MGTOW A Culture Killer?

[rockfox]

MGTOW like Feminist are anti marriage and have an agenda that seems to be right out of Revalations. MGTOW is abstaining from marriage not sexual relations.

MGTOW is a broad movement with varying approaches, not a narrowly defined club. Many abstain from both marriage and sexual relations. Some are even going so far as to avoid any unnecessary interactions with women at all. For many their problem isn't marriage per se, but the current legal structure of it which is both unscriptural and unjust.

That's a sad statement, because it's a declaration of surrender.

There is nothing the average individual can do to change the current legal regime surrounding marriage. Getting married certainly won't change it. But abstaining from marriage just might shock the system enough to force change.

 

[Nikud]

For many their problem isn't marriage per se, but the current legal structure of it which is both unscriptural and unjust.

So instead of being an example of how to live a biblical marriage according to scripture by putting in the hard work they choose to surrender and abstain. Instead of fighting injustice they sit by and allow it to happen. Thats apathy.

Zephaniah 1:12,13

"At that time I will search Jerusalem with lamps, and I will punish the men who are complacent, those who say in their hearts, ‘The L-rd will not do good, nor will he do ill.’ Their goods shall be plundered, and their houses laid waste. Though they build houses, they shall not inhabit them; though they plant vineyards, they shall not drink wine from them.”

Galatians 6:9

And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up.

Proverbs 18:9

Whoever is slack in his work is a brother to him who destroys.

Haggai 1:7-9

“Thus says the L-rd of hosts: Consider your ways. Go up to the hills and bring wood and build the house, that I may take pleasure in it and that I may be glorified, says the L-rd. You looked for much, and behold, it came to little. And when you brought it home, I blew it away. Why? declares the L-rd of hosts. Because of my house that lies in ruins, while each of you busies himself with his own house.

G-d created man in the wilderness and placed him in the Garden. Why? The wilderness is a place of conflict. A place where survival is dependent on Man standing up and acting to resolve that conflict. If a Man is not willing to stand up and fight for scripture and justice, according to what G-d says is just, is he really a man? Or a child cloaked in his own beleifs of masculinity and justice.

The idea of defeating an enemy with out fighting comes from Sun Tzu's The Art of War. Most people don't fully read the book and understand that he was saying to defeat an enemy without fighting you must have a larger army who is feared because they are willing to fight and die for their General. He goes on to state that in a war of attrition

But abstaining from marriage just might shock the system enough to force change.

Both sides lose.

 

[Mojo]

If you view it as "me vs. the system", then you are correct. It is a tall order to change the societal system.

But the correct view is more in line with the Serenity Prayer.

We may not be able to change the world, but we can change one life at a time. We are responsible most for what is right in front of us. Fight the good fight daily.

The old Rough Rider said it best...

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”

 

[rockfox]

Kevin, the scriptures you quote do not speak about marriage, so I'm not sure what your point is.

So instead of being an example of how to live a biblical marriage according to scripture by putting in the hard work they choose to surrender and abstain. Instead of fighting injustice they sit by and allow it to happen. Thats apathy.

How will being an example of biblical marriage change the system? A system that has outlawed the practice no less? The divorce rate in the church is little different than the world; hard work won't protect you.

They don't see it as apathy, they see it as avoiding a pointless suicide mission. How exactly are you expecting them to the fight injustice of the current system? What good will it do for them to become its next victim?

I'm not MGTOW but I can empathize with them. I feel no need to condemn them, there is no sin in avoiding marriage, the scriptures do not require one to marry. Not all are called to it and I won't judge the servant of another on the matter.

 

[Nikud]

Kevin, the scriptures you quote do not speak about marriage, so I'm not sure what your point is.

The scriptures speak of the results of working for the Kingdom and not working for the Kingdom. About being Apathetic and not doing anything when you see something is wrong. But ok, I'll be more clear in the future.

They don't see it as apathy, they see it as avoiding a pointless suicide mission

So they believe marriage is a suicide mission and you can empathize with that veiw?

How will being an example of biblical marriage change the system?

Lead by example. If they don't how can expect change. Show that the current opinion of marriage is wrong. Teach that the current marriage is wrong. Don't hide and cry about things they're not willing to do actually do something about.

I'm not MGTOW but I can empathize with them. I feel no need to condemn them, there is no sin in avoiding marriage,

They are teaching marriage is bad. They are teaching that having children is bad. So if G-d says marriage is good and children are a blessing but MGTOW is teaching the opposite, are they not committing a sin? MGTOW is a philosophical beleif that denies G-d and promotes the self sovereignty of man, but there is no sin in that?

The next verse is not about marriage but about wrong teachings.

2 Timothy 4:3-4

For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.

1 Timothy 4:1-3

Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage.....

 

[Mojo]

Kevin, the scriptures you quote do not speak about marriage, so I'm not sure what your point is.



How will being an example of biblical marriage change the system? A system that has outlawed the practice no less? The divorce rate in the church is little different than the world; hard work won't protect you.

They don't see it as apathy, they see it as avoiding a pointless suicide mission. How exactly are you expecting them to the fight injustice of the current system? What good will it do for them to become its next victim?

I'm not MGTOW but I can empathize with them. I feel no need to condemn them, there is no sin in avoiding marriage, the scriptures do not require one to marry. Not all are called to it and I won't judge the servant of another on the matter.

I cannot judge another man for the choices he makes in concert with the Almighty. However, let's be real. The scriptural purpose (Pauline opinion) for celibacy/single hood was for the release of the redeemed soul to better serve Christ without the burden of distraction that a family will inevitably bring. It wasn't meant for everyone, since not all can endure celibacy. If a man still had a burning desire for the affections of a woman, Paul encouraged marriage.

So, if a MGTOW proponent is encouraging all men to remain celibate and strive for mastery within the Kingdom, then my hats off to them!

But if it's to remain single, while engaging in whoremomgering and debauchery (most of what I see coming from them) then shame on them. I believe that brings even less glory to God than a Melvin Milquetoast married man who is victim of the feminist system.

 

[Nikud]

Another quote from a MGTOW site discussing if it's possible to be a Christian and beleive in MGTOW.

"Much like the worship of women Christianity is a way for men to calm their existential anxiety and take the weight of personal responsibility off their shoulders by submitting to an external authority, which isn’t extactly “a statement of self-ownership, where the modern man preserves and protects his own sovereignty above all else”."

Let's not delude ourselves in thinking that we can turn MGTOW philosophy into a version of Pauline thought on remaining in the state of singlehood for the purpose of dedicating oneself to the Kingdom. It is still a philosophy that denies G-d, and hates women.

Edit: Here is another quote from the same forum.

"Worshipping a higher being without substantial evidence for its existence is as blue pill as it gets (blissful ignorance of illusion)."

 

[Verifyveritas76]

So, my .02 on the whole MGTOW conversation (if its worth that) is that its kind of devolving into an argument between brothers over interpretations of intent.

In any argument, you always have three phases:

1. Facts: which usually everyone can roughly agree on
2. Interpretation: which is where people usually divide
3. Application: which will almost always be skewed based upon interpretation.

I think we can all agree with the MGTOW’s in the fact that a Westernized Romantic cultural marriage leaves so much to be desired that it would be better not to be married than to be married to that.
I think we can also agree in the fact that the legal system is unfairly balanced in favor of the women.

Where I would tend to differ from the MGTOW crowd is in the interpretation stage. For them, the interpretation becomes because the facts could be so bad that it is better not to engage in the legal or reproductive arena at all, it shows up in the application phase that they can avoid the entanglements while enjoying the perks by simply being deceptive and disingenuous.

My interpretation stage would have to account for the additional fact that there are women in existence who do not accept the feminist position (at whatever level) and who truly want a Biblical head of household. Thus, in application, the first two facts listed means that I must be ‘ware that there are dangerous women out there, and the last fact means that not all of them are dangerous. So I must choose carefully the latter.

The MGTOW’s application/conclusion breaks down and becomes indefensible at any level because it is based upon a limited selection of facts and the resulting skewed interpretation when compared against all the facts and a subsequently informed interpretation.

Do I agree with them about the dangerous marital conditions for western men? Sure, as a very happily married man, I feel empathy toward any man not in this condition. I do not include MGTOWs in this category as being worthy recipients of my empathy because they suffer from a self imposed cure that is worse than the disease. (There’s supposed to be some kind of self deprecating emoji here but I can’t figure out which one to use)

Do I agree with them that the only answer to protect themselves is to avoid the legal and reproductive entanglements? Absolutely not! As I mentioned earlier, I am a very happily married man. In fact, I believe that this answer is one of the most unintelligent choices that could be made, thus revealing that this option given by an intelligent man is more likely to be a cover for the real reason behind avoiding these entanglements.

I’m not gonna name names here, but I have it on good authority that another brother that frequents the site is very happily married to a converted feminist (or at least with strong feminist leanings). Part of their dating phase (as I recall) was where he explained patriarchy vrs feminism to her and once she understood the difference, the result today is a pretty admirable family that is very patriarchal. Proof that it can be done even if every woman is a feminist.

Peace, Love and all the Fuzzy Stuff

 

[Verifyveritas76]

It should also be noted that Pauls perspective on marriage was influenced by His eschatological understanding. This has become more evident to me as I’ve read through some of the early church docs where certain men are espousing the idea that men should be celibate even if married because it has been 150 yrs past Paul so the return of Christ must be imminent.

I’m not saying that men should be celibate because Paul said it, I’m just encouraging you to understand why Paul thought it was a good idea - because he thought the return was imminent. I’ll let someone else figure out the unintended consequences of 1900+ yrs of Christian celibacy.

 

[Nikud]

We also have Matthew 19:12 where Jesus talks about those who should/can not marry. Consider also that the word "eunuch" is used three times in the verse, each time to describe three kinds of men who are given to not marry. The first two usages were already familiar to the disciples. Jesus mentions those who are eunuchs from birth; that is, they were either incapable of marriage i.e., physical deformity which prohibited having children. The second is speaking of physical castration. The third is the new category: those who choose to be single "for the kingdom of G-d."

It's the third group who Paul is talking about. The thing to remember about them is that celibacy is only one part of being dedicated to the Kingdom. We're talking about those who's every action and thought is to serve and advance the Kingdom. As pious as many of us beleive we are, most of us are not there. Those of us not there are suppose to marry.

Genesis 2:18

Then the L-RD G-d said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.”

From the beginning G-d did not plan on us being alone.

Genesis 1:28

G-d blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.

1 Corinthians 6:15-20

Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.” becomes one spirit with him. Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from G-d? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify G-d in your body.

1 Corinthians 7:2-5

But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

Unless I'm mistaken these and many other verses are telling us that sex and Marriage are suppose to be exclusive. Therefore to be fruitful and multiply as G-d commands, we must be married. Unless you fall into one of the three categories of "eunuchs" Jesus spoke of.

 

[Mojo]

I think we can all agree with the MGTOW’s in the fact that a Westernized Romantic cultural marriage leaves so much to be desired that it would be better not to be married than to be married to that.

I gave a "like" to this post, but it is just a bit conditional. I largely agree with the entire post, except the phrase above. As a believer, I would rather be married within an imperfect system than to be in danger of sin/fornication outside of it.

It would be hard, but I would have to continue to desire "to be content whatever state" I was in.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I am sympathetic to the MGTOW guys up to a point. Their inputs are spot on. Their observations and assumptions (except for the atheism) seem to me to be spot on. I watched my daughter get walked down the aisle by her mother to be married by a female preacher while despising me for paying $1,000 a month in child support to a woman who divorced me.

It is a screwed up system. But their outputs, their conclusions are completely wrong. Quitting and giving up is exactly what the enemy is trying to get them to do. Unfortunate I think it's too late. MGTOW isn't a death blow to a culture, it's the sign of a dead culture.

Now when I run into MGTOW vuys I just happily think to myself "More for Steve and Andrew."

 

[Nikud]

Quitting and giving up is exactly what the enemy is trying to get them to do. Unfortunate I think it's too late. MGTOW isn't a death blow to a culture, it's the sign of a dead culture.

Our secular culture in America is dead. Our "church" culture is on life support, but we know a man who can heal the sick and raise the dead. It's because we know him and he's our General we continue to fight the fight.

I watched my daughter get walked down the aisle by her mother to be married by a female preacher while despising me for paying $1,000 a month in child support to a woman who divorced me.

First let me say I love you bubba and thank you. Your an example. You got a raw deal. You had face humiliation, pure unbiblical doctrine, and secular injustice. Yet you stayed true as a Man of G-d and did not fall for the MGTOW B.S.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Well I bear my share of the responsibility but there was no call for it to get as stupid as it got.

 

[Mojo]

Well I bear my share of the responsibility but there was no call for it to get as stupid as it got.

In a previous generation, women would stand by their men (see Tammy Wynette) or at least fight to keep what they had (see Sylvia). The men are accused of being callous and uncommitted, but societal shifts tell women to just leave as soon as "he gets out of line". Women are encouraged to fight tooth and nail to snag the man they want, but to then leave them without a fight as soon as they stray from their dependence on the woman.

Tyler Perry is a mixed bag for me, but he's made a few good movies emphasizing male headship.

Have fun with the oldies! Note: the Sylvia song is more of a monogamy song, but it shows the fighting spirit of a woman willing to not let her marriage fail instead of just kicking her man to the curb.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Or Jolene!

 

[Mojo]

Old school country es muy awesome!

 

[Grey]

They refer to themselves as Alphas and the rest of us ,who decide to have and support families, as betas and zetas. I'm not sure if you been on their forums or actually sat down and read what their stated philosophy, which does have some good points about men being undervalued in modern culture, is. The negative MGTOW beleifs encompass the view that a man has the sole right to decide what his own goals in life will be, rather than accepting direction conferred by others, or by social consensus of peers, or a higher power. So you do not see them promoting sin even though they deny of G-d, are in rebellion against all authority that does not come from themselves, advocate sex without marriage, and advocate not having children to list a few amongst the many?

MGTOW and other areas of the 'manosphere' including Alpha Game or PUA types overlap and share terminology. But MGTOW themselves don't usually like the alpha game terminology, or at least it's kind of a joke if they apply it to themselves.

Something like Roosh and Return of Kings is what you're talking about I think. Degenerate, promoting whoremongering and childlessness. Having a form of traditionalism and some good counter-feminist points but on the whole they're terrible. They're PUA's, pickup-artists, they use the alpha terminology constantly and are just as you say. Their goal is to pickup and 'game' (basic seduction, nothing special) as many women as possible just because they can and they think women are worthless.

MGTOW, Men Going Their Own Way, are fundamentally opting to avoid women and dating and marriage entirely. There rhetoric is derived from sources like Roosh but they're not trying to pickup or game women, but they do think women as a whole are worthless. It's a 'withdraw from society because of feminism' tactic. Possibly some of them might use the 'alpha' terminology but they're not going to prefer it, as they know they're not in any sense that. They're not as bad morally as PUA's but they're not at all noble.

There are better wings of the manosphere though. Darlock is in that sphere and he is an upstanding married Christian man. There are others like Zippy-Catholic in the Christian manosphere that are pretty ok.

I actually really like your veiw on Humanism.

It cuts to the chase of all of our social problems, instead of attacking products of Humanism like feminism or liberal hatred of Christianity proper and communism or the decay of Christian pietas I prefer to attack the underlying philosophy of Humanism directly.

Otherwise people wind up like the folks in the manosphere who blame feminism for everything, or like the folks who blame communism for everything or whatnot.

MGTOW is abstaining from marriage not sexual relations.

The modern humanist states view of marriage is something of a bad joke at best, and bearing in mind it's state marriage they're opposing mostly it's a bit rich of us here to criticize them for their opposition.

Gods view of marriage is absolute. There's nothing wrong with abstaining from a state mockery of the word if the state is against the Kingdom (as modern secular states are).

Of course PUA's and MGTOW are fundamentally pragmatic humanist liberals. You see it all over their ideas of self-ownership and their ideas 'doing what is best for me'. So when they attack feminism it's just a pot calling a kettle black. Both PUA\MGTOW ideology and Feminist ideology are humanist philosophies applied to different in-groups. Lets criticize them for what they stand for, not what they oppose. They're right about what they oppose, but they're just as odious as the thing they stand against.

 

[Nikud]

Both PUA\MGTOW ideology and Feminist ideology are humanist philosophies applied to different in-groups.

I agree the same lie just a diffrent perspective.

MGTOW and other areas of the 'manosphere' including Alpha Game or PUA types overlap and share terminology. But MGTOW themselves don't usually like the alpha game terminology, or at least it's kind of a joke if they apply it to themselves.

The reason I lump them together is you see them all on the MGTOW sites spewing out their rhetoric under the banner of MGTOW. I know there's a diffrence, but there are rules of engagement. If it's your Fort anything you allow to happen there you are accountable for. When someone tries to contradict some of the Alpha game, whoremongering, and he-man woman haters club stuff they are accussed of being a woman, mocked and ridiculed before getting booted from the site. If that is not the message MGTOW wants to be associated with they should police themselves, but that would go against their principal of mans self governance. Its ok to police others who dont agree but not those who are sympathetic. Those facts alone shows that MGTOW's solutions for handling issues is an inept way to deal with problems despite there claim to the contrary. I will admit I am harsh and intolerant of them. It's their Hypocrisy that solicits that attitude from me.

I have seen a few who do hold the veiw of abstaining from unessariy contact, but they are the minority. Even then I didn't see them man up and correct the BS on their sites.

I may be beating a dead horse here but there's a big diffrence between a secular civil union mislabeled as marriage, and a marriage which is a covenant with G-d.

Abstaining from the secular is no big deal. As for the covenant I've already made my bias opinion known.

To me the true heart of the Matter is that I am seeing men buying into a philosophical doctrine that fundamental opposes G-d in its core statement of beleif and instead of trying to guide our brothers to the narrow path, we sympathize and emphasize with the issues that are leading them astray as the walk farther down a path to destruction.

On another note: I have been confratational with a few on this subject. I will not apologize for that, but I would like to say that it is nothing personal against any of you.

 

[Grey]

It's mostly the hierarchy of terminology we're quibbling about it seems.

In short:

The Manosphere is a collection of anti-feminist pro-masculinity blogs that use jargon like Alpha, Thot, things like that. It has a Christian wing like Darlock (which is probably worth looking at if you havn't, it's linked in my previous post). It has guys like Vox. It has all kinds of things within it. The manosphere is the biggest fort.

Within the manosphere is PUA culture. It promotes whoremongering and using women because they can be used.

An offshoot of PUA culture is MGTOW. They generally reject women on the whole, so they're not whoremongering, but they're still not worth much, and they imbibe all PUA rhetoric.

>I will admit I am harsh and intolerant of them.

As you should be. I see some people here sympathetic to them on the grounds that they are for the most part right about feminism and they usually have had a hard time themselves. But there is no need to tolerate their views and PUAism especially calls for harsh rebuke. MGTOW folks could possibly use some sympathy, depending on where they're at, but their views are not tolerable. PUAs can be met with nothing but a condemnation and a call for repentance.

>When someone tries to contradict some of the Alpha game, whoremongering, and he-man woman haters club stuff they are accussed of being a woman, mocked and ridiculed before getting booted from the site.

A lot of the psychology of Alpha game material isn't wrong. The majority of it is essentially masculinity and leadership 101 for people who were never taught it. It actually is generally good advice on how to attract women, how to make women happy, and to make women obedient. Of course when you understand the basics of personal charisma and the basics of female psychology you're going to be miles ahead of other men when it comes to dealing with women.

The problem is that PUA's use this skillset to whoremonger.

MGTOW don't even do that. They just misunderstand how Alpha game skills work, and think that it means that women are entirely hypergamous sluts that they have no hope of managing.

>If that is not the message MGTOW wants to be associated with they should police themselves,

That can't be done with broad, nebulous, semi-autonomous internent cultures and cliques. No leader, no centralized meeting board, and no real hierarchy means anyone who calls themselves MGTOW kind of is. It's like you trying to police anyone on the Internet that calls them a Christian Polygynist. You can control Biblical families, but you can't control being vaguely associated with random individuals who call themselves pro-poly Christians on the internet.

Incidently the alt-right has that same problem. It's a very powerful idea because it's broad and nebulous, but it has issues self-policing people who call themselves alt-right because it is only a broad set of ideas.

>I may be beating a dead horse here but there's a big diffrence between a secular civil union mislabeled as marriage, and a marriage which is a covenant with G-d.

Oh yeah, but most people in the current year have little to no concept of the true form of marriage.

I completely understand rejecting the secular civil union mislabed marriage, it's a horrible beast.

MGTOW in a nutshell is folk who understand how bad the secular civil union is, but have no concept whatsoever of the high and true form of marriage.