even compared to the average man. Then there were the very withdrawn socially awkward guys. They had it very tough. Tougher than very withdrawn socially awkward women. At least they'd get approached, it was only after such approaches they might feck it up.

So very very broadly, those guys who had little or no difficulty "getting" women rarely seemed to connect with them and the guys who wanted desperately to connect with them couldn't get beyond their barrier. Ironic or some such.

Pug160

Wibbs wrote: »

Interesting stat that last one P.

Just going on personal experience here, which I realise isn't worth the pixels that are used displaying it but at the other end of the spectrum, the "player" type guy, I found little or no social or educational background difference that stood out with those guys. I would say though that the single most obvious thing they all had was confidence. Sometimes it was false confidence when you got down to it, but they had it publicly. They also very rarely got too emotionally involved, or seemed to be able to walk away with relative ease, again at least publicly. Some were game players and some were not funny enough and even funnier enougher(should be a word) some were obvious extroverts and some were quite introverted on the surface. But yea social confidence was very high. In some t'was near pathological in fact, quietly or no.

Of the guys I knew who had little or no success romantically they were actually more variable again in my experience. Some were very outgoing and sociable, but couldn't quite get beyond a certain point with women, unless the woman thought "feck this" and got tired of waiting and just jumped them. There was a barrier of sorts compared to the "players", even compared to the average man. Then there were the very withdrawn socially awkward guys. They had it very tough. Tougher than very withdrawn socially awkward women. At least they'd get approached, it was only after such approaches they might feck it up.

So very very broadly, those guys who had little or no difficulty "getting" women rarely seemed to connect with them and the guys who wanted desperately to connect with them couldn't get beyond their barrier. Ironic or some such.

The really confident men who are the least intimidated by women are also the ones who can quite often attract women who are a league or two above them in terms of physical appearance it seems. That brings me onto another topic I feel is relevant here, which is the decision some men make to stay single unless they attract a fairly hot woman (or a hot one in their eyes). Some men spend a very long time chasing their elusive white whale, and I'd imagine some of them give up just like these other men have. For me personally, I'd rather wait until I found someone who ticks a lot of boxes, rather than settle. But no one should ever give up.

Littlekittylou

iptba wrote: »

I thought this article discussed an interesting phenomenon that may not get discussed much:

I've no idea how common it is in different countries.

I have read before about some Japanese young men doing this.

There are also communities on the internet called MGTOW = Men Going Their Own Way. A lot of them seem to be men who are divorced and are not happy about how things worked out, rather than being young men.

For what it's worth, the author is gay so not actually an advocate of the position.

It's their choice. Respect people's choices.

braddun

where I live theres 5 women to each man

laoch na mona

sure theres always the priesthood

never heard of MGTOW before sounds neck beardy,

Pug160

I've had a look at what some of these guys are saying. One school of thought seems to be that if enough men take themselves out of the dating pool, it will have an impact on women and force them to reconsider their importance. To me, that's not only defeatist, but it's unrealistic because men and women are always going to be attracted to each other and want relationships, sex, companionship and all the rest of it. These men who are taking themselves out of the 'market' are probably making no difference, as I assume they weren't really in it to begin with anyway.

It does appear as though some men really do get screwed in the courts. It's also probably fair to say that young women probably have at least a slight advantage when it comes to the dating game and attracting partners. There is nothing wrong with acknowledging those things. But to sit and cry about it and put your head in the sand is absolutely pointless. Like some other posters mentioned, it's about choosing wisely. I'd also say it's about having a positive outlook on life and having self respect.

the evasion_kid

An Irish woman's take on mgtow:


http://mensrightsarehumanrights.wordpress.com/category/mgtow/

Pug160

Isomorphism wrote: »

If you are average looking man without any anxiety chatting/flirting with women chances are you'll have more women than you can handle. These men "going their own way" need to realise this, then they can dictate the type of relationships they want and what behaviours they will and won't tolerate from women.

Theory and reality are two different things. We live in an age where we can theoretically attract lots of women because our society is more liberal and because there are so many ways to meet people, especially if you include the online stuff. I think the guys who do well do very well. But it does seem to be rather polarised. Looking decent and being able to communicate is no guarantee, especially if you have standards. Most of the compliments I get when I go out are from other men. They ask me where I buy my clothes and stuff. Black and gay men have complimented me, which some might say is pretty much the biggest compliment you can get as a lot of those guys are generally very well presented themselves. But a lot of the more desirable women are still way more demure than men.

Guys who are beating women off them tend to have no morals - they tell women whatever they think the woman wants to hear, and don't give a damn about causing harm if the truth is exposed. They're ruthless and have sociopathic traits. That's been my experience anyway.

Wibbs

Pug160 wrote: »

Guys who are beating women off them tend to have no morals - they tell women whatever they think the woman wants to hear, and don't give a damn about causing harm if the truth is exposed. They're ruthless and have sociopathic traits. That's been my experience anyway.

I dunno P. That suggests that women, at least a subset of women are naturally attracted to men with "no morals", ruthless sociopathic men and are too daft to spot these traits. Secondly men who "are beating women off them" may quite simply be more attractive than the norm. Taller, younger, or older(depending on demographic), better looking, more intelligent, more successful, more emotionally and socially mature etc. IMHO the sociopath label is too easy and is too often trotted out as a sop, a comfort, for men who want to be like that, or at least want to have the choices these kinda men seem to have, but who aren't or don't.

It pretty much boils down to this; some people, men and women, are quite simply just more attractive to the opposite sex(or the same sex if they're gay folks). No underlying pathology required.

GalwayGuitar

Wibbs wrote: »

I dunno P. That suggests that women, at least a subset of women are naturally attracted to men with "no morals", ruthless sociopathic men and are too daft to spot these traits. Secondly men who "are beating women off them" may quite simply be more attractive than the norm. Taller, younger, or older(depending on demographic), better looking, more intelligent, more successful, more emotionally and socially mature etc. IMHO the sociopath label is too easy and is too often trotted out as a sop, a comfort, for men who want to be like that, or at least want to have the choices these kinda men seem to have, but who aren't or don't.

It pretty much boils down to this; some people, men and women, are quite simply just more attractive to the opposite sex(or the same sex if they're gay folks). No underlying pathology required.

Sociopathic may be a bit strong but its also been my experience that men who do above average with women have less morals and less respect for women. The last 'player' I knew was proud he had no females friends, believed there should be more segregation between the sexes and was about as anti-feminist as you can get. Women either loved him or hated him, there was no middle ground. But I've never seen a man as successful as him.

Sure looks are important but the guys at the top seem to have a ruthlessness that a lot of us lack.

Also on looks: I know a few good looking shy guys who struggle. If you're a good looking woman you don't need to do much, you'll naturally attract men. If you're a man you need looks, confidence and wit.

Pug160

Wibbs wrote: »

I dunno P. That suggests that women, at least a subset of women are naturally attracted to men with "no morals", ruthless sociopathic men and are too daft to spot these traits.

I've heard quite a lot of psychologists on TV programmes say that sociopaths are often very appealing to women because they seem exciting and charming and spontaneous etc. One phrase I've heard from psychologists on more than one occasion is that they don't ''carry any emotional baggage'', which is what you yourself were describing earlier on I think. I don't reckon it's about women being ''daft'', I think a lot of these men are just very charming and appear sincere perhaps. I guess they can be cunning and manipulative too, at a more sinister level.

Secondly men who "are beating women off them" may quite simply be more attractive than the norm. Taller, younger, or older(depending on demographic), better looking, more intelligent, more successful, more emotionally and socially mature etc. IMHO the sociopath label is too easy and is too often trotted out as a sop, a comfort, for men who want to be like that, or at least want to have the choices these kinda men seem to have, but who aren't or don't.

I have never disputed that. I was referring more to the guys who use deceitful tactics in order to string women along. Some such men are handsome in addition to that. Physical attraction is very important but it's merely one leg through the door. Women will be more receptive to being approached but decent looking men are not guaranteed success with the ladies. It's possible that there's a slight but crucial difference between physical attractiveness and sex appeal. There could be a few other intangibles. Some men are hot sh** and have other qualities - I agree. But it's just noticeable that many men who are successful do seem to have a darker side.
If you're talking about looks you're actually preaching to the converted, as that's something I've spent time working on myself.

It pretty much boils down to this; some people, men and women, are quite simply just more attractive to the opposite sex(or the same sex if they're gay folks). No underlying pathology required.

I never said there was. It's not always black and white though, which makes it both interesting and frustrating.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

I dunno P. That suggests that women, at least a subset of women are naturally attracted to men with "no morals", ruthless sociopathic men and are too daft to spot these traits.

You've never seen Jeremy Kyle then? :pac:

Pug160

Wibbs wrote: »

It pretty much boils down to this; some people, men and women, are quite simply just more attractive to the opposite sex(or the same sex if they're gay folks). No underlying pathology required.

I'll try to articulate what I was thinking about today. Let's start with physical attraction by itself. Isn't it fair to say that people can be handsome or attractive on different levels? Let's say, for the benefit of the discussion, that there are three levels of physical attraction. A guy or woman (but a man in particular) will need a lot more than just his looks to succeed with an attractive, desirable woman if he's just considered 'cute' rather than 'hot'. Whereas a man who is off the charts in terms of appearance will probably get away with other shortcomings a bit more easily. The first man still has a chance, as he has easily passed the minimum requirement stage looks-wise and the woman does consider him to be handsome, but that's all he has done. Attractive, desirable women - particularly the ones in a certain age bracket, have lots of handsome guys pursuing them, so the novelty and value of appearance alone probably erodes somewhat. The difference between a woman thinking you're shaggable and actually giving you a chance can sometimes be immense.

The reason for that, I assume, is because women in the most desirable bracket have more filters than other women as they're attracting so many desirable guys (and plenty of undesirable ones too for that matter). There seem to be other quirks more associated with pretty women - at least from what I've observed. For example, I've noticed that they're more likely to form a romantic relationship with someone they've got to know over time, perhaps in a social circle or at work (that's just my own observation mind you). That could be related to the more extensive filters they have in place. I do agree with some of the research that suggests that most couples are on a similar level appearance wise, but it doesn't tell the whole story - not by a long way.

Wibbs

Pug160 wrote: »

The reason for that, I assume, is because women in the most desirable bracket have more filters than other women as they're attracting so many desirable guys (and plenty of undesirable ones too for that matter). There seem to be other quirks more associated with pretty women - at least from what I've observed. For example, I've noticed that they're more likely to form a romantic relationship with someone they've got to know over time, perhaps in a social circle or at work (that's just my own observation mind you).

There may be another factor too I reckon. Yes on the surface very attractive women seem to have lots of options and yes they will tend to get much more attention, but their numbers of good men as options may be remarkably low as a percentage of that attention. Maybe even lower than a plainer woman. They're more likely to get attention from "players" and indeed friendzone types and more men who are just seeing the visuals and nothing else. Over time that can make them quite defensive in social settings and more sound lads may think "oh oh ice queen/hard work" and not bother. So guys already known from within their social circle have been pre checked as it were, for arsehole factor.

Very attractive men would in general have an easier time as it's still the cultural standard that men approach women* so they at least have more choice. The attractive woman is usually the approached, so that's one less filter.





*though in reality and experiment women nearly always signal first in a social setting. Micro gestures and looks that signal a willingness to engage. Strangely many men are terrible at spotting such signals. One would think it would be innate, but it seems not. Though maybe that's nature at work in another way, IE men who recognise the signals more often are transmitting better social intelligence and if they follow up with an approach are signaling better social confidence? Still one would also think that would be "bred out" by now. Odd one.