MGTOW - and Lack of Homes for Children


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Traveler said:

Jesus understood well that being oppressed was an affront to humanity but rather than lash out at oppressors and give them condition and excuse to oppress the more his method was to forgo the inevitable loss and perform more service than the oppressor required.  This is also the concept concerning losing everything a person has to a lawsuit (with the exception of the clothing one is wearing) – but then giving also one’s coat (or shirt) from off their back.

 

Point of note: The soldier could only compel the person to travel with them for a single mile, so if someone traveled with them longer than that the soldier (or whoever) would be subject to reprimand from their superiors and thus would likely think twice about doing it again. 

This has led various individuals to suspect that Jesus was also potentially teaching civil disobedience or otherwise encouraging people to let the existing cultural or legal systems punish those who abused others. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ironhold said:

Point of note: The soldier could only compel the person to travel with them for a single mile, so if someone traveled with them longer than that the soldier (or whoever) would be subject to reprimand from their superiors and thus would likely think twice about doing it again. 

This has led various individuals to suspect that Jesus was also potentially teaching civil disobedience or otherwise encouraging people to let the existing cultural or legal systems punish those who abused others. 

I am an amateur historian at best, but my understanding was that Roman citizens were never reprimanded for harassing non-citizens (My source is the historian Flavius Josephus).  Even the Biblical account of Paul being arrested by the Jews worried the Jews when they found out that Paul was a Roman citizen and demanded he be sent to Rome even though the arrest was legal under Roman law – and yet, as a Roman citizen, Paul was able to frustrate their intent to put him to death.

I do not need all the details of your source – just where you got your information.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Ironhold said:

This has led various individuals to suspect that Jesus was also potentially teaching civil disobedience or otherwise encouraging people to let the existing cultural or legal systems punish those who abused others. 

Such hogwash. People look for any reason to coopt the word of God for their pet cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, Ironhold said:

This has led various individuals to suspect that Jesus was also potentially teaching civil disobedience or otherwise encouraging people to let the existing cultural or legal systems punish those who abused others. 

Just look at the context.  The entire chapter talks about forgiving and loving your enemies and doing good to those that hurt you.  AND there is a lot about doing even more than has been required of you.

Thou shalt not commit adultery => Don't even look upon a woman to lust after her.

Thou shalt not kill => Don't even get angry and cuss someone out.

Never break an oath=> Just do what you say you're going to do.  Forget about whether you have to swear an oath to that effect.

Quote

 ...whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

Anyone can interpret anything to mean anything they want.  Interpretations have more credibility when we take into account the context of the neighboring verses and/or entire chapter.  And the interpretation you provided does not meet that standard.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Vort said:

Such hogwash. People look for any reason to coopt the word of God for their pet cause.

To be clear, my comment was directed not at @Ironhold, but at the "various individuals" whose musings he reported.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

(Also in response to @Traveler)

That a majority of people have endured oppression is THE tenet of Marxism. The idea isn't so much that we're all equally oppressed, but more that ALL oppression can be eradicated by dismantling the bourgeois class and the capitalist system that protects it. It eliminates identity politics and replaces it with extreme class warfare.

................

@Phoenix_person:

I am glad you are posting here – especially to garner a point of view not often expressed here.  There are however, two points of your post that I would address.  Primarily because they are counter to my understanding and experiences.  You may feal that this is a segway to a debate – perhaps that is so but my main reason for expressing my opinion to you is because your opinion is in stark contrast, and I am searching for what I may have missed – or if it is you that missed critical principles you are not taking into account.

The first point concerns racism.  I have experienced and observed two very separate and distinct kinds of racism – neither of which is systemic.  Both kinds are completely dependent on human individuals – though I believe one is natural and the other must be learned (understand that I worked in as an engineer in the field of industrial automation, robotics and artificial intelligence.)  I do not believe that racism can be systemic.  The reason is that if racism is systemic then it is and must be recognized as systemic regardless of who or what is involved – even if procedure or thinking is pupariated by the most impoverished and oppressed minority in an effort to seek any level of justice.   It appears to me that those that have attempted to defined systemic racism intend that it apply only to the oppressive class.  This application of the term is contrary and wrong to the intended definition.  Systemic by definition is universal and not localized or compartmentalized.  It appears to me there is miscommunication when this term is used – but since I am not the one using it, I cannot be sure.

I define the two types of racism as first ignorance.  In essence humans tend to not trust and to fear that which is unknown.  I believe this particular prejudice exist anytime where we have not had experience.  When a person says – you cannot understand me because you are not --------.  The blank can be filled with whatever one desires to distinguish themselves from others.  This is an expression of racial or sexual prejudice.  I could speak more about this subject and the science of intelligence and the ability of intelligence species to learn.  Obviously, humans are an intelligent species and are capable of communicating and learning from each other which indicates to me that anyone assuming such is the more prejudice and raciest.

The second type of racism is learned, and I define as evil because it is intended to in some way harm and discredit another.  It is not self-defensive but offensive in intent.   I believe that this evil kind of racism can even be utilized by someone accusing another of racism.  It is all in the intent to harm and discredit of others as a class and ont as individuals.  I also believe that the more it is employed the more hateful it becomes and if unchecked will foment violence and civil disruption and disintegration.

 

The other point I would address is economics.  In our post-modern era we saw the rise of the middle class and as we now are experiencing – a decline of a middle class.  Every economist I have encountered that recognized the importance of the middle class has attributed the success of the middle class to capitalism and free enterprise.  In all economies there are hierarchies.  As I have studied socialism (Marxism) there is still a hierarchy, but it is not economic merit based.  Such social thinkers recognize that there is still economic oppression in capitalism, and they are correct.  I believe that the trouble with socialism and even social programs instituted in post-modern era governments it that they are unable to isolate the main activity of oppression.  Thus, they end up applying their own versions of oppression.

Both you and I recognize an oppressive element of capitalism.  I am concerned that you and I may disagree on what that element is or that you may thing it is the whole of capitalism and not so much this particular element.  I believe it can be removed from capitalism and that the poor and the middle class would greatly benefit.  The very rich are almost exclusively the sector that would not.  But I am concerned that you have no idea what I am talking about – thus you want to dismantle the whole of capitalism and replace it with a different hierarchical system that has historically brought about a worse economy – meaning that the poor and middle classes are worse off and only the hierarchy benefit.

To determine if you have any idea what I am talking about – I would ask you ----- what do you believe is the single most oppressive element utilized in capitalism to bring about oppression of the poor and middle class?

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Traveler said:

I am an amateur historian at best, but my understanding was that Roman citizens were never reprimanded for harassing non-citizens (My source is the historian Flavius Josephus).  Even the Biblical account of Paul being arrested by the Jews worried the Jews when they found out that Paul was a Roman citizen and demanded he be sent to Rome even though the arrest was legal under Roman law – and yet, as a Roman citizen, Paul was able to frustrate their intent to put him to death.

I do not need all the details of your source – just where you got your information.

 

The Traveler

Trying to remember. I want to say that it was either Talmage or someone adjacent to Talmage who made the claim, and others weighed in from there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/13/2024 at 10:36 AM, Carborendum said:

I disagree.  

For now, I don't have a complete rebuttal.  But I'll point out the following immediate items:

Feminism was based on the idea that all women are oppressed by malevolent men.  Solution: Force men to recognize the superiority (no, not equality -- that was a lie) of women.

MGTOW is based on the idea that women have asked us for so much, and we've given them exactly what they wanted at each step, each generation.  And they still want more.  They want all the results that men have without the sacrifice that men have done to obtain the same thing.  No, we've given up enough ground.  No more.  You want more while giving less?  We're done.

While, of course, there are good and bad players in the MGTOW movement, the basis of the movement is at least built on truth.  And the solution is done completely without force.  Men are individually choosing to do their own thing.  Meanwhile the feminist movement always demands force be applied to further their movement.

The one danger I see is that this still contributes to the disappearance of the nuclear family.  And if that's what you're talking about, then I agree.

I think one of the significant nuances here is that MGTOW aren’t really done with women.  They are done with interacting with women.  They are still straight; and they still largely . . . errr . . . have no problem interacting with images of women.  From an LDS standpoint, rampant porn use and justifications thereto among MGTOW make the movement deeply problematic.

I think both hardcore feminists and MGTOW have sort of deceived themselves into thinking that the other gender doesn’t have anything they themselves really *need*; and I think generally speaking, folks who embrace this kind of thinking are setting themselves up for a lot of loneliness and frustration later on life (to say nothing of feeding into social dynamics that aren’t conducive to a healthy, harmonious, sustainable society; and especially in an LDS sub-community that lionizes the principles of the Proclamation on the Family).

One other observation that seems to have some application in response to some of the posts (and I’m sure @LDSGator will note that I’m engaging in a bit of pearl-clutching here):  I was on BYU campus the other day, and the number of apparent-students of both genders who were dressed very much outside the parameters of the Honor Code, really surprised me.  In my day of 2002 (harrumph!  harrumph!) everybody toed the line, at least on campus.  Certainly people have been complaining about “kids these days” for millennia; but at the same time, there does seem to be a higher proportion of modern LDS YSAs who have openly rejected an awful lot of traditional LDS orthodoxy and orthopraxy.  That’s got to make the dating game even harder for the kids who are looking for a truly converted and faithful future spouse.

 

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

One other observation that seems to have some application in response to some of the posts (and I’m sure @LDSGator will note that I’m engaging in a bit of pearl-clutching here):  I was on BYU campus the other day, and the number of apparent-students of both genders who were dressed very much outside the parameters of the Honor Code, really surprised me.  In my day of 2002 (harrumph!  harrumph!) everybody toed the line, at least on campus.  Certainly people have been complaining about “kids these days” for millennia; but at the same time, there does seem to be a higher proportion of modern LDS YSAs who have openly rejected an awful lot of traditional LDS orthodoxy and orthopraxy

Speaking of how people dress, this is how @Just_A_Guy dresses on weekends. 

IMG_2650.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LDSGator said:

I’m playing. I have limited sympathy for those who go to BYU than whine about appearance codes. It’s not like they didn’t know the rules before the game starts.  

Plus they’re basically getting a $180K education for $24K, with the Church’s tithepayers making up the shortfall.

The entitlement boggles the mind.  

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Plus they’re basically getting a $180K education for $24K, with the Church’s tithepayers making up the shortfall.

The entitlement boggles the mind.  

Oh, agree totally.

I’m not saying I could play by their rules, especially in my early twenties/late teens or now. But that’s why I didn’t go to one of those schools. My first college had a morality clause but no appearance one. As long as you behaved morally (no sex outside marriage, etc) they didn’t care what you looked like. That part was fine with me. 

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I think one of the significant nuances here is that MGTOW aren’t really done with women.  They are done with interacting with women.  They are still straight; and they still largely . . . errr . . . have no problem interacting with images of women.  From an LDS standpoint, rampant porn use and justifications thereto among MGTOW make the movement deeply problematic.

Yes, that is certainly true.  In fact, one of the argument being made by MGTOW folks is "why do we need women when we have O.F.?"

What is sad is that too many women nowadays either support it directly (by being OF models) or by insisting on a power dynamic that yet again indicates they want all the benefits without the responsibilities.  i.e. they want all the financial and companionship benefits without the commitment and responsibilities of marriage.

I've seen interviews of the "modern woman" trying to answer the question "what do you bring to the table?"  They can't really answer with anything other than sex.

I have been so blessed that I have a wife that brings so much more to the table.  She supports me in all worthy endeavors.  She encourages me when I'm down (and that is no small feat).  She feeds me well both physically and spiritually.  She also calls me out when I've gone too far.  She is a wonderful role model for my children.  And she gives me true purpose.

Most men today have walked away because they simply cannot find such a woman.  And all the women in their lives have no answer to the "table" question other than sex.  Well, if that's all they're offering, the internet is a lot cheaper than a wife or girlfriend.

That feeds into...

54 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I think both hardcore feminists and MGTOW have sort of deceived themselves into thinking that the other gender doesn’t have anything they themselves really *need*; and I think generally speaking, folks who embrace this kind of thinking are setting themselves up for a lot of loneliness and frustration later on life (to say nothing of feeding into social dynamics that aren’t conducive to a healthy, harmonious, sustainable society; and especially in an LDS sub-community that lionizes the principles of the Proclamation on the Family).

That would certainly be the ideal.  Women would be the women that men need, and men would be the men that women need.  We had it be the norm in past generations.  But somewhere in the 70s or 80s things changed to that not being the norm.  And now they're all miserable.

Did I mention how much my wife blesses my life?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Yes, that is certainly true.  In fact, one of the argument being made by MGTOW folks is "why do we need women when we have O.F.?"

What is sad is that too many women nowadays either support it directly (by being OF models) or by insisting on a power dynamic that yet again indicates they want all the benefits without the responsibilities.  i.e. they want all the financial and companionship benefits without the commitment and responsibilities of marriage.

A few months ago someone posted to Reddit claiming that they were a teenage boy, that their twenty-something older sister was doing OF to help the family pay bills, that someone at their school linked the sister to the opening poster, and that he was now being harassed about it. The opening poster was asking if he should ask his sister to stop, at least until he was out of high school, even though it would potentially be a financial hardship on the family. 

This is in keeping with a number of stories where women ostensibly claim that OF is more about the money and a need to pay the bills than any lurid intent, but when you think about it it's just a modern version of the "I was young and needed the money!" protest of decades past. 

In other words, new tech, same problems. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I've seen interviews of the "modern woman" trying to answer the question "what do you bring to the table?"  They can't really answer with anything other than sex.

Making this a separate post so that I can address this point separately. 

A decade-plus back, there was a series of ostensible social media posts on a neighborhood-type message forum for residents of a major East Coast city; I want to say either NYC or DC. 

The opening poster, a woman apparently in her twenties, was upset because she'd moved to the city in the hopes of meeting a millionaire. Basically, she figured that she was attractive enough for someone to see her as a potential trophy wife, but after six months she hadn't had a single millionaire so much as give her the time of day, let alone put a ring on it. She wanted to know what she was doing wrong and where the best place was to land someone. 

In response, someone explained to her that physical appearances were an asset that could only lose value, not gain value, and that as a result no one with any sense or sense of dignity would willingly invest in a person just for their looks. Instead, she needed to offer something that could only gain in value if she truly wished to be seen *as* worth investing in. Otherwise, she could expect to be on the shelf forever. 

It seems that far too many people still aren't getting this message. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ironhold said:

The opening poster, a woman apparently in her twenties, was upset because she'd moved to the city in the hopes of meeting a millionaire. Basically, she figured that she was attractive enough for someone to see her as a potential trophy wife, but after six months she hadn't had a single millionaire so much as give her the time of day, let alone put a ring on it. She wanted to know what she was doing wrong and where the best place was to land someone. 

In response, someone explained to her that physical appearances were an asset that could only lose value, not gain value, and that as a result no one with any sense or sense of dignity would willingly invest in a person just for their looks. Instead, she needed to offer something that could only gain in value if she truly wished to be seen *as* worth investing in. Otherwise, she could expect to be on the shelf forever.

The fact that she moved to DC/NYC in order to marry a millionaire demonstrates what kind of a person she is. You can't rise above what your foundation will support. In her case, her foundation was unfortunately swamp water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

The fact that she moved to DC/NYC in order to marry a millionaire demonstrates what kind of a person she is.

Yup. She’s a gold digger. Like @Ironhold brought up recently her looks will fade, and then she’ll regret signing a pre-nup when the new husband trades her in for a new model. 
 

Blunt? Yup. Painfully true? Yup.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Yup. She’s a gold digger. Like @Ironhold brought up recently her looks will fade, and then she’ll regret signing a pre-nup when the new husband trades her in for a new model. 
 

Blunt? Yup. Painfully true? Yup.  

Just to be a smidge contrarian:  there’s nothing wrong with being a “gold digger” per se.  Women have a right to expect a husband who can support them; and if they are initially a bit unrealistic about the style in which they can expect to be supported—well, if you don’t aim for the moon, you certainly won’t hit it

The trade-offs, as has been discussed, are positioning oneself in a place where suitable potential mates are actually likely to be; striking the right balance of idealism and realism as one gets increasingly exposed to the dating pool; and in being the sort of wife who’s worth supporting in any kind of style.  

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Just_A_Guy said:

Just to be a smidge contrarian:  there’s nothing wrong with being a “gold digger” per se.  Women have a right to expect a husband who can support them; and if they are initially a bit unrealistic about the style in which they can expect to be supported—well, if you don’t aim for the moon, you certainly won’t hit it

The trade-offs, as has been discussed, are positioning oneself in a place where suitable potential mates are actually likely to be; and in being the sort of wife who’s worth supporting in any kind of style.  

Once again, great points. Agree totally. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Just to be a smidge contrarian:  there’s nothing wrong with being a “gold digger” per se.  Women have a right to expect a husband who can support them; and if they are initially a bit unrealistic about the style in which they can expect to be supported—well, if you don’t aim for the moon, you certainly won’t hit it

The trade-offs, as has been discussed, are positioning oneself in a place where suitable potential mates are actually likely to be; striking the right balance of idealism and realism as one gets increasingly exposed to the dating pool; and in being the sort of wife who’s worth supporting in any kind of style.  

It is really about balance.  Traditional marriage and relationships has the man as a primary provider and as such a woman should look for a man who can fulfil that role.  That is one reason why up until recently there was a much bigger age gap between men and women getting married.  The man needed to establish himself to some effect to demonstrate he was worthy of a woman. 

So a woman can go and try and catch the mid 6 figure income guy . . .but those guys are few and far between, but she could also catch the hard-working guy who provides an average life as well.  If she is trying to catch the mid 6 figure guy . . .well she's got a lot of competition, so what does she bring to the table that the guy will say, "I pick you over all the over girls". A pretty face and looks is one, but then there is ability to keep a clean house, take care of kids, etc.

Ultimately though, if a man or woman is not looking to God to help bring them together then they are in for a rough life.  The income is very temporary, the looks is very temporary, in fact most things in this life are very temporary.

The best way is to look to the traditional Christian views on what relationships between men and women should look like and there you will find the best recipe for success.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/18/2024 at 1:25 PM, Traveler said:

@Phoenix_person:

I am glad you are posting here – especially to garner a point of view not often expressed here.  There are however, two points of your post that I would address.  Primarily because they are counter to my understanding and experiences.  You may feal that this is a segway to a debate – perhaps that is so but my main reason for expressing my opinion to you is because your opinion is in stark contrast, and I am searching for what I may have missed – or if it is you that missed critical principles you are not taking into account.

The first point concerns racism.  I have experienced and observed two very separate and distinct kinds of racism – neither of which is systemic.  Both kinds are completely dependent on human individuals – though I believe one is natural and the other must be learned (understand that I worked in as an engineer in the field of industrial automation, robotics and artificial intelligence.)  I do not believe that racism can be systemic.  The reason is that if racism is systemic then it is and must be recognized as systemic regardless of who or what is involved – even if procedure or thinking is pupariated by the most impoverished and oppressed minority in an effort to seek any level of justice.   It appears to me that those that have attempted to defined systemic racism intend that it apply only to the oppressive class.  This application of the term is contrary and wrong to the intended definition.  Systemic by definition is universal and not localized or compartmentalized.  It appears to me there is miscommunication when this term is used – but since I am not the one using it, I cannot be sure.

I define the two types of racism as first ignorance.  In essence humans tend to not trust and to fear that which is unknown.  I believe this particular prejudice exist anytime where we have not had experience.  When a person says – you cannot understand me because you are not --------.  The blank can be filled with whatever one desires to distinguish themselves from others.  This is an expression of racial or sexual prejudice.  I could speak more about this subject and the science of intelligence and the ability of intelligence species to learn.  Obviously, humans are an intelligent species and are capable of communicating and learning from each other which indicates to me that anyone assuming such is the more prejudice and raciest.

The second type of racism is learned, and I define as evil because it is intended to in some way harm and discredit another.  It is not self-defensive but offensive in intent.   I believe that this evil kind of racism can even be utilized by someone accusing another of racism.  It is all in the intent to harm and discredit of others as a class and ont as individuals.  I also believe that the more it is employed the more hateful it becomes and if unchecked will foment violence and civil disruption and disintegration.

 

The other point I would address is economics.  In our post-modern era we saw the rise of the middle class and as we now are experiencing – a decline of a middle class.  Every economist I have encountered that recognized the importance of the middle class has attributed the success of the middle class to capitalism and free enterprise.  In all economies there are hierarchies.  As I have studied socialism (Marxism) there is still a hierarchy, but it is not economic merit based.  Such social thinkers recognize that there is still economic oppression in capitalism, and they are correct.  I believe that the trouble with socialism and even social programs instituted in post-modern era governments it that they are unable to isolate the main activity of oppression.  Thus, they end up applying their own versions of oppression.

Both you and I recognize an oppressive element of capitalism.  I am concerned that you and I may disagree on what that element is or that you may thing it is the whole of capitalism and not so much this particular element.  I believe it can be removed from capitalism and that the poor and the middle class would greatly benefit.  The very rich are almost exclusively the sector that would not.  But I am concerned that you have no idea what I am talking about – thus you want to dismantle the whole of capitalism and replace it with a different hierarchical system that has historically brought about a worse economy – meaning that the poor and middle classes are worse off and only the hierarchy benefit.

To determine if you have any idea what I am talking about – I would ask you ----- what do you believe is the single most oppressive element utilized in capitalism to bring about oppression of the poor and middle class?

 

The Traveler

 

At the end of my post I asked about the most oppressive element of our western economy.  I believe it is compound interest.  

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Traveler said:

At the end of my post I asked about the most oppressive element of our western economy.  I believe it is compound interest.  

Could you explain why compound interest is so "oppressive"?  I've been familiar with it since 5th grade, and fully understood it in 7th grade.  I have no idea why it is considered evil.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...