You really don’t know what MGTOW means, do you? Or are you intentionally tarring everything with the same brush in your manufactured outrage?

when there’s a portion of people basically saying you’re scum for being born a man

There is no way of changing these people’s minds, they invariably tend to be zero-sum absolutionists. Any attempt to prove them otherwise will only trigger their victimization complexes.

The only effective strategy is to not engage in the first place, to avoid having anything to do with them even if they are blood and especially if they can be easily avoided.

Unfortunately, this attitude is also held by the vast majority of vocal feminists… which, if you are actively dating, ought to make this one of the first red flags you should be looking for to make women self-select themselves out of contention.

After all, you don’t want to be with someone who hates you for what you are. Leave those venomous vipers on the branch, where they belong.

And yes, this entire strategy works equally as well in the other direction, for women. The difference is that women are far more effectively avoiding men with these red flags than men are at avoiding women with these red flags. Far too many men are far too thirsty to think straight where women are concerned.

what MGTOW offers as a “solution” is misogyny that only serves to make everyone more miserable

So when women go their own way they are lauded and celebrated, but when men do the exact same thing, it’s somehow misogyny??

You can’t have the exact same strategy be lauded on the one hand and vilified on the other, purely based on the gender of the person implementing that strategy.

That’s the dictionary definition of gender bigotry, and is at the core of pretty much every reason why men go their own way.

Even some “woke” Western Asian women can be pretty racist against Asian men.

FTFY.

My wife is Asian, and has seen this in her own female relatives and community friends who have immigrated here or have been born here. None of them would ever debase themselves that far to be with an Asian man unless he was loaded AF.

And my BiL has only ever had one Asian woman take any interest in him, despite being one hell of a handsome man… last time he visited China, he was frequently mistaken for a movie star or a model.

Another word for emotional labor is goddamn fucking empathy and SOME PEOPLE don’t want to show any toward men.

The very people screaming the loudest about “toxic masculinity” being a problem in men, are invariably the ones imposing it the most fiercely upon men, as this woman is doing.

If you went to most redpill communities, I would absolutely agree with you. It’s often really hard to tell them apart from feminist communities in terms of their rage and hate against the other gender.

However, out of sheer curiosity I have poked my nose into and lurked on a number of MGTOW communities that are refreshingly supportive and which do their best to help men move past the rage phase into more productive paths. Mainly because rage generally isn’t conducive to sustained and healthy self-improvement… and if you’re still obsessed with women in any way, you are pretty much failing at “going your own way”.

I actually know a few MGTOW, and aside from ignoring what society and women demand of them, you would never know they were MGTOW. They don’t talk about women. They don’t get upset over what women do or say. They just don’t want to have anything to do with women because they have much better things to do with their lives.

And when women complain to all and sundry that they just want to be left alone, isn’t MGTOW doing exactly what women want – leaving them TF alone? How could that be in any way a bad thing?

Girl, if this is the way you view the dating pool, then maybe MGTOW has a valid point or three to consider.

I may have stepped off the dating field nearly thirty years ago, but in terms of the gratuitous misandry that I have seen as of the last decade or so, even if I were to become widowed I doubt I would ever want to step back onto it. The juice is just not worth the squeeze if I am seen as “the enemy” and facing unjustified hostility and adversarial arrogance long before you even get to know me.

6 years of age would put me in 1978.

There is a lot I could do from that point onward, that would make $10M look like spare change. Like investing in Apple, or working with Tim Berners-Lee to more effectively launch an Internet that could better resist corporatization and enshittification.

Unless a company is an employee-owned socialist-style worker’s collective, employees generally have no say in that decision. A company can be every bit as evil as their owners want to be. Just look at Google or Facebook or Twitter.

And the problem in America is that for anyone making less than six figures (and many making below seven or even eight figures), their ability to protest any decision made by their employer is heavily constrained by a combination of the employer’s ability to fire them at a moment’s notice and the medical insurance that is tied to their job. Thanks to these two pincer-like forces, employee’s free choices in America are heavily constrained in the interests of capitalism and the Parasite Class.

And even if the “owners” want to be less evil, they themselves are often constrained by their investors, who force them to either toe the line or hurt all of their employees with unemployment and likely destitution and extreme hardship.

Because why bring needless suffering to those (the employees) who cannot do anything to avoid it, when they desperately need their jobs to survive in this capitalistic hellhole? Why punish the innocent employees who are just wanting to successfully put one financial foot in front of the other?

As any sort of CEO, your decisions should be for the financial well-being of your employees, first, which means knuckling under to the political demands of your current investor overlords. After all, if your decisions just put your entire workforce out of work because your investors pulled all of their money, your decision was a horrible one.

Granted, investors with odious ideologies should have been avoided from the start, but hindsight is always 20/20. Sometimes stuff like that isn’t just a known unknown, but even a complete unknown unknown.

And once you have an uncontrollably influential investor, your only choice might be to protect the economic welfare of your employees over an ideological stance that could easily make many of them homeless or even dead.

Or, they back him and acknowledge that they supported genocide but have since realised how wrong they were?

And then they all lose their jobs when the investor(s) pulls out. Did you not read the comment you were replying to?

If it’s a choice between one person losing their job and everyone losing their jobs, you are either rationally pragmatic to just one person or you are ideologically scorched-earth to everyone else.

I mean, if you are someone in a manglement position who has to pull that particular trigger you could also resign in protest, but at least that only torpedos your own career, and not the jobs of dozens of other people who work alongside you.

Libertarianism requires its members to engage in due diligence in order to execute their libertarian ideals properly and make the choices that are correct for them.

This, unfortunately, excludes the lower-60% of all Americans, who are so ground down, economically terrorized, and mentally overwhelmed with their daily struggles to survive that they have little to no opportunity to approach any major choice with anything even vaguely in the realm of due diligence. They just don’t have the headspace to do so, and are forced to spend all their available mental efforts on just putting one financial foot in front of the other.

This is why having social support frameworks enforced/provided/funded by the government is so important for so many working-class people - it allows them to put those issues on autopilot, significantly reducing their own cognitive load and allowing them to better process the most important issues in their lives.

Ergo, libertarianism is a wealthy person’s toy. It is something that they can champion, because only they have the economic options and financial freedom to fully and properly engage with it.

Until everyone has vanishingly few catastrophic-level issues on the horizon (like one missed paycheque leading to homelessness, or a sudden illness leading to medical bankruptcy), any attempt to implement libertarianism will only bring mass amounts of misery and destroyed lives to anyone beneath the Parasite Class.

And when you have those kinds of widespread government-provided supports that lift all boats - and not just the megayachts - why bother with libertarianism? We should continue to use what got everyone into that safe state in the first place – socialism.

Remember, the Parasite Class already uses socialism for themselves. It’s called grants and bailouts and subsidies, and allows the Parasite Class to privatize the profits and socialize the losses.

It’s just at a scale that makes it impossible for working-class people to leverage.

someone without insurance rear-ended my vehicle but I chose not to pursue it because then my own insurance rates would’ve gone up.

Somehow, this sounds deeply wrong. Your insurance should cover you regardless of what happens. If it’s an act of god, the insurance company should just swallow those costs. If it’s caused by a third party who is not their customer, they should go after the company that insured the other party, or the other party directly if uninsured.

No matter what the circumstances, if you are not at fault you should never see an increase in your rates, no matter how catastrophic the damage or the costs to make it right.