MGTOW: The canary in the coal mine?

mgtow

On this website, I’ve written about feminism a number of times, and if you’re familiar with this site, you’ll know that I’m an ardent critic of feminism as an ideology. As I’ve mentioned before, feminism, though it began with good intentions, has been hijacked by self-seeking misandrists. In its current form, better known as third-wave feminism, it has become an ideology built around shaming men because they were born men, and the rise and impact of third-wave feminism has led to a state where relations between men and women are strained like never before. One of the effects of this is that a number of men are dropping out of society and giving up on women in general, and that has led to creation of extreme third-wave feminism’s male counterpart – MGTOW.

MGTOW, short for Men Going Their Own Way, is a mostly online community of men who are disaffected from sexual relationships, in part due to how third-wave feminism has warped society’s view on men. It was established in the 2000’s by men like Rob Fedders (owner of NO MA’AM, an early MGTOW blog) as an anti-movement with a conservative libertarian ideology (as evidenced in the original MGTOW manifesto, which dates back to 2001). MGTOW’s will generally tell you that the movement is a reaction to what they perceive as the gynocentric biases found in society, along with all the anti-male slander coming from feminists (which includes feminists considering all men to be potential rapists).

At first glance, MGTOW can seem like a good thing for men, but it isn’t. Just like feminism, the MGTOW movement was eventually hijacked by self-seeking losers, slobs, and genuine misogynists who saw it as a way of rationalising their hatred for women, and thus the movement became the very stereotype third-wave feminists see in all men. A good example of the contemporary MGTOW is a YouTuber who identifies as the “Mayor of MGTOWN” (narcissism much?), a man from Hollywood who become a MGTOW purely because his mother treated his father like a eunuch, and responds by viewing all women as “dumb bitches” (seriously, he refers to all women as this, but he also refers to women as “the enemy”), and advocating that men pick up girls and dump them after four months. I know the word misogynist has been passed around an awful lot by feminists, but if the word misogynist could accurately describe anyone, it would be the so-called “Mayor of MGTOWN”.

Described by Return of Kings writer Matt Forney as a “cult of male loserdom”, MGTOW has become an ideology centred around literally cutting women out of your life. For the MGTOW’s, marriage is emasculation and slavery, and women are considered by the most rabid MGTOW’s as non-human. Sound familiar? Third-wave feminists view marriage as degradation and slavery, and the most rabid of that lot think men are basically monsters. The difference here is that MGTOW’s feel that marriage is doomed to failure and should be avoided, while third-wave feminists want to abolish the institution of marriage entirely. On marriage, MGTOW are a mirror image of feminists, and how appropriate, because MGTOW are the monsters that third-wave feminists have created.

Both ideologies deny the fundamental nature of human beings. Third-wave feminism denies the biological reality that women are inherently feminine in some way, while the MGTOW’s deny the biological need of straight males to seek female companionship. Both movements are actually quite sex-negative, but MGTOW is very hypocritical when it comes to sex. Many MGTOW’s view women as only being good for sex, while simultaneously buying into an ideology that prescribes avoiding women entirely (in fact, they sound more like Catholic celibates).

Both are insistent on spreading their ideology as far as they can. The “Mayor of MGTOWN” openly calls on other MGTOW’s to convert men to the movement through clickbait. Of course, that’s about as far as MGTOW’s can get. Meanwhile, third-wave feminism is dominant in the mainstream media. It has a number of gender ideologues (Anita Sarkeesian, Laurie Penny, Lena Dunham, etc.) who are ready and willing to spread the ideology along with its many disposable myths, and the ideology is regularly distributed through established publications such as The IndependentThe Guardian, and Huffington Post, along with ostensibly feminist sites such as JezebelVox, and The Mary Sue. Third-wave feminism is also prevalent in academia also enjoys a vast army of keyboard warriors who troll anyone who disagrees with the neofeminist narrative, as prescribed by a plethora of “social justice” courses. Given the kind of unfair advantage the third-wave feminists have, it’s hardly surprising that MGTOW’s would try and propagate their ideas as far as they can.

As one could expect from gender movements that become so heavily entrenched in their ideology, they have both reached a point where they automatically box you into their ideology because of your genitals. Third-wave feminists assume that if you care about women’s equality, you must be a feminist, but if a woman dares to point out that not all men are misogynists or potential rapists, they accuse her of having “internalised misogyny” (whatever the hell that means). Similarly, MGTOW’s assume that men are MGTOW’s without even knowing it, but if a man dares to point out that not all women are mean-spirited gold-diggers, they accuse him of being a “white knight” (a pejorative term for a man who constantly defends or praises a woman, presumably expecting a romantic or sexual reward in return). This is a good example of we gender and ideology should be kept separate, but that apparently doesn’t stop insane gender ideologues, whether they’re male or female, and both ideologies end up suffering the problem – for all the good and rational feminists and MGTOW’s out there, the movements invariably wind up being judged by the actions of their bad actors (never mind that both ideologies are fundamentally flawed anyway).

Okay, I think I’m done comparing the two ideologies together, so I think I should return to my central point. Through all of this, I have attempted to illustrate the main point – MGTOW as a movement arose as a reaction to the dominance of third-wave feminism, and although it’s not as powerful as third-wave feminism, it is a symptom of the damage third-wave feminism has done to gender relations. I am not a MGTOW myself, nor am I a men’s rights activist (mainly because I know very little about MRA’s). In fact, I don’t like the MGTOW movement because it glamorises the tepid bachelor lifestyle that a man should ideally strive to get out of, but I understand why some men may become MGTOW’s. Third-wave feminism has sought to destroy all the traditional values that they deem to be sexist, but what they don’t realise is that some of the traditions they’re out to destroy may have been better for male-female relationships than the alternative. In their relentless crusade against marriage and flirting, the third-wave feminists have wound up driving the least desirable men of our society to one place, and it might come back to haunt them one day.

On another note, the third-wave feminists’ constant demonising of “toxic masculinity” has caused the majority of men to lose confidence in themselves, and so I’m not surprised that a number of men (not significant but still) would want to go MGTOW, which is essentially just a mirror image of third-wave feminism. The climate of gender relations is now more toxic before, and we have third-wave feminists and MGTOW’s to thank for that. There may yet be dark times ahead.

Advertisements

41 thoughts on “MGTOW: The canary in the coal mine?

  1. “I do think feminism can be stopped with or without MGTOW. Feminism as an ideology can be defeated the same way as any other ideology.”

    It’s not just feminism that is gynocentric but also traditionalism.

  2. I’d like to address some of the points you make.

    You say that MGTOW is about celibacy, that MGTOWs do not have sex: “Both movements are actually quite sex-negative, but MGTOW is very hypocritical when it comes to sex. Many MGTOW’s view women as only being good for sex, while simultaneously buying into an ideology that prescribes avoiding women entirely (in fact, they sound more like Catholic celibates).”

    I’d like to say that MGTOWs are not necessarily celibate. For example, the Mayor of MGTOWN is not celibate. He pumps and dumps women all the time. Then there are many MGTOWs who visit sex workers rather than rely on marriage or long-term relationships for sexual release. Then there are those women who rely on pornography and masturbation. There are many MGTOW monks who abstain from sex, and these are mainly men who are older whose sex drive is naturally lower. MGTOWs in their twenties can easily satiate their sexual desires using a combination of masturbation and prostitution.

    You also say the following: “MGTOW’s deny the biological need of straight males to seek female companionship.”

    Men do not need female companionship. There are many MGTOWs who do fine not interacting with women at all. However, those MGTOWs who wish to indulge in female companionship can purchase GFE (girlfriend experience) from women. Many escorts that you can find off Twitter provide a combination of sexual services as well as dinner dates where the lady will cuddle, kiss, and talk to you. Although the cost of sex workers and GFE can be expensive, many MGTOW consider it cheaper than the cost of a girlfriend or wife.

    A third point I want to make is that you seem to be imposing values on MGTOW men, which I’m not sure is something a libertarian should do. MGTOWs experience a lot of shaming. Society constantly tries to tell them how they should behave. They are told they must marry otherwise they are losers. Simply resorting to ad hominem attacks does not help, but you say the following: “I don’t like the MGTOW movement because it glamorises the tepid bachelor lifestyle that a man should ideally strive to get out of, but I understand why some men may become MGTOW’s.”

    Tepid bachelor lifestyle? Is the bachelor lifestyle really a problem? Is it really a problem that a man keeps his money to himself and lives a life free of women, free of social expectation?

  3. Good afternoon,

    I think both MRAs and MGTOWs (to be honest, they are very similar in a lot of respects) are pushing back against something that isn’t actually there, except in a few isolated instances. The worst elements of radical feminism (which should not be taken as feminism as a whole, and for that matter, not even as radical feminism as whole) can easily be seen as misandry – I have read some very disturbing posts from radfems along exactly the lines that you describe – are terrifying, but feminism has a number of forms.

    Liberal feminism is, if you like, the moderate voice, whilst radical feminism is well, radical. Most feminists would probably identify as liberal and liberal feminism can include men. Radical feminism tends to exclude men from the discussion completely. Liberal feminists don’t shout as loud as radical feminists, and therefore their voices are not always heard, but in my view they represent a genuine force for equality and the protection of women.

    It may be a hard pill to swallow, and I know MGTOWs and MRAs will argue in this world that it just isn’t true, but if you’re a white male, you are privileged. Recently Brock Allen Turner was given just six months for raping an unconscious woman at a university campus – his own father argued for a light sentence because it was just ‘twenty minutes of action’. The idea of male entitlement to female bodies still exists, and can be seen in every instance where a man catcalls or wolf-whistles at a woman in the street, or expects a woman to stop and talk to him, getting aggressive if she doesn’t want to spend time with him.

    What MGTOWs see is radical feminism, which is the angry side of the movement. Some of this anger might well be justified, some of it won’t be. Unfortunately it creates the impression that feminism is out to undermine men, and MGTOWs (and MRAs) see themselves as ‘fighting back’. Except they are lashing out at phantoms. They’re trying to paint a picture of themselves as the oppressed when in fact what they fear is losing their privilege. If women are equal to men then men cannot own a woman’s time or bodies, and this is what truly scares a MGTOW.

    So I would urge both the article’s author and anyone reading this comment to remember what feminism actually ‘is’, rather than only seeing its worst side. I would urge them to remember that MGTOWs and MRAs seek to maintain a status quo that, far from oppressing them or hurting them, actually supports them. The trumped up ideas from these groups are exactly that – blown out of all proportion.

    • What you’re suggesting is a no true Scotsman fallacy. Most feminists actually support the rampant misandrist ideas that modern feminism espouses, and these liberal feminists (the more accurate term is choice feminist) are in the minority, and thanks to people like Anita Sarkeesian, you’ll be hard-pressed to find anyone who’ll take any feminist seriously, whether they’re liberal or not. You must be some kind of feminist apologist, or just ignorant of the illiberal nature of feminism as it is today. Also, MGTOW’s and MRA’s are completely different. MRA’s simply want men to be treated equally to women, while many MGTOW’s, as I mentioned earlier, want to separate from women entirely. If the MGTOW’s have any point that can accurately be made, it’s that there is in fact a gynocentric bias in society. If anything, women of all races are more privileged than white men because they can play the victim card and make false rape allegations, and be believed without question (for example, the Duke lacrosse case, and the Rolling stone “Rape on Campus” article).

      If in doubt, read this: http://www.realsexism.com/

      • Hello again,

        I am puzzled as to in what way I am employing the No True Scotsman fallacy – you are making statements without providing validation. This is equally true of the idea that most feminists are misandrists and would identify as radfems. This argument is dependant upon a strict sampling bias – which has then been expanded upon to apply to feminism at large.

        Your link does likewise. Is it true that men are more likely to die in war? Of course, but then, men are more likely to sign up to the armed forces (historically women have been denied roles in the armed forces, and even after being admitted, denied frontline service). Men are more likely to be involved in fatal accidents at work but once again, men are more likely to take these jobs and these jobs may well have been off limits to women in the past.

        It is statistically the case than men are more likely to commit violent crimes: http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/men-more-violent.htm

        Is it true that men are more likely to be the victim of violent crimes? It is true that men are more likely to commit violent crimes against other men, and that men commit more violent crimes against women than women commit against men or other women. Once again, your link reflects a sampling bias and does not explain the facts behind the numbers.

        You believe that women can more easily play the ‘victim card’. How does this explain the case of Brock Turner, who got a six month sentence for raping an unconcious woman? This young white man got off easy – do you think he will be alone?

        Do you believe we should be teaching women to avoid rape or teaching men to control themselves better, not make assumptions, and not rape?

      • In calling out the no true Scotsman fallacy, I suggested that you imply that radical feminists are not feminists at all, a common misconception employed typically by those desperate to defend the indefensible (the same logic is used by AJ+ to gloss over Islamic terrorism). Also, I don’t think we should be teaching anyone not to rape, nor to avoid rape, because this should be common sense. Teaching men not to rape is not only patronising but demeaning (surely they know there are laws in place), and teaching women to avoid rape is equally ludicrous because surely they would have already been taught by their parents not to go alone at night, especially not in dark alleyways. I also think Brock Turner is an isolated incident, one that could never prove the existence of a rape culture in the United States. If we lived in an actual rape culture that benefited white men (as you feminists would describe), rape would not be illegal, and people like Brock Turner would never be arrested nor publicly condemned. You’re also very keen to ignore the higher male suicide rate in the link I provided because it doesn’t confirm your biases. Surely you should have gathered that in our increasingly gynocentric society, men are increasingly undervalued compared to women.

      • Your implication through the allegation of a fallacy made a presumption, one which is not true. I did not claim radical feminists are not feminists. I merely claim they are not representative of all feminists and all feminism. Your setup of the No True Scotsman fallacy could easily be taken as a strawman fallacy (building an argument that isn’t there and attacking that).

        You think there is not a rape culture because rape is illegal? Something being illegal doesn’t automatically mean it doesn’t happen. Should a person (male or female) not be free to walk down the street at night without fear of being attacked? Should a young woman not be free to have a few drinks without the fear that someone might take advantage of her? These are ‘not’ isolated incidents. The idea that it is in any way shape or form the victim’s fault if they get raped or assaulted IS rape culture – and it’s more endemic in society than you think.

        You say I’m keen to ignore suicide statistics. I say you are keen to ignore the points I raised regarding dangerous jobs and war. You haven’t addressed either of those. Furthermore, would you care to explain how suicide statistics are linked to a bias towards women in society?

      • In no way did I imply that this is the victim’s fault. I was arguing that people should take responsibility for themselves. Am I therefore endorsing rape culture? If rape is illegal, that means if you are caught you can expect to be punished for it if found guilty, therefore there is no rape culture. Whereas, in the Islamic world, a rape victim can be convicted on charges of adultery, while in some Islamic countries, the rapist can avoid punishment if he marries his victim. That is what you would call an actual rape culture, not America. This video should prove why “rape culture” is a myth:

      • In response to your question about male suicide, I feel that male self-doubt is the key to understanding the high rate of male suicides, and I feel that this can be caused by how boys are treated in school. This video from Prager University, featuring the respected choice feminist Christina Hoff Sommers, should illustrate the kind of gynocentric culture we have in education in America, and her suggestions for reform.

      • Thank you for addressing the suicide point (although I note the ongoing lack of acknowledgement regarding war and job fatalities). Speaking for the UK, there was actually a fall in male suicide last year, and an increase in female suicide.

        https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/may/12/number-of-suicides-in-england-and-wales-last-year-reaches-20-year-high

        In the US, the rate of female suicide is increasing faster than male suicide: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/22/us-suicide-rate-30-year-high-growing-epidemic-across-america

        Neither article makes assumptions about the reasons.

      • Says the person who spells ad hominem incorrectly, and dismisses his critic ad hominem as a right-wing reactionary. You have already dismissed my sources plenty of times. I have no reason to take your argument seriously, now good day.

      • Nitpicking spelling errors and dismissing sources because you don’t like them, rather than because you’ve demonstrated them to be wrong, means the ad hominem fallacy very much applies. Your insistence upon seeing feminism through a ‘very’ specific lense and your increasing aggression as this discussion wears on do indeed make this impossible to take seriously.

      • I insist on seeing feminism as it has demonstrated itself to be. Any ideology based around gender is inherently flimsy. As for aggression, that seems to be a matter of opinion. I come down hard on people who I suspect are peddling nonsense. What did you expect when trying to convince an anti-feminist? I oppose feminism because it focuses on one gender (I oppose MGTOW for the same reason). That is why I would prefer egalitarianism, because egalitarians want equality for everyone. If, as I am beginning to suspect, you think it’s pointless for this discussion to go on, then don’t continue it. I won’t think less of you for backing down.

      • You insist on seeing a very specific subset of feminism and expanding it to be applicable to any and all feminists. You’re being very selective in what type and what parts of feminism you want to see and use for your arguments.

        Take the ‘real sexism’ site. You have failed to address what I said about war and jobs. You have in fact completely ignored this point, whilst simultaneously asking me to address the point about suicide.

        Maybe it is better to bow out. Clearly you are not going to shift your position and you may well have gathered that I will not change mine. With that in mind, the time has come to bid you farewell.

      • I said you personally believe in blaming the victim. It does however, happen, and it is indicative of the idea that men should have unrestricted access to women’s bodies, and that men carry less responsibility for our actions. THIS is rape culture.

        http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5440553

        Rape culture doesn’t have to be an overt setting that’s legal for it to exist. It can still exist even if rapists get caught and prosecuted. It exists whilst men assume they have the right to women, and whilst women have to stop and carefully consider every action, lest they be accused of being provocative or ‘asking for it’. It exists where men are not taught (not nearly as much) to think about their own behaviour.

      • “Rape culture doesn’t have to be an overt setting that’s legal for it to exist.”
        That literally makes no sense. There is a myriad of evidence to suggest that we do not live in a rape culture, but because feminism depends on the existence of a rape culture, you seem incapable of letting go of that idea. I’ve already disproved the idea of a rape culture in the United States, and you try to counterargue with a Huffington Post article – a site bound to confirm your biases (the Huffington Post is notorious for its bias in favour of social justice leftists and the Democrats).

      • Once again you employ the dismissal of the source because you don’t like it, rather than because you can address what it has to say. You fail to understand what is meant by rape culture as well.

      • I understand perfectly well what a rape culture means. I don’t need a feminist apologist to define it for me. Also, that’s rich coming from someone who literally dismisses all my sources because they don’t confirm your biases. You seem incapable of seeing this because you are entrenched in the kind of dangerous identity politics that feminism engages in. You’re not going to convince me of your ideology at all, and you would probably use your time more productively if you didn’t try and convert me like some Jehovah’s Witness knocking on my door. I’m done.

      • I don’t dismiss your sources. Your very first link I questioned, pointing out the details behind the numbers of war and job related fatalities. You have still failed to address them. You asked me to comment on suicide rates – I did, and provided links that showed rates of female suicide are on the increase too. I asked you to explain why there’s a difference between male and female suicide rates and a video that leaps to conclusions about why boys are trailing academically. You equate any problems for men and boys as ‘feminism’, using videos that leap to conclusions and blow things out of perspective.

      • Except they don’t just jump to conclusions. It’s not that hard to connect the dots. I don’t equate all problems for men and boys as “feminism”. That is such a wonderfully telling distortion that it tells of the mental gymnastics you feminists will do to defend your ideology. I point out the damage feminism is doing to society, and in my article I point out that both are flimsy ideologies. I have seen the ugliness of feminism, and like I said before, there is nothing you can do to persuade me that feminism is anything other than a female supremacy movement.

  4. Replies only seem to be allowed three deep – which is why I’m starting at the top:

    “When I say MGTOW is the “canary in the coal mine”, I imply the meaning of the idiomatic phrase. In this case, I feel that MGTOW is a symptom of the degradation of males that feminism has created, and a sign of the deterioration of society as a whole. I agree that feminism is currently on the path of ripping society to shreds, but suppose MGTOW successfully defeats feminism. What’s stopping MGTOW from becoming the very thing that they were fighting to begin with?”

    MGTOW isn’t a “symptom”. Feminism is the disease and MGTOW is the response. MGTOW is men saying enough is enough. People are only concerned about men when their decline affects women and the government personally – and couldn’t care less about men otherwise. That’s the nature of male disposability – the male only draft and why men are expected to fight and die for rights handed to women on a silver platter. Women didn’t demand equality with men until men made it safe for women to have equality.

    There’s no cure for feminism. I hear over and over again that feminism is hated – yet feminists grow in power – with much thanks to white knights (gynocentric men). Social media is now banning criticism of feminism. What’s the best way for men to respond? Stop giving women and the government the legal, social, financial and physical power to destroy your life. In other words – stop participating in your own eventual demise. It’s really that simple. Will there be consequences for society as a whole by such a backlash. You betcha. The consequences are already well underway. Do MGTOW want society to return the the days of yore in which the patriarchy ruled supreme? Not on your life. Feminism has helped men. Feminists woke men up to centuries of male disposability and cultural misandry so deeply entrenched in gynocentrism (female primacy). Men are seen by women and the government as disposable utilities necessary only for the empowerment of government and women. Until women and the government care for men and boys, this ‘decline’ you speak of will continue. Because of everything I’ve written – I’m under no illusions or enchantment that our present course will be altered. Men standing up for themselves will continue to be promoted as misogyny. The media rarely touches these issues – but when they do – men are blamed and written off as cry babies. Women, the government and media do this because society thrives off of the disposability of men. Until this changes – decline is inevitable.

    My personal prediction is that we all end up like Sweden or Iceland – with anti-feminist speech outlawed, few marriages, little sex, serial monogamy – but most importantly – rapidly declining populations once the well of outsourced birth runs dry. There’s such a thing as “The Cycle of Nations”, frequently represented by a clock. Western societies are at the 7 o’clock position and rapidly approaching midnight.

    • I think we’re headed down the crapper, but it’s not just because of feminism and power-hungry women. Progressivism in general has made the Western world weak-kneed, and so I think the real problem is the decline of Western liberal values, but I think the public at large is starting to become aware of what’s going on, and are starting to show disdain for feminism in general. That has less to do with MGTOW and more to do with people being more critical of the kind of garbage the media is putting out. Personally, I’m critical of MGTOW mainly because of its focus on gender, which is one of the many reasons why I’m critical of feminism. Nothing good can come of an ideology that politicises gender in the way that both do, whether its the gynocentric feminists or the hypermasculine MGTOW’s.

      • “I think we’re headed down the crapper…”

        Agreed. Progressivism is simply the lead to socialism – and that want of free stuff is becoming more and more desired. The push towards a minimum mandatory paycheck from the government is appearing on the table more and more. The push to give women government mandated months long paid vacations to bond with children is on the table more and more as well. As single motherhood invariably and rapidly increases – few men will be the benefactors of such paid vacations – hence more wealth and power transfer to the benefit of women. The multi-faceted benefit of mass immigration is population replacement through the outsourcing of birth, the availability of cheap, disposable male labor and the increase in power of – and voters for – progressivism (socialism). The end goal is to force wealth and power from those that have it to those that demand it for themselves. It’s all so simple – yet the truth is always carefully painted over with misogyny, white male privilege, patriarchy, cis-hetero-opressors and female and minority victimhood. I must say – it’s a great strategy – and it’s working brilliantly. Feminists openly and gleefully celebrate the fall of men and minorities are all to willing to admit their goal of outnumbering whites for the purposes of forced wealth and power transfer. White knights ensure the whole process moves forward smoothly.

        Socialism fascinates me, in a macabre sort of way, because it forces the transfer of power and wealth from corporations to what always ends up being government elites and eventually dictators. Socialist government elites take most of the ends of productivity for themselves and meat out small portions to the masses – thereby ensuring their continued power over their now government dependent serfs. Of course, this leads to a massive lowering of productivity and innovation – since you only get to have what your neighbor’s have – regardless of effort. Why try under those circumstances? Why improve oneself? There are no Bill Gates under socialism – except those government sponsored and approved (read controlled) Bill Gates designated by socialism with the expectation of mass graft. You simply do the minimum required to collect what amounts to a welfare check. What follows is quotas and reeducation facilities – to stave off productivity decline. The same is true of the forced wealth and power transfer sponsored by feminists (socialists), white knights and government. Quotas and reeducation facilities: Women’s studies for women, lighter sentences following criminal acts for women, a diversion of state and federal spending to women, and more and better ways to imprison and dispose of men – until of course there’s a war, when men are needed to run into burning buildings to save women, or when police are needed for self-slaughter to quell uprisings. A much lauded feminists once extolled the virtues of the mass imprisonment of men. The rapid reclassification of all sex as potential rape is well underway with Affirmative Consent.

        In the end, it’s all about forcing wealth and power from those that earned and/or inherited it and transferring it to those that support the ‘pay more for existing’ agenda. The only canary in the coal mine is that a lot of men are deprogramming themselves from the extremely gendered and anti-male feminist propaganda (female primacy) – which is why the feminists, government and media dismiss or wholesale ignore male issues. If they dig any deeper into male issues – male disposability becomes readily apparent – hence their response will always be male shaming and male blame. Male issues are only raised when those issues personally effect women and white knights – and then are immediately swept aside in favor of more anti-male policies and laws. Society thrives off of male disposability. The truth must never be exposed – lest the rapid move to socialism suffer defeat.

        Nothing will change until the ultimate effects of the above hit home and up close and personal. For the time being, the move towards socialism has nothing but apparent benefits to those that support socialism. Single women and minorities are the force of this movement. In the end – it will of course all come crashing down – but that’s really the only way people learn. Time and time again – over and over – it has been proven that people refuse to learn from history. Heck – people refuse to learn from the life destroying effects of socialism happening right in front of their eyes – today – right now – in other parts of the world. The trade deals hurting America? All setup to offshore power and wealth to those more amenable to a future of American socialism – and of course the lining of the pockets of Hillery and her ilk. The recent shakeup of the GOP exposed many a hidden progressive in their party. Will be interesting to see if Trump turns out to be a Manchurian like Obama, the Bushes and the Clintons.

        In recent wars, men have been forced to serve multiple tours on the front lines through ‘stop loss’ (government forced reenlistment – THE DRAFT) – so there’s already a shortage of men willing to fight – hence the introduction of the possibility of women in the draft – to which most women and white knights are vehemently opposed – so the male-only draft will continue. Ya gotta love the hypocrisy. Oh – the hypocrisy. The last time a woman was captured in battle – it was in the headlines for weeks. Meanwhile – a few hundred men died without mention. That’s male disposability for ya. All that I’ve written is why I cut my cable TV subscription and started getting news – not from government supported socialist mass media outlets – but from those that cut all the BS and talk real. I can only now stomach about one in twenty of the social engineering productions Hollywood now calls ‘movies’.

        MGTOW say – have at it. Not my circus – not my monkey. The majority of women and white knights will only blame, shame and seek to destroy men for their criticism and opposition – so why bother? To the extent possible – just remove women’s and white knight’s power and control over your life. Eventually they’ll wake up – but by then – it’ll be too late to go back – at least without a bloody revolution – which most men will be unwilling to fight – given the anti-male history of their forebears.

  5. Hillary is the manifestation of women’s want of power and control over men and the manifestation of those that hope for forced wealth and power transfer from the evil white man to themselves, which is why single women and minorities vote nearly exclusively Democrat. Let us cut to the chase: Hillary’s voters are single women and minorities that despise white, heterosexual males (the patriarchy) and those white men that have been successfully brainwashed into self-loathing by anti-male feminist propaganda. Feminism is the trunk in the rapidly growing tree of socialism. Don’t mistake my statement for support of Republicans. I’m merely pointing out what is plainly obvious to all – even those that vehemently deny everything I’ve written. The reason you can never successfully argue against a gynocentrist and/or socialist is because they know exactly what they’re doing and will crucify you with legal, social, physical and financial annihilation if you dare voice an opinion otherwise. Sarkeesian, Allred, Valenti – and for that matter all of their ilk – know exactly what they’re doing and with great success have deployed the fear of utter annihilation of those that oppose them.

    The hope of the above ilk is to equate MGTOW with feminism thereby forcing men back to the plantation, begging for a seat at the table men built. Not going to work. Too many men will see through it. Where feminism goes – the backlash of MGTOW will surely follow – until of course MGTOW is legally classified as hate speech and punished with imprisonment – which will likely be the case. Feminists and male gynocentrists (white knights) are working diligently to put in place laws that imprison those that oppose gynocentrism and the feminist agenda, hence no fault divorce, VAWA, Affirmative Consent and even the classification of criticism by MGTOW or MRAs as speech punishable by imprisonment. What I just wrote is currently being put into place the globe over. You are very naive.

    • Furthermore, the reclassification of cohabitation as marriage to give cohabiting women the same rights to asset division, alimony and child support that their officially married counterparts so enjoy is being implemented the globe over. In many Westernized nations, this is already law. The latest in this conversion of cohabitation into forced wealth and power transfer from men to women is the UK’s “Cohabitation Rights Bill”. All such legislation and laws are carefully disguised with verbiage that make them seem relatively benign. The real agenda behind legislation and laws such as the aforementioned is to continue the forced wealth and power transfer from men to women. Only the navie and successfully brainwashed can’t see through such legislation – and there are plenty of them to go around. The originator of the UK’s Cohabitation Rights Bill – Lord Somebody or Other – even brazenly stated this outcome as the primary goal of the bill – though you’ll find little evidence of that fact. I’m betting he too thinks MGTOW the “Canary in the Coal Mine”.

      • When I say MGTOW is the “canary in the coal mine”, I imply the meaning of the idiomatic phrase. In this case, I feel that MGTOW is a symptom of the degradation of males that feminism has created, and a sign of the deterioration of society as a whole. I agree that feminism is currently on the path of ripping society to shreds, but suppose MGTOW successfully defeats feminism. What’s stopping MGTOW from becoming the very thing that they were fighting to begin with?

  6. You are one seriously misinformed individual. Thanks to the internet, MGTOW will gain parity with feminism in at most 30 years. MGTOW has only been around in earnest since 2011 and you can readily see MGTOWesque comments in nearly every forum on male-female relationships. You highly underestimate the power of the MGTOW mindset. MGTOW isn’t a movement – it a change for the better in men’s thinking. It’s men regaining their sovereignty from the oppression of misandrists and white knights (read YOU). We’re also not PUAs or MRAs. We simply seek freedom from the tyranny of the gynocracy and the white knights that support an anti-male society. Feminism seeks to privilege women by marginalizing men. MGTOW seeks to free men from the damage wrought against men by both overt and covert misandrists (including white knights such as yourself). Every year, hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of men have their wealth and power transferred to women through divorce. The two ideologies couldn’t be more different. Get a clue.

    • Ah but that’s where you’re wrong.

      1) The two ideologies are different in goals, but similar in their approach. Also, if it has to be “regaining sovereignty”, I just know you’re being ideological.

      2) I’m not a white knight. There was a time where I could have been, but I’m thankful that’s no longer the case. Also, by calling me a white knight, you’ve only proven one of my points. By the same token, I may as well be a misogynist because I criticise feminism (and I frequently do).

      3) I never mentioned PUA’s, not that I like them.

      4) While I agree with you that feminism is a cancer on society, I don’t think all women are monsters.

      5) If anything, you’re misinformed by virtue of being so entrenched in your ideology that you refuse to see the its inherent biases. I at least have been critical of both.

      Even if there are aspects of MGTOW I might agree with, I’m not the kind of man who would be MGTOW (permanent bachelorism isn’t part of my plan for life). I’m also worried about what the rise of MGTOW tells us about the state of our society, and I doubt MGTOW will change anything for the better as long as its as cult-like and ideological as it stands.

      • The Westernized world over, marriage and birth rates are tanking. After NAWL (National Association of Women Lawyers) lobbied to have no-fault divorce become law in California, it spread like wildfire across the US. NAWL even brags that this is their greatest achievement for women – to make it easy for them to dispose of their husbands while simultaneously retaining their X-husband’s current and future assets and income. Many a pool boy has benefited from no fault divorce. Since that time – tens upon tens of millions of men’s lives have been destroyed – trillions in wealth have been forcefully transferred via anti-male law from men to women – and marriage and birth rates have declined – in both good and bad economies.

        Affirmative Consent originated in California as well and it too is metastasizing across the US. Though the legal system is currently rejecting it in criminal prosecution – as feminists gain more power in the legal system, that will change as well – with men losing their legal rights to presumption of innocence and due process whenever a woman mentions a sexual encounter in which she didn’t personally gain.

        Currently, Westernized nations depend on the breeders (South America, India, the Middle East, Africa) to replenish their collapsing populations – with Japan as the one remaining holdout. Once feminism metastasizes in these countries – their birth and marriage rates will too collapse – and they already are – cutting off the outsourced birth supply to Westernized nations. The rapid influx of ‘refugees’ into westernized nations has zero to do with warmly accepting the down trodden and everything to do with a frantic race to stave off population decline and economic collapse. That’s the hidden agenda of mass immigration. This global failure of feminism is being purposely and carefully hidden – hence women’s sudden drive to overtake men in government and continue the slaughter – and the support of white knights in their endeavor.

        Feminism can’t be stopped. Why? There’s no cure for it. The white knights are terrified of being labeled misogynists and becoming targeted for social, financial and legal ostracization after being identified by viscous feminists organizations and other white knights (see Roger Ailes). So feminism’s rise will continue unabated – the globe over.

        MGTOW don’t politically organize. We don’t lobby the government for millions in taxpayer dollars. We have no leadership. MGTOW simply want to wake other men up to wretched, culturally embedded misandry and male disposability so deeply entrenched in Westernized nations. We want to save other men from life destruction wrought against men through giving women and the wretched white knights that empower them legal, financial, social and physical power over their lives. That’s not an ideology. That’s an awakening that’s long, long past due.

        Feminism wants equality – without the expectation of responsibility. That cannot and will not stand. Women and white knights will have to care about men and boys – or bust. MGTOW will make them see this – by simply walking away. Just ask Japan – who lost a million in population over the past few years and is already starting to pay women to have children. This is the ultimate goal of feminism – to force wealth and power from men to women and to destroy the patriarchy. Already – the majority of public state and federal funding for health, education and welfare goes to women. Other such carefully disguised and thoroughly anti-male taxes are on the way. Women, white knights and the government will do all they can to force men to accept responsibility for and pay for their hatred of men and boys. MGTOW isn’t a movement. It’s nature playing itself out. MGTOW is what happens when the hatred of men and boys becomes too obvious.

        The response to MGTOW will be (a) an increase in the hatred of men and boys through social shaming – ultimately driving more of them to go their own way – or (b) silly pleas to men and boys to come back – with no realignment of the system to help men and boys – resulting in millions more men’s lives destroyed by a system that despises them.

        Full disclosure – I was manspreading while writing this mansplained reply.

      • Wow. That was a mouthful. However, I do think feminism can be stopped with or without MGTOW. Feminism as an ideology can be defeated the same way as any other ideology. Why do you think feminists like Anita Sarkeesian want to censor dissent? If feminism was challenged in a healthy debate, it would be a losing ideology, and that’s why the feminists are so keen on controlling the discussion. Personally, I think they can only go so far before people get sick of them, and I think people are. I believe you when you say that the gynocentric society has been destroying men’s lives with biased legislation. I can even find proof of it if asked, but I don’t think you’re screwed yet (unless of course Shillary wins the election, then you’re screwed). I also don’t think that women in general are to blame. I personally blame power-hungry misandrists like Anita Sarkeesian, Gloria Allred, and Jessica Valenti, and I also blame the media for indoctrinating people to think all men are stupid, but I don’t think MGTOW is the answer, and even you pointed out the possibility that feminists may counter by shaming men more. If that’s true, then I doubt MGTOW will do much good other than creating a mirror image of feminism for angry men to adopt.

    • MGTOWs are ultimately cowards that want to retain the right to see women as objects and will do whatever it takes to view them as disposable. They drum up false ideas about ‘tyranny’ and frankly, they ARE crybabies.

      • Now hold on a moment. MGTOW’s may have some views I may disagree with but not all of them are cowards, and certainly not Tim. You’re looking at someone bold enough to hold my article to scrutiny and try to debate my ideas, and yet you call him a coward by virtue of calling all MGTOW’s cowards. SJW’s and feminist apologists are the real cowards. Not me, not Tim, nor anyone brave enough to question your feminist dogma.

      • I stand by my comments. MGTOWs AND MRAs are rallying against equality. They don’t want to lose their privilege. I have read enough MRA and MGTOW sites to see exactly how they view women and want to continue seeing women in that fashion. They have taken a very skewed view of feminism, treated it as a blanket position and run with it. Ironically, their attitude greatly fuels the worst elements of radical feminism.

      • It doesn’t fuel the worst elements of radical feminism, it is fuelled by them. The radfems have taken over the establishment and mainstream media, and the end result is young men dropping out of society and embarking on the Sexodus. Just go to any left-leaning media outlet, and you’ll find that they talk of “toxic masculinity” (which in reality is healthy display of masculinity that is being vilified by the left-wing press). They view all men as potential rapists, and automatically privileged and thus their opinion is somehow invalid. Compared to them the worst of MGTOW are not as bad as you may think. The difference is that you feminists have mainstream backing while the MGTOW’s don’t. Also, the MRA’s want equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome, as you do.

      • What you speak of is scare mongering. I tend to find this is the case of the reactionary right. Anything that is even remotely suggestive of equality suddenly becomes an attack on the poor, maligned white male, who is emasculated and in need of help to fight an oppressive regime. It simply isn’t true. It is, as I said before, a reflection of a sampling bias.

      • You sir are a moron. I don’t oppose equality (unless it’s equality of outcome, which is essentially the idea that everyone should be made to live under the same conditions with the same amount of wealth), and I am certainly not a right-wing reactionary (I’ve opposed them since I was a teenager I’ll have you know). I am in fact a libertarian, and as such I oppose authoritarian philosophies of all stripes, and that includes third-wave feminism. My musings on radical feminism aren’t based on scaremongering. They are based on the reality of what they have brought onto the world (campus censorship, trigger warnings, rising promiscuity, rising depression in women who work, the #KillAllMen hashtag). What men are concerned about isn’t equality, it’s about feminists poisoning gender relations in their pursuit of female supremacy over men, and you have yet to convince me otherwise.

      • Your aggressive attitude and lack of any meaningful counterpoint is certainly in keeping with the behaviour of right-wing reactionaries, so you are doing an excellent job of mimicking them.

        You have latched on to one aspect of feminism and blown it out of all proportion. You don’t understand that feminism has different forms.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s