Please welcome I’ll Make My Own Sandwich to sheddingoftheego
From what I’ve witnessed, people’s negative reaction to MGTOW concepts on the internet comes in 2 forms.
The first is evasion. When GirlWritesWhat says that “Feminism is female nature politicized” no one dares to start arguing about it with her, but when a male on the internet says the exact same thing in different words, implying that the very nature of the human female is at play in the social dynamics we often deal with, even proud anti-feminists will instinctively jump to a knee-jerk reaction of “NAWALT” or “See, this is real misogyny, unlike me!”
Why not react to GirlWritesWhat too then?
The second type of reaction is dismissal. This usually involves cherry picking and using the worst of the worst in order to dismiss everything else, thus avoiding addressing the actual important points.
For example, people often conveniently use a segment from a YouTube user called SexyMGTOW where he claims that women are not human. They proudly flail this quote around and scream “See? This is what MGTOW is. I have thus won the debate and every debate from now until eternity.”
My answer to this- “I don’t give a shit that someone on the internet said a thing.”
I’m not an internet babysitter, and I can’t enforce the 7 billion inhabitants of the planet to use an acronym in a way I approve of.
For me the acronym “MGTOW” exists for convenience. In the age of the internet and search engines, I can type in the right keyword to find discussions about specific topics, and get to know of people who care about them. Some I will agree with, some not. And that’s all there is to it.
I don’t care about your race, your gender, your looks or your number of subscribers. If your content honestly and unapologetically explores the nature of the human male and the human female, and your insights possess great merit, to me you are a vital part of the discussion. (Which is why I consider Karen Straughan and Diana Davison as creators of great content. They provide good insight which is useful to men who are interested in MGTOW concepts. Merit trumps everything.)
Hell, even the label “feminist” — which is now commonly used as an insult, or as a lazy method of dismissal (“You are just as bad as the feminists!”) — is used by individuals like Christina Hoff Sommers and Camille Paglia. And I’m sure I share more values with these self proclaimed “feminists” than they themselves share with other self proclaimed feminists.
So a conversation about labels and what people do with them is a waste of time and energy, and any person who keeps focusing on it, does so because they want to avoid discussing the real issues that need to be discussed.
But what happens if you keep pressing them, you ask?
Well, as you have probably noticed, there are many people in the anti-feminist circles who brag about themselves being “rationalists”, who try to gain YouTube e-penis points by debunking feminist videos in a faster and wittier manner than their peers as soon as one is released. (Take any group and as time passes it ends up being less about the ideas and more about social cohesion and social hierarchy. Such are humans.)
Many of these self proclaimed “rationalists” also claim MGTOW are “just as bad as the feminists”. (Read: “I’m the one good man, unlike these men over there.”)
But when you confront them about it, when you link them to the channels of Barbarossa, Stardusk, Spetnaz, GirlWritesWhat, Colttaine, CS MGTOW etc. etc. and ASK THEM TO DEBUNK THE CONTENT LIKE THEY LOVE DOING SO MUCH TO EASY TARGETS, they start squirming!
“I don’t have time for this. It’s not interesting.” And then they go back to making their weekly amazing, necessary video: “Debunking the wage gap for the 573th time please like comment and subscribe”.
That’s *how* they evade and dismiss. Now let’s try to answer *why* they evade and dismiss?
Why do people conveniently ignore Karen’s statements about female nature? Why do people put great effort into finding an excuse to dismiss anything and everything that was ever used under the acronym “MGTOW”? Why do self proclaimed rationalist expert debunkers avoid a supposed easy challenge like the plague?
I’ve only heard the quote second hand from a Stardusk video so I’ll paraphrase:
“I do not want to live in a world where MGTOW are correct.”
This statement is a nuclear bomb. It really nails it, doesn’t it?
One of the most important concepts in psychology (Read: Understanding how humans behave and why) is the theory of terror management.
“In social psychology, terror management theory (TMT) proposes a basic psychological conflict that results from having a desire to live, but realizing that death is inevitable. This conflict produces terror, and is believed to be unique to human beings. Moreover, the solution to the conflict is also generally unique to humans: culture. According to TMT, cultures are symbolic systems that act to provide life with meaning and value. Cultural values therefore serve to manage the terror of death by providing life with meaning. The theory was originally proposed by Jeff Greenberg, Sheldon Solomon, and Tom Pyszczynski.
The simplest examples of cultural values that manage the terror of death are those that purport to offer literal immortality (e.g. belief in afterlife, religion). However, TMT also argues that other cultural values – including those that are seemingly unrelated to death – offer symbolic immortality. For example, value of national identity, posterity, cultural perspectives on sex, and human superiority over animals have all been linked to death concerns in some manner. In many cases these values are thought to offer symbolic immortality by providing the sense that one is part of something greater that will ultimately outlive the individual (e.g. country, lineage, species).
Because cultural values determine that which is meaningful, they also contribute to self-esteem. TMT describes self-esteem as being the personal, subjective measure of how well an individual is living up to their cultural values. Like cultural values, self- esteem acts to protect one against the terror of death. However, it functions to provide one’s personal life with meaning, while cultural values provide meaning to life in general.
TMT is derived from anthropologist Ernest Becker‘s 1973 Pulitzer Prize-winning work of nonfiction The Denial of Death, in which Becker argues most human action is taken to ignore or avoid the inevitability of death. The terror of absolute annihilation creates such a profound – albeit subconscious – anxiety in people that they spend their lives attempting to make sense of it. On large scales, societies build symbols: laws, religious meaning systems, cultures, and belief systems to explain the significance of life, define what makes certain characteristics, skills, and talents extraordinary, reward others whom they find exemplify certain attributes, and punish or kill others who do not adhere to their cultural worldview. On an individual level, self-esteem provides a buffer against death-related anxiety.”
Well, gentlemen, here’s my suggestion: What if there’s also a “gender management mechanism” at play here, similar to the death management one?
What if maintaining the illusion of men as hyper-agents and women as hypo-agents makes the world simpler and shields our psyche, just like the emotional denial of death?
What if seeing men and women for what they really are, merely animals guided by their instincts and reproductive drives, kick-starts deep inside us a fear as severe as the fear from death itself, and subconsciously urges us to bury it deep in the ground, to avoid the hard hitting MGTOW content, to declare they are just as bad as the feminists, to dismiss the honest, unapologetic exploration of human nature because someone on the internet said a thing?