old topic but wanted to weigh in on one point specifically:

because the MGTOW "solution" isn't a solution at all -- it is genetic suicide.

This is a logical fallacy. Our definitions of what "solution" is are different. To the tradcons a solution may undermine survival of the collective. To MGTOW a solution is a survival of an individual. So yes, MGTOW is absolutely a solution if your goal is preserve yourself and not some abstract ideological goal like saving muh huwhite race.

1. Women select which genes get passed on, not men.
2. Unless you plan to procreate enough to have inbreeding among your offspring, your genetic contribution will approach nil soon enough. Unless you're making clones of yourself, your genetic contribution gets reduced with every generation. Look it up. It's the opposite of the compounding. Half of your material and half of your woman's material. Which is halved again with each generation.
3. But since you can't argue with the above, you're really talking about race and civilization, which are antithetical to each other. The one thing civilization does is destroy tribalism and replace it with civilization. Tirbalism is just us vs. them. You can't have a tribal civilization, because it can't remain civilized. It will end in barbarism.
4. If you're talking about barbarism, then why the fuck do you care about preserving the civilization? Go rape and pillage. Make sure your genetic material "survives".

Thank you for the comment, and for posting it in the right thread!

Is the following a fair summary of your position?

(1) you agree that women are "pretty crappy"

(2) you believe the primary reason for this is that "men enable them to be that way"

(3) you give two examples of men enabling women to be crappy: (a) an Indian couple is hiking, and the woman is carrying a baby, but the man is carrying nothing (b) both the men and the women work, and the women do all the chores - you summarize (a) and (b) as men being entitled and lazy

(4) the solution to (1) is: "the whole intent of this should be pursuing happier lives for yourself and the women around you, that you are offering more to your wife than a soy drinking cuck would."

Is that accurate?

Here's my response.

(1) "Pretty crappy" is insufficiently descriptive of the problem. I'm not nitpicking you here. If we don't describe a problem thoroughly, then we can't possibly have a discussion about it. It's like if someone says, "the buoyancy of the Titanic is pretty crappy." That isn't enough of a description for us to fix anything.

One very specific problem with women today is the way that promiscuity and hypergamy affect committed relationships. Women who are promiscuous as soon as they become sexually active are unable to pair-bond later in life when they decide to get married. Worse, their hypergamy while "exploring their sexuality" means that they fucked men significantly above their own level. They fucked those men, but those men wouldn't marry them. Thus, when they decide to get married, they are literally settling down. A woman finds that she is not happy for very long with the man she settled for, because in her mind, she has always been able to fuck a top-tier guy.

That was a bit long-winded and abstract, so let me repeat some of it: a woman of average attractiveness between the ages of 18 and 30 fucks top-tier men. She has her heart broken many times. She is an alpha widow, forever pining over one or more alphas that fucked her and then left her. Around age 30, she decides to marry. The only men available to her are average (just like her). She marries one of these average guys because she wants a big party (also known as a wedding ceremony). Not long after getting married, she finds that she doesn't love Mr. Average. She still loves the most alpha guy from her 18-30 years. She has never bonded with her husband the way she bonded with that other guy.

That's but one aspect of point (1): women are pretty crappy.

(2) I selected that specific example of women being crappy because it shows the problem with your point (2). That guy, that Mr. Average, he didn't enable his wife to behave that way. There is nothing he can do to stop her from fucking around between the ages of 18 and 30. By the time he meets her, she's already irrevocably damaged.

(3) I agree that the men you describe seem lazy. I agree that married men shouldn't be lazy. The husband on the hike should be carrying the heavier load. But I disagree that this is the cause of point (1).

(4) your solution was: "pursuing happier lives for yourself and the women around you"

Sure, okay. I don't wish for anyone, not even the women around me, to be unhappy. But let's take the specific example of "women are crappy" that I outlined above. How specifically is Mr. Average supposed to make her happy? I contend that it's impossible; that she was broken before she even met him. If you believe there's a way for him to make her happy, then please be very, very specific. Here's what you do say:

offering more to your wife than a soy drinking cuck would.

Well of course. And look, you posted that in TRP. Their mantra is physical fitness and financial independence and strength and all of that jazz. I don't imagine that /u/Native is a soy drinking cuck. And I don't think any of the men in MGTOW are either. Your advice, that we men have to be traditionally masculine - frankly my friend, we already know that. When I got married, I was an Army officer with a 300 PT score. I had plenty of social status and was in peak physical shape.

Sorry, but I don't think your advice actually solves the problem in point (1).

people here are against MGTOWs is because the MGTOW "solution" isn't a solution at all -- it is genetic suicide.

Pump and dump

Reading that mgtow is perhaps an older man's game, take my early 30's something with a grain of salt. But my guy reaction is perhaps more a criticism of the aesthetic of the movement. The reality is that if you believe that your movement is objectively a great thing for many other men apart from your own perception, and you want to help other men to attain it, then it's imperative that you work to develop the proper display of the movement. Because in my limited experience, as I'm sure most of you know, you come across as salty woman haters who couldn't get laid. But I really don't think that's many of you, so my main argument against mgtow is what I see a poor representation of what the movement is, thus creating a useless barrier to entry for people you could potentially benefit. =)

Not all MGTOW are White.

As far as a Jewish agenda goes, the Jews want you procreating so you can breed slaves for them. Its completely absurd to on the one hand say the Jews want to rule the world, and on the other that they want to convince everyone else to stop procreating so they won't have anyone to rule over or slaves to do their work for them. Duh.

I have a vast family and my genome will be passed on, no worries there. Just not my my direct dna.

I don<t care about the white nationalist, heck I am from Quebec and kids roams the parks and streets to fight any immigrants/anglos.

Here's my response to @PieceSeeker's comment from here: https://voat.co/v/MeanwhileOnReddit/2716908/13811662

people here are against MGTOWs is because the MGTOW "solution" isn't a solution at all -- it is genetic suicide.

I think this is a non sequitur. I don't think that MGTOW is a thing that young men do. Oh, I'm sure there are a tiny minority of twenty-something men here, but I think the vast majority of us are older and have already played the game you want us to play: marriage, family, "leave your genetic legacy" etc.

I don't think that there are young men who are thinking "I can either have a family or I can go MGTOW." I think that if you present a young man with a virtuous woman, he will happily marry her and have kids. He'll come to MGTOW after he gets divorce-raped.

Voat recognizes the evolutionary / psychological / historic "meaning of life" and justification for existence to be the preservation of the people, the blood, the genome. Without women this is impossible.

I wont argue against your stated meaning of life. Instead, I'll say that applying that meaning to a conscious person is the fallacy of composition.

See, you are not simply alive. You are also conscious. Consciousness can be created by life in the same way that a house can be made of bricks. But an argument of the form, "here's something that's true of bricks, therefore it is also true of houses" is the fallacy of composition. Similarly, while it's true that the purpose of life is to perpetuate itself, and it's true that I am made of living cells, what I actually am is a consciousness, and you can't claim that my purpose must be the same as the purpose of my components.

Men should become men again and keep their women in order.

That statement is too vague to be meaningful. My belief, as a MGTOW, is that (a) the risks of marriage are substantial and severe, and (b) the rewards of marriage are low.

Visit /v/TraditionalWives to be reminded of what this can mean.

This is like suggesting I look at lottery winners to remind myself why I should play the lottery.

If even one-in-ten women were virtuous, MGTOW would cease to exist. I know such women are out there - as proof, here's an example. That's a stay at home mom talking about how she lives frugally. She also claims, in other videos, that she was a virgin when she married. Her marriage will likely work, but it's not for the reason you claimed above - it's not because her husband "became a man and kept her in order" - it's because she was raised this way.

You've got it all wrong. The problem with society isn't something that men can fix by "becoming men and keeping women in order." The problem with society isn't too few good men. It's too few good women. The existence of MGTOW doesn't make this problem worse. No woman like the one in that video is going to suffer because of MGTOW. MGTOW is not a problem for good women.

...however, your advice is a problem for good men. It's vague and unrealistic. I can literally give better non-MGTOW advice myself!