M.G.T.O.W. (Men Going Their Own Way)

Started by dadudemon9 pages
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
They need a new acronym. Men Going Their Own Way just sounds gay.

That was my thought, as well. Seemed like a gay-male movement and I thought it was about gay rights specifically associated with men.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
These men would still bang women.

This might be your problem...

Originally posted by Bardock42
imo, any genuine men's rights organisation would try to work with liberal feminist organisations...

ho ho ho ho hell no. 😐

They should try to work with reasonable, egalitarian, educated feminists. Not "liberal feminist organizations." INB4 "Not mutually exclusive."

I think the MGTOWs should develop a close working relationship with new-wave feminists/tumblrists. I'd like to see that.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
My reflection is a ****ing baller.
****ing gay you mean.

Originally posted by NemeBro
When responding to stupid, absolutist statements, it is important to not make similarly stupid, absolutist statements. Actually, Fist's statement, ultimately stupid as it was, isn't as all-encompassing as yours, so in that regard, perhaps he is the superior.

I feel like I can't be held accountable for any misreading on your part that may have made this an absolute statement, in particular as I have talked about an underrepresentation which precludes an absolute reading of the first part. At any rate, women are underrepresented in media, especially when it comes to being protagonists. Perhaps there is something to be said about male portrayal in media as well, for example an underrepresentation of fathers, but men have a much larger breadth of characters of their gender to relate to, be they heroes or monsters.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I feel like I can't be held accountable for any misreading on your part that may have made this an absolute statement, in particular as I have talked about an underrepresentation which precludes an absolute reading of the first part. At any rate, women are underrepresented in media, especially when it comes to being protagonists. Perhaps there is something to be said about male portrayal in media as well, for example an underrepresentation of fathers, but men have a much larger breadth of characters of their gender to relate to, be they heroes or monsters.

To be honest, your statement came across as quite absolutist to me as well. You said that even when women are represented, they're represented as 1-dimensional stereotypes. This is not always the case.

I agree that it is not always the case, it does however happen frequently, that is what I meant to convey. I can see why that did not come across in my phrasing, I apologize (also for my snarkiness towards Neme, love you, bro).

Originally posted by Bardock42
I agree that it is not always the case, it does however happen frequently, that is what I meant to convey. I can see why that did not come across in my phrasing, I apologize (also for my snarkiness towards Neme, love you, bro).

YouTube video

Originally posted by Robtard
YouTube video

😆

I've only seen this movie once and I am positive I laughed just as much the first time as I saw it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I agree that it is not always the case, it does however happen frequently, that is what I meant to convey.

To a degree this is a symptom of only talking about female characters in terms of cliches.

http://www.overthinkingit.com/2010/10/11/female-character-flowchart/

This flowchart is fascinating, of course, but it is enormous. That is an enormous variety of representation. You can break down male characters the same way so while it's an interesting piece of media commentary its a poor piece of social commentary.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
To a degree this is a symptom of only talking about female characters in terms of cliches.

http://www.overthinkingit.com/2010/10/11/female-character-flowchart/

This flowchart is fascinating, of course, but it is enormous. That is an enormous variety of representation. You can break down male characters the same way so while it's an interesting piece of media commentary its a poor piece of social commentary.

That is pretty awesome. I lol'd at some of the references too.

Chart was frankly pretty terrible. 👇

One could easily make a chart about male characters, though no one cares to do so.

If nothing else, that chart was good for showing how varied female characters can possibly be. Also, lol at Lois being the "perfect wife", she's just as awful a person as her husband.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I feel like I can't be held accountable for any misreading on your part that may have made this an absolute statement, in particular as I have talked about an underrepresentation which precludes an absolute reading of the first part. At any rate, women are underrepresented in media, especially when it comes to being protagonists. Perhaps there is something to be said about male portrayal in media as well, for example an underrepresentation of fathers, but men have a much larger breadth of characters of their gender to relate to, be they heroes or monsters.
I am glad to see you changed your tune in the posts that followed, and accept your apology. Also you like dog dick.

Whether women are underrepresented in media or not is a debate that I would for the most part agree with you on, albeit perhaps for different reasons. The reason for that is because there have historically been few female writers relative to male writers, and even now it is a pretty male-dominated field. Indeed, historically sexism did make female writers spares, I recall that Mary Shelley was practically **** shamed for daring to be a female novelist. These days though, I don't think sexism is frankly that large a boundary. The existence of JK Rowling, who IIRC is the single wealthiest author in the world, proves as much.

But your statement, as worded, said that female characters, when they are represented, exist only as one-dimensional stereotypes which is frankly insulting to many established and aspiring writers.

So why do you hate women and everything they stand for?

Reported for trolling.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Also, lol at Lois being the "perfect wife", she's just as awful a person as her husband.

She didn't use to be. And she is way out of Peters league in every respect.

She's probably worse than Peter now though. At least he hasn't encouraged Meg to commit suicide like Lois has (to my knowledge).

Originally posted by NemeBro
Reported for trolling.
Reported for misogyny.

Originally posted by NemeBro

I am glad to see you changed your tune in the posts that followed, and accept your apology. Also you like dog dick.

Whether women are underrepresented in media or not is a debate that I would for the most part agree with you on, albeit perhaps for different reasons. The reason for that is because there have historically been few female writers relative to male writers, and even now it is a pretty male-dominated field. Indeed, historically sexism did make female writers spares, I recall that Mary Shelley was practically **** shamed for daring to be a female novelist. These days though, I don't think sexism is frankly that large a boundary. The existence of JK Rowling, who IIRC is the single wealthiest author in the world, proves as much.

But your statement, as worded, said that female characters, when they are represented, exist only as one-dimensional stereotypes which is frankly insulting to many established and aspiring writers.

Do you feel that the fact that she was forced to call herself J.K. Rowling, rather than Joanne Rowling (her actual name), might be indicative of sexism in the publishing world still doing mighty fine?

Originally posted by NemeBro
Chart was frankly pretty terrible. 👇

One could easily make a chart about male characters, though no one cares to do so.

If nothing else, that chart was good for showing how varied female characters can possibly be. Also, lol at Lois being the "perfect wife", she's just as awful a person as her husband.

I am glad to see you changed your tune in the posts that followed, and accept your apology. Also you like dog dick.

Whether women are underrepresented in media or not is a debate that I would for the most part agree with you on, albeit perhaps for different reasons. The reason for that is because there have historically been few female writers relative to male writers, and even now it is a pretty male-dominated field. Indeed, historically sexism did make female writers spares, I recall that Mary Shelley was practically **** shamed for daring to be a female novelist. These days though, I don't think sexism is frankly that large a boundary. The existence of JK Rowling, who IIRC is the single wealthiest author in the world, proves as much.

But your statement, as worded, said that female characters, when they are represented, exist only as one-dimensional stereotypes which is frankly insulting to many established and aspiring writers.


Writing is still mostly male dominated, which is a shame because in my experience women tend to be more naturally disposed to writing than men are. This is anecdotal evidence, of course, but very few male writers (and I include myself here) who I've workshopped with are capable of writing a believable or realistic female protagonist, whereas many of the female writers I've workshopped with write convincing male characters as well as females. I suppose though that this may be a reflection of our society, where the male experience is the blueprint of culture, and female "concerns" and "struggles" are sort of subterranean reactions to that experience.

JK Rowling is certainly successful, but beyond her in the field of "genre" fiction the names get thin.* (You might also consider that she tends to prefer writing with male POV characters (and I think she even said in one interview that she dislikes writing female characters, with some exceptions like Hermione).) EL James, Stephanie Myer, Anne Rice, the lady who wrote Eat, Pray, Love...but see that most of them are constrained to writing "romance" novels and/or vampire fiction. In Literature it's probably better, you have writers like Jhumpa Lahiri, Lorrie Moore, Ann Beattie, Joyce Carol Oates, Amy Tan, Gayle Jones, Margaret Atwood (well, she's borderline genre/literary), Toni Morrison (the greatest living American novelist, I'd argue), Alice Munro, Nadine Gordimer, etc.

Being a woman is either unimportant or possibly a bonus in literary writing and poetry, but I don't know if it's even possible for a woman writer to become a successful spy thriller author, at least not at the moment. Women writers--and this is Joyce Carol Oates's huge complaint--tend to get pushed toward writing "sentimental" stories about "feelings", as if ALL writers worth their weight in ink and paper aren't supposed to be writing about human emotion, yet while male writers never get any grief for writing about violence, it raises alarm bells for Oates. To be fair though, Joyce Carol Oates would be violent by my standards even if she were a male Vietnam veteran who had a dayjob in a slaughterhouse.

Anyway, /rant.

*It's entirely possible that there are many other successful female genre fiction authors, I just haven't heard of them, which is the usual litmus test for "success" in genre fiction.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Do you feel that the fact that she was forced to call herself J.K. Rowling, rather than Joanne Rowling (her actual name), might be indicative of sexism in the publishing world is still doing mighty fine?
Could be, the publishers though her initials (Though she has no middle name) would sell better to young boys, who might not want to read stories by a woman. That isn't necessarily sexism in publishing, it's trying to garner a profit by using what they think would work best.

I have to admit though, I didn't actually know JK Rowling was a pen name. So good catch on that. 👆

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Writing is still mostly male dominated, which is a shame because in my experience women tend to be more naturally disposed to writing than men are. This is anecdotal evidence, of course, but very few male writers (and I include myself here) who I've workshopped with are capable of writing a believable or realistic female protagonist, whereas many of the female writers I've workshopped with write convincing male characters as well as females. I suppose though that this may be a reflection of our society, where the male experience is the blueprint of culture, and female "concerns" and "struggles" are sort of subterranean reactions to that experience.

I'd chalk women writing men better than men write women up to, as has been touched, men being far more exposed in other fictional works. All writers draw something from what they've read, and since men are more often focused on in any given work, they've been read, analyzed, and studied quite a bit more often.

I don't really have any opinion on who is more naturally disposed to writing.

JK Rowling is certainly successful, but beyond her in the field of "genre" fiction the names get thin.* (You might also consider that she tends to prefer writing with male POV characters (and I think she even said in one interview that she dislikes writing female characters, with some exceptions like Hermione).)

Why would I consider that she prefers writing male protagonists? I'm not sure that I am grasping your point.

EL James, Stephanie Myer, Anne Rice, the lady who wrote Eat, Pray, Love...but see that most of them are constrained to writing "romance" novels and/or vampire fiction. In Literature it's probably better, you have writers like Jhumpa Lahiri, Lorrie Moore, Ann Beattie, Joyce Carol Oates, Amy Tan, Gayle Jones, Margaret Atwood (well, she's borderline genre/literary), Toni Morrison (the greatest living American novelist, I'd argue), Alice Munro, Nadine Gordimer, etc.

Have you considered that was what they wanted to write, on the genre side? Do you have cause to believe they are "forced" to do so.

And of course, one should note that, for whatever reason, "Literary Fiction" is generally more critically acclaimed and possibly sells better than "Genre Fiction", so more women writing Literature indicates at least some amount of success, though yes, men dominate the field to this day.

Being a woman is either unimportant or possibly a bonus in literary writing and poetry, but I don't know if it's even possible for a woman writer to become a successful spy thriller author, at least not at the moment. Women writers--and this is Joyce Carol Oates's huge complaint--tend to get pushed toward writing "sentimental" stories about "feelings", as if ALL writers worth their weight in ink and paper aren't supposed to be writing about human emotion, yet while male writers never get any grief for writing about violence, it raises alarm bells for Oates. To be fair though, Joyce Carol Oates would be violent by my standards even if she were a male Vietnam veteran who had a dayjob in a slaughterhouse.

Anyway, /rant.

I can't even recall any male successful spy thriller authors that are still alive, to be honest.

Yes, I actually read Oates's short essay on the subject a few minutes ago, and I suppose I'd agree that that double-standard exists. Albeit not to the extent that it's stopped her from becoming a successful author.

*It's entirely possible that there are many other successful female genre fiction authors, I just haven't heard of them, which is the usual litmus test for "success" in genre fiction.

There probably are, but I would be lying if I said I could recall any of them. Though to be honest, I'm still a relative rookie in the realm of fiction, so that could be why.

Originally posted by Nephthys
She didn't use to be. And she is way out of Peters league in every respect.

She's probably worse than Peter now though. At least he hasn't encouraged Meg to commit suicide like Lois has (to my knowledge).

And Peter didn't used to be a sociopath, but he sure turned out something like one.

I wouldn't say Lois is worse. Peter's actually shot her in the chest without a word, and also re-enacted a somewhat well-known scene from a somewhat well-known holocaust movie involving a sniper rifle.

I'm so glad I don't watch that P O shit series anymore.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Could be, the publishers though her initials (Though she has no middle name) would sell better to young boys, who might not want to read stories by a woman. That isn't necessarily sexism in publishing, it's trying to garner a profit by using what they think would work best.

I have to admit though, I didn't actually know JK Rowling was a pen name. So good catch on that. 👆

I'd chalk women writing men better than men write women up to, as has been touched, men being far more exposed in other fictional works. All writers draw something from what they've read, and since men are more often focused on in any given work, they've been read, analyzed, and studied quite a bit more often.

I don't really have any opinion on who is more naturally disposed to writing.

Why would I consider that she prefers writing male protagonists? I'm not sure that I am grasping your point.

Have you considered that was what they wanted to write, on the genre side? Do you have cause to believe they are "forced" to do so.

And of course, one should note that, for whatever reason, "Literary Fiction" is generally more critically acclaimed and possibly sells better than "Genre Fiction", so more women writing Literature indicates at least some amount of success, though yes, men dominate the field to this day.

I can't even recall any male successful spy thriller authors that are still alive, to be honest.

Yes, I actually read Oates's short essay on the subject a few minutes ago, and I suppose I'd agree that that double-standard exists. Albeit not to the extent that it's stopped her from becoming a successful author.

There probably are, but I would be lying if I said I could recall any of them. Though to be honest, I'm still a relative rookie in the realm of fiction, so that could be why.

And Peter didn't used to be a sociopath, but he sure turned out something like one.

I wouldn't say Lois is worse. Peter's actually shot her in the chest without a word, and also re-enacted a somewhat well-known scene from a somewhat well-known holocaust movie involving a sniper rifle.

Why bother doing a line-by-line response if you're basically going to concede the point at the end of every one.