04 March 2013

What Happened to MRA+?

A year ago I had a certain idea. I was beginning to notice that many of the problems discussed in men’s rights circles were easy to avoid, while the type of women that exploit their cultural privilege were not as unavoidable as some would suggest. After some reflection I began to come up with a concept to spot and avoid dysfunctional women, while at the same time showing men how to spot women with values that make them desirable for long-term relationships. Such values include loyalty, honesty, aspirations to start a family, and a rejection of female entitlement that has become all too common in the present culture. What these values really amount to is a woman of virtue; someone that understands how many of the qualities she’s led to believe are important today are not only impractical, but diminish honourable character.

I called this idea MRA+. The first video in the series was called “Dating in a Feminist Culture”. To date this is the second most popular video I’ve ever uploaded, with over sixteen-thousand views. I explained, via a method I concocted, the type of traits that men should look out for when meeting women. The video was positively received by many. But not everyone. Increasingly I began to receive harsh criticism from Men Going Their Own Way, like appeals to emotion from Stradusk on YouTube; “Do you want to be responsible for men committing suicide” he asked me in one video, attempting to convince others that MRA+ was a fruitless and even dangerous strategy. I tried to shrug off the criticism and made another three MRA+ videos, before the negativity by MGTOW and others in the MRM made me question the very principles behind men’s rights.

No matter how many times I explained that MRA+ wasn’t a method that opposed MGTOW, it made no difference. I initially believed that both philosophies could complement each other. My feelings, at least initially, were that it’s better to be single than to be in a relationship with an exploitative woman, but there’s no point throwing out the baby with the dirty bathwater. If you can find a woman of virtue then why not settle down with her and make a family, if that’s what you want of course? Then you can raise children that oppose misandry. Speaking personally as a father I can profess that this is my strategy, and as someone with a daughter I feel this has even more potential. However, I am just one man, and without many fathers with the same goals it will be harder for men like me to succeed.

In spite of a first and second video I made to reason with detractors, matters went from bad to worse. Barbarossaaaa joined in the fray. It was obvious by this point that both he and Stardusk were working in unison to undermine those that didn’t align with their philosophy of perpetual bachelorhood. I had no idea that they were so dogmatic, but boy would I find out. Stardusk in particular persisted with an “us and them” mentality right from the start. He kept using terms like “other camp”, and repeatedly insinuated that there was a divide between MGTOW and MRAs, as though they were mutually exclusive philosophies.
Originally MGTOW was basically a philosophy to express how men should make their own path in life. The “marriage strike” version of MGTOW, which Barbarossaaaa and Stardusk now strictly enforce, was initially popularised by Paul Elam. Gradually he helped to hijack the MGTOW meme along with Barbarossaaaa, both equally determined to undermine any chance of men and women raising families together. By the time Stardusk jumped on the bandwagon the marriage strike version of MGTOW was treated as though it was the only one that had ever existed. Many fell for this. This is typical behaviour of radicals and extremists who attach themselves to an existing ideology or movement, and little by little they co-opt it for themselves.

By my second video Stardusk’s behaviour grew more and more confrontational. It was in a comment exchange of this video that made me realise that he was determined to drive a wedge into the men’s movement:
MRAGreatestHits: Agreed. I think this has been thoroughly addressed. I hope that's the end of it.
Me: Me too.
At this point Stardusk chimes in:
Stardusk: Not by a long shot, expect both responses from me and Barbarrossa.
Me: I am sadly beginning to realise that you're determined to cause division. I've never had any problem with barbarossaaaa, and if they start to emerge now I will become very suspicious.
Stardusk: Hardly. Your video is full of gross mischaracterisations of my perspectives and points of view, most of which I try to address in the response in processing. I am not interested in division but clarity.
This was the first time I expressed my suspicions - I hadn't had any video responses by Barbarossaaaa before this point. Subtly injecting divisive rhetoric, Stardusk kept repeating the same circular arguments about hypergamy over and over. He would suggest happy relationships were as likely as winning the lottery, finding a needle in a parsec, or other nonsensical metaphors. He constantly cited Robert Briffault; a self-professed Communist who reversed Marxist-Feminist patriarchal theory so that men were the victims of a female oppressive class.

In one video Stardusk suggested that having a daughter in this culture would carry serous risks due to female nature. Stardusk knows I have a daughter. In another video comment he suggested that father’s rights weren’t really a part of the MRM (Note: I have tried to sifting through Stardusk’s countless hours of video ranting to find these specific remarks, but to no avail. However, I stand by the fact he DID make these remarks, but am forthcoming enough to clarify that I cannot specifically link to them at this time). It was becoming impossible to dismiss that Stardusk was a calculating narcissist. To those he wanted to convince he would appeal to flattery. To those he wanted to alienate he would make covertly aggressive remarks, playing the victim if people stood up to him.

The cult of personality springing up around Barbarossaaaa and Stardusk, or the Cult of BarbStar as I‘ve dubbed it, is every bit as zealous as any radical feminist group. Both are equally opposed to male and female relationships, especially marriage reform, basing arguments on unsubstantiated or poorly derived hyperbole. This is so profound that it’s reached the point that MGTOW and feminists often use the same argumentation. The perceived failure of marriage is an example of this.

In most countries over fifty percent of marriages don’t fail, and as difficult as the present relationship climate is this doesn’t appear to be changing. Divorces have levelled off below the fifty percent line for years in many countries, and a lot of places, like Greece, have a very low divorce rate of 25 percent or under. As a demographic married people live longer, which is a real point of contention for those arguing against marriage. Married people are often more financially prosperous, pooling their time and money in an arrangement that leads to the advantages garnered from economies of scale. Children raised by married biological parents are far more likely to be well-rounded. Conversely children in homes with at least one step parent, or only one parent, are often linked to a wide range of problems from drug abuse to poor educational performance, as well as a wide range of behavioural and antisocial issues.

Arguments from those disagreeing with this evidence, especially in academic fields like social science and psychology, are remarkable. Bella DePaolo (a woman with a background that smacks of feminist academia), alleges that divorced people are not counted among married individuals in the data provided, and so the statistics are invalid. Wait a minute! Surely a person that isn’t married when they die, whether divorced or never having been married, can’t count as married? In any rational world this would certainly be the case. Alas, she has to muddy the data somehow, and lumbering unhappily married people in with those that stay married until they die is as good as any.

That’s not to say that divorced people don’t have their own disadvantages alongside those that stick with marriage until they die. But to suggest that people who stay marriage are the same demographic as those that don’t is a logical leap that beggars belief. Either way it doesn’t matter, since people that want to deny evidence will always find a way. As though this absurd argument against marriage isn’t bad enough, who should I find linking to this article in a video? Why none other than Stardusk, of course. As I’ve shown many times before, the line between MGTOW and the leftie communitarian/feminist crowd is becoming impossible to distinguish.

Thanks to Paul Elam and many on AVfM, along with the Cult of BarbStar, these radicals cry “traditionalism” at every turn. This has become a standard pejorative for family values, war, or anything else that can be lumbered on right-wing values. What it actually amounts to is an attempt to associate family values with Christian Traditionalism, which are actually puritanical protestant values entirely distinguishable from the vast majority of family life in the West. Complaints about war are ignorant references to corporate fascism, and have nothing to do with free market economics. These complaints amount to nothing but deflections and distractions from the fact that the left is responsible for feminism, and how absolute collectivism drives the vast majority of the present misandry. The fact that leftists tend to use the traditionalist pejorative, and make these types of arguments, confirms the growing popularity of collectivism and nihilism in the MRM.

These wolves in sheep’s clothing think that patriarchy hurts men too, which is called “kyriarchy” in feminist circles. Of course they don’t call it that, but it’s a similar theory, only this time women are at an advantage, not men. In other words these gender ideologues have taken feminist dialectic and tried to invert it. It’s essentially cultural Materialism, which is otherwise known as cultural Marxism. It’s the notion that oppressed classes aren’t merely defined by economic status but by other identities. This could be homosexual, black, female, or in this case male. The similarities to feminism have become so apparent that some have begun to call these ideologues FeMRAs, the FeMRM, or FeMENists. Whatever one calls them they are ignorant fools, wilful or otherwise, trying to pander to a rigged game of political correctness. They will fail though, because the left will always put men right at the bottom of the pile of grievances.
Aside from the aforementioned, the rise of Atheism+ also put me off the MRA+ meme. I still believe that tips to avoid dysfunctional women in this culture is a valid strategy, just not one I’ll be associating with the MRM in the future. The backlash against MRA+ taught me many important lessons, particularly the negativity in the MRM towards pro-active solutions. It’s very clear that the demagogues capitalising on the misery of men will continue to perpetuate pessimism, for the benefit of narcissistic and financial profit.


  1. Paul Elam, A Voice for Men- the biggest conjob in the MRA and disinfo agent


    A short commentary on MRA leaders

    The so called "Leaders" of the MRA area are lying to you all. They are telling you that governments make legislation that you HAVE to obey and that they can FORCE you to obey using the police FORCE. This is a lie. They know it is a lie. And they are telling you lies that they know are lies.

    The TRUTH is that legislation is NOT LAW and you do not have to obey ANY legislation. Here are links to videos that go into this in detail. This is not a new idea. Many people KNOW that legislation is not law and have been telling you so for a long time.

    The excuse offered is usually "well the guvment can hurt you if you do not obey" is just that. An excuse. The only reason that guvments do hurt men who do not obey is because men have TOLERATED these crimes and not formed new courts to put criminals in guvment on trial. Men only have themselves to blame.

    1. "Men only have themselves to blame."

      Though I agree with a lot of what you said there, this is bullshit.
      Yes men are partially to blame for allowing it to happen but feminists(and men/women who supported them) are mostly to blame for wanting these legislations/laws and getting the govt to implement them.

    2. Men have a hellofa lot to answer for blindly letting this devil into the house! We want our women to be happy, and we'll do about anything to reach that goal. Feminists simply had to keep women believing they were unhappy. We swallowed the bait whole. We've now learned from this mistake and we aren't so gullible now are we. In the end, it serves no purpose to get the scales out and measure out blame for each gender does it? What matters is we get our sorry asses in the game, stop licking our wounds and fight back. We are the sex that evolved to defend ourselves, and what are we doing? Whining. Yes accurately defining a problem yields accurate solutions, but we have a saying in the engineering world for this and it's called "analysis paralysis." We can start taking action by fighting against the gendered programming we have been fed for all these centuries and respond with solutions. If we never develop solutions to empower the modern man to succeed in a feminist society than we are no better than bunch of whiny losers dissolving in our pools of self-pity. MRA+ was an effort by one man to make a difference. He should be commended, encouraged and supported.

  2. All too often, we invite the bad people into our lives. Sometimes, we even work to hold onto them and keep them there. We actually bring dysfunctional people upon ourselves.

    The good news is that we can learn to stop doing it. The bad news is that it can be quite painful to even acknowledge our role in the whole mess. Then, further work is required to sort out the unconscious dysfunction within ourselves that allowed this to happen.

    Let's focus ourselves on what we can change. We can learn to recognize and avoid destructive people. What we cannot do is change the world to make anyone else behave better. Vent as much as you need to, just make sure you also do the work to protect yourself in the future.

    1. Focussing on what we can change is a good idea. MRA+ was supposed to show people that there are ways to spot abusive women. They don't simply become this way overnight.

    2. Well said. It is often very difficult to know when you are being used by a personality disorder. Knowing these signs and how we bring this into our lives is very valid work that any healthy person (irrespective of gender) should be concerned with. MRA+ is a positive action aimed at solving the issues. It may not have been a magic pill, but I don't see anyone else offering positive solutions or promoting ways for men to take action in their lives. Men need solutions. I think MRE should stay the course and let negative people be negative. Deep down we all know negativity fails in the long run regardless of how addictive it can be to presently define male victimization without any solutions.

  3. One thing that has characterised the MRA has been its focus on discussion rather than action, yeah I know the standard window dressing applies, poster, leaflet drops, the occasional focus on the extreme example of conspicuous institutionalised injustice but it’s all polishing the brick work when the wall is falling down. Not only is this a predictable response to the social pressures resulting from the current predicament it’s -containable- so much so that I’m would be very happy to face such opposition restricted to such action if I were one of the culprits engineering that predicament. This is one of the reasons why those sympathetic to the goals of identity politics can be absorbed within the MRM as inconspicuously, to some, as they have done.

    The one area where I think the MRM does represent a problem to the status quo is the propagation of Blue/Red Pill analogy, which is know hopelessly cheesy and vulnerable to ridicule in a David Ike manner but it is rather apposite, it summarizes neatly the intrinsic gender bias within our culture. Unfortunately there is failure to recognise within the MRM the nature of that bias, which aspects of it are culturally derived, the degree to which the non cultural elements, ie those intrinsic to human nature, have been unscrupulous exploited and who’s exploiting them.

    There’s almost a total failure to recognise the broader context, that of the rationale behind the merging of the feminist agenda into the increasingly proscriptive and authoritarian mainstream political thought. This lack of recognition cannot be attributed to pure ignorance. Activists who bring attention to the broader political context are deliberately marginalised and the tactics used to do so, come from the standard arsenal of identity politics. Indeed these tactics: victim personification, demonization of opposition, hyperbole, misdirection are common to all authoritarian agendas.

    The division between the culturally derived and those aspects intrinsic to human nature of the gender bias evident within our culture is not easily delineated. What is certain is that bias has been exploited and misrepresented by those with diverse agendas: from those packing teenagers off to Belgium to be mindlessly slaughtered in the trenches to gender ideologues with no specific goals other than their intrinsic mysandric outlook. The exploitation and cultural extension of this bias by those with an authoritarian agenda is now so extensive that the template imposed for relationships between the genders is now untenable for the majority of the male population and less than optimal for the female population.

    The native solution from within the MRM to this predicament is MGTOW. While it is reasonable for people to opt out or avoid systems that don’t serve their interests, Mgtow’s precepts and agenda has been moulded by the same victim self identification that is intrinsic to the MRM. Volition is the first casualty of victim-think and this is the main source of the resistance to any attempt at practical solutions. In fact any concept of action directed at achievable goals is abhorrent to the current prevalent Mgtow mindset. Mgtows prefer to languish in a fantasy land populated with sex-slave robots, gestation booths and precisely controlled fecundity. Such retreat to a fantasy mindset with such little relevance to the real world is reminiscent of the most extreme gender based ideologies that surface from within the deep recesses of feminism. In fact the net conclusion to current Mgtow thinking is extinction for the individual and as such it is entirely concomitant with feminism.

    1. "There’s almost a total failure to recognise the broader context, that of the rationale behind the merging of the feminist agenda into the increasingly proscriptive and authoritarian mainstream political thought."

      Yes. Couldn't agree more. People seem to want to break everything up into separate compartments: competing economic theories over here, gender-related concerns over there. So much is framed as a competition, as either/or, black/white: religions vs. atheism, collectivism vs. individualism, right vs. left, men's rights vs. women's rights. As if everything can be broken neatly in two and then set in a ring to duke it out. But who's profiting off the match? Not many of us.

      And there really is resistance from nearly everybody if you openly attempt to connect the dots. Times have rapidly changed over the last century and people prefer not to wake up to the fascist reality of modern times. As an American, I see what we have as a system increasingly about social manipulation to suit economic ends. It's hitting us from so many angles, yet people tend to focus in on whatever we're most sensitive to and make it all about that, not recognizing it as just one piece among many to a greater puzzle.

      That's how I'm seeing it anyway. So much divisiveness encouraged, backed by various flavors of ideology. It's become such a weird game, seemingly designed with our insecurities in mind, prodding us to react based on prejudices and tune out those unlike ourselves. Stoking the embers, distracting us with so much bickering and hostility. It's not cool, and I'm open to anyone talking about how we might heal some of these wounds or sidestep harmful and wholly unnecessary drama. People have enough problems with one another without entities (human constructs, no less) giving us more reasons to be resistant to cooperating.

      But personal volition is such an important factor in this equation, and you're so right that too much focus on victimhood robs us of our ability to act in a productive manner. We each possess a measure of power inherent to our being, and yet we relinquish it when we choose nihilism and apathy. That path leads to rejection of our humanity (and the responsibilities that entails), and furthermore it's flat-out crazy-making, IMO.

      But that's my own way of wording it. Appreciated your comment.

    2. Just because there are lots of competing forces it doesn't mean that they are all somehow equally good or bad, or even moral and immoral. To compare individualism to what you outlined above, a philosophy that recognises the autonomy of the individual, as a free person with unalienable natural rights, to those that would deny you of freedom under a banner of politics masked as demagoguery, demonstrates a limited outlook.

      You should also be careful not to become that which you outline; someone that would exploit moral relativism to create a mire of subjectivity, which allows authority to exploit ignorance and suffering.

      Only strong respect for individual (not collective) rights can prevent exploitation, and each of us are responsible for upholding this, as opposed to surrendering it to authority due to laziness, bitterness, or romanticism.

    3. Sounds like another person in support of MRA+ to me. This person wants solutions, wants healing, less division. I guess I agree, who's winning here? When any group sits and stews too much over their victimization it becomes a self-sabotaging reaction to their environment which destroys their ability to act. Ultimately victimization is a choice. We can choose to not play the role of a victim, and we can focus on how to effect positive change and dig ourselves out of the hell that we are partially to blame for letting radical feminism put us in. That does not deny that we are harmed and wounded. We can sit and lick our wounds while someone eats us alive, or we can ignore the pain long enough to clear our heads and fight back. Live or die? Sink or swim? If men can fly to the moon, build massive nations, and solve incredible problems like E=MC^2 why can't men also solve this social problem?? Time us men take a big look in the mirror and stop being so god-damn gullible and focused on pain.

  4. ...

    Unfortunately all this is taking place within a precarious context, the fabric of our culture is crumbling and things are going to get serious for us in fairly short order unless we assert rational solutions to the problems that have been precipitated through the combination mal-conceived ideaology and cynical manipulaiton. Some of things in store for us that are just around the corner, if recent changes mooted to the tax regime are implemented are truly appalling. One of these changes seeks to see single men and women without families effectively restricted to dormitory residence with communal living facilities. If that that knowledge doesn’t alert you to the urgency of our predicament then it’s probably too late.

    I’ve no faith that the MRM is even aware such perils and there’s certainly no broad evidence that there exists a will to tackle the broader issues

    1. A lot of information there. You are right in general. The MRM is either unaware or unconcerned with the wider issues that will come of this "gender war". Broader issues don't matter to the movement as whole. Sticking within the simplistic parameters of identity politics stifles the critical mind and proactivity.

  5. Very good article, but even though divorce rates are not as high as expected, I still think the odds of finding a good partner in today's culture are about 100-1, and so you have to be young to stand a fighting chance.

    I come from a low-economic status background, by the time I was 18, most the girls in my community were already pregnant or drug users. If you're middle class, the odds are better and recent statistics prove this.

    1. To be fair though, your odds are probably more accurate in the type of socioeconomic setting you were born into. If you want to increase your chances of finding a virtuous woman you need to break out of that poverty trap.

    2. I wish my parents had told me that when I was 16. They still insist that a steady job staking shelves in a warehouse is the key to success – I'm not joking! I'm 43 now, and had to learn everything the hard way. I'm a mortgage free home owner, but have yet to break out into the mainstream, both career wise and socially.

      On the plus side – Marxists don't tend to breed either :-).

    3. I suppose I'm trying to show people that there is more to creating a strong and stable relationship, so that young people don't face the type of problems you have.

      Good point about Marxism by the way. However, they like to steal everyone else's children via cultural brainwashing, especially in schools.

  6. What real men need is not what sites like AVFM preach. What men need is freedom and the MRM has missed the mark. Individualists are what men need to be to live to the fullest not a balance to feminism. Yes we do live in a anti male society but it is anti male mainly because it is collectivist and emphasizes the female desire of safety.

    1. Your comment gives me hope that there is light at the end of the tunnel. Thank you.

  7. „Good point about Marxism by the way. However, they like to steal everyone else's children via cultural brainwashing, especially in schools.” - Yes, that is correct - and it is something that should be fought against more often.
    Whilst I am AVfM staff, RockingMrE knows all too well that I am neither a Marxist, nor an MGTOW (which is indeed a nihilistic philosophy).
    That being said, there are some things to be stressed on:
    1. Whilst identity politics has been allowed too much to enter into AVfM, there has not been a silencing policy.
    2. Whilst AVfM does a lot of talking, individuals from there also do real-life activism - some of them quite successful. I can list quite a lengthy list of ideologues who used to be teachers and they are not anymore because of my activism and a list of young boys who now get to see through the lies and propaganda and, consequently, stay safe from feminism.

    Anyway, keep up the good work E. There is a significant portion of AVfM people that see the big picture. But yes, unfortunately, there are also some ideologues who just cannot get it or they actively refuse to get it (see the criticism I get in my articles for merely mentioning that the Socialist Party in Spain made an anti-male law - even though it was true).

    Best regards.

    1. You are certainly among the "good eggs" on AVfM Lucian, and I appreciate your endeavours.

      I fear though that AVfM will (and is going to) end up becoming more leftist over time because leftists inherently attempt to dominate and change everything they attach themselves to.

      They are actively trying to alienate individualist values on AVfM by using deflections. They don't want a non-partisan approach at all. They want moral relativism, which always leads back to their destructive idealism. Useful idiot is a mild word to describe these liars and charlatans.

    2. Well, as long as I can talk common sense on AVfM (on radio and in my articles), I will not stop. And, despite what some others say, Paul Elam has been extremely supportive so far and I have no reason to complain, really.

    3. Elam has a habit of using people until he no longer sees them as necessary, or they disagree with his AVfM consequentialist policy. He also keeps recycling the people he has close to him. So be careful because you are a good man.

    4. We'll see about that. But, if that were to happen, at the end of the day I am an individual responsible for my own actions - so AVfM doesn't define me.

      Keep up the good work!

  8. Dear Mr. Rocking Philosophy,

    I have read your article and watched your MRA+ video. I encourage you to review and pass the following advice to your audience in your next installment of MRA+ (for men wanting to date straight women):

    - Ask her to do simple things for you.

    See if she actually does it or she responds with hostility. A good woman for a man will want to please their man (and vice versa). A bad woman will have the attitude that the man must please her.

    - Make sure she comes from a good family.

    It is a good predication of your future with her. If she was raised in a divorced home, chances are that your marriage will suffer the same fate. Also, look at her parent's relationship. How does her mom treat her father? Take a good look, because this is likely how you will be treated. This is really important because she will no doubt have a very strong imprint from her mother on how to treat a man.

    - Avoid women with double-lives.

    There are lots of women out there who feel the social pressure to be innocent but harbor lives different from what they portray.

    - Learn to become a mature man.

    This is simple advice and quite possibly the most important but it will take you on a long journey to accomplish. Unfortunately in this day and age, boys are missing good male influences with active roles in their daily lives, especially grandfathers. In addition, many men lack the conscious knowledge of how to initiate a boy into manhood and how to bring forth the masculine spirit in the boy.

    Only by making a conscious effort into growing into a mature man will you be able to attract good women. Good women actively seek mature men for long-term relationships while they are still young. They are out there and they exist, and they know which men to seek and which to avoid.

    About the hostility from Stardusk and Barbarossaa et al (my 2 cents):

    It took only a few minutes for me to realize that this was the male reactionary form of feminism. They engage in the same old gender politics dialogue that has sought to divide and destroy us as human beings. That is the essence of the feminist movement and it was no coincidence that it was financially sponsored and philosophically developed by a particular tribe.

    It is sad because it drags those men seeking a solution to feminism back down the same confusing hole of gender politics and victimhood, playing into the hands of the overall agenda. It is a reactionary movement that remains within the confines of the "gender wars". It's spirit is that of of frustration and anger and such a spirit helps no one.

    1. Hi raising,

      You provided some very good advice for males in the present environment. I would vouch for all that. However, I am not presently making MRA+ videos, and considering I have backed away from any association with the MRM, as it begins to rot through the growth of 'meninists', I cannot see that changing.

      Conversely, I may produce something with this sort of advice in the future, though I have no plans to at present.

      You summed up why these MGTOW types very well. They even excuse and dismiss the extremist elements of their tribe in the same way that feminists do, thus enabling and perpetuating this trend towards a gender war.

      All the best.

  9. Going on the stats, what can a female offer me other than a 75% chance she will ruin my life?

    If I walked into a merchant bank and said I wanted to be in on a deal With a 75% chance of catastrophic loss and no perceivable gain I would be laughed out of the building.

    ALL of my experience with females shows me that in one way or another all they want is what I can do for them. They bring nothing to the table but expect me to give them everything. They expect me to be in charge so that if anything goes wrong I am to blame.

    I have had 4 live in relationships. ALL the females benefited handsomely from being with me. I can not say the same.

    It seems quite OK for Lady Gaga and Selena Gomez to declare they have gone off men. But if a man says he has gone off females, well, that's some REALLY freaky shit right there.

    The proof is in the pudding. Since going off females I now have a unit with about 50% equity and I own everything else outright. I can do anything I want any time I want. I pay my bills as and when they fall due. I have complete and total freedom within the law.

    I can not see a downside to this.

    I don't think I could count the number of females who have made the comment how much better it is being single. I agree.

    Relationships with females are for men with nothing to lose. Losers. If you have nothing then a 75% chance of losing everything becomes meaningless.

    However, I am not willing to risk my assets, income and reputation for a relationship with a female. I have plans to relocate to Brasil which I will execute on the 12th of January, 2020. From that point forth there is nothing a female can do to me. So I can have fun for the rest of my life in a great country that has masses of rain forest and everything else except a desert. The bonus is that Brasilian females treat men with respect. It's most intoxicating and enticing. And they are so sexy and vibrant. Of course, the reason why they want to be with me is the money but there's not a damn thing they can do to get it. Sure, I still pay the tab at restaurants etc which I think is fair because they are with me because I want them to be and the places I like to go they can not afford.

    I don't think you fully understand the scope of MGTOW.

    The birth rate has been declining for the last 40 years and fallen off a cliff over the last 10.

    Marriage rates have been down on the previous year every year for the last 21 years.

    Pew research found in 2011 that only 29% of men thought marriage was worthwhile. Oppsed to 38% of females were looking forward to getting married. The 29% is falling and the 38% is rising.

    For the last 50 years females have been giving men the daily message that A Man Needs a Female Like a Fish Needs a Bicycle.

    I got a report 2 weeks ago showing that this generation has less sex than any of their prior peers. Females have even managed to break men's sexual desire. I think this is particularly momentous.

    Nevertheless, there seems always to be men who claim to have the answer.

    Aca_Demy claimed to have all the answers and has now disappeared. Some guy claims that he can teach men to be psychologists and psychiatrists and avoid the nasty females to find the needle in the hay stack.

    FUCK females. I think I'll stick to plan A.

    I recall

  10. You are quite correct that MGTOW is a rational response to feminism.

    For 40 years men gave females everything they wanted including laws allowing females to destroy men and children.

    Nothing worked. So the last resort is to treat females the same way females treat men. You can see it everywhere in every media every day. It's daily. Vilifying, demeaning, ridiculing, blaming, degrading men. When married females get together their favourite topic is who has the greatest dickhead of a husband. You should hear what your wife thinks of you.

    In any event, in 2020 we will initiate the Second Industrial Revolution as well as Paradise on Earth for men as well as save the Human species from extinction. I can't wait. None of this is secret and nothing can stop this now.

    However, it seems that you recommend men go back to the plantation.

    You seem to encourage men to jump into the lion pit. There's a 25% chance of surviving and loving the experience. There's a 75% chance you won't.

    More and more men around the world in every first world country where feminism is prominent (note feminism is not prominent in Greece)are joining the ranks.

    I just don't get why going off females is nihilist? Why treating females the same way females treat men is such a bad thing? Why men should take on relationships with females? What for?

    You seem to think that relationships with females is something men should undertake for females. Females don't want relationships with men unless they gain out of it. So why shouldn't we be the same? Why shouldn't we question what she brings to the table if she expects me to pay for her whilst screaming to be treated equally?

    Nah. I have too much to lose. Clearly I am terrible at choosing a female partner hence I shall take that lack of skill and live with it.

    1. I really am getting tired to the repetitive mantras of MGTOW. Your stats are overinflated, just like those of feminists. You treat men as though they have no agency, just like feminists, and you refuse to take any facts onboard about how to screen good and bad females in the culture.

      If you were able to be honest about your past I guarantee you that the signs of poor character were there right from the start, with the women you got involved with. Are there more of these women in the present culture? Yes, but it's certainly not 75%, and no woman is going to respect a weak man that doesn't know how to be respected, anyway.

      So please stop with the professional victim narrative. It's poison, and it will do nothing to solve the problems caused by far-left ideology and the evils of human nature. People that check out of society really should not live in it. People like me are working their butts off raising the next generation. Why should people like you be allowed to undermine that, just because you haven't been successful? This is no better than a child throwing their toys out of the pram.