MGTOW A Culture Killer?

[rockfox]

The culture it's killing is the floundering culture that tries to uphold biblical principal. Its the culture that believes in Patriarchy that is on life support. MGTOW like Feminism wants to do away with marriage because they both see it as oppressive for diffrent reasons. As for modern culture being diesaed and dying. We all know that modern culture is all about apperance in some form. How people appear to others has become more important to society than how we treat others, what we believe or what we do. Gold and jade on the out side, rot and decay on the inside. Sooner or later its going to colapse. If Biblical principled men go the way of MGTOW and accept its philosophy what are we left with after the colapse.

The church lost the culture war. Patriarchy is already dead. Biblical marriage is outright illegal. MGTOW is not a threat to true Christians. It is a threat to the old order, the matriarchy, the churchians, the order that is dying.

We are playing out the scenario of the first chapters of Isaiah. If there isn't a repentance there won't be a survival, something else will arise in our place. We are already being conquered. MGTOW will perish in either scenario. It is a reflection of the current conditions and transient. MGTOW won't win, its a death cult. But it can set up the conditions to shock the women into repentance and turn from their ways. It is exactly something like MGTOW that leads 7 women to beg one man to marry them (under promise of no financial support required). You almost couldn't write a better prophecy for today.

Really, I don't quite understand the desire to attack MGTOW. Attacking them only highlights the problems they justly complain about. You won't win by slandering them, calling their path sinful, or blaming men for marriage failures. What is needed are better solutions. Showing people a better way.

 

[Nikud]

Attacking them only highlights the problems they justly complain about. You won't win by slandering them, calling their path sinful, or blaming men for marriage failures.

Slander to make false and damaging statements. All of the statements I made are response to things I've read on MGTOW sites using the statements and beleifs there. I fail to see slander. If I haven't made it clear I dont discredit problems they complain about. (The legitimate ones) Those problems should be highlighted and dealt with. I discredit their solution. Where did I blame men for marriage failures? I know I have said that men have to be accountable for there part in failures, but I don't recall blaming men. Failure to lead and be accountable is usally covered over with the excuse she wouldn't let me. In some cases it's true they weren't given the chance to lead, but in just as many use it as a copout. Your correct we need better solutions. First thing in problem solving is to discard implausible solutions.

The church lost the culture war. Patriarchy is already dead. Biblical marriage is outright illegal. MGTOW is not a threat to true Christians.

The modern corporate church lost the war. The faithful are the church. Patriarchy is dead? You have a forum of men who will disagree with you. Biblical marriage is outright illegal? Sorry don't accept that, because I don't recognize the government's misappropriation of G-ds Authority when it comes to marriage as it is coventant that only He can sanctify. They have authority over civil unions. If your talking about patriarchy being dead and biblical marriage being dead in "spirit"......only to those who have given up and surrendered to societal doctrines.

It is exactly something like MGTOW that leads 7 women to beg one man to marry them (under promise of no financial support required)

Is that your hope, to find away to not be under the promise (accountable for) financial support. This isn't the first time you mention this. If you go back and take a good look at history through out the ages, men have always been accountable for financial support. Maybe not to the one-sided degree that we are now, but always.

Edit: This isn't a slam or an attack I just can't think of a better way to ask this.

As for the verse Isaiah 4:1

It seems that when it says "seven women" would seek to be called by the name of "one man" you see it as evidence of repetance through polygamy (polygyny), Yes the situation described is a prophetic verse, but it's about the denominations and their relationship with the L-rd. (As I interpret it, not every Polygyny reference in scrupture is to be taken literally, especially prophetic verses)

MGTOW is not a threat to true Christians.

This is the type of statement meant to shame someone into silence. I would like to believe that is not you intent, but for everyone's future reference statements like this have the opposite effect on me.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

MGTOW is not a threat to true Christians.

While I understand your thought (I think), Kevin is right that this leads to or presents the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy.

While I'm not terribly worried about it, I am concerned because I'm at the point where I have older teens that are approaching the point where it may have an effect on them.

 

[rockfox]

While I understand your thought (I think), Kevin is right that this leads to or presents the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy.

While I'm not terribly worried about it, I am concerned because I'm at the point where I have older teens that are approaching the point where it may have an effect on them.

I have the same worry as my children will soon be that age.

We have a no true Scotsman problem with MGTOW as well. Kevin is defining it more strictly than it is in order to condemn it. It is a loose movement with no strict definition, no central organization, unanimous creed or single leader. At its core it is simply not marrying women because it is a raw deal for men and it is hard to say they are wrong in light of the present situation and verses like Matt 19:10-11, 1 Cor 7, and others.

Western Christianity has a long history of celibate men, there is nothing un-Godly about that path. MGTOW isn't THE solution, but it could be part of a greater solution to the present mess.

I am not MGTOW. But what I am I'm trying to achieve is rapprochement. We have the same enemy. Condemning them won't get us anywhere, especially since many are simply hurting and damaged men are unlikely to be successful in marriage anyway. Others are Godly men who could not find a wife in their prime and the only belated options are destined to fail. These are people who need love and understanding.

 

[Mojo]

I'm pretty much done with this topic, but I don't think MGTOW is promoting celibacy.

Most of what I've seen promotes manipulating the circumstances for as much attachment-free sexual encounters as possible.

Just saying.

 

[rockfox]

Slander to make false and damaging statements. All of the statements I made are response to things I've read on MGTOW sites using the statements and beleifs there. I fail to see slander.

I'm sorry Kevin, slander was too strong a word; I was speaking more colloquially. My main objection is your need to condemn them outright. Some parts of the movement are as you say, but not all. It is not a uniform nor strictly defined movement and it does include confessing Christians. I don't think you are being charitable with them. Nor is your approach particularly effective.

I know I have said that men have to be accountable for there part in failures, but I don't recall blaming men. Failure to lead and be accountable

We know the biggest causes of divorce and its not men's failure to lead. Its easy divorce, societies moral and financial encouragement for women to destroy their family, combined with sexual histories of the average women that have damaged their fundamental ability to pair bond. There are many many women who openly admit that there wasn't anything wrong with the man. They were just bored, found a more attractive man, etc.

Patriarchy is dead? You have a forum of men who will disagree with you. Biblical marriage is outright illegal? Sorry don't accept that, because I don't recognize the government's misappropriation of G-ds Authority when it comes to marriage as it is coventant that only He can sanctify. They have authority over civil unions. If your talking about patriarchy being dead and biblical marriage being dead in "spirit"......only to those who have given up and surrendered to societal doctrines.

So far as the law is concerned, we are no longer a patriarchy, but something approximating a matriarchy. Many such as
ourselves are attempting to live it out anyway, but it is legally done for. You may not recognize the governments authority over marriage, but it is the ruling authority nonetheless. All it takes is a 30 second phone call from your wife to get the state to come in and toss you out and deprive you of your children, family/marriage authority, and property.

Biblical marriage very much is illegal in that it violates the Duluth standard of domestic abuse. Headship of any kind is considered abuse. Even pointing out the Bible verses commanding headship is considered abusive.

Is that your hope, to find away to not be under the promise (accountable for) financial support. This isn't the first time you mention this. [Isaiah 4]

No it isn't about me and I don't believe it is allegorical at all. My point in bringing up Isaiah 4 is to point out that God prophesied a time when polygamy would come again, and it was a direct result of people repenting from a society that had women ruling men. The simple math of 7:1 dictates that many men are refusing to marriage. The fact they support themselves portents a time like today, and unlike much of history, when most women can work and provide for themselves.

In other words, MGTOW may very well be part of God's plan. It is a movement like MGTOW that would set up the situation where there are that many surplus women and they feel such shame about being single.

This is the type of statement meant to shame someone into silence. I would like to believe that is not you intent, but for everyone's future reference statements like this have the opposite effect on me.

No that is not my intention. My point is that advocates of polygamy and patriarchy shouldn't be threatened by MGTOW; we should be the last ones to feel such since MGTOW makes our points for us about feminism and results in more women for marriage. Those I see mainly threatened by it are the feminist defenders of churchianity who are trying to convince men to marry the damaged women.

 

[Nikud]

we should be the last ones to feel such since MGTOW makes our points for us about feminism and results in more women for marriage.

They embody the things that drive the feminist, creating more, so it means less right minded women.

where there are that many surplus women and they feel such shame about being single.

I don't want a woman who feels shame and is willing to settle for any man that will have them. I have self worth and would only accept a woman as a wife who has self worth and therefore understands and values a good man. I dont buy into The Game mentality either, break down women to make them submit. Its no different than beating a woman into submission. That's not leadership it's manipulation.

Obviously this is not going anywhere. Your going defend MGTOW to your dying breath even though you "agree" their solutions is not a valid one. Play the victim card for them in an attempt to justify their beleifs all you want. I feel for guys that suffer at the hands of the system, not MGTOW.

I could waste my time disputing you statement for statement, but when you started contradicting your self and flip flopped about patriarchy to try and make your case, there is no longer any merit in debating. I'm in agreeance with @Mojo

I'm pretty much done with this topic,

I have better things to do.

 

[andrew]

Suit yourself, Kevin, but you're the one that seems to be having a personal problem here with a lot of emotional loading. You are imputing motive and intention to a belief system (impossible), with the implication that there is some unified belief system that anyone who identifies with a particular acronym does and must subscribe to, thus sharing in those motives and intentions. It just ain't so.

Meanwhile, here's my two cents:

There aren't two individuals on the planet that are going to agree on everything they could possibly have an opinion about, and there aren't two groups anywhere either that stand for 100% the same thing. The trick is figuring out what you have in common and what you don't, and figuring out how to work with that.

No individual person who identifies in some way with the letters MGTOW (who may or may not even be clear-headed about why he identifies as such) should be treated as if we fully know him and what his motives and intentions are; that's simple, base prejudice. You could say the same thing about "Christians" ("no individual person who identifies as a "Christian" (who may or may not even have a clear idea about why he identifies as such) should be treated as if we fully know him and what his motives and intentions are"), or any other group of people.

Meanwhile, we have a culture in free-fall, and a lot of questions to answer about what we can realistically do in the middle of all this to protect and provide for our families. In that context, we have valid questions about who we include in our inner community, our tribe, our band of brothers, but we also have valid questions re who we could count as allies in a broader conflict.

The English and French have traditionally had a lot of conflict between their two cultures, ranging from good-natured mocking of each other to outright wars. Fighting Germans became a higher priority in the early 20th century, so they had to get over their differences for awhile, but that doesn't mean one culture had to convert to the other's way of life. It just meant they had to recognize the greater threat and band together temporarily. Once the threat was suppressed, they could go back to picking on each other.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. The man who has recognized that our culture has lost its collective mind, however misguided he might be in the big metaphysical picture, is closer to the truth—in my opinion based on my experience—than the culturally-blinded church-goer who thinks he's following God as he supports the ultimate destruction of family by participating in a monogamy-only, "soulmate marriage" regime that has now accepted homosexual "marriage" and is on its way to eliminating gender distinctions altogether.

Where Kevin sees "enemies of the cross", I see "fields white for harvest". Give me a disaffected young man who is on the brink of giving up, or has given up, on our matriarchal culture, and I can give that man hope and purpose in Christ by showing him how God intended things and how badly our humanistic, responsibility-abdicating culture has screwed things up. His problem is not women, it's our culture. I'll take that bet at the one-on-one level any day.

 

[Grey]

Biblical marriage is outright illegal? Sorry don't accept that, because I don't recognize the government's misappropriation of G-ds Authority when it comes to marriage as it is coventant that only He can sanctify. They have authority over civil unions.

Yes, but biblical marriage is illegal. This has nothing to do with what a state can or cannot sanction, this is saying you could potentially get imprisoned for trying to form any kind of contract resembling biblical marriage.

I don't just mean polygynous marriages either. Things that are basic to marriage like sexual access are not allowed. Even if ones wife agrees to sexual access if she is fully taken with a jezabel spirit (not something that would happen with our women, but as an outside hypothetical) one could be jailed for having her if she changes her mind. If a woman turns against a man the state will back her, and if you try to make a contract that resembles anything like biblical marriage you will put yourself in jeopardy.

Is that your hope, to find away to not be under the promise (accountable for) financial support. This isn't the first time you mention this. If you go back and take a good look at history through out the ages, men have always been accountable for financial support. Maybe not to the one-sided degree that we are now, but always.

Mmm, historically everyone works, even children. There's kind of two things going on in this dicussion: Accountability and who produces. Accountability just means that you organize the resources and make sure everyone has enough. But who produces what is another matter entirely. The idea that women have no obligation to produce wealth is pretty degenerate IMO, and a big part of how we got where we are after the cultural push-backs of the 30s-50s. My great-great grandma worked hard on the ranch and not a woman in my family has failed to apply herself to a craft, skill, or trade. That's Proverbs 31 women. They work, they create, they invest, they buy and sell, they produce. My women couldn't stand idleness or lack of industry.

On a similar note Rockfox, I'm not sure Isaiah 4 is saying what any of us here like to think it's saying. Honestly it's rather more basic. First the odd thing is that the women are courting them men, this isn't a think to look forward too as it's caused by great desolation. Second the only thing they relive the man of is the duty to maintain levels of food and clothing. A man can't reduce the food, clothing, or sex of one woman in order to furnish another. But none of this indicates something special about women working. In the first place women traditionally produce clothing.

More importantly it seems they are asking to take his name without becoming part of his household. They still keep their own things, their own clothes and food and promise not to trouble him. Remember that chapter breaks are not original, and commentators say that it feels like 3:26 and 4:1 is practically divided mid-sentence. 4:1 is a further expression of just how bad things are and how bad the war was and how many died. The hopeful part of the prophecy starts cleanly in verse 4:2, 4:1 is still an expression of desperation.

 

[Nikud]

Y'all can, Shake your finger at me for my beleifs and statements, that's fine. Why didn't yall shake your finger at the statement that some one posted that seems to lament the fact it's not acceptable to backhand a woman anymore? Give me flak for lumping all the groups together and marketing all encompassing statements about individuals that we can't know the personal mind set of but when others lump all women together and make all encompassing statements about individuals that we can't know the personal mind set of there's silence. There's been a few threads that have been real eye openers to the mind set of some of the guys here. This is one of them.

Meanwhile, we have a culture in free-fall, and a lot of questions to answer about what we can realistically do in the middle of all this to protect and provide for our families. In that context, we have valid questions about who we include in our inner community, our tribe, our band of brothers, but we also have valid questions re who we could count as allies in a broader conflict.

You make a very good point right here. I have alot of rethinking to do about this stated topic and how I feel its best to protect my family.

I wish y'all the best, In the words of @Verifyveritas76
Peace, love and fuzzy stuff.
It's been...something.

 

[Grey]

Y'all can, Shake your finger at me for my beleifs and statements, that's fine. Why didn't yall shake your finger at the statement that some one posted that seems to lament the fact it's not acceptable to backhand a woman anymore? Give me flak for lumping all the groups together and marketing all encompassing statements about individuals that we can't know the personal mind set of but when others lump all women together and make all encompassing statements about individuals that we can't know the personal mind set of there's silence. There's been a few threads that have been real eye openers to the mind set of some of the guys here. This is one of them.


You make a very good point right here. I have alot of rethinking to do about this stated topic and how I feel its best to protect my family.

I wish y'all the best, In the words of @Verifyveritas76
Peace, love and fuzzy stuff.
It's been...something.

You're still fairly libertarian arn't you? I'm curious if that's your larger socio-political leaning. It might be useful to start some political topics here and see what comes out.

At any rate I think we did have a good and productive discussion, I've enjoyed it. At any rate, I've been with you as to doubting their use as allies from the beginning, though I agree with Andrew that they are a kind of potential mission field.

I hope you don't take the conversation too hard.

 

[The Revolting Man]

This conversation has ceased to be profitable.

 

[andrew]

Zec, there are actually a lot of great points being made all around; you've contributed some of those yourself. Kevin takes serious issue with anything presenting as MGTOW and anyone who doesn't join him in condemning the whole movement, and that's his prerogative—we're all grown men here. But that doesn't mean the rest of us haven't gotten anything out of this or have to stop talking about it now.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I would be a stone cold hypocrite if I got all huffy about some sword sharpening. I do feel the tone starting to harden though and certainly not everyone is having as much fun as everyone else.

Zec, there are actually a lot of great points being made all around; you've contributed some of those yourself. Kevin takes serious issue with anything presenting as MGTOW and anyone who doesn't join him in condemning the whole movement, and that's his prerogative—we're all grown men here. But that doesn't mean the rest of us haven't gotten anything out of this or have to stop talking about it now.

 

[Quartus]

Isa 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
Isa 55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Gen 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

We know only too well that it is not easy to think like God even if we are making a conscious effort to do so. How likely is it then that any human organisation that is not trying to think like God is going to be part of the (spiritual) seed of the woman rather than the (fleshly) seed of the serpent?

If it is part of the seed of the serpent, then there is enmity.
Gal_5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other.

We all agree that not everything Lamech did was wrong, but that didn’t make him a good guy. It was the specific things he did that were wrong that made him a bad guy.
So it seems to me that it may be better to see whether there is scriptural alignment in individual topics rather than try and lump them all together.

 

[Quartus]

The English and French have traditionally had a lot of conflict between their two cultures

Vive la difference!

 

[Nikud]

Kevin takes serious issue with anything presenting as MGTOW and anyone who doesn't join him in condemning the whole movement, and that's his prerogative

The first part is true,the second part isn't. I'm taking issue with with some of the unintentional(?) hypocrisy. Some of the guys you think I'm taking issue with for not joining me in condemning MGTOW know I don't have personal issue with them from the pms we've sent back and forth. No individual person who identifies as a having a certain beleif (who may or may not even have a clear idea about why he identifies as such) should be treated as if we fully know him and what his motives and intentions are, right?

I found myself becoming frustrated with the recycling of statements and unintentional(?) attacks on my character while I was trying to let it be known that I wasnt trying to personaly attacking others, just there statements (it might not seem it but I edited myself alot). I tried to bow out a couple of times (So I wouldn't take personal issue with anyone) but was drawn back in by statements directed at my person.

Where Kevin sees "enemies of the cross", I see "fields white for harvest". Give me a disaffected young man who is on the brink of giving up, or has given up, on our matriarchal culture, and I can give that man hope and purpose in Christ by showing him how God intended things and how badly our humanistic, responsibility-abdicating culture has screwed things up. His problem is not women, it's our culture. I'll take that bet at the one-on-one level any day.

Embracing and accepting MGTOW (which is what I was talking about) and missionary approach are two different things. If we are trying to rescue someone from Islam we wouldn't embrace Islam would we? We wouldnt justify there approach to problem solving, right? We wouldn't pat their heads and rub there bellies and play the victim card for them, because some have gotten a raw deal? (bad example some here would and have) We have a common enemy with them, Feminism, do we ally ourselves with them?

There's an old adage. If you lay with dogs don't complain when you get fleas.

Suit yourself, Kevin, but you're the one that seems to be having a personal problem here with a lot of emotional loading.

Right now there seems to be a reoccurring theme where your pointing out what you think I'm doing wrong or call me out on something while overlooking the same thing from others who happen to share your point of view or have a similar one.

You are imputing motive and intention to a belief system (impossible), with the implication that there is some unified belief system that anyone who identifies with a particular acronym does and must subscribe to, thus sharing in those motives and intentions.

This is the same thing done when we talk about feminist, liberals, Islamic groups, and the modern church. Like MGTOW they all have a core statement of beleif (man's self sovereignty above all else in case of MGTOW) and a wide variety of beleifs, that vary place to place, group to group and individual to individual. So its impossible to attribute motives and intentions to them aswell? Wait for it.......we do attribute motives and intentions to feminist, liberals, Islamic groups,and the modern church. So why is it impossible to apply it to MGTOW?

We have different opinions that's fine. I've already said that before in this thread to others.

The cultral problems are real. IMO, MGTOW, being born of that culture is part of the problem. Agree, disagree, accept MGTOW beleifs, reject MGTOW beleifs, Ally with them or don't. I don't care anymore. As for me I'll avoid the fleas.

 

[joe88]

No individual person who identifies in some way with the letters MGTOW...

I work in leadership in a union-based organization, which in a lot of ways parallels modern marriage. I've learned that your leadership can be impeccable, but you still have to deal with people who choose not to follow your directives - even when it's in their best interests - simply because it was management who dared to made the decision. Once they're fully vested, you take the good with the bad. Sometimes the good turns into the bad and you still have to move forward because getting them out is next to impossible. Most of the time, you can get everyone moving in the right direction. Some of the times, even one sour apple can poison organization-wide initiatives.

Some have posted about the large numbers of immoral men who claim MGTOW, and it would be fair to say they are clearly the majority. From their perspective as unbelievers who are seeking other unbelievers to marry, it doesn't make rational sense at all for unbelieving men to marry. Based on census data, societal trends are clearly reflecting that reality.

However, there is a segment of Christian men who post MGTOW-like comments who have been burned by Churchian immoral women, sometimes repeatedly. Their anger and pain are real. Their stories are valid. I've known good men whose wives have gone wild, and it's not pretty (the reverse is also true of course). After all, the divorce rates and many other measures of immorality in the church are on par with the world. I've expressed my appreciation to my wife over the years because in my experience, quality women who fear the Lord are rare. If she died, I'm not so sure I'd jump into the marriage market given the "present distress" of our Culture Going its Own Way. My sons are young, but will grow up all too soon. I do want them to find good wives, but I'll be counseling them strongly with:

2 Corinthians 6:14 NKJV (14) Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?
Proverbs 5:8-10 NET. Keep yourself far from her [the immoral woman], and do not go near the door of her house, (9) lest you give your vigor to others and your years to a cruel person, (10) lest strangers devour your strength, and your labor benefit another man's house.

If that means devoting our lives to the Lord in singleness as Elijah, Daniel, Paul, and others have done, so be it. God does not require marriage for everyone, but he does require holiness, for which we must all strive if we are to truly be His disciples. As the Savior makes clear, we may choose singleness or marriage (Matt 19:12), but the glory must be for His kingdom.

In a union-organization and even moreso in a marriage: it takes two to tango. Choose your partner with extreme caution and constant prayer. The numbers of people choosing the narrow path of righteousness is low, rates of rank immorality even in the "church" are high, probability of marital failure is high, the consequences of marital failure are high, and the laws are stacked against men, both good and bad. These are facts and it's not wrong to acknowledge them. If in response to this, some Christian men use the term MGTOW to express their intent to live in singleness serving the Lord, so be it.

 

[rockfox]

On a similar note Rockfox, I'm not sure Isaiah 4 is saying what any of us here like to think it's saying. Honestly it's rather more basic. First the odd thing is that the women are courting them men, this isn't a think to look forward too as it's caused by great desolation. Second the only thing they relive the man of is the duty to maintain levels of food and clothing. A man can't reduce the food, clothing, or sex of one woman in order to furnish another. But none of this indicates something special about women working. In the first place women traditionally produce clothing.

More importantly it seems they are asking to take his name without becoming part of his household. They still keep their own things, their own clothes and food and promise not to trouble him. Remember that chapter breaks are not original, and commentators say that it feels like 3:26 and 4:1 is practically divided mid-sentence. 4:1 is a further expression of just how bad things are and how bad the war was and how many died. The hopeful part of the prophecy starts cleanly in verse 4:2, 4:1 is still an expression of desperation.

I'm not sure I could necessarily say they didn't become part of the household. I think it more likely they are waiving the requirement of the law for him to have enough income to provide their physical needs as part of an attempt to grease the skids. After-all, not many men are able to take on that many women at once.

My thinking on Isaiah 4 is far from set in stone; I haven't tore it apart in study yet. I made a comment earlier about MGTOW building the groundwork for an Isaiah 4:1 repentance in our society as a possible way to avoid harsher measures (war). Well I might be wrong about that, Isaiah 3:25 indicates that might not be possible.

On the other hand, we have already lost many men in war, it is possible a repentance could head off the greater conflagration that is building on our doorstep.

But the main lesson I took from Isaiah was this: not only was this non-sinful polygamy prophesied to come again, but repentance from feminism involved polygamy.

The general thrust of the first 4 chapters was: idolatry leads to judgment & destruction (including women/children ruling) leads to repentance which leads to blessing. For women part of that repentance came in the form of entering polygamous marriages. The very next verse after the 7:1 marriage talks about the blessings that would follow the remnant.

One might argue that polygamy was not repentance but simply a natural reaction to the devastation of their male population in war. But I will note the women were motivated not by need, but by taking away their reproach, their shame. Since polygamy is not wrong, this is a sign of repentance; so much so they would forgo the worldly goods that many carnal women marry for.

To circle around to MGTOW, one of men's complaints is that women only marry for provision and that modern law is unjust in requiring that provision even after the marriage is destroyed by the woman. They are not wrong, the OT requires provision in marriage, but not after divorce. But in Isaiah we see women waiving what is their right under the law in order to attain marriage; something I could well see repentant women doing in order to allay MGTOW fears.

Is MGTOW a culture killer? Yes and no. I think its an affect more than a cause. But even more important, that women and children rule today shows God has judged us and is in the process of killing our culture himself.

Ultimately the only thing that will work to reverse that is repentance.

 

[Mojo]

I agree @Kevin has been the most passionate in opposition to MGTOW, but I don't think he's attacked all things MGTOW. That's perhaps a bit too strong.