Fat Acceptance is Moral Bankruptcy

Feminist Erotica

Don’t Be That Bitch

Misandry isn’t a real thing. Misandry is an empty word that doesn’t refer to any real thing or any real experiences of men-in-general. Sure. There may be one-off examples of individual women who hate a particular man or men-in-general, but that’s not misandry. Unlike misogyny, there are no widely exercised cultural norms that perpetuate misandry, not of the sort that men-in-general would experience. Misandry is simply a made-up word and may as well be the present king of France or the bald emperor of Kentucky. –Some Douche

If there is any doubt about the existence of misandry within our popular culture, consider some of the blatantly misandric things said by the pop-culture icon, Nicki Minaj. In this article by Gordon Smart, she says that men want to be treated like dogs and that there is nothing wrong with being a bitch to men.

Also consider that in one of Nicki’s music videos she had this to say about men.

Find me da best ass-eater…kiss my ass and my anus ‘cos I’m finally famous. Give me all of yo money and all of yo residuals…now suck on my ass!

The prurient talk doesn’t bother me. I’m no prude. However, the blatant misandry is troublesome. Her comments are representative of speech that normalizes the dehumanization of men.

If Nicki Minaj wasn’t a significant contributor to popular culture, she’d just be a “one-off” example as described above by Some Douche. However,  Nicki Minaj is a pop icon with a large fan base of “barbz,” as she calls them—her 16+ million twitter followers. Her “ass-eating” video (the one quoted above) has almost 60 million views. She has sold millions of albums and was the first female solo artist to have 7 singles on the Billboard Hot 100, all at the same time. She recently finished up the 12^th season of American Idol, serving as a judge.

Clearly, Nicki Minaj is a cultural influence. As such, there are a lot of people who listen to her and there are a lot of people who practically worship her, as if she bestows upon them great misandric words of ass-eating wisdom.

The illiteracy of her fans is irrelevant. They love her and she is “insperation” to many of them as their “Queen Bitch” and Nicki loves her “bad bitches.” That’s her “fuckin problem,” as she barks below in one of her tweets.

Regardless of what you think about her “ass-eating” music, her misandric comments, or her cultural influence, referring to women as “bad bitches” seems dehumanizing to women. Notice how one of the commenters on the Instagram photo below wrote that Nicki is a “horrible example for young kids.” However, her bad bitch fans quickly jump in to defend the Queen Bitch, saying that she is an example of success for other bitches…because ass-eating is the pinnacle of success for a Queen Bitch and all her bad bitch followers.

Perhaps I’m simply anthropomorphizing the Queen Bitch and all her bad bitches. Perhaps Queen Bitch Nicki and all her bad bitches really are just a pack of ass-eating dogs?

If that’s the case, then I suppose it’s my bad for projecting human characteristics on the Queen Bitch Nicki and her bad bitches. Yes, bitches will be bitches, not humans-being. Apologies to the Queen Bitch and her bad bitches for thinking that they might actually be humans-being. I won’t make that mistake again, even if the Queen Bitch asserts her humanity and claims to be a “genuine human being,” as she does when asked about her role as judge on “American Idol.”

The perception that people had of me completely changed because there are no cue cards, there’s no scripts, it wasn’t me performing a song…My core is a genuine human being who roots for other people. I didn’t want to blow smoke up their ass. I wanted every contestant to leave with something that they could remember.

Funny how she believes that at her core is a “genuine human being” who doesn’t want to “blow smoke up” the asses of other people, yet, at the same time, the Queen Bitch takes great pride in being a Queen Bitch who wants others to find for her “da best ass eater.” She has moral problems with blowing smoke up somebody’s ass, but no problem at all with dehumanizing men as ass-eating dogs—too incompetent to “touch the dishes or wash the clothes,” as barked in the tweet below.

Yup, “cleaning is 50/50,” but men shouldn’t be doing dishes or washing clothes. Nope. They should only be cleaning out the Queen Bitch’s asshole, like a good dog, getting every last “cornball” and dingle-berry—paying her with “residuals.” It’s a privilege bestowed upon them by the Queen Bitch. This seems more a 99/1 split against the guy, but Queen Bitch isn’t known for doing math, so I’ll let that math problem slide like a turd off the tongue of an ass-eating dog.

Here are some more misandric turd nugget barkings of ass-eating wisdom from the Queen Bitch’s Twitter account.

Even though it might be “cute,” men shouldn’t bother with cooking either. Their hands might smell of seasoning. The Queen Bitch prefers her dogs to smell of ass. The smell of seasoning isn’t nearly as sexy as the smell of ass, not for the Queen Bitch who prefers the butthole pleasures of “da best ass-eater.” Even though these ass-eating dogs may look “cute” while trying to cook, the Queen Bitch’s dogs have to learn their boundaries.

The Queen Bitch can’t have her dogs straying far from home.

It’s important for the Queen Bitch and her bad bitches to train their dogs right, giving them a treat or a scolding accordingly.

Bitches can’t have their dogs wandering about, off the leash—eating another bitch’s ass. Nope. Ass-eating dogs must learn to crave the Queen Bitch’s treats, a mash-up of some ass with some Queen Bitch cooking; keep that cute little doggie confused about sex and food and ass-eating.

Another lesson that the Queen Bitch bestows upon her bad bitches—the importance of extending that confusion on to her children.

The Queen Bitch barks that she wants to be a mom one day and that she wants to “start becoming the woman who I want to parent my child.” I’ve already apologized for anthropomorphizing the Queen Bitch, so I won’t make that same mistake here and again. I can only assume that when she barks of having a child that she actually means having an ass-eating puppy.

Given all the above examples, it’s clear that the Queen Bitch has very little regard (if any at all) for the humanity of men. The initial misandric barks made by the Queen Bitch—the ones that dehumanized men as dogs who want to be treated like pets, those are “widely exercised cultural norms,” as Some Douche would say. If they were not cultural norms, then they wouldn’t be part of our popular culture. As Madonna and other celebrities from years past brought forward into popular culture the humanity of folks within LGBT communities, this Queen Bitch does the inverse. She brings forward into popular culture the normalization of dehumanized men.

I am a man. I am not a dog and I do not want to be treated like a pet. I certainly do not want to be “da best ass-eater” for a solipsistic narcissist like Nicki Minaj…and neither would anybody who values their own humanity. If you’re a man and you value your humanity, realize that this Queen Bitch and her pack of bad bitches are nothing but ass-eating dogs and that is all.

Cookie Monster Patriarchy

Naomi’s Sweet Honey-hole

This book has been out for a while now. I recommend reading it. I like Naomi. She had me at pounding her sweet Princess honey-hole…you know, the one that bestows consciousness upon humanity, without which we’d all just be empty meat sacks, husks of men. Anywhore, this is not a review of her or her sweet honey-hole. This is a review of the reviews about her sweet honey-hole on Amazon.

 

Here is a photo of the person behind the sweet honey-hole biography. Notice how she drips with the sweet feminist nectar-of-life. Yeah, admit it. It’s OK to fantasize about being her Winnie the Pooh and invading her sweet honey-pot. I’ll bet it makes her produce even more feminist nectar-of-life to know that manginas fantasize about stimulating her sweet honey-hole, about blowing a massive load, a 300 million sperm army all up inside her honey-hole. It makes her nectar-of-life flow like the conscious-stream of an artist hyped up on cocaine.  Hell, billions of manginas beating off to her all at once will probably bestow upon humanity a unity-consciousness for all. Imagine it. Billions of manginas focused on her, beating off to her, all blowing their loads in unison, all for the sake of bestowing a unity-consciousness upon humanity.

Move over Wi-Fi. Naomi’s sweet honey-hole, in conjunction with billions of masturbating manginas, will raise consciousness to such a great degree that humanity will undergo a rapid evolutionary shift, the next great stage of humanity will be achieved—a gynocentric-telepathy. That’s right. “Ma Bell” and the old clamshell Nokia phones were a foreshadowing of the stylish new clamshell gynophones. You gotta do it boys. Beat your meat for Naomi—for all humanity.

So now that we’ve established the importance of mangina masturbation, the “Ma Bell” clamshell “Goddess Array,” the gynophone unity-consciousness, and the evolutionary shift, let’s have a look at the some of the reviews made by members of the Church-of-Vagina (and other non-denominational vagtheists), as well as some reviews made by anti-vagtheists.

 

I was pleased by this review. It’s the work of a medium-functioning semi-literate. Unlike so many full-blown illiterates, she manages to use written language as a tool to convey the fact that men need to read this book about Naomi’s sweet honey-hole in order to understand the “seemingly inexplicable” behavior of women. Ms. Bybee expresses that her sons should read about Naomi’s honey-hole, especially since they will start dating. Reading between the lines here, I see that Ms. Bybee is concerned that her sons should know how to read between the legs (if you know what I mean) of the women they will soon be dating. She doesn’t want to raise boys into men who don’t know how to stimulate the clit. Yep, gotta teach those boys to flick and lick—rock that little man in the boat.

I give this review 3 limp penises out of 5.

 

BooksJJS’ review is a must read for any woman gullible enough to believe that society and self can be healed through better stimulation of the clit and through a better understanding of the sexual wiring of women. This review is also important for women who are jealous of “high speed online porn.” For any woman who wants to shame her partner about beating it to somebody else, this review is important to you because you will learn how to shame your partner about his sexuality, all the while dragging him into a goddess-cult of beliefs that bolster your own sexuality as some sort of magical “Goddess Array.”

I give this review 5 limp penises out of 5.

 

This review by mangina “mack” explains that there must be some sort of science behind the goddess-cult that he has been worshipping. This review is important for any mangina who hasn’t been able to purge all his patriarchal logic. Shame on him and all his kind.

I give this review 1 limp penis out of 5.

 

Ms. McCall’s review is short and sweet and for anybody who loves pussy. If you want to experience “intimate love,” get down on your fucking knees and worship the sweet honey-hole goddess.

I give this review 2 limp penises out of 5.

 

Sir “eric” has provided us with a perfect review, flawless—a shining example of coherency, logic, and truth about the goddess-cult. “It’s a book about vagina.”

I give this review 0 limp penises out of 5.

 

This review by “douglas macnab” is a prime example of a practically illiterate mangina. Notice how there are 2 properly placed periods—something that manginas do understand about women, their filthy vaginas.

I give this review 4 limp penises out of 5.

 

This review by “Robert S. Blaisdell” appeals to any mangina who wants to make himself a useful tool to a woman’s sexuality. Robert is so happy to be able to please a woman that he practically spooged all over his keyboard while gushing about this book. He is such a good little boy and so proud of his learnings about female genitalia, neurotransmitters, and the brain. He can barely stave off an orgasm long enough to write this review. I’m sure mommy would be very proud of him.

I give this review 3 limp penises out of 5.

 

A stellar review by “Zidib” reminds us of the fact that if older women can’t find manginas willing to dedicate 3 or 4 hours per day to foreplay, she can always employ the services of a prostitute or even a gigolo. Excellent points, sir.

I give this review 0 limp penises out of 5.

 

“Physics Math” has provided us with a review appealing to manginas and other gynocentric sorts who believe that women are “the center of the universe.” If you worship women as goddesses, you should find this review helpful. If you ever feel like hacking off your balls with a machete because you’re not worthy, this book should compel you to find that last bit of courage to carry through with your self-mutilation and sacrifice fantasy.

I give this review 5 limp penises out of 5.

 

It may be hard for some of you men to render 4 hours of foreplay per day, but if you really love your woman, it’s a sacrifice that you must make to maintain a healthy relationship with your woman. If you don’t make this sacrifice for her, you are personally responsible for her lack of orgasms, for her incompleteness of being and for her diminished spirituality. Shame on you! This review by “Ellen E.G. Cusac” is a good review for any woman looking to blame and shame men for a woman’s own inadequacies in the bedroom, in her personal life, and in her spiritual life.

I give this review 3 limp penises out of 5.

 

Poor victim-women, nobody acknowledges or appreciates them, except for the few “spiritually advanced” mangina pussy-worshipers who pray to the divine mother-goddess for access to pussy.

I give this review 4 limp penises out of 5.

 

Yes, most books are organized into chapters. It makes them slightly more readable. “Alton L. Gilbert” gives us a review to be expected of a mangina struggling to purge his innate tendency to oppress women with patriarchal things like science and matters of fact. Notice how he ever so subtly attempts to oppress his goddess for making “universal conclusions.” He has to hide his “criticism” behind his being a “scientist.” Don’t worry Alton, mangina “mack” and “Physics Math” will give you the courage to sever your balls and put aside your oppression tendencies so that you can realize your true nature as a subservient worshipper of goddess-vagina and of Naomi’s honey-hole. Amazon can provide you with a fantastic “Estwing” hatchet for hacking off your balls.

 

There are many more reviews and I encourage all to check them. I also encourage all to read more about Naomi’s sweet princess honey-hole. It is important for a man to learn how to muff-dive and please a woman. It makes my cock throb just thinking about getting paid to stimulate a few dozen of Naomi’s multiple orgasms, making her 50 year old flab produce more quivers than a legion of Tolkien’s elves. I can count the money already…god, that money makes me hawt. Being a human-vibrator is so much fun. It’s like being a throbbing, big-veined, cock-god.

It’s also important for billions of manginas to masturbate and blow a load in unison over Naomi’s honey-hole. Until this happens, the “Goddess Array” and unity-consciousness cannot be created. Sadly, without the sacrifices made by these billions of manginas, humanity will be unable to make the next evolutionary leap. Hats off to Naomi for inspiring manginas around the world to worship and for encouraging them to spend 3-4 hours per day on foreplay. It’s a sacrifice all men should be willing to make to gain entrance and membership to the Church-of-Vagina or other vagtheist goddess-cults. It’s nothing but a small tithe to be paid for the privilege of a worldwide mangina circle-jerk of unity-consciousness load-blowing.

Special thanks to the musical genius of Frank Zappa. May he rest in peace.

Asshat trips and ruins X-Files

 

Women’s fashion is a subtle form of bondage. It’s men’s way of binding them. We put them in these tight, high-heeled shoes, we make them wear these tight clothes and we say they look sexy. But they’re actually tied up. –David Asshat Douchecovny

I usually don’t give a fuck about the dumb shit that oozes out the mouths of asshat celebrities, but this vomit needs cleaned.

It’s not typically men who buy all the imbecilic fashion magazines and it’s not men who typically obsess about shoes. I couldn’t (and neither do most men) give a fuck about such things. It wasn’t typically men who watched (or gave any fucks whatsoever about) that vapid show describing the entrails of women who live in the city—“Sex and the City.” And neither is it typically men who buy and read the “50 Shades” trilogy that infantilizes women and is literally about binding women.

By Douchecovny’s vomit-logic, I suppose it is the fault of men for shoving down the throats of obese women a diet of Big Macs and junk food. By this vomit-logic, these poor and helpless women are at the mercy of and bound to men’s influence on the fashion industry. As such, men are to blame for women who suffer with all sorts of eating disorders because men rule the fashion industry. Clearly, this must be true because men give so many fucks about fashion.

The fashion industry is a way for masochistic women to bind themselves. If women want to spank themselves by wearing the latest imbecilic fashions and shoes, don’t blame men. It’s women’s own vapid and materialistic behavior. Nobody, especially men, “forces” that on them. All I (and most men) ask of women is that they get their fat asses on a fucking treadmill a few times per week and to exercise some self-control over their fucking carbohydrate intake. Nothing about that entails imbecilic fashion or ridiculous shoes or absurdist expectations about beauty. The expectation is that women be humans, moral agents in charge of making their own decisions about their health, diet, and physical fitness.

Men, on the other hand, are expected to not only do all the fucking cardio, but they are also expected to do all the fucking anaerobic weight-lifting to build mass and look like a physically useful G.I.Joe/human-tool. On top of that, men also are well expected to regulate their diet and look ripped with no fashion at all—just their shirtless fucking chest protruding out from their human-body-tool, being a symbol of their alpha-male virility and utility. “Yeah, I’m your man ‘cause I can lift heavy shit for you and ‘cause I can beat up other beta-males, baby.”

It doesn’t end there. Oh fucking no. Men are also expected to earn a living and have a well-developed mind—a mind that is marked with a fucking science degree that earns him at least 6 figures of income. Even more, that income is expected to bring security to a wife and kids because that income is expected to be rendered to a wife and kids—without which, he is not really a man, probably just a loser or a homo or a child-man who refuses to “grow-up.”

Who is “bound,” you fucking asshat?

Gawking

Fuck You, Brigham Young.

The Past Ain’t Through With Us

 

There are stories of coincidence and chance and intersections and strange things told and which is which and who only knows…and so it goes and so it goes and the book says, we may be through with the past, but the past ain’t through with us. —Magnolia

If the “past ain’t through with us,” what’s the point of deliberating about going our own way and of making the choice to go our own way? If the “past ain’t through with us, are MGTOWs and other men “choosing” to go their own way, or are they simply passive actors, soldiers on the battlefield possessed by thoughts of helplessness, caught within a storm, too close to observe its beauty, wrenched with fear and immobilized by their fate?

I’ve been asking this question for a good while now and when I hear statements from various MGTOWs describing Briffault’s Law as the inherent nature of women, when I hear statements like  “men will not change,” I suspect there may be a strand of fatalism that runs deep within MGTOW philosophies. MGTOWs should be careful and would be wise to not fall into the trap of invincible fatalism and, by extension, other sorts of various determinisms. Doing so makes all the deliberation about going our own way and opting out of marriage and similar relationships unintelligible.

 

Even though there may be a sense of comfort, a solace to be got from embracing fatalism, doing so undermines the deliberation and subsequent choices made by men who go their own way. The problem here is that deliberation is an unintelligible and useless endeavor for the fatalist.

At first glance, it would seem that men who are going their own way may have deliberated and made their choice. However, it may well be the case that some MGTOWs are simply fatalists who sit back like passive observers and take comfort in knowing that things are the way they are because things simply could not be otherwise. Consider this statement from Stardusk:

I’ve come to the conclusion that men, generally speaking, are just that and that’s all they want to be. They do not wish to be anything else, nor can they envision themselves being anything else.

 

This statement seems to fit nicely within the framework of a fatalism—of men’s prior and continuing facticity as tools—as men whose “past ain’t through” with them . Men are “fossils,” as Stardusk says. They are what they are and they will not be otherwise. It’s almost as if a place of solace is being created within a position of stoicism, wrapped in a shell of deliberation and choice. Consider this description of fatalism from Richard Taylor.

We are all, at certain moments of pain, threat, or bereavement, apt to entertain the idea of fatalism, the thought that what is happening at a particular moment is unavoidable, that we are powerless to prevent it. Sometimes we find ourselves in circumstances not of our own making, in which our very being and destinies are so thoroughly anchored that the thought of fatalism can be quite overwhelming, and sometimes consoling. One feels that whatever then happens, however good or ill, will be what those circumstances yield, and we are helpless. Soldiers, it is said, are sometimes possessed by such thoughts. Perhaps everyone would feel more inclined to them if they paused once in a while to think of how little they ever had to do with bringing themselves to wherever they have arrived in life, how much of their fortunes and destinies were decided for them by sheer circumstance, and how the entire course of their lives is often set, once and for all, by the most trivial incidents, which they did not produce and could not even have foreseen. If we are free to work out our destinies at all, which is doubtful, we have a freedom that is at best exercised within exceedingly narrow paths. All the important things—when we are born, of what parents, into what culture, whether we are loved or rejected, whether we are male or female, our temperament, our intelligence or stupidity, indeed everything that makes for the bulk of our happiness and misery—all these are decided for us by the most casual and indifferent circumstances, by sheer coincidences, chance encounters, and seemingly insignificant fortuities. One can see this in retrospect If he searches, but few search. The fate that has given us our very being has given us also our pride and conceit, and has thereby formed us so that, being human, we congratulate ourselves on our blessings, which we call our achievements; blame the world for our blunders, which we call our misfortunes; and scarcely give a thought to that impersonal fate that arbitrarily dispenses both. –Richard Taylor, Metaphysics 3^rd Edition.

The above passage from Taylor’s classic is a compelling description of and introduction to fatalism. It’s the opening passage in his chapter on fatalism and these sorts of passages, with their soothing style and humble attitude, permeate his book and other writings. Even when I disagree with him, there is a kind of soothing solace to be got from his words.

 

I believe there are similarities between fatalists like Richard Taylor and some of the men who are going their own way. For Taylor, fatalism is the belief that whatever happens is and always was unavoidable. Although this may sound a bit like determinism, Taylor is careful to make a distinction between determinism and fatalism. Determinism, for Taylor, is the theory that all events are rendered unavoidable by their causes. Fatalism, simply put, is the belief that whatever happens is unavoidable. It may seem like a minor distinction, but Taylor is quick to point out that determinists, if being consistent, should very well also be fatalists. Determinists simply wrap a layer of theory about causality around fatalism. As such, the fatalist can deliver a rather humbling blow to the pride of determinists who do not consider themselves to be fatalists.

 

Could it be that some in the MGTOW community are simply adding a wrapper of deliberation and choice to their fatalist philosophy? Perhaps some in the MGTOW community are fatalists first and MGTOWs second? If this is the case, what happens to the foundations of a fundamentally deliberative philosophy like going our own way? A fatalist philosophy is antithetical to a deliberative philosophy. If there is no liberation to be got from deliberating about going our own way, then there is no point to deliberation, and by extension, there is no point in going our own way. In other words, a fatalist who “chooses” to go his own way makes no sense. The fatalists and the deliberative MGTOW are mutually exclusive. Trying to be both at the same time is fallacious incoherent gibberish. Care should be taken to make a clear distinction between a MGTOW and a fatalist who wraps his fatalism in MGTOW skin. It’s a trap.

 

Taylor mentions a number of possible reasons for believing in fatalism. The primary reason for believing in fatalism is a matter of truth. Taylor argues that there is a body of truth concerning the past and that it is natural to suppose that there is a body of truth concerning the future. As such, Taylor says that “there existed a set of true statements about his life, both past and future…[and that]…each of us has but one possible future, described by that totality of statements about oneself in the future tense, each of which happens to be true (Metaphysics 67).” As such, there are two mutually exclusive, but exhaustive classes of statements—all those that are true, and the class of all that are false. Nobody has ever changed the truth-value of any of these statements and nobody ever will. That is all and there are no others. The totality of these statements constitutes a person’s biography.

Notice the similarities between such beliefs about a person’s biography and the biographies of women as hypergamous and as inherently abusive to men via Briffault’s Law. A person does not deviate from these statements that coincide with their actions. To do so would be to render a false statement true or a true statement false—something that would be a logical fallacy and violate the Law of Excluded Middle.

 

Taylor extrapolates by writing that “there is nothing anybody can do about [the past, and]…by the same token, of the future of everything under the sun. Whatever the future might hold, there is nothing anybody can do about it now. What will happen cannot be altered. The mere fact that it is going to happen guarantees this (Metaphysics 67,68).” Taylor writes that he must “assume certain things are true,” if he is to deliberate, because he finds himself making “certain presuppositions” without which “it would be impossible to deliberate at all (Metaphysics 42).”

For fatalists like Taylor (and some self-proclaimed MGTOWs), the “past ain’t through with” us and neither is the future.

Taylor lays out some important distinctions about deliberation. I largely agree with most of his distinctions. However, two of his distinctions are problematic for the fatalist. Firstly, deliberation is only possible about future things, never about past or present things. Secondly, Taylor writes that “I cannot deliberate about what to do, even though I may not know what I am going to do, unless I believe that it is up to me what I am going to do.” So, for Taylor, if a fatalist is to deliberate, it must be about future things and it must be about things that he believes are up to him.

For men going their own way, marriage is about a future thing and whether or not a man marries is something that is “up to him.”

“If I am within the power of another person, or at the mercy of circumstances over which I have no control…I cannot deliberate about it. I can only wait and see (Taylor, Metaphysics 43).” As such, a fatalist thinks of the future in the way we all think of the past but “…the future is still obscure to us, and we are therefore tempted to invest it, in our imagination, with all sorts of ‘possibilities’ (Taylor, Metaphysics 60).” However, Taylor writes in the same paragraph that the “fatalist resists this temptation, knowing that mere ignorance can hardly give rise to any genuine possibility in things (Metaphysics 60).” Taylor goes on to describe the fatalist as one who views the past and future “the way God is supposed to view them [the past and future] (Metaphysics 60).”

Fatalists think of the future in the way we all think of the past and I’d say that some MGTOWs think of the future in the same way. I’d say that this sort of MGTOW isn’t really a MGTOW. Perhaps a more fitting description would be a fatalist-wrapped-in-MGTOW-skin (FWMGTOW). These FWMGTOWs believe that they are at the mercy of circumstances over which they have no control—the “inherent nature” of women and men, the abusive nature of society towards men as objects of utility, and etc. Perhaps these FWMGTOWs resist the “temptation” to imagine a possible future in which men are not at the mercy of such circumstance because they believe such possibility isn’t genuine. Perhaps such FWMGTOWs believe they have a “God’s-eye point-of-view” and believe that imagined possibility is a sort of sin, a transgression of fallacy.

According to Taylor, the fatalist is smart enough to resist this temptation. The fatalist is supposed to have the truth because the fatalist is supposed to have the “God’s-eye point-of-view.” It is as though Taylor subscribes to the Platonic realm of ideas, saying that to believe the ideal truth is a matter of having the God’s-eye point-of-view. An imagination about possibilities is simply a step removed from the ideal truth, for imagined possibilities are not genuine possibilities. They are a sin of sorts to be cast out of Plato’s Republic.

The “God’s-eye point-of-view” is itself an imagined possibility, but I’ll let that slide, for there isn’t enough room to get into that—at least not in this paper.

Here is the problem for fatalists (and FWMGTOWs). It seems that the first distinction (deliberation being about future things) allows Taylor (and FWMGTOWs) to say that he deliberates about future things, but at the same time, say that this deliberation is merely imaginative ignorance and self-deception about future things—things that are not “up to him.” It is difficult to see how Taylor (if being consistent) would ever be able to say that there is any utility in deliberating about future things. If deliberating is simply a matter of imaginative ignorance—an elaborate self-deception, then Taylor seems committed to saying that deliberation is itself confusion between genuine and imagined possibilities. In fact, deliberating about the utility of possible future things would be mere futility.

The whole process of weighing options in regards to marriage and other similar relationships would be nothing but a sham—an elaborate self-deception. For a man who takes pride in his logic and clear-thinking, the man who goes his own way via fate, rather than choice, has deceived himself about his options and all the work he may have put into deliberating about marriage and other options.

As such, their deliberation about what to do makes no sense. Deliberation is reduced to a sort of routine of motions. Fatalists (and FWMGTOWs) would simply be going through motions, like a machine outputting widgets—making deliberation itself unavoidable. Deliberating about something that one has no ability to change seems like unintelligible deliberation to me. It removes the instrumentality from deliberation. If the result of an elaborate deliberation process nets the same result as not deliberating at all, because whatever happens is unavoidable, then deliberation is useless…and so is the process of weighing and making a cost-benefit analysis of marriage. As such, fatalists (and FWMGTOWs) have to admit that they are either incoherent about deliberation, or that deliberation is useless.

I’m not at all denigrating MGTOWs. I suppose I am one. I simply don’t fall into the trap of invincible fatalism. I don’t take solace in believing that things will not change. I don’t believe that things simply are the way they are because things cannot be otherwise. Care should be taken to not fall into this fatalist trap, for if you do fall into the trap, much of what you say becomes incoherent gibberish. If you decided to go your own way because you are at the mercy of circumstances beyond your control, then what did you deliberate about? What did you choose? Nothing. You yourself would be a circumstance out of your own control. Therefore, any deliberation you may have done to make a decision about going your own way makes no sense.

If the past ain’t through with us, then what the hell is this thing that we are doing–going our own way?

This cannot be one of those things. This, please, cannot be that. This was not just a matter of chance. These strange things happen all the time. –Magnolia