SCIENTIZING MGTOW

SCIENTIZING MGTOW

I’ve become increasingly conscious over the past few weeks, of a second major difference between MGTOW and masculism, which is what this flyer is about.

The main difference between the two is of course that MGTOW is largely politically passive. (Admittedly MGTOWs put out YouTube videos which is a political act, but on the whole, MGTOWs are politically passive, or as I would say more derogatorily, politically impotent.) Masculists are politically active in trying to get society, journalists, women, and the gender politicians to respect men’s issues. In my own case, as a masculist, for example, I send out links to my MGTOW-masculist resource flyers to journalists of the major US newspapers (e.g. WSJ, WashPost, NYT, etc.) MGTOWs on the other hand are passive and simply walk away from the marriage market and paternity, going on strike against a gynocentric culture that financially massacres about one married man in four in the fluffie feminist dominated divorce court system, treating men like exploitable checkbooks. MGTOWs and masculists agree on that score and treat fluffies (traditional women who expect to be able to parasite off men’s money) as immoral, parasitic, manslaving vermin.

The second major difference I’m becoming more conscious of is that masculism is more about ethics, by being much more pejorative than MGTOW. Masculists put enormous moral pressure on women to be FIPs (financially independent persons) for example, telling women, that if they are not FIPs they will be punished by men ignoring them. Fluffies will be forced to rot on the shelf to extinction. Masculists harangue women, to be what men want them to be and if women don’t conform, then men dismiss them. Since nearly all men are FIPs, men have the power to FORCE women to be FIPs, since a woman cannot be a fluffie unless some manslave, some robot male agrees to be manslaved by her. As the supply of such manslaves dries up, so fluffies get wiped out.

MGTOW on the other hand is more empirical. MGTOW makes claims about the nature of women, which are subject to empirical verification, but so far very little scientific work has been done on MGTOW themes, and it is this lack that this flyer is about.

Take the major MGTOW claims that women don’t love men, or that women are hypergamous. These two claims are obviously statements (hypotheses) about the psychology of women, that need to be verified scientifically, using scientific methods.

Sandman is a great hypothesizer. His statements are often interesting and provocative, but Sandman is no Bar Bar, nor Dark Knight, i.e. he is not a scientist. He gives the impression that not only doesn’t he have scientific knowledge, but that he doesn’t seem to care whether his hypotheses about women are scientifically correct or not. Other, more intellectual (sage) MGTOWs are much more conscious of the need to make the attempt to provide some kind of proof that what they are saying has some kind of scientifically verifiable proof.

So, how can MGTOW be made more scientifically credible? The obvious answer to this question is that researchers in psychology, and sociology need to take up the MGTOW claims and test them, by going out into the real world, and seeing if these MGTOW claims are confirmed by empirical fact. Master and PhD students in psychology and sociology could base their research work on MGTOW themes, dreaming up ways to test the major MGTOW hypotheses. Established research professors could do the same, and then write books about their findings.

Just how might researchers test MGTOW claims? For example, how to test the major claim of the MGTOWs that women do not love men,  but love men’s financial exploitability? Here are some suggestions, just off the top of my head. (I’m a PhDed professor scientist by the way, in computer science, who teaches PhD level Pure Math, and Math Physics, so I’m very familiar with the scientific method.)

How to search for evidence that women don’t love men? Well, one could look at the evidence coming from the divorce courts, where one married man in four roughly, is financially massacred by their vindictive ex wives, who take his kids, his house, his child payments, and his alimony. Many of these female sadists then hold divorce parties to celebrate their financial destruction of another human being who happens to be male.

There have been experiments showing women photos of the same guy with a sports car, or in a McDonalds uniform. Vaginal juices are detected by a vaginal probe to measure how strongly women respond to the two sets of photos. Women get hot with rich men, that is clear.

There is the anecdotal evidence. MGTOW hypotheses make so much personal sense to so many men, based on their own experiences, so perhaps psychologists could interview lots of people and get their experiences, and later come to some generalizations.

There is the Darwinian evolutionary plausibility argument. It makes so much evolutionary sense that women value men’s resources rather than loyalty to a given man, who may fail to give her and her kids protein and other vital resources. Loving men’s resources makes real evolutionary sense. It would obviously enhance the fitness level (i.e. survivability) of herself and her kids.

There are probably lots of ways to scientize MGTOW. I hope this flyer stimulates some of the more scientifically inclined of you reading this, to attempt to make MGTOW claims more scientifically verified, more credible, because they will have been empirically tested. Such research might be done within the context of Men’s Studies departments at universities. So much of so called feminist studies are really just lightly disguised PC bullshit. Men’s Studies researchers could use their male minds to do scientifically solid research on MGTOW claims and related masculist issues.

Cheers,

Prof. Dr. Hugo de Garis

profhugodegaris@yahoo.com

https://profhugodegaris.wordpress.com

============