Well, here we go:
(Article I am responding to)
Hey Critical G, just thought I'd address something.
First of all, I believe your ideas and Paul's ideas are compatible. In the chunk of text you extracted, Paul mentions that “The choice for men to put themselves into legally vulnerable positions with women can rightfully be called stupid.” Well, yeah. Putting yourself in a any sort of vulnerable situation is stupid (I will expand on this later). However, as You point out, a relationship with a woman or even a marriage is not necessarily a vulnerable position.
Now I want to talk about vulnerability.
When a person is vulnerable, it is THEY who are vulnerable. I would argue that it's not the situation you're in which makes you vulnerable, but you yourself. It's possible to enter into a burning building and minimize the damage to yourself, it's possible to befriend a lion, it's even possible to become socially competent enough to avoid being taken advantage of, (Yay!).
The thing is, and this is something I feel you try and preach on The Critical G when it comes to this issue, is that it's not about the outside risk, it's about how competent you are at risk-assessment. And, failing that, if a risk is too high to be conceivably worth the outcome, it's up to YOU the individual to REDUCE that risk, (if you still feel the outcome is something worthwhile).
Now on to the dissonance!
Having said that: I feel the disagreement between You and Paul does not lie in the fact that you have differing opinions, but because you're actually arguing for and against completely different things.
I feel Paul is praising the MGTOW philosophy in the sense that he is praising the fact that so many men are independently coming to the similar conclusion that they, for whatever personal reasons, do not want to place marriage (or relationships with women) as a high ranking value in their lives. And I strongly sympathise with his view. Had I been asked in the past, (before this great debate sprung up) to give my view of what I thought was a great example of the MGTOW philosophy in action, I may very well have used You, as I remember You saying: (I apologize if this is incorrect) “If I do not meet the right woman, then I won't get married.” This is the mindset I feel Paul is Praising.
You on the other hand, are (rightfully) attacking the hordes of woman-hating psychos who appear on your channel; These people are not understanding of the risks of relationships, they are anti-woman. The problem I'm seeing is both groups are called 'MGTOW'; while one self-defines as it (those who appear on your channel), the other simply is it. And MGTOWs who don't self-define as such do not have to be MRAs (or aware of the MRM) to be MGTOW.
Now as you both say, this decline in marriage is inevitable while the laws still exist as they do. However, less men getting married and not getting into long-term relationships is going to have some impact on the world, I don't know what this impact will be, but it will certainly bring about some kind of change. So because of this, I don't feel like petitioning for any kind of legal reform is necessary Although I agree with you that the divorce laws should appear on AvfM. It is rather ludicrous that they do not.
(I'm just gonna leave this link here to further explain my point in the above paragraph.)
I don't think the answer lies anywhere in this debate. I believe that what You, The Critical G are doing, in that you are educating your viewers of competent risk assessment and how to “Go your own way” in the admirable and competent sense, is a great thing. I also believe Paul Elam's “Leave them to their own devices” view is a great thing. The way I see it, a man can choose to risk-eliminate, or he can follow Your advice and actually become an admirable man. I would always choose the latter option, but I can understand why someone would choose the former.
My advice would be to stop using MGTOW altogether; it's devoid of meaning. And teaching people how to GTOW in general is both a great thing, and something which has been going on for all of human history. There's no need for an acronym.