Pulling Up the Stake

Pulling Up the Stake
Comments (11)
  1. MgToW says:

    “The only reasonable conclusion is that it is not the State that imposes gynocentrism on society but rather our society that imposes gynocentrism on the State. ”

    Yes. Granted.

    That’s why we typically say it’s not government or feminism to blame but gynocentrism. It still holds true that government amplifies and weaponizes this gynocentrism which is why libertarianism is the obvious better option.

    I don’t know any mgtow that argue that government is the cause of gynocentrism, which seems to be how you wrongly characterize libertarians. We simply state that with less power, the government would have less power to hurt men.

    Privately, if men still want private marriage contracts (or any other type of contract) which stipulates his own slavery, that’s up to him. Sadly, some portion of men may always desire this and we can’t/shouldn’t stand in their way by using government force. We should simply seek to educate fellow males.

    At the end of the day, expanding governments are bad for everyone and one of the key things that drives expanding governments is people seeking vengance/power/authority over others. I do NOT seek government power to subjugate or punish women, in spite of how women view men as disposable. When we seek government power for our own purposes, it invariably gets turned back on us. The end result of this (very petty and very human) impulse is that government gets more of our taxes and more of our freedoms piece by piece.

    All of that said, I’m happy to accept my fellow mgtow, whatever their political persuasion. I don’t personally think mgtow need to “take sides” one way or the other with respect to libertarianism. It seems to me to be enough that we unite around the simple idea of male sovereignty and illuminate gynocentrism for all to see.

    1. TheRedBaron says:

      Very good comment and I appreciate a non-libertarian perspective from the author of this blog post. While I am an AnCap myself – politics will ‘pollute the message’ and stunt the movement (I have to use Rollo Tomassi’s words in quotes, the only non-MGTOW manosphere blogger I read).

      I also like non-libertarians commenting here as it confirms my MGTOW principles that I had since birth by cleansing-off my political bias and giving me new perspectives even if I feel what they are saying is wrong from time to time (eg: Bastiat’s Broken Window Fallacy, Rothbard’s Fable of the Shoes Fallacy etc.)

      One pick I have with the blog post is that libertarians including atheists like myself advocate privatising the marriage contract and keeping govt out of adoption, childcare etc. There was this case in Boston where a ‘throuple’ (3 people getting married) wanted State recognition which opens a can of worms as we will have men wanting recognition with their pet ostriches, women with their cats and so on.

      More power to the State makes it easier for special interest groups to capture it which is why the EU is every kleptocrat rent-seeker’s wet dream more than the US and it becomes an enitity in and of itself, no matter how benevolent the intentions were with the needs of the general populace disregarded if not outright impeded.

      Keeping the govt. ‘small’ is where IMHO the Minarchist libertarians are wrong at least empirically, the State that starts out the smallest end up the largest, even with a 1% income tax rate you will see tremendous economic growth and an explosion of tax revenue which the State will spend on first helping a country’s least fortunate. This sets off a self feeding vicious cycle where more and more victims are offered assistance given the sustained surplus of tax revenue and no chance will administrators in govt. return the money given human nature (mostly women given gynocentric nature of society).

      I have to give credit to Bar Bar and I hope one day he reads Rothbard and Hoppe (as they have debunked many of his misconceptions with Market Anarchism).

      Also I would prefer if we refrain from ad-hominems in case of disagreement the so called “TradSoc” MRAs here make interesting points as well but the name calling totally ruins polite discourse.

  2. The state is only a tool, not the reason. In fact the “Statist” Regimes of the former eastern bloc put much more pressure on women to work, often did not even have alimony laws and made it very difficult for women to become housewives.

    In East Germany alimony did not exist and when the re-unification with West Germany came many East German men suddenly faced destructive divorces that left them financially destitute. The re-unification had suddenly altered the nature of the contract that they signed back then.

    The same goes for men that got married before no-fault divorce (which was a Republican pet Project that got exported throughout the western world) was enacted (the vast majority of those born before 1955). The state changed the terms and voila they had to pay money for cheating women, abusive women and lazy women (Groups which would not have been entitled to any support under most old fault-legislations).

    But all in all: it is the Society, Stupid!

    Society is gyno/mother-centric and this is what you’ll get.

  3. TFCNU says:

    Let me be clear, I don’t have a problem with libertarianism. It’s not a political philosophy I personally adhere to, but I understand why people subscribe to it. My point here is that it’s important for MGTOW to question the assumptions we make and understand where they come from. When people say “I don’t want to marry because it’s a contract with the state,” they are expressing a libertarian idea that has very little to do with MGTOW as it is currently understood. That doesn’t make it invalid. It’s just a separate issue. I apologise if I misrepresented the position.

    1. MgToW says:

      TFCNU said,

      “When people say “I don’t want to marry because it’s a contract with the state,” they are expressing a libertarian idea that has very little to do with MGTOW as it is currently understood. That doesn’t make it invalid. It’s just a separate issue. ”

      If the issue is male sovereignty, then state control (especially when it’s so misandric) is indeed a concern for MGTOW.

      I’ve said and thought this myself BOTH because I’m libertarian AND because I’m MGTOW. Either one would be a deal breaker for me (and many men) because BOTH issues conflict with MGTOW.

      Sure, we can separate the issues but they overlap significantly upon MGTOW.

      If the state suddenly adopted fair marriage laws (in writting AND in practice) many mgtow would probably run back to the plantation but it’s always been the case that many men are “one blowjob away” from returning and who can say what delusion may sucker a man back?

      Declining to marry (or co-habit or procreate) with a woman SOLELY because the state interferes might be more libertarian than MGTOW and maybe that’s what you we’re getting at? In which case, such a man might only be a potential MGTOW and may need to do more soul searching to become fully MGTOW. If that’s what you’re saying, I suppose I agree. If you’re saying that a “fair” marriage contract may still require a man to surrender his autonomy, then I agree with that too.

      The objection to marriage on the grounds that it involves government control over your romantic life (and that, always unfair if you’re male) is a perfectly valid reason to reject marriage and all that comes with it. There are many reasons to reject marriage and each man may have to find his own path to that conclusion. Apparently this is very hard for most men to do given that so many men still sign up for it so I say, the more reasons we have to reject marriage the better! Each different reason may just be one man’s first step toward MGTOW and I welcome them all!

  4. jimmy says:

    Libertarianism in itself isn’t a bad thing, most MGTOW are probably quite libertarian.

    The problem is that it usually comes “packaged” with other belief systems such as unrestrained free markets, individualism, beliefs in natural rights such as property rights and then this is used to falsely justify a whole lot of social economic policies. When this happens your frame of reference and terms of debate become very small.

    Another problem is that adherents link the philosophy to their masculinity and ego because Libertarians can reinforce traditional concepts of masculinity, such as competition/individualism/ exceptionism which to them is “strength”. The “other” collaboration/collectivism/concern is a weakness and it becomes “feminine” almost as an affront to their masculinity. This is very much like the typical “tradcon” mindset, they see women and what they espouse as a form of weakness when actually it’s just the way women wield their own “soft” power right under their noses.

    1. Nils Dacke says:

      What you talk about is one aspect and manifestation of the male species and i see no reason why it should be neglected .
      I dont care what men do as long as they are happy and not validate themselves in the eyes of a female. But being a MGTOW, i dont care if people want to compete, start companies or build muscles or explore their masculinity to infinity either.
      Or be gamers, hairdressers, into intereor design or whatever.. i think men should go their own way.

      MGTOWs are into Libertarianism because as the Libertarian slogan goes “take over the world and leave you alone” fits the bill.

    2. Broken Deity says:

      TBH I’ve always seen ancappers and libertarians as the biggest impediment in the manosphere.

      Mgtow as I saw it was originally just another libertarian circle-jerk until people like barbar and RBK started stepping away from that trash.

  5. A certain infrastructure needs to be provided. But there are many areas where we can make generous cuts. Certainly we do not need state Television, lifetime-employed state clerks, “community organizing”, gender-discriminatory affirmative action programs, foreign aid, useless wars etc.; the state needs to focus on relevant platforms such as infrastructure, healthcare, eduation, childcare and security (including a cut-to-size military).

    On top we can speed up and deregulate many areas, especially for start-ups and small businesses. We cannot treat large corporations with the same standards as small startup or mum-and-pop-shops.

    Another issue is not just the spending or raising taxes, but also widening the tax base by putting women to work…finally after 50 years of feminism. This is the big one, perhaps the biggest one. But the precondition is an infrastructure for childcare and men’s commitment to parenting. Everything comes with a price: Female independence means giving up traditional motherhood and male empowerment means opening up the workplace for female competition and making an equal contribution to child care.

  6. Nils Dacke says:

    All the other institutions that upheld traditional marriage are gone or lost it’s power, at least in the western world. The state works in the presence. Even back in the middle ages you could not be an ateist and not be sceptical against the church, even though you know it got its power from stupid people.

    Besides, stupid people will always be around but the enforcer or the one using the ad verecundiam fallacy to enforce the stupidity are usually the target of resistance.

    1. Anonymous says:

      Exactly, it is stupid people (i.e. 85% of the population) which reminds me of Mr. Garrison’s quote in South Park “There are no stupid questions only stupid people!”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *