So-called Men Going Their Own Way need to really GO. This video shows them how.
So I get periodic visits here from hostile and uninformed visitors demanding to know just what I have against those Men’s Rights activist-adjacent fellows who have declared themselves to be Men Going Their Own Way. Surely, they sniff, I can’t be really opposed to men living the lives they choose to live, independent of women? Don’t feminists encourage women to be similarly independent? You go, girls, and all that?
As a fellow calling himself Praetorian wrote:
Why are women so bitter towards men going their own way, without them
“John,” meanwhile, thought he detected some hypocrisy:
So, if a woman says she does not need a man in her life, she is seen as a strong independent woman. If a man says he does not need a woman in his life, he is seen as someone who has a deep hostility towards and/or profound distrust of women.
How convenient and how logical…………….
Happpily, the commenters here always put these misguided souls straight: we don’t object , in principle, to men “going their own way,” if that’s what they want to do.
But in practice, the men who classify themselves as Men Going Their Own Way don’t go anywhere; they stick around and stink the place up with their raging misogyny.
If you go to MGTOWforums or any other popular MGTOW hangout, you’ll discover that the regulars there don’t spend much time talking about the fabulous lives they’re leading on their own — the things they’re learning, the hobbies they’re pursuing, the experiences they’re having.
Nope. They spend virtually all their time and energy taking about women, and how awful they are. The typical MGTOWer spends more time thinking about women on any given day than the president of Planned Parenthood does. And what they think about women is awful. Just go through my MGTOW posts here for example after example.
You want to see some men who are really going their own way? Watch the video at the top of this post. These are guys enjoying themselves and not giving a shit what anyone thinks. They are AWESOME.
That’s what Men Going Their Own Way should look like. And I’m not even joking.
NOTE: I think I’ve posted this video before. I don’t care. Some people might not have seen it. EVERYONE MUST SEE IT.
Posted on February 3, 2014, in awesome, hypocrisy, irony alert, men who should not ever be with women ever, MGTOW, misogyny, YouTube and tagged mgtow, misogyny. Bookmark the permalink. 547 Comments.
http://www.canstockphoto.com/images-photos/donkey.html
This is an ass’s arse (SFW):
http://farm2.staticflickr.com/1077/1068900221_6faa0d1680_o.jpg
Ass’s arse, definitely cuter than troll’s arse.
Impressive actual ass (sfw):
http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/e2/d3/e2/e2d3e2851b9c5520b1e482f403f44ed0.jpg
Ninja’d!!! damn it. ass.
http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/5e/c5/64/5ec56431e2fc65642f2cd73409a9b17c.jpg
It’s so fluffy!
Prime-time pecunium!
That first paragraph made me chuckle. I don’t get why female atheists are supposed to swoop in, defeat misogyny and make these guys not look like assholes.
Dawkins has many low moments, but I thought he descended into pure self-parody with “The Bright Movement”. I know he didn’t start the whole thing, but he sure took to it.
This is from their website.
http://www.the-brights.net/movement/how_to.html
How about defending those “old terms” which actually mean something, rather than hiding behind an unbelievably smarmy, obnoxious re-branding campaign? I’m keeping secular humanist, skeptic and agnostic, along with other off-putting “old terms” such as feminist, liberal and lesbian, despite their burdensome cultural baggage and yucky negative connotations, and yet will still expect people to relate to me as a person. Crazy, right?
Why doesn’t he just go ahead and start calling everyone who isn’t a buddy or follower of his muggles?
That’s just classic right there — “A Hint. For reasons we hope are obvious, we would in fact recommend to Brights a bit of caution when discussing worldviews to intentionally practice avoiding adjectival uses that could be readily misconstrued as arrogance until such time as the term’s new meaning takes hold in mainstream society…another 20+ years?”
But I’m gonna randomly pick the word Bright anyways!
Be creative! Be amusing! Idk, I’m a Silver Bullet, I kill werewolves? That took me all of two minutes.
Also, Pecunium tends to have stray commas, could that sentence please pick one up?
Yep, #youradick Dawkins - convinced he’s the brightest person in the room. which wouldn’t be such a problem if he didn’t also believe that made everyone else lesser. Now there’s someone who could GTOW without being missed by me.
Maybe because certain Big Name Pagans have already latched onto that one, much to the dismay of the rest of us.
I know this was like 200 comments ago (conversation tends to happen while I’m at work), but one can’t discuss what’s wrong with Dawkins without mentioning his latest bout of insensitivity: trying to excuse “mild paedophilia” (trigger warning).
@Kittehs, about using U.S. Fundies as a stand-in for all religions, the thing is that even the it doesn’t support Diane’s argument. The denominations those guys come from are overwhelmingly evangelical Protestants, who teach that to be “saved”, one need only accept Christ as one’s “personal savior”. While they tend to be Bible-thumpers, their theology is about the individual having a personal, direct relationship with Christ. In which case, what’s written in the Bible doesn’t actually matter.
Frankly, I’ve always wondered why Christians need the Bible at all. Once you know about the Nicene Council and how a bunch of guys just up and decided to include this and notthat, it becomes hard to trust the Bible as a source of information. And if Christ died for all our sins, what does the rest of it even matter?
emilygoddess: That’s a concern of all collections of “canonic” texts. The Torah and Tanakh are the same way, Given the givens (a much larger corpus of works not merely difficult to reconcile, but impossible; because the ideas were antithetical) deciding what texts were “valid” had to be done.
How/why this text, or that, was chosen is part and parcel of the problem (and it’s why there is so much Talmud, and commentaries on the Buddha, and on Confucius, because it’s not just a christian problem).
If Christ died for our sins the question of what that means is still out there. Does it mean the Baptist idea that once one has a Gnostic moment of “acceptance, and rebirth” one is bound to heaven? (there is a credible set of arguments that the ways in which “devout” people tend to have scandals at odds with their “faith” is they have been saved, so the peccadilloes don’t really signify), or does Jesus set a bar of active participation (works) which must be done, as well as the question of grace?
I.e. does the removal of “original sin” send everyone to heaven? Or do we have to try to make a better life for our fellows?
If so, what does that better life look like?
Those are the things Diana denies are actually things religious people can do. It’s amazingly small-minded of her; it’s incredibly Dawkinesque (though these days his greatest ire is for, “those people”, which doesn’t mean he’s not still ranting about Christians, but he doesn’t ascribe inherent malice; as Diana is doing), and denies that people are complex, and quite good at rationalising difficult concepts.
“does the removal of “original sin” send everyone to heaven?”
You’ em got the baptist line a bit wrong. Not everyone, just those who “have accepted jesus into their hearts” and once you do that then he’ll never ever turn you away.
Meaning I’ve been able to sin all I like since I was about 12. Logic, wtf is that?
Like, this is such a fucked up thing that one of the parodies of those tracts (sp?) is how this poor abused little girl dies on the streets, without accepting Jesus, and goes to hell, while her abusive father goes to heaven cuz he did. Seriously, by the standards I was raised with, you’re going to hell but serial killers who “find christ” aren’t (he was behind the sofa the whole time!)
99.9% sure that’s at odds with a SHIT TON of other sects.
Oh and “original sin” in the sense you use the term was NEVER mentioned. It was that Romans verse about how “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of god”
Not necessarily. In my experience, the most vocal and vociferous atheists are people who have been genuinely and profoundly hurt by the religion they were raised in: they’re gay or female, or they were molested by a member of the clergy, or they endured a terribly repressive environment, or they were abused and it was “justified” by the religion (“spare the rod and spoil the child”, etc). While I don’t agree that one can generalize from these experiences to religion in general, and while obviously these things happen to people outside of specifically religious contexts, I think there are a lot of people who have a legitimate grievance about the way religion was used to harm them.
Argenti: I don’t think I got Baptists wrong:
It’s a question, followed by a second question: Does it mean the Baptist idea that once one has a Gnostic moment of “acceptance, and rebirth” one is bound to heaven?
The “Gnostic moment” is accept[ing] jesus into their hearts”
Which is when a Baptist sees the stain of sin washed away.
For the Catholic Original Sin is really different, and while the Sacrifice of the Cross makes it possible to wash it away, we each commit our own sins, for which we have to atone in our own right.
I have some problems with the idea of Original Sin being something which has to be removed from each person as they are born. It seems the Catholic Church is coming to a similar opinion; Limbo was done away with, and infants who die unbaptised aren’t deemed to be in hell/purgatory. How this applies to children below, “the age of reason” isn’t clear, but the implication is that infant baptism is more ceremonial (and all sorts of convenient: one of the things it did, in the past, was reduce infanticide, again I digress), but since one attains reason (and so responsibility for one ‘s sins) well before Confirmation, I’d say the devout ought to continue the practice.
But that’s where theology goes off the rails of easy/rational explanation; and one starts to deal with Pascal (though in a very different way, because the problem isn’t, “If God exists but “What if I’m wrong about the fiddly-bits?”).
Having been raised Baptist, and having real damage from that (hello thinking abusive relationships are normal, amongst other crap), the key tenets were:
- belief in JC as personal saviour
- belief is all that matters, good works are a neither necessary nor sufficient condition for being saved. There was a lot, and I mean a LOT, of emphasis that people who were doing real, actual good in the community but we’re christian were damned. This screwed me up a lot as an adolescent as I had a lot of really nice friends that I thought were going straight to hell. It also makes you proselytise to your friends, because you truely believe that you’re the only person that can possibly stop them being tortured in hell for all eternity.
- actual full immersion baptism is a pivotal part of the religion, as it represents the adult decision to be saved - is a stand in for being washed with the blood of the lamb, our church had a small pool area that was used for baptisms, and we got baptised wearing white. I wore a white, long plain cotton gown that had small weights in the hem. We got given a baptism certificate when we went through the process. It was quite a long time to get to the actual event, because we had to go through repeated questioning about whether we were ready for that commitment, etc. I was 16 when I was baptised and had been going to a Baptist church for 6 years. To a baptist, you’re not really saved until that event occurs. Not sure what happens if you don’t go through it, as Baptists don’t believe in purgatory or anything like that, it’s strictly heaven or hell. However, babies and children who are too young to choose to be baptised go straight to heaven. Baptists in the church I went to didn’t baptist anyone younger than 16.
- there were ways in which you could still go to hell regardless of your personal relationship with JC and baptism status. One of them was to marry a non-Christian (note: Catholics were considered almost worse than non-believers [we were taught that the pope was the anti-christ, for e.g.]. So yeah, even if you believed and were baptised, you could still go to hell.
- it was heavily influenced by American fundamentalist Baptists. We had quite a few overseas guest sermons. It also meant a huge focus on Revelation, where everyone I went to church with believed in the apocalypse in our lifetime. The old bankcard symbol with the b’s: 666 (see http://www.rationalskepticism.org/general-chat/light-entertainment-a-conspiracy-forum-site-t33615.html). Barcodes: satanic.
YMMV
Gah, second bullet “…actual good in the community but we’re christian…” should read “…actual good in the community but weren’t christian”
I can’t even get that far with Pascal; Before I can start believing in god just in case, I need to figure out which god.
emilygoddess: That’s the largest problem with Pascal: He defaults to the Christian God (and being French, the Catholic one). Since his actual argument is,”what if their is a God, and you act as if there isn’t') the question of Which God becomes most important.
And that’s more imponderably structured; because if there is no god, and the believer is wrong, no worries. If there is a god, and the non-believer is wrong, some worries (depends on the god), but if there is a god, and the non-believer PRETENDS to believe,I figure they are more screwed than the devout wrong believer who did the best they could with what they knew/believed.
I figure being sincere (and consistent within your belief system) should be a touchstone of divinity. If the Divine Aspect, is that powerful, it’s going to be, at root, somewhat ineffable, and people (not being that sort of creature) are going to have the “blind men and the elephant” problem. So being honest has to count for something.
So (IMO) Pascal got it completely wrong.
“I figure being sincere (and consistent within your belief system) should be a touchstone of divinity.”
What if the divinity has a thing for manipulative bastards, or disingenious, dishonest people?
Or maybe the Divinity hates everybody unconditionally, like Sithrak
Kiwi girl — interesting, baptism wasn’t required in “my” church (I really hate those people, namely the pastor, for reasons that are entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand), it was encouraged as a way to publicly declare your faith, but one line you could easily parrot was all it took.
Pecunium — I was contesting it because we’re coming at this from different ends — you’re viewing it as, ah, a thought out decision that this Is Right (I think) and I’m viewing it as a thing one does out of fear of hell. And kiwi girl is right on the money with this -
“This screwed me up a lot as an adolescent as I had a lot of really nice friends that I thought were going straight to hell. It also makes you proselytise to your friends, because you truely believe that you’re the only person that can possibly stop them being tortured in hell for all eternity.”
Except I was like 8 or 9. This is where I could almost grok Dawkins saying religion is worse than “mild” sexual abuse, except he fucked it up six ways to Sunday. More like with some forms of religion it may be more harmful than sexual abuse sometimes is…I’m still failing…sometimes a religious upbringing may be more harmful than sexual abuse. Or, more to the point, religion can be used as emotional abuse, which may or may not be worse than other forms of a use. But he is categorically unable to refrain from eating his feet.
Except that my plan isnt to troll. Sparky sounds like you failed….
emilygoddess - perhaps I should have said Diana was reacting to a caricature of US fundamentalists, or the Faux News variety, which puts her nonsense even further from reality.
Re: atheists who’ve been genuinely hurt by religion in one way or another - not a doubt in my mind about that! But I was thinking more of the specific dudebro atheists, the ones who rant like Diana did without apparently knowing jack shit about any religion, and are misogynists through and through.
Oh yes, the whole Brights thing. And they claimed they were going to refer to the not-smart-enough-to-be-atheists (ie. most of the world) as Supers, short for supernatural.
Talk about clever idiots.
This Brights crowd sound as much fun to be around as people who think that their Mensa membership makes them super-special snowflakes too.
Years ago, I read about a group that called themselves Densa (not “smart” enough to join Mensa) and organised things like ten pin bowling nights. That group sounds like way more fun. Wow, does everything have a Wikipedia page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Densa - maybe the lot I read about were a local chapter or something.
One of the things I find hilarious about people who think high IQ is everything, is that they seem to think that morality correlates with IQ. This possibly is the same thing that infests the Brights crowd - but speaking out of my arse here because I’d never heard of them/it until this thread.
Re Brights
Are they of the Atheism is only for academics and intellectuals , we have no need for people in menial professions kind?
Kiwi Girl — yeah I’ve definitely known a number of people who could join MENSA and acted like their morality was inherently superior. Even when it came to, uh, (massive trigger warning for idfk, terrorism?) killing the “sheeple” by poisoning the water supply. Yes seriously, no I don’t talk to him anymore, yes he’s always been creepy.
I feel like this is going to turn into an uroboros of trolls, but is it just me, or is this something trolls say a lot XD
@emilygoddess
eerggh. There’s got to be a name for the facial expression I’m making right now but…wtf?
@kiwi girl
Oh, bleh
That sounds like a terrible way to grow up. I was raised christian, too, but was never taught that nonbelievers go to hell.
re: being raised christian: I don’t know if it was the church I went to or just my parents, but they always made it sound like only really bad people went to hell, religion or otherwise. (no purgatory how I was raised).
@argenti
Wow, that guy sounds terrible. O_o
@Marie, yeah, that’s why I’m uncomfortable with the whole neo-Atheist crap around religious (focus on fundamentalist Xtians) people all being sheeple and objectively horrible. Because they’re not all like that. One Anglican church near me had a lesbian as their ?minister (not sure of Anglican term). Loads of Anglicans (not all) are progressive. I’ve met all flavour of Catholics. The Methodists I have met seem to be relatively uptight, but very caring people. When my grandfather was in his slow decline, it was his Methodist minister who visited *every single bloody day for years* and people in the church made him meals to supplement his meals-on-wheels provisions. I went up to where he lived to attend his funeral, but didn’t end up going because I was too upset by his passing. And the members of his church that came to the house afterwards, all told me how proud he was of me and how much he loved me - these are not the actions of horrible people. Going to stop now, as a bit emotional typing that.*
I’ve met arseholes who are Xtian, just like I’ve met arseholes who are atheist. I think that arseholes are just arseholes, regardless of their religious beliefs. And they gravitate to socialise with others just like them.
*added this bit last.
This is why, in my family, we refer to Germaine-sodding-Greer as Germaine-sodding-Greer. She was on the BBC reviewing the first Lord of the Rings film and her whole condemnation of it revolved around the film sending the message that it didn’t matter whether you were clever, it matters whether you are loyal, brave and a true friend. Yep, that’s right, she was appalled that people might think qualities you can determine about yourself are more worthy than qualities you were born with, that “stupid” (yep, she used that word) people might be seen as more admirable than clever people.
And now you folks have me worrying - is “sodding” a homophobic slur? Do I need to change to something more imaginative to express my contempt?
@titanblue
Wow, she sounds truly despicable.
re: sodding.
No frickin clue. Not used in US (I think) don’t know what it means, ect.
Re: “sodding”, anal sex isn’t limited to gay men (in fact, I read somewhere that it’s more popular with heterosexual couples).
I’d like to know if sodding’s considered a homophobic slur, too. Sodomite/sodomy was used to refer specifically to homosexual men for a long time, after all.
I <3 this and even Mum laughed at it!
Marie - yeah, Germaine Greer (another reason to be embarrassed to be Australian, sigh) is a horrible piece of work.
I highly doubt we can attribute to an omniscient something or nothing such things as good or evil or hate or love. If any sort of divinity is to exist I would think it would be Tillich’s ground of all being or becoming, or something or nothing more pantheistic like the Tao.
Robert, that’s very much like what I think Louis was getting at when I asked him about it. He was groping for words, I think (this was early in our relationship and he was out of practice using verbal language, let alone English) but he described the Creator as “a consciousness but not a personality”. Took the whole anthropomorphic business out of it for me, something I’d wanted to get away from thinking anyway, and I’ve been quite happy to leave it at that ever since.
That’s one thing I wonder if some of the asshattier atheists don’t get: that one can be “theist” as in believing there is a creator/ground of being/whatever, but not belong to any form of religion and not actually care about theology or the nature of deity or anything else.
My loved ones are alive, I’m in contact with them and eventually I’ll join them permanently instead of doing this frikk’n commuting. That’s all I need.
Kitteh, one of the most beautiful statements or definitions of god that a theist as given me is that to them that god is that which which we move, live and have our being…that god is not the means that we enjoy our lives but god is our lives. God is our being and becoming all in all. God doesn’t rule over the scheme of things but god is the scheme of things.
This person told told me that god is within me as an individual, that god is within me when I am a community and that god is within me when I relate myself to the whole of being.
I think the whole idea is complex, that is why I am now removing myself from the theist/atheist argument.
Beautiful ideas, Robert, thank you for sharing them.
Argenti: Pecunium — I was contesting it because we’re coming at this from different ends — you’re viewing it as, ah, a thought out decision that this Is Right (I think)
Nope, I’m not talking about it as a personal decision, but in response to emilgoddess question about the theological issue of if Christ died for all our sins, what does the rest of it even matter?, and how different sects answer that question.
Robert Ramirez: Kitteh, one of the most beautiful statements or definitions of god that a theist as given me is that to them that god is that which which we move, live and have our being…that god is not the means that we enjoy our lives but god is our lives. God is our being and becoming all in all. God doesn’t rule over the scheme of things but god is the scheme of things.
This is the fundamental concept of the Quaker idea of “holding everyone in The Light”. It’s not actually at odds with Catholic theology; making up a large part of Catholic Mysticism. and there are any number of Catholics (of all the various sects in the Catholic family of Christianity) who believe something like this.
Ah, sorry, I was assuming you were coming at it from your own views. Which are far better thought out than all the baptists I know.
My own views are complex: shaped by my upbringing, my rearing, my education and my experiences. I find the Baptist idea repugnant. I’ve had Baptists look at me as if I were a temptation from the Devil when I answer the question, “Are you saved?” with, “I’d like to think so, but I won’t know until I die”.
Because the verse which sticks in my mind when I hear about, “being saved” is, “faith without works is dead”.
And that sticks in their craw, something fierce. When they get too pushy, in those public attempts to shove John 3:10 down peoples’ throats I bait them. At which point they forget all about forgiving their brother so much as once, must less seventy times seven.
John 3:16, I can still recite it as it was parroted at every chance, particularly before the exodus when the church still had kids and vacation bible school. And to baptists that *is* temptation from the devil to doubt whether they’re saved and thus doubt the lord and stray. Which is just weird in combination with how once you’re saved, you’re saved and nothing can change that. Well, I imagine if pressed they’d say that offering your soul to the devil would, but everyday temptations of the flesh? You’re supposed to maintain strength with the, uh, armor of righteousness(? Romans, idk chapter and verse), but we’re inherently imperfect so jesus won’t forsake you for straying.
But temptation from the devil (eg you) to stray is Bad. Don’t ask me to reconcile that one.
I always took “faith without works is dead” to be a way to separate the real believers from the nonbelievers pretending to believe (I’m phrasing this badly); sort of like if you claim to believe you should help others, but you don’t do so unless there’s something in it for you, well, actions speak louder than words.
My favorite verse is the one about real love being that a man lay down his life for his friends (paraprasing, think it’s in John 1). There was a story about a lesbian couple who saved numerous teenagers from that murderer at the summer camp. I recall thinking their actions fit this so well (they were heroes regardless of whether they are/were theists or atheists or agnostic or other)
I personally like the idea of love being the greatest commandment. I figure I should try to do the best I can with what I have and have empathy for others; kind of a mixing of the golden rule (which is sort of how I tend to view the categorical imperative) & do no harm with a belief in God, Christ & the Spirit. I consider myself to be Christian (of the Curch of Christ [not LDS] variety, which is a very decentralized bunch & different churches can be quite different)
I actually think I became a feminist partly because of my religious beliefs and upbringing. My parents never thought of themselves as feminists, but they raised me to believe God created all people as equals and loves everyone and the least we can do is try to help make our corner of the world a little better for the people in it. They were interested in trying to protect the environment partly because we should take care of what God made
I know this conversation started with a blow up, but I really enjoyed reading about all the various beliefs from theist to atheist the readers here have. It’s been pretty neat to see how other people see things
SMACK MY HEAD!!!
I always enjoy that, once the asshats have flounced.
Certainly but you’ll have to lean in a little closer. I can’t reach from here.
I’m still trying to figure out what the hell that was about.
Trollsplosion.
My general rule is: I don’t care what people believe as long as they’re not arseholes to others, don’t put people’s lives in danger, and don’t interfere with others’ bodily autonomy. I couldn’t care less if people were pastafarians and wore collanders on their heads, because it doesn’t affect anyone else. Also, students in Otago used to wear woollen tea cosys on their heads in winter as these were cheaply got from thrift shops, so as a kiwi I am in a glass house if I go around criticising others’s head gear. Plus, I have a Hello Kitty winter hat myself…
Some of the craftier tea cosies one sees would make awesome hats, too …
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=tea+cosy&num=20&client=firefox-a&hs=kOQ&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=d8D0UuXoBYjTkgWUy4DwBA&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1152&bih=522
Look what came up when I googled “cat tea cosy”.
I suspect the answer to “is your cat plotting to kill you?” in this case would be yes.
Oooh, hats:
I so want one of these but they never seem to do the designs/colours I like in my size - bighead
http://caslworkshop.netfirms.com/store/index.html
Nice hats!
D’you knit, titianblue?
I do knit - I’m going to be scouring the net for a roll-brim hat pattern to make my own, I think.
There are a couple of books just on knitting tea cosies, and the thought of using some of them as hats has crossed my mind.
See http://www.bookdepository.com/book/9781742573472?redirected=true&gclid=CJqa5P7murwCFYPypAodA2YAnA and http://www.bookdepository.com/Really-Wild-Tea-Cosies-Loani-Prior/9781741966312
Free tea cosy knitting patterns (yay!): http://cosytea.wordpress.com/free-tea-cosy-knitting-patterns/
Re cats in garments, if I tried to do that with two of the four, either my hands or the cat clothing would be shredded before I got it on. I would also be murdered in my sleep.
Here’s a start for roll-brim hat patterns:
http://www.ravelry.com/patterns/search#query=roll%20brim%20hat&fit=adult&view=captioned_thumbs&sort=name
(Are you on Ravelry? I can never remember who I’ve asked and who not.
)