MGTOW (and WGTOW?) vs. Single Vocation

[Severinus]

Anyone want to take a stab at defining the differences between M/W GTOW and the traditional single vocation?

We could maybe say that one has this fuel of resentment against the opposite sex, while the other is a positive calling from God. But then Dellery mentioned that men become MGTOW because they find that dealing with women is too much effort. That the juice is not worth the squeeze, as the saying goes. And I have to say, I have difficulty imagining that this is not also a common factor in traditional single vocations.

[Bataar]

The GTOW movement, at least for men, is about avoiding very real risks. I'm not in it and would love to meet a woman to foster a relationship with, but that's besides the point. This movement is mainly on the secular side of things. Men might not want to have anything to do with women because of fear. If a man sleeps with a woman and years later, she regrets it, she can accuse him of rape, destroy his life and even if he's found innocent, she will face no penalty for lying, his reputation has been destroyed, he's spent untold amount of dollars in legal fees, likely lost his job and his reputation is tarnished forever.

A similar thing happened to a non-Catholic friend of mine. He was at a party, a woman who had a too much to drink was making advances at him. He turned her down and the next day, she could not remember what happened because she had drank so much. Her friends convinced her that she had been raped so she pressed charges even though she couldn't remember what happened. He spent tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees and spent time in jail before being cleared. And that's for not sleeping with a woman.

Then you have the marriage and divorce laws. Why would a non Catholic man want to risk so much and marry a woman when, on a whim, she can decide she's not happy with the marriage, divorce him, take half of his assets and likely get custody of the kids (if there are any) which would generate child support payments as well?

As you can see, these are problems good Catholic men shouldn't have to worry about, but who knows anymore.

[dellery]

Anyone want to take a stab at defining the differences between M/W GTOW and the traditional single vocation?

We could maybe say that one has this fuel of resentment against the opposite sex, while the other is a positive calling from God. But then Dellery mentioned that men become MGTOW because they find that dealing with women is too much effort. That the juice is not worth the squeeze, as the saying goes. And I have to say, I have difficulty imagining that this is not also a common factor in traditional single vocations.

I'm not sure there is such a thing as a Traditional Vocation to be Single. Being perpetually single seems like a punishment for those who didn't successfully make themselves into worthy mates for the opposite sex.

MGTOWism, in most cases, seems to be a cop out for men who won't grow up, alter their behavior, or accept the challenging nature of life and reproduction.

Oftentimes, MGTOWism appears to take the form of resentment because women are not the fairy-tale, sinless, angelic creatures these men have idealized them to be.
It's quite hypocritical.
Women traditionally have had to cover themselves to account for male lust, but men don't feel the need to reciprocate in kind, and instead act like women don't even have lust. If a woman should be expected cover herself to keep men from getting too interested, and man should be expected to act in a way to keep women from getting disinterested. The difference here is that men are attracted to appearance, while women tend to be attracted to behavior.

Most men want a feminine woman, but they utterly refuse to be masculine in turn. Watching sports, fixing things, tinkering with various hobbies, entertaining oneself, none of this is masculine, it's all fun to do. Masculinity is in facing hardship; accepting challenges; winning, and even losing; walking a rough and treacherous path, making it safe and smoothing it out for others to follow; all to wake up and do it all over again in perpetuity.
If men aren't willing to be like this they're going to be single, get cheated on, or left for a man who will.

[Mushroom]

I don't think WGTOW is a real thing.

[dellery]

I don't think WGTOW is a real thing.

You're right. Most women will put an extraordinary amount of effort into making a man they're very attracted to happy, and they don't seem to be dissuaded by, or bitter at, the need to make said effort.

[Severinus]

I don't think WGTOW is a real thing.

I'm unsure if it's a real thing too. I have heard some rumblings online, and of course, many women do wind up single and always have - it's unreasonable to assume it's always because they're ugly or mentally ill, presumably some % of women just prefer that. In fact, I think there may be a few single older women on this forum who perhaps find the calibre of modern men low, or found men too difficult to deal with. So it seemed fair to include it somehow, even if it seems less common.

[dellery]

Another aspect to consider in this topic is that men are biologically hardwired to acquire a large quantity of mates, whereas women are hardwired to seek out the highest quality of mates. This is also why women are so much more prone to infidelity than men are. A pretty and sweet woman is basically just like any other, and men can more easily satisfy our desire to have many women with just one. On the other hand, a woman can not easily satisfy herself with a low-quality man when she knows so much better ones are out there. This makes relationships more burdensome for men because women demand more out of us than we do from them.
A man can either do what he is called to do, and lead his woman both spiritually (which includes leading her darker nature) and biologically, or get cheated on and, or, divorced. At the bear minimum you need to at least be leading your lady's biology to keep her from being sexually attracted to other men.

[Severinus]

Anyone want to take a stab at defining the differences between M/W GTOW and the traditional single vocation?

We could maybe say that one has this fuel of resentment against the opposite sex, while the other is a positive calling from God. But then Dellery mentioned that men become MGTOW because they find that dealing with women is too much effort. That the juice is not worth the squeeze, as the saying goes. And I have to say, I have difficulty imagining that this is not also a common factor in traditional single vocations.

I'm not sure there is such a thing as a Traditional Vocation to be Single.

I've checked a couple of sources and decided that "traditional single vocation" is a misnomer. I think what I'm referring to is more accurately described as non-consecrated virginity. In this state, the person whether physically a virgin or not, has made a decision not to pursue marriage and family in favor of other goals he or she feels called to.

Being perpetually single seems like a punishment for those who didn't successfully make themselves into worthy mates for the opposite sex.

Unless it is experienced as a punishment by the people in question, I don't see how this idea could be defended. When the divorce rate is edging over 50%, the smart-aleck rejoinder could simply be that getting married is frequently the real punishment.

One question I'm interested in is whether not wanting to go through the trouble of romance ("the juice isn't worth the squeeze"), especially in a current year context with all of its additional pitfalls, can be interpreted as a legitimate indication of a call to non-consecrated virginity.

[GMC]

MGTOW is a consequence of feminist laws that benefit women in divorces, custody, and anotherlegal asymmetries.

It's about men who consider that the ROI of marrying a woman is negative, the risk is too much and the reward too little.

MGTOWS are not against having sex with women, or dating women, they are just against to marry, cohabitation or have children. Edit: Not all, there are several types, some have dates and sex with women, others not. What they all have in common is not  be "catched" by a woman, with marriage, cohabitation or children.

WGTOW? I don't know, but in the West have no sense, legislation benefits women.

But what seems strange to me about this... Lifestyle? It's that MGTOW content that I have seen is 99% they speaking about women. I thought that a Lifestyle, who supposedly tries not to be catched by a woman, would be so focused on self-improvement or men's life-improvement issues, but it seems like women are the only thing they talk about.

Differences with single vocation? Well, a single man by vocation doesn't have sex or stay all day speaking about women.

[dellery]

Anyone want to take a stab at defining the differences between M/W GTOW and the traditional single vocation?

We could maybe say that one has this fuel of resentment against the opposite sex, while the other is a positive calling from God. But then Dellery mentioned that men become MGTOW because they find that dealing with women is too much effort. That the juice is not worth the squeeze, as the saying goes. And I have to say, I have difficulty imagining that this is not also a common factor in traditional single vocations.

I'm not sure there is such a thing as a Traditional Vocation to be Single.

I've checked a couple of sources and decided that "traditional single vocation" is a misnomer. I think what I'm referring to is more accurately described as non-consecrated virginity. In this state, the person whether physically a virgin or not, has made a decision not to pursue marriage and family in favor of other goals he or she feels called to.

Being perpetually single seems like a punishment for those who didn't successfully make themselves into worthy mates for the opposite sex.

Unless it is experienced as a punishment by the people in question, I don't see how this idea could be defended. When the divorce rate is edging over 50%, the smart-aleck rejoinder could simply be that getting married is frequently the real punishment.

One question I'm interested in is whether not wanting to go through the trouble of romance ("the juice isn't worth the squeeze"), especially in a current year context with all of its additional pitfalls, can be interpreted as a legitimate indication of a call to non-consecrated virginity.

I'm no authority, but it seems non-consecrated virginity would only apply to those men who were doing something of such importance to justify not getting married and having children, not those who were merely trying to avoid the "trouble of romance".

Women, for all their difficulty, make men better. This is objectively true. Typically, married men outperform single men in every aspect of life.

Subduing a woman seems to be a heroic quality meant for all men. It takes no effort to be a male virgin, and a lot of effort to be a female virgin.
The pitfalls of marriage are just amplified consequences ALL men will face for not being properly masculine.

Furthermore, if marriage were the real punishment married men who get divorced would  be relieved to have that burden lifted from them, instead they tend to be very heartbroken and miserable reflecting constantly on how they could've prevented it from happening.

[dellery]

Moreover, all the "dangers" of marriage are self-inflicted consequences on men for believing in the "good-girl" BS.

Guys think they have a good-girl and can just be their loser, lazy, selfs, which in turn causes women to feel insecure in them.

Just being yourself causes a woman's very nature, her literal biology, to turn on you, because you make her feel unsafe. When this happens her deep maternal instinct causes her to become aroused by reproductively "better" men and leave you for them.

Women are aroused by, and feel safe around, properly masculine men that don't worship, or pay deference, to her or any other creature. So hypothetically a man will be expecting his lady to be properly feminine all while being some woman-worshipping, ass-kissing, man-cave-dwelling, nice guy, and wonder why his "nice-girl" left, or cheated, on him.

Lastly, but perhaps more importantly, taking the MGTOW position shows women you're emotionally weak, driven by anxiety, and don't have the internal fortitude to provide for, and satisfy, a woman anyway, so it's self-fulfilling method to become rejected by women altogether.

[LausTibiChriste]

Dellery,

When are you and your wife expecting your next child?

[dellery]

To add a bit more to the discussion, because I really enjoy helping men in this department...

To the men who're tempted to the MGTOW way of being, know this is a dumb path to walk down.

Us men have it comparatively easier than women. Yes, relationships are more burdensome for us, require more effort out of us, and can blow up in our faces more negatively than women, but we have it easy in that women are attracted more to the way we make them feel than by how we look.

This is where online dating is seriously disadvantageous to most men. It's difficult to make a woman feel a certain way with your online profile because all information she really has to go by is your appearance and whatever wealth or status you can flaunt. This is a losing game for most men.

Going by the typical 1-10 scale of attractiveness people go by nowadays, a man can appear in photos as being a 5, but in person be a 10.

You can be compared with a fellow whose taller and better looking than yourself, but if you are the one who makes the women "feel" you will be the more attractive individual.

Some of my friends are total badasses, and I love spending time with them because of the way it feels when we're together. It feels like we can take any men, face any danger, and if anything were to imperil me they'd be there to help without hesitation. If one of us lost or forgot our wallets somebody would pay their way. We don't have to worry about offending one another and can make fun of each other because we're all relatively emotionally resilient and strong. When one of us does something stupid we all laugh, none of us worships or dotes after one another. Together we feel like an invincible team.

Men have this ability to make others feel secure, even other men. Imagine how much more powerful these feelings are in a woman who's much more vulnerable and emotional than ourselves.

If you can make a women feel the above you can attract any woman no matter your looks or height. Yeah, you have to be decently groomed, be in decent shape and make decent money, but other than those things the rest is all in the feelings you evoke in women.

A man who looks better than you, is taller, makes more money, but cannot evoke the feelings a badass is able to doesn't  stand a chance against you if you can and do.
This is an absolute fact. I'm 5'10", from 5'9" (strangely grew an inch in the last year) and attract woman even taller than myself. At one point having some girl much younger than me, well over 6' tall, demanding to sleep with me. The height thing is over emphasized. Yes, women prefer guys taller than themselves as a general preference, but that preference goes out the window when she encounters a guy who makes her feel like my friends make each other feel.

Don't listen to this black-pill MGTOW nonsense, it will only demoralize you and strip you of your masculine power to evoke pleasant feelings in people.

[andy]

While we all know that only the traditional Faith bring in a true peace, that 99.9% of men still searches for the solution and red pill seems to deliver some reasonable answers. I totally doubt that majority of men is just after fornication, there are many good guys who dream of true natural marriage. At the same time, 95% of girls come out colleges with a head count >5 ergo they are deeply demoralized. Having such a woman as a lifetime partner is bound to fail. Statistics all prove it.   

[dellery]

Men prefer virginal women, or at least women who haven't slept with many other men, myself included, but I think those stats are BS. I've seen bad behavior from devout women that married young, just as all the others. Women have a dark-side, just like men, but women's dark-side seems to be more sexually oriented than men's.
This virginal good-girl that doesn't have a dark-side and is incapable of cheating on you doesn't exist. It's a fairy tale.
In the above view you need fidelity to come from the woman instead of you securing it from her for yourself. Men have the power to keep our women faithful, but we really need to drop the nice-guy, man-cave-dwelling, complacent, comfort seeking, society says we're entitled to. We are not entitled to just go to work, be lazy afterwards, dicking around drinking beer, having some fairy-tale, sinless, virgin giving us her total commitment. The real world doesn't work that way. Furthermore, you can get commitment from any woman regardless of her past. If you're irreplaceable you won't get replaced. Most men are easily replaceable and get replaced. The only difference is that a woman with a high notch count will replace you faster.