MGTOW Right Now

The internet has recently hosted a lot of argument about what MGTOW is, and what it is not. In this debate some have focused on historic definitions of the phenomenon, condemning the character of others who assert their own opinions in denial that those uncoordinated opinions are the majority consensus.

As of late 2014, the argument shows no sign of abating so, in the interest of clarity, I’ll revisit the topic of what MGTOW is and is not, in my own opinion.

The present social reality in our society is that women have value, simply by existing. They need do nothing else. Men, by contrast, do not have an automatic human value. For men, positive identity must be earned.

It is not required to prove this premise, it is visible to anybody who participates in society. Understanding that men have no automatic value in the way women do, we come to the knowledge of who has the greatest power in granting identity to men.

In 1849, during an address at a dinner to The Daughters of Temperance, Susan B Anthony said:

“It is generally conceded that it is our sex that fashions the social and moral state of society.”

Through popular acceptance, women grant public personhood onto men. It’s also women who revoke it from those same men if they fail to comply with female expectations. Male targeted insults implying sexual inadequacy, romantic, and financial failure are all judgements of men based on their utility to women. The tenuous value of a man is compared to the fixed measure of a woman’s automatic value, and based on her subsequent approval or disapproval.

This is the normal model of male identity in our culture.

“Culture” is the operative word here. This is not an objective reality with cold nights, predatory animals, or starvation of the tribe due to drought. We are all living inside the social reality of our current culture. It is a construct of our minds populated by concepts like social status, upward mobility, personal charisma, sexual attractiveness, and so on. Our so-called culture is a world of human created meaning. As humans within it, we each have a persistent need for validation of our own value within that world of meaning.

Men, unlike women, don’t get this value by default. Men must jump through social hoops to be awarded their sense of worth from the tribe and the awarding of men’s value is largely the province of women. This produces an imbalance in which only half the species is forced to meet an essential need through contribution. This problem is exaggerated by the feminist influence in domestic policy, family law, educational policy, hiring, health funding and so on.

This manifests as a visible social caste system.

Gender ideology consists of a never ending list of absurd and contradictory requirements for men to be awarded a positive identity. These requirements are generated and promoted with a clear intention of denying men fulfilment of that basic need for value that all human beings share.

It is no surprise that men are rejecting these contradictory and self-harming requirements. Men are also moving towards alternative systems to fulfill their basic human need for esteem in the world of meaning.

This move manifests in a number of different ways, and is big enough to draw the attention and ire of mainstream commentators. Most labels applied from a mainstream perspective are attempts to shame men back into compliance with a path of female supplied approval. “Man-boy syndrome,” “failure to launch,” and “Peter Pan Syndrome” being just a few examples. One non-condemning label comes from the title of Dr. Helen Smith’s 2013 book, “Men on Strike”.

Among men practicing this path themselves, and aware that they are not alone in this departure, the term MGTOW or “Men Going Their Own Way” is commonly used. This phenomenon is a rejection by men of social institutions which inhibit fulfillment of the human need for value within our world of constructed meaning. These constructs include the ladders of career, marriage, and fatherhood.

Social conventions like marriage, which provide the most efficient methods for stripping men’s value are those first dumped in the MGTOW phenomenon. Any other institutions which have, in their modern format a function of devaluing men’s identity must die out altogether. The rejection of marriage, as the most toxic of these male harming institutions, is receiving the most negative attention because it is also the institution which provides the most security for the protected female.

To understand this, we must realize that whatever conventions are abandoned MGTOW is a manifestation of the human need for value within a world of meaning. That world of meaning is the culture we inhabit. This is social reality- constructed by our minds, in contrast to objective reality – created by the forces of nature.

But a dispute exists within the varied elements of the men’s movement, over which social conventions should be abandoned by a man charting a MGTOW path in his own life.

This argument, focusing on specific social conventions, notably on marriage, somewhat misses the point. It is not the abandonment of a specific list of mainstream practices which defines the phenomenon of MGTOW. MGTOW is a practical rejection based on new awareness of the failure of these institutions to meet the needs of men.

To decide if a social convention is inside or outside the definition of MGTOW, examine whether that institution has a feature for destroying a man within it.
That other people within that convention may elect to not demolish a man by those mechanisms is not the point. It is the presence of a male-demolishing mechanism which makes it a cultural convention to be abandoned.

What past MGTOW writers judged to be compatible with the practice of MGTOW is of shrinking relevance with the passage of time. The social phenomenon is an evolving one, rapidly updating itself, based on men’s growing awareness.

Every man who wants to can follow the trail being cut by MGTOW writers but, within the MTGOW phenomenon, admonitions to conform or to “listen up” because that person has decided that somebody they like is the expert is signalling a political agenda. Anyone trying to freeze MGTOW in time in order to make it best suit their own definition is shying from the hard work of personal freedom and should be treated as a swindler.

14 thoughts on “MGTOW Right Now”

  1. Spot on. I think it’s interesting you refer to MGTOW as a phenomenon rather than a movement, it seems more appropriate that way.

  2. If you are a married man you can’t be MGTOW / MGHOW. It isn’t possible.

    So yes .. there are boundaries to MGTOW.

    As a 45 year old confirmed bachelor / man going his own way .. by telling me I can’t define MGTOW / MGHOW you are doing the very thing you write about.

    Movements fail. MGTOW is not a movement. It is a logical / rational response to the “mechanism” (sic) you write about. It is done on an individual level. Not at a group think / centralized command post. Though the internet has been great for “red-pill” education, it isn’t the origin of said knowledge.

    So if you are married you are legally attached to government and thusly can’t go your own way as you choose. Not everyone is a winner or gets an award. Nor do you get to hi-jack our librty or freedom by rebranding MRA as MGTOW. I don’t need a union president or pay dues to run my organization of one. If you like your MRA then you can keep your MRA. I don’t take orders or even suggestions on my thoughts or opinions from MRA or married men.

    Nothing but love for my free and clear (of female entanglements) life-style.


  3. I would love to hear from you married / divorced men about paying not just for loving childrens college but estranged childrens college tution.

    Now prove me wrong about men who are married or divorced paying for and working (ie slave labor) for a system that owns you?

    Again, MGTOW without inter’fear’ence.

    I don’t have such in’tangle’ments to going my own way. Can a man in prison go his own way? No. Just as a married / divorced man is restricted by judges and wives.

    Feel free to off’us’cate the real meaning / definition. Just don’t expect me to not throw the BS flag on you.

  4. I am married and also identify as MGTOW. It is possible. I tend to think of myself and my wife as walking over the horizon and into the wilderness to start a new society. We have no desire to interact with the toxic environment that surrounds us and by observation this seems to be especially true of asian woman-white male couples. I suspect over the next 50 years you’ll see the solid emergence of these men who have gone their own way and formed families separate from Western culture and living throughout Asia. So to honeycomb, please stop dictating who is and is not MGTOW. Find your own path. Do not kick others off theirs..

    1. Greetings Solaris, you’ve chosen just about the most contentious issue you could for your first comment on the site. Nice job.

      “I am married and also identify as MGTOW. It is possible.”

      You probably won’t be surprised to discover I disagree. But this disagreement does not have it’s basis in an authoritarian attempt to decree who is and who is not “allowed” to call themselves MGTOW, rather with my grasp of what MGTOW means inside the context of the culture and the legal system such a claim is made within.

      Your statement appears, on it’s face to be a naked self contradiction. In order for your claim to not be a self-detonating non-sequiter we must either re-define MGTOW, or re-define marriage.

      Marriage within Western legal systems is the legal invitation of the state, and all it’s organs of coercion into what would otherwise be a friendship between two people. A man selecting the path of marriage is literally signing a contract inviting that third “person” into his personal relationship, in a legal and social climate where his wife’s interests are enforced by functionaries of the state, at cost of suppression of his own self interest.

      The social phenomenon of MGTOW, as I understand it is a spontaneous abandonment of male-destructive, and gynocentric social and legal institutions by men who recognize the female-favoring social and legal climate of our society, and who recognize the general willingness of women to casually abuse their legal and social power over men.

      And here you are, one of the founders of the modern MGTOW blogging community, announcing that you can be married and MGTOW, because you are married, and also a self identifying MGTOW.

      In essence, you are saying you are an abandoner of gynocentric, male destructive cultural conventions, and you’re also a participant in the most gynocentric and male destructive cultural convention, the one used as the most common example of just how toxic social and legal convention have become towards men.

      The word irresponsible is inadequate.

      You do suggest in your comment that you reside somewhere in Asia, where social convention and legal system may be considerably more equitable than places like Canada or the US. However, while that is suggested, you do not say so explicitly.

      This might constitute an altered definition of the word Marriage. (maybe)

      On the other hand, it may be that you have found a woman who is genuinely non predatory, is not a sociopath, and is guided by a sane sense of right and wrong. I have several such friends as well.
      Unfortunately, even if the woman you have decided to marry is of such character that she will not use the social and legal power that (western) marriage puts at her disposal, even if she is not passively sociopathic, in becoming married, a man puts the trigger of a metaphorical gun in her hand, and points the barrel at his own head.

      If you call it going your own way, just because your personal owner is not the type to push the button on you, then you are operating from a state of denial.

      Marriage is “the way” of the mainstream of our culture. Simply because you chose it might make it also your own way, but the MGTOW label signifies purposeful departure from that mainstream.

      But you’ve signed on the dotted line, inviting the coercive organs of the state into your personal relationship. And if you’ve done this in a gynocentric and male-marginalizing legal climate, such as the one we enjoy in the west, then you are going the way of the mainstream, no matter how egalitarian and rational your particular wife might be.

      But you call yourself MGTOW, a label which denotes abandonment of mainstream, male-destructive social and legal conventions. Some version of “that’s not now my marriage works” might seem like a reasonable rebuttal. That rebuttal does not address that gun of proxy violence, enforcement and coercion which marriage brings into your relationship, and points right at you.

      The obvious contradiction does not escape you, I trust.

      There are a collection of Men’s Rights Activists and bloggers and who have already claimed marriage and MGTOW are compatible. My former colleague Mr. Elam is first among them to make this claim. His position is an understandable one, as a politician, he is laying claim to the area of men’s direct activism which is the most disruptive of mainstream thought. I understand his motive. I don’t understand yours.

      Without re-defining either MGTOW, or Marriage, your claim that they are compatible appears to be a self contradiction. And, in the present legal climate, irresponsible as well.

  5. Solaris said … “So to honeycomb, please stop dictating who is and is not MGTOW. Find your own path. Do not kick others off theirs.”

    No thank you … thank you very much. You made your bed (i.e. marriage) … sleep in it.

    You don’t like it … tough. You’re not MGTOW if you are married. You never will be either. John explained the why. In fact I am glad he did .. I wouldn’t give you that much of my time.

    So Solaris … I found my path … MGTOW … which is not your path. You put the kick me (i.e. calling yourself MGTOW when in fact you are the Anti-MGTOW) sign on your back … not me.

    Embrace your path (e.g. marriage .. the Anti-MGTOW) Solaris. You chose it.

  6. Guys, what the f*ck is wrong with your comment field? Or is it just my browser? 90% of the time I can’t type in it.

    I know what I’m about to say may sound absurd or possibly an attempt to contradict you, but I assure you it’s intriguing at the least.

    Okay. So. MGTOW is defined, I think very well and correctly, as such “To decide if a social convention is inside or outside the definition of MGTOW, examine whether that institution has a feature for destroying a man within it.”
    Given that women have plenty more social security measures at their disposal (although not as many in countries like the U.S.), wouldn’t the work environment, schooling, and rental accommodation fall under this definition? Wouldn’t it, at some stage in the phenomenon’s growth, become hypocritical to NOT include these institutions in the array of those to be avoided by truly self-secured Men Going Their Own Way? If you, as a MGTOW, have no action plan for ejecting yourself from dependence upon these institutions be no wiser or more secure than a man who chooses to marry? Let’s be realistic here – “the system” will find a way to use and abuse men who exit the conventional coupling institution as that is the job of “the system”. “The system” may not be orchestrated by women or a central cabal (which is debatable), but it appears to be a “geist” that is slow to react to cultural developments, but all the same, eventually abuses them.

  7. EV ..

    Keep your pointer in the comment field (ie box) and you can type to yoir hearts content.

    As for true MGTOW / MGHOW it would be wise to consider all of your social / professional interactions to see if you are truly “free” of entanglements.

    I have considered reducing my income by half (>150K/yr right now) to avoid my taces being redistributed to more and more social wealth re-distributions from men to women. BUT, I can walk away and do cash work if I so chose. I have zero debt. I live a minimalist life anyway. It is truly hard to be completely un-plugged without taking drastic (counter-)measures. For example if I had a family (I know I know) I would home school them and teach them trades as a means to allow them to be self employed as adults.

    MGTOW is really about un-plugging as much as possible. As for me, I could walk away from my job (eg I have done this many times) at any time I choose without worries of a loss of income. No employer likes this. Instead they prefer men with families and bills / entanglements. Hence why married men are but one more example of ANTI-MGTOW.


  8. So I’ve had a read of your comment John, and you mention “the coercive organs of the State” as if their presence in a (Western) man’s life is some kind of binary switch turned on by signing on to marriage. This is simply not the case. In the West, the mere act of earning income is enough to trigger the entry of the State into your life. Western governments coercively demand a share of your labour regardless of your consent. Attempting to own property frequently requires the permission of the State, and let us not forget that that property can be seized at the whim of the State.

    It is by degrees that State power intrudes upon our lives, so if your premise is that a man cannot go his own way while living under the auspices of State power then a MGTOW cannot live any place in the West certainly, and call himself a Man Going His Own Way as he is de-facto consenting to State interference in his life. If you intend to remain in the West, you have to decide what level of risk you are prepared to accept.

    1. Edit: Responding to Solaris

      You’ve mentioned that the state intervenes and interferes in a man’s life, whether or not he is married, simply by him earning an income which his government will tax. You are correct. Where you are incorrect is in claiming that this is all no more than a matter of degree, and that coercion theft and exploitation enters every man’s life by tiny increments, so that wherever the line drawn on what is MGTOW and what is not is simply an individual’s risk tolerance.

      I pay taxes, and unless you live without an income, you do too. Neither of us has a choice. Paying taxes is not optional.

      Inviting the state into your personal or romantic relationship to act as the enforcer of a wife’s interests – that IS optional.

      Saying that risk is all just on a scale and that MGTOW can be found anywhere on that scale, including marriage is either a very foolish thing to claim, because you don’t recognize the CHOICE of somebody inviting his own abuse by signing that marriage contract – or you are being willfully obtuse in ignoring that marriage is a choice, while paying taxes is not.

      And whether it’s because you actually don’t understand, or because you are practicing sophistry does not matter, the distinction is only in your motivation. In either case, you are incorrect in the assertion that MGTOW and marriage are compatible.

  9. Your reply reeks of insecurity. I’m not particularly inclined to play alpha male smackdown with you however, so if it makes you feel better please do continue to rage at the screen.

Join the conversation