?t????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Everything is wrong with MGTOW

For the uninitiated, MGTOW (men going their own way) is a movement which exists as a partially overlapping subset of the men’s human rights movement, and it is characterized by men opting out of society’s conventional, prescriptive, and increasingly toxic male obligation. The MGTOW movement is, of course, highly individualistic, and since it is by definition contrarian to mainstream sensibilities it also widely misunderstood and mischaracterized.

And it is fundamental to the nature of Men Going Their Own Way – that what it means to the practitioner matters. Conversely, what it means to you, to the critic or the opponent of MGTOW, does not matter at all.

Establishing who this is written for, along with the claim of that audience’s irrelevance to practitioners of MGTOW might suggest this article’s pointlessness as well.

In the interests of honesty and self-awareness, it must be admitted that there is an element of Schadenfreude (pleasure derived from the misfortunes of others) in the continued and escalating whingeing from opponents and critics of the MGTOW movement. But there is also an honest desire among many practitioners of MGTOW to share with potential newcomers the freedom, the pleasure and the power over your own life which ‘going your own way’ brings.

It’s for this reason that a few common falsehoods about different aspects of MGTOW will be addressed.

The first objection:

The MGTOW manifesto is flawed, or psychopathic, or illogical, or the ideology is malevolent, or perverse, and possibly pornographic.

Something like this is one of the most common criticisms of MGTOW, and also one of the easiest to swat aside.

There is no ideology, there is no doctrine, and there is no Men Going Their Own Way manifesto. Obviously, a few minutes of googling will uncover dozens of websites each posting some version of what this or that blogger believes is a manifesto for MGTOW, but opinions are like assholes. Not only does everybody have at least one, they’re very often shitty. There are also certainly a fair number of voices, mostly online pronouncing support for that version of a MGTOW manifesto, or that other version – but again, all of this is mere opinion mongering. MGTOW is a movement based not on any blog-written doctrine, but on its practice. And it is the practice that this movement that has reality. For the men actually practicing MGTOW in their own lives, the TOW in the acronym is the most important part. Their Own Way means each, individually, making their own choices about how to live their lives. It most certainly does not mean following anybody else’s prescribed set of rules, not even rules written by another practitioner of MGTOW.

Of course, writing by activists is a major part of any social movement, so it is natural for MGTOW manifestos to proliferate online, even as some of the authors may believe themselves authorities to be followed. In reality, these manifestos have value, not as prescriptive solutions to strictly follow, but as a collection of ideas to be considered, and if judged individually useful by practitioners, adopted on an item by item basis. MGTOW is, of course, a strongly libertarian movement. The idea of dictating some doctrinal methodology – “do this or you’re not a real MGTOW” is logically self-defeating. It’s not called Men Going John The Other’s Way, it’s men going THEIR OWN way. And, of course, this guide I’m writing is my own opinion, reflecting my understanding of the MGTOW movement, which other MGTOW are welcome to adopt or to reject as they see fit.

On MGTOW and women:

Claim: MGTOW are celibate, or sexually abstinent, or socially crippling themselves by their aversion to women.

It is beyond the scope of this discussion to establish or to prove that our society is socially and legally imbalanced along the line of sexual identity, in the direction of power and advantage to women. However, understanding that social and legal imbalance exists, it is natural for the average majority of those so legally and socially advantaged to view their elevated legal station as a natural right, and to casually abuse their power. Certainly, some women with a developed moral compass will avoid abusing the power they have, but most have no such reservations, nor even any conscious self-awareness of their own power nor awareness of their indifference to men as fellow humans.

For men contemplating relationships with women, this has some serious consequences. Some proponents of MGTOW advocate a total disengagement from women. Indeed, some MGTOW practitioners may strictly avoid women on an ongoing basis – as it is every individual’s right to do. In fact, even for male MHRAs who don’t self-identify as MGTOW, a finite period of such avoidance can be highly effective in achieving self-realization, emotional equilibrium and self-identity apart from our culture’s typical consensus conferral of public personhood onto males.

However, going forward, it’s also true that we are all humans, and as such we are social animals. Men, even supposedly “woman hating” MHRAs and practitioners of MGTOW, almost all have great affection for women. Indeed, most MRAs, whether they will admit it or not, harbour a deep desire to love and to be loved by a woman within a relationship based on trust, affection and so on.

The problem, of course is the gun in the room, and the willingness of averagely socialized, “normal” women to use that metaphorical gun.

This means that aside from those practitioners of MGTOW totally disengaging from women, men who don’t opt for celibacy have a particularly challenging hazard course to navigate.

Relationships with women are certainly possible – including intimate sexual relationships. However, any such relationships pursued in a MGTOW context will have to avoid conventionally patterned relationships. Indeed, women within MGTOW relationships will have to be explicitly committed to minimizing the potential for abuse of the power and violence that our culture and laws put unilaterally at the disposal of women, against men.

A number of specific techniques are practiced and shared within MGTOW circles, a few of which this discussion will mention.

One area worth mentioning is that of voluntarism within relationships, as a consciously chosen alternative to conventional sexual-relations between men and women as practiced outside the MGTOW movement.

In a “girlfriend” and “boyfriend” relationship, the naming of relationships reflects common social assumptions of proprietorship : She is “my girlfriend” or he is “my boyfriend”. This also reflects a fairly common sense of social obligation to whoever occupies that role of girlfriend or boyfriend. Activities such as dining together, pursuing recreational or entertainment activities, or sleeping together, while they are obviously mutually enjoyable, also have an element of obligation in the context of boyfriend or girlfriend. Are you sharing a bed with your girlfriend because you wanted to in each specific instance, or because that’s what you’re “supposed to do”? In almost all cases, it’s a little from column A, and a little from column B, and as this is “normal” most people in such arrangements are not particularly aggrieved. But there /is/ an undercurrent of coercion in any such arrangement.

By contrast, consider the dynamic of a non-sexual relationship between two friends. Are they spending time together because they are “supposed to”, or are they choosing one another’s company in each instance, because that’s what they want to do, every time they may spend time together. That is a relationship based on voluntarism.

What happens when sex becomes a part of such a voluntarist relationship? Obviously, although not unique, voluntarism is a non-standard practice in the context of sexual relationships. It specifically requires clear communications and trust between any two people practicing such a friendship, as well as concrete agreement on details such as explicitly and clearly defined sexual agreement, residence, and so on. In particular, some elements common in non-MGTOW sexual relationships may be explicitly excluded in such an arrangement. This is necessary, because unstated and unexamined in most conventional relationships are a number of social norms which facilitate the devaluation of human rights of men, which women take for granted.

A detailed examination of such conventional assumptions is outside the scope of this discussion, but a few examples will illuminate some of the coercion present in “normal” relationships.

Women obviously enjoy a legal, as well as a social right to reproductive self-determination. That is to say, a woman can choose to become pregnant, or choose to avoid pregnancy through the use of birth control. The choice to do so is her legal right, and it is a right practically enabled through the ready availability of numerous consumer technologies providing women control over their own fertility.

To be clear, this is separate and distinct from the right to engage in, or to eschew participation in sexual intercourse. That is a separate question.

Also a separate issue is the legal and social right to utilize pregnancy terminating medical intervention, either through surgical practice, as with abortion, or less invasive medication, such as a “morning after” pill. Pregnancy termination is a separate and distinct issue also.

By contrast, men lack the basic right of reproductive self-determination. This is manifested in social convention, in law, and in the absence of reversible fertility-governing technologies for males.

If a women decides to become pregnant by lying about her use of birth control, the man whose gamete cells she uses has no legal say in the matter. If he doesn’t want to become a father, but she wants to become a mother, tough luck for him. He will be legally bound by whatever she decides – whether he agrees or not. Indeed, he will be required by law to finance a woman’s legally unilateral choice to reproduce for up to 2 decades. And in this legal obligation, over which he has no voice, if his obligation exceeds his ability to pay, then he will be jailed, retaining his debt, even after completion of his imprisonment.

A few standard objections to this are worth noting as well, because although they are common, they are also false.

But he should have just kept his pants zipped up. He chose to reproduce when he chose to have sex!

Have you heard this one before?

This is false, and for those making this argument, it is dishonest. The choice to participate in sex is not the same as the choice to reproduce. Imagine a woman, convinced the sex she was having was “safe” because her partner in bed assured her he’d had a vasectomy. Turns out he was lying, and surprise, she’s pregnant, and finds that she has no legal right, and no social right to not be a baby factory.

Tough luck, you should have kept your legs together, lady.

Almost any sane adult will understand that such a social and legal standard would be absurd and monstrous. Despite common recognition of this absurdity when considering the basic human rights of women, most people suffer cognitive malfunction when contemplating the possibility of affording the same basic rights to self-determination for men.

If she chose to get pregnant, if she got pregnant carelessly, or if she was careful, but became pregnant through the failure of birth control, she has rights, but you don’t, buddy. Pay up, sucker, or go to jail.

This is socially normal, and legally enforced. It is also grotesque. It is, effectively, reproductive slavery, enforced with nearly complete public support.

And as a note to anyone who objects to the use of the term slavery, first define that term, then explain why it’s the wrong word.

But of course, an awful lot of MGTOWs really like women, at least, those women who lack what appears normal culturally induced psychosis of male-disdain. So friendly, even sexual relations with women is not antithetical to the practice of MGTOW. It’s merely that such relationships will not follow conventional practice or pattern. Incidentally, although it should be obvious, it’s worth explicit mention that marriage and MGTOW cannot coexist. They are mutually exclusive choices.

The next objection to MGTOW:

It’s bad for society – you bad men need to settle down and have families.

Believe it or not, this is a common argument. We are, of course talking about the same “society” which ignores the 4 out of 5 suicides which are male. The same “society” which co-opted language of the black civil rights movement describing the systematic and cultural acceptance of (mostly black) male inmate targeting rape within the American prison system. That language co-opted to portray a fraudulent narrative of social acceptance of culture-wide female sexual victimization, while erasing public consciousness of institutional rape of men in the prison system.

“It’s bad for society” being the objection to a culture in which men victimized by violence from their spouses are typically arrested, rather than helped.

This objection also applies to the very same society in which it is socially normal to discuss domestic violence as “violence against women” – despite the reality shown by all credible research showing it to be co-equally committed by women and men, and unrelated to the sexual identity of aggressors or victims. Indeed, the socially “normal” model of domestic violence is one which guarantees to not ameliorate the problem. But of course, it’s solid gold for tapping into everybody’s natural inclination to protect women, and thus, is guaranteed to keep the profiteers of the DV industry in their cushy salaried positions.

But the argument, “it’s bad for society” – fielded as an objection to MGTOW – is about as practical or logical as objecting to the use of cockroach poison because it’s bad for cockroaches.

However, noting that the growing adoption of MGTOW among younger men is now having, and will continue to have a corroding effect on a culture considered by MHRAs as dysfunctional, that corrosion is not the principal purpose of MGTOW. Recalling the opening of this discussion, that the evaluation of MGTOW by non-practitioners does not matter to the movement, nor to individual men going their own way. Indeed, it is a major feature of the practice of MGTOW that the standard narrative of shame and censure heaped onto non-conforming men – that shame is abandoned and excised from the emotional repertoire of MGTOW practitioners, also sometimes called by the more elegant identifier Zeta Males.

In fact, the public admonition levelled against MGTOW/Zeta Males that the practice of increasing numbers of men of going their own way will have a negative overall effect on society – is almost always couched in shaming language against Zeta Males and their supporters. This attempt at manipulation is rightly dismissed by MGTOW with utmost contempt and scorn, because it is really nothing more than the rephrasing of “get back on the treadmill of provide, protect and die when your utility to others is exhausted.”

No thanks.

However, all of that public corrosion is secondary. It is the principle feature of MGTOW that in avoiding the self-destructive conformity enforced on men, they end up enjoying power over their own lives, and particularly, over their own identities. The importance of this cannot be overstated.

But of course, in the populist narrative, MGTOW is a drain on society. This means the same society running on the corpses of disposable men. Thank you for noticing.

The next objection:

Women civilize men – and if men don’t get civilized, cats and dogs will live together, the dead will rise, seas will boil.

Setting aside the comedic predictions of apocalypse, this claim is garbage. It is the attempt at conflation of all positive aspects of humanity with female identity, and the corollary attempt to associate antisocial and negative human behavior with male identity.

In fact, the argument that women civilize men – and all related arguments, is so vapid, ignorant and contemptuously stupid that to dignify it with a detailed refutation would elevate it higher than the claim’s arrogant gender supremacist stupidity deserves. We will leave this one in the garbage where it belongs.

Tucker Carlson:
You’re not a man until you take responsibility for somebody else.

And because they refuse to take responsiblity for others, MGTOWs are sad, pathetic virgin, losers, and sexual failures.

This, of course is straight out of the shaming tactics catalog. Categorized as the “charge of unattractiveness,” the catalog correctly points out that like almost all standard shaming tactics, it is a circumstantial ad hominem argument, and thus, it completely lacks any merit or relevance. However, the minimalist refutation supplied by the catalog does not go nearly far enough. “The target’s romantic potential ultimately does not reflect on the merit of his arguments. “

The effectiveness against most men, of the public perception of their imputed lack of appeal to females retains a great deal of power outside of MHRM and MGTOW circles, and so is worth examining.

The shaming tactic of imputing undesirability, or unattractiveness taps directly into a feature of male public identity often discussed within the MHRM. This is a perfect example of the consensus conferral of male public identity by the female collective.

The response proposed in the shaming tactics catalog to such exercised manipulation, is logically sound, but given the radical nature of MGTOW as a practice by some MHRAs, the provided refutation doesn’t go nearly far enough.

“MGTOWs are pathetic virgins, losers, and sexual failures”

The public characterization of the relative value of the sexual identities of men going their own way makes at least one profound, fundamental and catastrophically flawed assumption.

The assumption is that the sexual identity, sexual value, and by extension, the sexual attractiveness of any particular MGTOW man is a public resource to be critiqued, consumed, condemned or even praised.

Recalling that rather than a prescriptive, all-included package to be followed, the practice of MGTOW discussed here is offered for the consideration and selective, item-by-item adoption by prospective MGTOW men, this is one man’s Zeta path, condensed and simplified for public comprehension. Even with the aforementioned caveat, opponents of MGTOW will almost certainly continue to purposefully get it wrong, which is okay, critics are all quite welcome to keep crying.

However, returning to the publicly evaluated, and condemned sexuality and sexual-value of men going their own way; unlike almost all other males in this culture, men going their own way are not, as a rule, offering their sexuality for anyone else’s consideration. Just like their identities, the sexuality and sexual value of MGTOW-men belongs to themselves, and is not automatically offered up as a public resource and lever of control and manipulation.

No, really, as an outsider to the MGTOW movement – (whether supporting or condemning) – if, as that outsider you imagine your opinion on the sexual identity of a MGTOW man is relevant, or interesting, or worth even being heard, then you are sadly delusional. Of course, nobody in the MGTOW movement will tell critics they’re not entitled to their own opinions, however, nobody in the MGTOW movement finds such opinions interesting or relevant. MGTOW men don’t care if you’re not turned on by them. Be assured, the reason the MGTOW movement exists is they find a vast majority of women (and men, we’re an inclusive movement) repellant in context including the sexual, and truly repellant in so many other ways as well.

Moving right along – we have another common objection to the practice of MGTOW.

Society needs more babies. Economies require constant growth, marry up and make babies or we’re all screwed.

Before addressing this, its worth noting to readers that yes, this really is a common argument against MGTOW men and Zeta males.

So, in the interest of clarity, let’s address one the most stupidly absurd objections of MGTOW yet fielded. Also, I know the previous sentence, posted here without justification could be considered poisoning the well. But honestly, is there anyone alive today not yet aware that unabated continued human population growth is a world-wide problem?

I knew this in 1977, when I was 7 years old.

However, it’s also true that modern economies do depend on constant growth. And this is a problem. The solution is not more growth, even 7-year-old me knew that for fuck’s sake. Rather, the solution will be fundamental changes to the way we naked pink and brown monkeys organize our economies. Those changes will come when we have a political will to create them, or when the hard reality of a finite planet forces us. The second possibility will be much more painful than the first, but appears to also be more likely.

For my own part, and as a self-identifying MRA and MGTOW, I have no interest whatsoever in preserving a corrupt, broken system which has always run, and continues to run on the corpses of good men.

“We do not ride on the railroad; it rides upon us. Did you ever think what those sleepers are that underlie the railroad? Each one is a man…. The rails are laid on them, and they are covered with sand, and the cars run smoothly over them. They are sound sleepers, I assure you. And every few years a new lot is laid down and run over; so that, if some have the pleasure of riding on a rail, others have the misfortune to be ridden upon.”
~1854: Henry David Thoreau

You’re quitters!

Yup, that’s actually an argument against MGTOW. Particularly the element of men, going their own way apart from social interactions with women. To be clear, some following a MGTOW practice use language which includes “giving up on women”. But rather than surrender, this indicates a conscious evaluation and rejection of a cultural norm which, to most MGTOW, has become unappealing, toxic, unreliable and dangerous.

If the grocery store began selling rotten, poisonous and inedible slop – you’d stop buying your “food” there. You’d find an alternative.

The accusation of “you’re quitters” also found in the venerable but still excellent shaming tactics catalog is actually an empty characterization of effective tactics, masquerading as an accusation of inaction.

The complaining will no doubt continue. MGTOW men, in response to this complaining, will likely not even notice, because they are busy, doing the most useful and productive thing they can, defining themselves and defining the terms on which they interact with the wider, gender ideological world.

That is really why so many people are excited, and exercised about MGTOW men. It’s because they are afraid. They are afraid of the growing numbers men refusing to be defined and controlled by women.

And of course, to those opposing, criticizing, condemning, and crying about the growing adoption by men, particularly young men of MGTOW as a model for their own lives: cry some more.

  • AVFM seeks app writer volunteer

    Are you an MHRA? Can you write apps for iPhone and Android? Are you willing to do that for AVFM on a special project? Please contact us.

    A Voice for Men seeks a volunteer with solid app writing experience to help us develop an app that will be linked to the AVFM brand. If you have the qualifications and are serious about following through, we would love to hear from you. Your efforts could be of great assistance to this website and to our cause. Please contact Paul Elam at paul@avoiceformen.com for more details...

  • Wikimasters, Editors, Translators, and Writers Wanted *Apply Now*

    Fight Wikipedia censorship! A Voice for Men and WikiMANNia are working to increase knowledge of men's issues through two wikis: the AVfM Reference Wiki for scholarly references, and WikiMANNia for general-interest men's issues. Volunteers needed for writing, proofreading, and organizing. Some knowledge of the German language will be helpful but *not* required.

    Please write to editorial_team@wikimannia.org...

  • DavidicLineage

    If we didn’t have any other reason to be MGTOW, the delicious tears of trads and fems would be enough.

  • napocapo69

    What a lack of perspective!
    MGTOW is the most feminist movement of the whole history. It is about giving women all the freedom they were looking for, at least according to feminist advocacy.

    Wasn’t feminism about emancipation? MGTOW are just providing women the dream come true.

    • Partridge

      Feminism is, above all else, about female privilege, power and control, and hatred of men.

      • SlantyJaws

        It sure ain’t about equality. I’ve yet to see a single feminist mass protest at the way the courts infantilise women by giving them lesser sentences for equivalent crimes.

        You know stepping back, feminism is really just “boys have cooties” grown to mutant godzilla proportions.

        • rebar

          And ego-tripping and bigotry and selfishness and theft . . .

          • John Narayan

            Greed.

    • http://stgeorgewest.blogspot.co.uk/ angelo

      I don’t think it’s a panacea, but a stop gap on the way to equal rights. Who in their right mind would chance the contract in the prevailing environment.

      Do you want to take away women’s freedom? I want us all to have more and equal freedom and reproductive rights.

      Anyway, what’s your prescription?

  • http://tarnishedsophia.wordpress.com TheSwordintheChalice

    What serendipity…I just did a MGTOW post on my own blog. The thing about these accusations is that they are easily revealed as patently false for the vast majority of MGTOWs when one actually takes the time to speak to someone going their own way. But of course, getting to know someone’s ACTUAL beliefs and opinions is not nearly as easy as pretending you already know them…Where is the fun of doing real research before reaching your own conclusions, after all? ;)

    • Laddition

      Hi Tarn! Nice to see your ever resonable self here

      • http://tarnishedsophia.wordpress.com TheSwordintheChalice

        Spawny, how you doing? Love the fact you’re here too. We do get around a bit, don’t we? ;)

        Thanks for your comments over at my place. You have a way with words that is spectacular, and I always look forward to our conversations. I actually plan on turning one of your questions into a post next month…first I have to do the INTJ one I promised to Navigator.

        Hope your day is going well!

  • Mark Trueblood

    Society was generally willing to accommodate a movement of women evolving and/or abandoning their traditional roles over time, because men still held up their traditional roles.

    Society is unwilling to accommodate a movement of men evolving and/or abandoning their traditional roles, because there is a very real risk of collapse of the status quo.

    Makes you wonder which sex is really “obsolete.”

    • MGTOW-man

      Yep. When we men do the same thing to society: opt out of conventional roles and auto-duties, they have hysterical fits. When our other half initiates the destruction of all that most people held dear, it creates panic. Men have rules, women can do as they darned well please.

      …Now, don’t hate women!

      This is so transparent. I marvel at how so many men fail to see how wrong they are for blindly auto-supporting runaway feminism.

  • http://stgeorgewest.blogspot.co.uk/ angelo

    Excellent work John.

  • MGTOW-man

    The opponents of MGTOW will continue to cry. They will cry because they do not like NOT getting their way.

    You, John, used the right words when you said:

    “Certainly, some women with a developed moral compass will avoid abusing the power they have, but most have no such reservations, nor even any conscious self-awareness of their own power nor awareness of their indifference to men as fellow humans.”

    —Good insight, I believe. I say the same thing: “obliviousness, derived from their feelings overwhelming them and skewing their perspectives on reality and more.” I believe we are talking about the same thing here.

    Anyway, the nerve of the oblivious meanies out there to say that we MGTOW are bad for society!@#$%^*!!

    …and feminism was wonderful for it?

    Yeah, like a mammal needs more ticks.

    Feminism has resulted in so many societal ills that there isn’t enough space here to discuss it. But just for starters, it shredded the family unit, redefined it, and now their version has become the toxin of all toxins, compounding on itself, oozing in all directions manifesting in exponential badness for us all! How dare them say that our reaction to their reaction gone selfish and sour, is bad.

    Mind-blowing! I’m telling you, they are angry at us for using our rights here because they will not get as much out of us like they assume they have automatic rights to get.

    Sorry to burst your little precious vulnerable, victimized bubbles bitches, but MGTOW is here and in your face. What did you expect…that THINKING men would continue with the stagnant status quo that your kind of men LOVE to cling to: men behave while women take over?

    Fat chance!

  • MGTOW-man

    Not wishing to hog the spotlight here but I wanted to say another thing about the expectations people have that bind men to making sure they get them a woman—or else!

    When that idiot John Birmingham wrote in to call us all losers “You guys got girlfriends over there?”, I wanted so badly to give him a piece of my mind. However, tech difficulties with the site at the time prevented me, (but not some others, apparently) from directly addressing the creep. My comment dropped all the way to the bottom of the comments even though I had specified otherwise, as it was a reply to him directly. Thus, I doubt he got my message. So, I want to reiterate it here now. Even if he is not tuned in, some other similar creep will get it.

    We do not defer to women/kids to determine our own worth. Nor do we defer to duped had suckers who love being herded into a one-size-fits-all manhood-attainment coral…as if manhood is group-owned and can’t vary per individual. We really could care less what men and women like you think. You must not get that part. But we will not be manipulated. We are in control here, not losers like you.

    Birmingham’s comments were an admission that men like him are customers, paying for it with their behavior. The courageous, driven, martyr-like, activist men of MGTOW are never customers. Being a customer is being a loser. …and them being the customers, we all know what that makes their women. No?

    Real flattering, huh? Real manly, huh?

    The likes of Birmingham are made up of so-called “men” who wouldn’t know what real manhood is if it somehow morphed into a towering obelisk… and fell on them. Hint: by default, manhood requires those claiming it to protect their own sex— not undermine it— and sell (give) it away down the river…having totally lost their bearings over women wanting their way all the time no matter the destruction to nearly everything else!

    Them questioning our manhood is THE most ridiculous thing that they can do. It is absolutely false and it absolutely WILL NOT WORK!

    Try some other sucker who thinks like you…and will statistically speaking, likely end up just as miserable too.

  • perseusdmurray

    Great piece John, lot’s there.. still reading it.

    I just had to laugh, the laugh of the damned perhaps, re the way feminists and manginess attack men that are MGTOW. For being pathetic virgins etc. These are the very same people who complain that a man who has a lot of sex is a stud and a female is a slut. That men prove how many they are by having lots of sexual encounters.

    They trot out this shite but then subscribe to the same mentality. If you don’t have sex you are a loser!!! “real men” have lot’s of sex.

    A double standard within a double standard.

    • tallwheel

      It seems to me that MGTOW is made up of both Zeta and ‘Omega’ males, but I suppose since MGTOW don’t attach their self-worth to sex it really doesn’t matter what they are, does it? They all GTOW for their own reasons.

  • HieronymusBraintree

    I was a teen and therefore, God help me, in on the ground floor of second wave feminism. The motto of the time was “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” That is, men were at best superfluous. At worst marriage and committed relationships were something men forced on women in order to dominate and control them. So, first we’re told that if we want committed relationships we’re oppressing them and then also told that if we don’t want committed relationships we’re oppressing them.

    Never mind overpopulation, I’m not sure why we want to reproduce at all.

    • gwallan

      Unfortunately they forgot to lock the bikes and many have scarpered.

      • Bombay

        LOL – nice one!

  • David Palmer

    Hmm…The Feminism vs. MGTOW dispute raises some interesting questions.

    Feminism CLAIMS to be about fighting sexism by eliminating gender roles and allowing people the free choice to determine their own lives (empowerment) in an equal fashion and without being forced into a role based on their sex. MGTOW is: in many ways, simply men rejecting a socially assigned role of utility toward women based solely on their sex. MGTOW is men choosing to control their own lives and make their own choices free from an assigned, socially approved gender based role as “provider”, “father”, “husband”, “protector” “walking ATM” and “utility” in favor of self determination. Zeta males, herbivores, going Galt-all of it is a rejection of the idea that “because you are a man you must do xxxx to be “of value”-particularly to women.
    MGTOW seems to bear a strong resemblance to what feminism claims to be: eliminating gender-based roles and allowing people free choice.

    Curious how much that resembles much of what feminism claims to be about, isn’t it?

    Then we have the feminist responses to MGTOW. The feminist responses, as laid out in this article, all pretty much boil down to a single claim: Men are required to be ‘of benefit” to women, based solely on gender, and men who fail to fulfill this gender based role should be shamed into accepting that role. So, in opposing MGTOW, feminists seek to shame men into filling socially assigned roles as provider, father, husband, protector and walking ATM on the basis of their gender. They say, in effect, that “because you are male you must fill the role of xxxx and be of benefit to women”.

    Interesting how these feminist arguments are all about forcing men into defined roles based on gender, isn’t it?

    So one must ask: In the feminists vs. MGTOW dispute, who is actually being sexist and oppressive?

    • perseusdmurray

      yep, feminists never fail to disappoint when it comes to hypocrisy and complete inconsistency in their “ideology”… you could set you watch by it.

      • HieronymusBraintree

        I tried setting my watch. It stopped running.

        • David Palmer

          I believe that should read: I tried setting my watch. It stopped running because patriarchy. LOL

  • perseusdmurray

    It really is so absurd, and something that could only be put forward in a feminist or men’s rights context. That a person or group find a proposition so detrimental to their wellbeing, rights and quality of life, they reject it is the focus of critizm.

    In any other context, the focus would be on what is making the proposition so objectionable people are rejecting it. If childcare was so poor, parents stopped putting their children into childcare… would society attack those parents… tell them the right thing to do is put their children in a situation not safe for them? NO! The finger would be pointed at the childcare industry, where it belonged.

    If air travel was so hazardous that people stopped flying, would we insist that these people were selfish for not traveling and blame them, like the parents caring staying from work for their children’s care, for the social fallout from their “choice”?

    MGTOW is an extremely positive movement. It makes a man taking control of his own life and not resigning himself to be a slave to convention an “opt in” rather than an “opt out” course.

    People need to see it a less of a simple “rejecting” relationships with women and more a rejection of the context imposed on the dynamics of these relationships. If that was accepted and respected, if people took the time to actually ask, what is the objection that MGTOW have to relationships they could easily see it is not a black and white decision. A simple, complete, rejection of relationships, but a rejection of the degrading and harmful elements of them.

    A great part of MGTOW, is not in the obvious (I find anyway) but in the inner change it brings to a man. You become very “straight” in your thinking. It is like taking Occam’s razor to your perceptions of who you are and what your relationship to society and women is.

    Often the harm in relationships seems self imposed. Many may relate to doing things when you are interested in a woman, that she does not ask for…. but it has been programmed into you, and her, that these things are expected.

    When we as men behave in that way and operate with that mindset, we re-enforce it in ourselves, in women and in society. If we behave like this, we really lose the right to critisize practises we ourselves engage in. If we change our mindset, and are straight about what we expect and what we won’t tolerate, we are being truly honest. We are also being very fair. If we engage in behaviours we resent, if we do this of our own free will, it leads to a situation of resentment. A resentment that we cannot rationally lay on another’s door, which leads to an underlying aggression and malcontent… if you jump in and insist on paying for everything over the dating period you cannot then critisize the woman for expecting something you speculate(most likely corruptly) to some degree she expects.

    The big danger for MGTOW, is on becoming involved with a woman, the affection you feel and the “need” for that person, can make you lose perspective and control. THis, I would suggest, is why, if a man going his own way, is going to engage in a relationship, he sets a very clear tone from the start. A tone is actually unlikely to be enough, it would really have to be stated clearly. This will protect him from having to clarify this when he has strong feelings for a woman and does not want to “lose” her. Addressing it with a fear of loss is not doing so from a position of strength.

    The objections to MGTOW are very telling. They in fact prove the validity of the MGTOW mindset. There is surely a serious problem where it is not acceptable for a man to decide not to go with the norm and just do what he is expected to. We are not obliged to do anything harmful to ourselves, least of all when others are not even willing to address those areas of harm. Fuck that. The cheek of them! Not only are we supposed to put up with these indignities and injustices… we should jump into them with a big smile and pretend this is the way things are supposed to be!!!

    • MGTOW-man

      Nice!

      You have things in perspective.

      However, we must not forget that most women/feminists cry foul all the time when they do not get their way. As soon as that happens, when they do not get as much, like children, they panic and set out to punish those who don’t obey or provide for them.

      That is what their reaction to us MGTOW is. Not as much for them?…so they hurl punishment at us—totally failing to see (their oblivion-mental state) that as its own entity/phenomenon, the participants of MGTOW are completely justified in wanting to have good lives too—-the way we have a right to have…defined by us, and only us.

      Lets see here? Only women are allowed to screw up things? Only they should have their way? Only they are allowed to make a break from the duties and sacrificial roles that our species needed (and in which none of us would be here if it hadn’t been the way it was)? Only they know what is right? Men are to behave while women squirrel all the power and beyond—then punish men when they object!@#$%^*!!

      MGTOW says, “not so fast.”

      Feminism is synonymous with control-it-all. Always has been, always will be. Surely, we are not naive to believe that when feminist-women gained political power TOO, that coupled with the mainstay natural dynamics between men and women, that they did not also have full intentions of exploiting both to gain total control? This was their way of sneaking MORE power so they could run everything. …Because of the weak, it worked!

      When they fail, they freak out and punish. Who would expect less from a class of people who stopped caring more about what works best for our species (regardless of sacrifices very needed), but instead became given to provide for themselves runaway feelings-treats—abandoning the most appropriate roles to take on things that which were already being addressed by most men…and no matter the repercussions to our societies.

      Our species absorbs the fallout, but ooooh no, not a man anywhere dare to be honest about any of this selfishness they have conspicuously and routinely displayed–else he “hates” women. He is not allowed to care about his world.

      Their disdain is punishment, more of the same. It will only work if WE LET IT. Many men before us and around us might (have) cave(d) in and care(d) more about their egos and orgasms, but we MGTOW are much better and more sophisticated. That is why they fear us and the MGTOW phenomenon.

      We stand in their way of them not getting theirs. MGTOW is one of the most promising forces of our movement…and THEY KNOW IT. Indeed, if MGTOW existed as it does now, say, back in the early 19th century, feminism would have never made it. It took suckers and more suckers to help it succeed. They know WE are not suckers.

      Yeah, they are panicking.

  • tamerlame

    MGTOW is bad for the family unit?

    Must of missed the past 40 years of females kicking men out of the family unit via state violence.

    Hyper agency is at work here, in the west fathers are the guest of the mother, men can be discarded at any time. So how can a man be responsible for a family unit he has no control over? If society is going down the crapper blame single motherhood.

    • Odin

      Downvoted for use of “must of” instead of “must have”.

      • Fredrik

        It’s the internet. You have to let it go, man. Stay positive; be a role model for good grammar, and save your explicit disagreements for content. We have people from all over world here. You’ll run yourself ragged, drive others to distraction, and burn up goodwill better spent on matters of substance.

        Also, I get that it means “I disagree”; but since sufficient net downvotes will hide a comment, it’s overkill to downvote when you post a comment explaining your disagreement, unless you actually want the comment hidden. I’ve done it before myself, but now I think it was a poor choice (so I’m not downvoting you).

        • MGTOW-man

          Poo on all who cling to the voting process. I sometimes don’t even notice. Some will give you a minus but not have the ability to say what it is that they disagree with–short-circuiting any chance of educational dialog or exchange. We sometimes do not even know which point we discussed that which they are in dissent. Not very productive, huh?

          Sure, it is nice to see one of your comments turn yellow-background, meaning enough others (15 or more) “agreed” with you, but so many times, people do not even use that system, thus largely rendering it misleading both in positive and negative ways.

          Clearly, when some people use the voting process to display their dislike for the commenter instead of actually dissenting with the content, then what good is it?

          I would never do away with it though, it is amusing and sometimes interesting. Take for example, when Paul announced that by taking Mike’s advice and pursuing ABC legally for wrongful statements, (forcing them to retract) that almost all in the first 20 or so comments turned a welcoming yellow!! That is a useful tool that says what we readers/commenters want out of this site and the movement. It signified just how much we approve. IMO, such is what voting processes here provides the most.

          But seriously, we can’t take it to heart if we get down-voted. It really doesn’t mean we are wrong: it might only mean someone else is and that they stuck their neck out to show it. .

    • MGTOW-man

      Single motherhood is probably responsible for most of our ills in current society. It has undeniably been linked to about 15 or so detrimental impacts on children and society. But most people were apparently busy trying not to be “sexist”, non-PC, stereotyping/generalizing blah, blah, blah, to see the impending danger when this phenomenon started happening and taking over.

      Harvey C. Mansfield, Not only said, “There has been an astonishing lack of resistance [to feminism, from men]“, he also said, (Paraphrased)”Who would have thought that women would quickly revert to single motherhood?”

      (!@#$%^&*!!@#$%^#^%%$#^%$$#!)-whew!!

      I say, we ALL should have seen this “asteroid” coming straight at us. Trying our best to not stereotype, or be “sexist” and all the other truth-snuffing exploits feminists have shoved onto us all, we closed our eyes to typical women behavior and the phenomenon of them snatching a mile when they were given only an inch.

      Those who didn’t know or “would have thought”…weren’t looking, pure and simple. Shame on them.

      Now look at the mess we have.

      We must quit being afraid of the truth. We must stop refusing to look for it. The answers to winning against feminism are out there. We can’t go around closed-eyed any longer!

  • Hg_CNO_2

    I really think this is a bit of fantasy, this “Look at how upset our opponents are” tack. Not that this invalidates what you are arguing here, which I agree with about 95% of. I just think most don’t give a shit, and if they do, MTGOW is regarded more like how George Carlin regarded anorexics: “I don’t wanna eat! Pay attention to me!”. Their view of MTGOW is similar: “I don’t wanna play!”

    These really are two separate things to me too; but I believe the public’s sentiment is not that nuanced. An anorexic’s problems I truly believe are psychologically self-induced (although they will argue to their last breath it is due to social expectations of body types on them), whereas I really think male problems are much more heavy, real, material and institutional and imposed from the outside, by factors out of their control. Not sure that this kind of agitation, saying “our critics are mad at us” really gets this across. Not sure anything short of outright role-reversal, or hitting close to home (like their sons or fathers being explicitly shit on, in their observation) really would. In short, nobody gives a fuck until it happens to them. This fact, by itself (sociopathic lack of empathy for males) is a very strong indication of anti-male or misandry only a red-piller can see.

    Fuck these silly “walk a mile in her shoes” campaigns. We need the material reciprocal equivalent: “Live a day in his life” campaign or something.

    • perseusdmurray

      “I really think this is a bit of fantasy, this “Look at how upset our opponents are” tack. Not that this invalidates what you are arguing here, which I agree with about 95% of. I just think most don’t give a shit ….” if they didn’t give a shit they wouldn’t be opponents. 100% of the opponents give a shit, by definition.

      Anorexia is not brought about by magazines etc. I am not a psychologist, but from looking into it the psychological consensus appears to be anorexia is caused by a person feeling they have no control in their own lives …. often through abuse or similar.

  • SlantyJaws

    From elsewhere:

    Yesterday: “Why can’t men be gentle, nice, peaceful, and less driven by sex?”

    Today: “Men are gentle, nice, peaceful, and less driven by sex! This must be stopped!”

    • Mr. Sungame

      ME: “Whats this obsession with changing men?”

      Honestly, I have been what women said they wanted… they didn’t want it though :P

    • MRAAlternate

      Women hate guys like that. If you’re in the United States, there’s a lot of people who will just play with your head who work for the church.

  • comslave

    I have always seen MGTOW as an effect, not a cause. When I was young, our school system forced us to watch “Free to be you and me”, which was a largely feminist polemic meant to teach little girls they didn’t have to get married and have families.

    Later in college we were taught “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle”. The men had no trouble translating that to “a man needs a woman like a fish needs a bicycle” (or a fish hook). And all women’s studies courses can be boiled down to “men are bad” and “get fat”.

    So why did anyone ever expect men you were subjected to that system to get married? It’s just a side effect of the education system.

  • Duke

    US gender-feminists are going to continue their Empowerment / manufactured statistics Alliances with American law enforcement, Until we reach the point where hetero-sexual relationships are a legal liability for guys in the US.
    One of the side effects of these manufactured statistics Alliances , is that hard core gender-feminist Wack jobs like “Meg Lankers” use them to Inflame their way to a bully pulpit on campuses around the country.
    These perverse manufactured statistics Alliances have not given girls like meg lankers a louder voice than others…these faulty and inflammatory statistics have given girls like “Meg Lankers” the ONLY VOICE!!!

    • Dasque

      “Until we reach the point where hetero-sexual relationships are a legal liability for guys in the US.”

      I hate to break it to you, but look around, mate.

  • Hlaford

    This is a nice piece and I have only one objection to it:
    “But honestly, is there anyone alive today not yet aware that unabated continued human population growth is a world-wide problem?”

    Well, no. There is no such thing as overpopulation, or population growth problem. True, there are countries with population density larger than the next, but still not a problem. If you don’t trust me, just go and fetch some cadastre data and calculate for yourself. Even the densely populated Bangladesh has a population of ~200 wild tigers roaming the wilderness – despite the dense human population. Be amazed how all the people in any country live at less than 15% area of any country. Overpopulation is a myth promulgated by incredibly stupid politicians that follow Malthusian ideas that are proven to be wrong.

    Wealth is related to decreasing population. If anyone is truly concerned about overpopulation, just make him provide for that population to earn for living, and the “problem” will just dissipate.

    Regarding MGTOW, the idea is actually very, very old. In Hindu culture it is called sanyasa, and it is usually a religious act. Or at least it appears to be so. IMHO if religion is what one is after, religion it is. But in every other case it is MGTOW all the way.

    • perseusdmurray

      Thanks Hlaford, that is a very interesting response. The population thing rings true.

      I remember when I was a child a believed in god. People used to say “if there is a god why is there not enough food” I always said that there was, it just was markets etc. that restricted it. If you look at the amount of food the world can produce and the amount we need. THere is no problem.

      This came to mind later re GM. Saying it could be the end of poverty and starvation in the world ….. but we don’t need GM to achieve that.

      Have you any references on this subject?

      I’m looking forward to reading up on “sanyasa” it is not a form of celibacy though is it?

    • http://stgeorgewest.blogspot.co.uk/ angelo

      I didn’t want to bring it up but as it’s on the table, I agree, from my observations out of aircraft windows and my calculations. Overpopulation is a myth.

      We are only in the early billions. Talk to me about it if we haven’t got our act together by a hundred billion. We should probably focus on new worlds by that point if we haven’t already but we would still have plenty of space here.

      Love the article as I said and this one argument seems out of character for positive, up in your face, obstacle trouncing John (@John was that the COCK fairy with you in your latest vid? Nicely done :-) ) Your population angle seems a bit defeatist John. There’s a whole cosmos dude and space babes.

      Fascists love this gender divide crap or any kind of divide and they don’t actually like people much. They just love to inoculate third world populations out of existence and mind fuck us with talk about overpopulation to do ourselves.

      I dread to think where we will be in a generation or two if we haven’t achieved open direct government bearing in mind the size and trajectory of the modern MIC.

      IMHO the population is not an issue. Go fourth and multiply (vernacular: fuck off). ;-) hic.

      Also (I know nothing) isn’t sanyasa a sort of late life abstinence? I didn’t think that MGTOW meant celibacy and renouncing worldly pleasures, more an attitude reset and avoiding unfair contracts not avoiding sex.

  • externalangst

    I agree with John that overpopulation is a serious problem.

    The socially accepted solution is the ‘education of women’ but women’s education correlates with wealth (or really energy use) which is the real cause of reductions in population growth. ‘Educating women’ will have no effect on the world’s population.

    However, men’s reproductive rights may make a serious contribution to alleviation of the problem.

    Why do TPTB insist on doing something that won’t work; whilst ignoring something that might work? They even pretend that provisioning and protecting women are the new ways of doing things. They are very much the old ways. It is not so much a surprise that their solution is to not only keep doing what we have always done; but to do more of it.

    • MGTOW-man

      MGTOW will definitely help control a runaway population…THE biggest threat to a clean and well-ordered world. We really do not need more people right now, even if some countries are already languishing. Knowing this, as well as knowing that I am not leaving behind any offspring to suffer in a world that is likely going to be utterly horrible is a good thing too. At least I know I will not create any more feminists or chivalry-clinging fools that would certainly undo the work here and elsewhere that I/We are doing.

      It is the most sensible thing we can do—MGTOW, that is. It is our future.

    • tamerlame

      Helping women destroys society, because women seem to go into social violence mode and wreck the family unit when they get enough resources to ditch their men.

      UN development goals harm males. Men protect helpless women, women discard helpless men.

      Hypergamy is real.

      • MGTOW-man

        I agree with you. I will be “beat up” for this but I stick to my insight and experiences. Giving women power is like teaching them to shoot. Teach them to shoot a gun and before you know it, they will shoot you.

        Would I have educated women and girls? Yes, but not without built in societal protections intended for when women inevitably let their feelings overtake themselves.

        Would I extend the vote to women? Yes, but not without first balancing for the natural dynamics between men and women–to ensure a healthy equal balance remains.

        Would I teach a woman to shoot? Yes, but not without making sure they knew the repercussions of aiming at men and boys merely for punitive reasons.

        Determinism is real in women. All of us (and them) men should have known that if women were given an inch, they would snatch a mile, run with it, and make hate for men ultimately.

        Men knew women very well so it is doubly foolish that they caved in. We are living in the aftermath of men having lost their bearings over women!

  • markis1

    yup virgin ,loser ,woman hater misogynist and gay…i have been called all 3 and by people that dont even personally know me…funny that i saw a woman call Mark Rudov gay too…..

    im now much limiting my exposure to women..please dont misunderstand me…there are women that i deeply respect….even admire …but there are far to many women that i see as a potential hazard ..

  • rayc2

    “The MGTOW manifesto is flawed, or psychopathic, or illogical, or the ideology is malevolent, or perverse, and possibly pornographic.”

    “Claim: MGTOW are celibate, or sexually abstinent, or socially crippling themselves by their aversion to women.”

    “It’s bad for society – you bad men need to settle down and have families.”

    “Women civilize men – and if men don’t get civilized, cats and dogs will live together, the dead will rise, seas will boil.”

    “You’re quitters!”

    Fuck ‘em….

    US Supreme Court in planned parenthood V Casey

    “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.”

  • Cam

    Love this article JTO

    What a pathetic and lame list of claims you have outlined here. I would like to meet some of the people that came up with this rhetoric. Most of them women most probably. Certainly has that feel to it.

    Anyhow I think you may have missed one. That is the men going their own way “are just selfish. Shame on them.” Pfft. Just as hilariously illogical as the rest of the list.

    It never ceases to amaze me now how many people and organisations of all types there are trying to tell us:

    – how we should be living our lives,
    – what we should believe in,
    – how we should bring up our children,
    – what level of education we should have,
    – how many times per year we should visit a doctor,
    – how many hours we should work and how we should spend out leisure time,
    – what we can say and what we cannot be allowed to say,
    – what we should think (yes indeed – but the thought police have not worked out a way of enforcing that one yet).
    – what we should tolerate and what we should not,

    and many many more. I am sure everyone here can add many items to that list.

    There are those in society from all corners, right up to the political leaders, that want to lecture at us endlessly like we don’t have a brain or are not perfectly capable of thinking for ourselves and working out out own solutions and arranging our own lives as we want them.

    Those that dare to criticise the MGTOW are from that same “control” brigade endlessly whining on as if they are dealing with 5 year old children they can push around.

    Where they fail of course is that the MGTOW are not listening to their irrational and juvenile rhetoric and, even if they did, would instantly reject it.

    These guys do not give a stuff what these imbecile critics say or think or indeed what such critics think of them. This of course makes those critics completely powerless to influence or control . It no doubt frustrates the hell out of them because it is influence and control that these types crave.

    Men need to take full control of their own lives and not allow others to tell them what they should be doing or thinking. Around the corner there is always someone, (most likely a woman because that is their stock in trade), who wants to tell you what to do or what you should be doing.

    Men can and do lead perfectly happy and healthy lives without the burden of having a spouse, defacto or children hanging around their neck. These people have taken control of their own lives, are independent and do not tolerate outsiders trying to tell them what to do, how to live or how to think.

    That this should annoy the hell out of some others in society is just an indication of their infantile control and influence mentality. These critics can say what they want but it is not going to change anything and they really cannot do a darn thing about it.

    More and more guys are wising up and choosing not to go into a life of servitude where they are beholden to others – for so long as those others want them around of course The critics can, in part, thank the activities of the social engineers of the last 40 years for that – and of course some of the activities of the feminist movements.

    As MGTOW gathers more and more momnetum as time goes by you might well observe the rhetoric of the control freak critics become increasingly vehement, illogical and desperate.

    It really is very amusing.

    • Fredrik

      @Cam: “- what we should think (yes indeed – but the thought police have not worked out a way of enforcing that one yet).”

      Sure they have. It is very difficult to think about things that you don’t have words for. Control the public discourse and you control the language, which controls the thoughts. George Orwell did his level best to explain that to as many people as possible, placing it front and center in 1984, because there was nothing to lose; the social engineers already knew it by his time, and had already begun putting it into practice.

      The best defense is to be aware of how it works. Actively coin new words for your own ideas, and examine other people’s words carefully before accepting them, because they could be designed to shape your thoughts to fit a certain mold.

      Some good examples are misandry and drapetomania. Feminists are fiercely fighting acceptance of the word “misandry” into the common parlance, because having a word for it makes it that much easier to recognize it when you see it. At the same time, the excavation and re-purposing of “drapetomania” (obsession with escaping slavery) is a glorious feat of conceptual empowerment of MGTOW.

      For a more nuanced example, “bromanteaus” — portmanteaus of bro, such as”brocialist” and “bromanteau” — seem to start out with a certain misandric condescension toward masculine identities, attitudes, and life experiences. However, that can change over time; the wordsmith loses some control once a neologism escapes into the wild, and I think that “bromance” has developed a more positive connotation over the years, because of the genuinely deep bonds of friendship between real men in the real world, and sympathetic depictions of such in movies and TV.

      I know that you also listed “what we can say and what we cannot be allowed to say,” but I think it’s important to note that the one affects the other. Cheers!

    • MGTOW-man

      “It really is very amusing.”

      —and telling!

      I echo much of what you say… and DID say it earlier in this thread. Indeed, feminists/women are panicking because we won’t go along with their power and control grab.

  • BenJames

    I admit to being one who vicariously enjoys the MTGOW movement.. In not one, don’t want to be one, but I love the fact that you guys are out there and respect your path.

    One thing however is that I don’t really believe MTGOW as widespread as is often implied and I think statements like “more and more men are MTGOW” and women are getting worried etc are hyperbole, and theres no real information about an increase in unmarried young men, or google as you might, no real discussion by women about a new trend men refusing to marry on principle (rather than the traditional men refusing to marry because theyre too immature/non committal etc etc).

    Don’t get me wrong, I would love it were that the case! – but the self-congratulatory tones of many comments on MTGOW do (ironically!) have the tone of group-think/self-reinforcement in exaggerating the true cultural impact it is having just yet…. which in can make MTGOW commentators and commenters look a bit out of touch with reality and a bit over-excited with their own MTGOWness and MTGOW as a force.

    If Im wrong or you disagree please don’t shoot me down aggressively – just point me to the facts and I’ll educated!

    • SlantyJaws

      You’re probably right as regards MGTOW specifically in western countries, I’d certainly never heard the term before stumbling across AVfM, but there are widespread stirrings in that direction as plummetting marriage rates indicate.

      It’s more visible in places like Japan, where serious percentages of young men are opting out and choosing to do the barest minimum needed to get by, rejecting a society that doesn’t really offer them much of a life. This has been the subject of much media attention globally.

      I’m not sure if full blown MGTOW lifestyles will ever really grip the mainstream, but a lot of men really are just saying no.

      • MGTOW-man

        I am one of those zealots who might be guilty of overstating the successes of this phenomenon. ( I sorta agree with you). However, I can’t help but think MGTOW is inevitable…may take a while, but inevitable.

        I mean, just what did the feminists think THINKING men would do? Clam up, and let them snatch power dishonestly and exploitatively? Some men might do that and still peculiarly manage to call themselves real men even when they have consistently undermined their own sex… and badly too.

        But we MGTOW? Never! Even if it dwindles, it is me and I love it. It has saved my life and made it worthwhile to me.

        Good enough.

        • perseusdmurray

          The liberation you, well I think it is not just me, feels on getting out of this “have to get a woman” and define your worth in relation to women …. is very tangible. Never again will you alter a statement or it’s tone for fear of losing a woman’s affection, admiration,a potential mate.

          Losing that destructive and limiting way of thinking, given how fundamental it is, changes everything. Real man???? you are your own man. For all people this is more important than “real’ man or woman. You don’t really hear it used against women but you can see in how desperately they need to cling to the name “feminism” as a self applied label, they are being ruled by the perceptions of others and instructions given to them that they feel they are to follow.

          Would you rather define yourself by factors in others hands, popularity, fame, acceptance, or things you have in your own, honesty, integrity, courage? The former undermines the later, so the longer you play value in those type of things, the more honesty, integrity you lose trying to keep them. I suppose this is why people who rely on validation from others often have little or no integrity.

          You have to be given these external validations, just as you have to give away your integrity… it cannot be taken. When you give up your true value for these worthless superficialities, you are selling your soul.

    • Mr. Sungame

      “, no real discussion by women about a new trend men refusing to marry on principle (rather than the traditional men refusing to marry because theyre too immature/non committal etc etc).”

      But that’s maybe the thing, women don’t see MGTOW as people rebelling against the system, they see “immature/non committal” losers who won’t commit or can’t get a girl.

      I can agree though, there is a bit of a victory celebration when talking about MGTOW, which I don’t identify with. I identify as a MGTOW because I find the current dating/relationship norms to not work for me as an individual, and chose to stop worrying about those aspects of life.
      It’s like reading the rules to a game, and figuring out that it doesn’t sound like a fun game to play, even though you can gain some cool prizes if you are lucky. Like the facebook games that demand you pay money or pester your friends to progress in the game. I don’t like playing like that, so I decide not to.

    • perseusdmurray

      Hi Ben, I think the actual MGTOW are not doing it to make a political statement, it is a personal development and choice. It is good that it is public as it changes the decision from a withdrawing one, to a different path. Not giving up on something, choosing something else.

      Regarding self reinforcement, that is part of it in groups of like minded people, but in a positive way. Letting people know there are others doing this too. That is very important.

  • Mr. Sungame

    For me dating and the constant search for “the one” (not the Jet Li movie) was frustrating. I found myself trying to be something “they” wanted. Then one day, after having again tried my hand at online dating, and none of “them” even bothered to reply to my messages with a “No, thank you”, it dawned on me:

    Why am I doing this?

    Followed by:

    And for what? Most of these people already look down on my hobbies, what I like doing in my spare time, so why the hell am I trying to win their affection?

    I like the female body, right? Yeah… but do I like the generalization of the female brain?

    It dawned on me that my whole life in the pursuit of “love” was also a systematic betrayal of who I like being.

    So I decided:
    Why bring myself the angst and depression, of seeking out something that seems like it will bring me angst and depression?

    Because why is it more important that I have girlfriend than “Are you happy?”
    Because truly I am.

    • perseusdmurray

      excellently said. the personal value of MGTOW is a massive factor often overlooked in the broader debate, or not given the true representation it should.

  • nick

    Nothing is wrong with MGTOW. In fact once sex robots become cheap enough it will be the ultimate lifestyle. I’m half joking half serious.

  • http://tarnishedsophia.wordpress.com TheSwordintheChalice

    Mr. Hembling, I’d like to take this opportunity to thank you for pointing out the difference between a relationship based on voluntarism vs one created with conventional “needs” in mind. Truly, they are worlds apart. I am in a FwB relationship that has lasted approximately 8 years…and yes, it is a voluntary one. I only hope more people are able to find lovers like my own, who appreciate what you do for them, and give back just as much.

    Thanks again for shedding light on this incredibly important distinction!

  • perseusdmurray

    Here’s my view and comment… look at the image, page and comment. What do you think?

    “you do know that female MMA fighters are by far inferior to male ones? this comment “She obviously makes more money than you and she could kick your ass.” Zero is a magina comment.

    Why would you presume she earns more and could could kick any of our asses? That’s ass kissing and pandering… i.e. white knighting.

    Do you know what I earn or my martial arts, self defence ability. To see a comment like this on an anti white knight page is depressing.

    Now for the final cop out, delete and block… please don’t. Take it on the chin.”

    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=713590518671398&set=a.401662746530845.102652.401629849867468&type=1&theater

    THIS WAS ON AN ANTI WHITE KNIGHT PAGE. … I despair.

  • quackeh

    Excellet read! Thank you JtO.

  • John Narayan

    If men could turn off their sex drive and addiction to female praise at will, feminism would be screwed.

  • frosty

    A good article, however I do have a gripe about the continued use of the word “movement”.

    Movements are groups of people who want to affect change, or who at least want to spread ideas, and I don’t feel this is very fitting for MGTOW. Many MGTOWs identify as such merely because it’s a useful label to describe their behaviour, a great many MGTOWs have little to no interest in furthering the “movement” of MGTOWs.

    Within the group of self identified MGTOWs there are however those who do see MGTOW as a force for political change, to ultimately “correct” society by starving it of mens contributions. I don’t have any issue with that and you could definitely call these men a movement, but it’s certainly not representative of all of MGTOW.

    I draw parallels between MGTOW and atheism for example, atheism isn’t a movement in the strict sense, it’s just a label we use to identify non belief in gods. However there are atheistic movements, I’m just cautious at calling atheism in genernal a movement – it’s not. Same goes for MGTOW.

    The only reason I nitpick about this is that a lot of confusion is created when it’s referred to as a movement, men such as myself who simply find that opting out is a rational move to make for self preservation, we get lumped in with men who are, like feminists, pushing for social change.

    I think the essence of MGTOWs, what all MGTOWs share in common, is merely the act of changing your behaviour to be selfish and opting out of corrosive social and political systems, the reasons for doing so (be they political or personal) tend to vary a lot.

    • perseusdmurray

      that is a point, but is a movement necessarily always an activist movement? I would see MGTOW as you seem to, as an individual choice… the movement part being like minded people joining up to refelect on this a bit and give each other support. Of course this makes a statement, but MGTOW are not doing this to make a political statement, it is a personal choice.

      “movement” does make it sound activist in nature for political change.

      • frosty

        Well MGTOW is primarily about doing it yourself and putting yourself first, as a MGTOW who merely goes my own way for self preservation the idea that it’s inherently a movement isn’t really applicable. At the very least movement suggest participation in a group, but the truth is MGTOW doesn’t require it, and the introduction MGTOWs post when joining MGTOW communities almost always explain how they have behaved this way before discovering the term MGTOW.

        Again, some MGTOWs could be considered a movement, activist or not, but I feel the idea is more general to that. It’s ill defined for sure but in my experience with other MGTOWs so far the only thing I can find in common among participants is the actual actions of opting out, so I feel it’s better suited as a label to describe that act of opting out, that’s at least the most inclusive definition it seems. The philosophy and politics and person reasons behind each man tends to differ somewhat, in the same way that people are often atheists for very different reasons.

    • Rick Westlake

      Exactly, Frosty. MGTOW is not a movement, it’s a lifestyle – or a lifeboat.

  • perseusdmurray

    You know, being a man going his own way, is so much more than gender dynamics. It puts you in a place where you truly do not care what other people think of you… you don’t tailor your answers in a way that diminishes them for the audience.

    it is like a budist type … enlightenment. Maybe this was where the celibacy of the monks in the old days got it….. maybe it wasn’t a bother to them? but most likely not, that was to regimented, it was like you got one freedom in exchange for another master.

    Not with MGTOW, you lose this cloying mentality of one group you must always be defining yourself in relation to… it is shameful to say it, that I was that way, but I was. But this revaluation, from the one, in fairness big one, about who you are and how playing this prescribed course of life… do this, do that.. do whatever will get you well positioned to get a great wife!!!

    My god, it is so mad to think of it now, but not with too much regret… you can’t tell people this, you have to live it… that is why we are so few. How many men dies thinking their wife truly loved them, but in truth… had he hit a bad patch, she would be gone… she didn’t love her husband at all…. and that was what he worked for. They go, not knowing this …. hell for them would be living in eternity with that one knowledge.

    So when you lose this, what appears to be one area related, you see it relates to everything in who you are… and when you realize that, you are truly free.

    Women don’t come into it, they were just the catalyst … for a much greater enlightenment … not just women view men as an investment .. to be dropped when the market turns.

    • Etown Brown

      Their stock price is plumetting. The brave men will get out now. The others will follow en masse in a cavalcade once it reaches the tipping point. Male liberation from female madness is coming. To see it in my lifetime, it’s just the ultimate priviledge.

  • masculistman

    Excellent article,JTO. As usual. I believe that MRA’s and the MGTOW guys can work together. We can apply the MRA principles while lobbying on behalf of men’s rights while practicing the MGTOW philosophy in our daily lives. I not surprised the see misandry from Tucker Carlson. Misandry in the courts seemed to fly over his head. I belive he critisized Men On Strike. He stated that all men have to do is exercise their authority. I’d like to see him practice that “authority” over an armed cop. Because armed cops have more power over unarmed citizens. But then again that must have flew over Carlson’s head.

  • East1956

    A great article. For the last 15 to 20 years various pundits have proclaimed men & boys to be in crisis in someway or another, or failing to achieve as they are supposed to.
    In my opinion and experience behind these pronouncements is a singular fear that perhaps men are disentangling themselves from the web that society spins about them that requires men to conform, and fear that if men do this that the very basis of society will crumble.
    In theory at least feminists should welcome MGTOWs and other male trends where men vacate traditional roles. But oddly they don’t.
    In my opinion this is due to one simple fact. Feminism is predicated upon most men not changing their lives substantially and continuing to provide the resources to sustain society. Feminism has always careful chosen its targets and moments so that womens access to resources was enhanced at no significant cost to them. If we look back to the 1960’s feminists don’t get marching and demanding until the time the Beatles are signing “She Loves You Yeah Yeah Yeah!”. They were strangely silent before that when a demand for legal equality would have found them having to “donate” two years of their lives to the state under National Service.
    MGTOW scares the Bejasus out of feminists. “What if men do walk away from women en masse?” Who will do all those forgotten jobs or pay the bulk of tax to ensure that women’s welfare is secure.
    They are doing what they have always done assigning responsibility for this issue to men, Men / Boys are In Crisis etc etc. But men aren’t in crisis and men can go their own way, because men produce more than men consume.
    Society as we know it is in crisis and unless women start to generate more wealth, rather than consuming it, it’s not evident how women will manage. A fascinating future is promised.

    • Etown Brown

      Infrastructure will not be able to support the buildings full of humanities and arts program graduates hoping to blog about feminism and other cool stuff for a living. Only so much of that “industry” can survive, and it must survive only as an appendage of a much larger machine. Feminists have a rudimentary understanding of greater society and the machanisms by which it is able to operate the way it does on a geometric scale. Have you ever seen a white paper with a good summary of how this “complete automation” feminists speak of is going to work? Are men going to be enslaved in work camps by Marxist armies so women can fantasize about a “green” society made of straw huts, paper mache cars and virtual environments? You can get a solar powered tablet. Can the entire internet be solar powered? How many men went to work today to build, service, maintain and operate just the communication infrastructure alone? Nobody in humanities wants to thinnk about these necessary evils. They feel, like many other things they demand, that these things are on a long list of entitlements. Like funding for their liberal-arts feminist covens on campuses across North America. I think we should demand the ability to start voting for where our tax dollars go. I want my money to go to STEM fields and STEM research because there is a need for more people in this area. We have enough “professional feminist bloggers” to last the next couple of hundred years… don’t need any more of them or their ilk.

  • Karlo

    30-years of bad experience with 97.6% of the womyn I have met, worked with, and lived with has made me a lone wolf … a Zeta … a MGTOW. At 54-years-old I just don’t need a womyn anymore.

    So say or call it whatever you like …. matter of fact I am sort of becoming rude to them.

  • Faye Yun

    noooo

    This group is little more than an adaptation of modern feminism. At its surface, MGTOW is an organization that advocates human rights – and I have no doubts that this is of foremost importance to many members – but is, under this inevitably rotting undercarriage, a breeding ground for sexism and hate.

    MGTOW will, as evidenced in these comments, attract men with an outspoken antipathy towards women. As the group gains ground, men ignorant of or indifferent towards such ideology will, impelled by the eloquence or fervid quality of their arguments, fall in; just as young tumblr users will often parrot the principles of extremist feminist blogs. Moreover, homogeneously to the root “feminine” in “feminism”, the “Men” in MGTOW will discourage women from identifying with this group, and for what purpose? Surely women are capable of advocating for male rights?

    To those of you considering of identifying as MGTOW, I beg you to reconsider. It is certainly
    possible to advocate the rights of men without joining a group that effectively shuts out women and, consequently, the chance of social rehabilitation. In fact, encouraging a general aversion towards half of humanity could only further the social rift between the sexes imposed by feminism. In what way is this not harmful to society? Label yourself as egalitarian, meritocratic, something gender-unbiased – if anything at all.

    • Etown Brown

      Oh, but Yessss.
      Watch how the MGTOW (liberated male) mind works my dear:
      Communication Link: Enabled
      Request to change personal self-identification: RECEIVED.
      Request to change personal self-identication: DENIED (user has insufficnent priviledges)
      Communication Link: TERMINATED.
      It’s a little chilly in here ain’t it Faye? Welcome to my world. A world where the only power you have over me is ultimately power that I give to you. Don’t like that? Don’t associate with me. You are free to walk away. We both have the right to walk away from eachother, and we don’t even have to agree to disagree. We owe eachother nothing. We are true equals. Our sex organs or self-determined gender is irrelevant.
      I have my own interests at heart and my two children are a very close second. Without me, they have no resources, so I must take care of myself first. Putting my wife first was a detriment to me and my children (and ulimately her). She could not handle the power relegated to her responsibly – and chose a life of wanton spending, materialsim, and a unique combination of entitlement, childish determination and cognitive dissonance.
      I realize now that the only control people and agencies have over me is the control I afford them.
      That priviledge has been abused. That priviledge has been summarily revoked. It’s that simple.
      I am not against anything. I have simply revoked a few priviledges of my own.
      If you want my resources, or my money, or my time, or my cooperation, you will ask for it.
      I will define the terms. I will walk away if those terms do not suit me or my children’s interests. This mentality of self-sufficiency and caring for my kids is good for society. Saying no to materialism and debt is good for society, but will be bad tasting medicine for most. I will use my intellect and reasoning power to navagate successully past your laws, your rules, your obstacles and your bloated bureaucracy. I will win because I will create my own game board and my own rules in my own game in my own space. Other players and even spectators are present ion my realm by invitation only. Detractors opinions are irrelevant. Resistance is futile. I reserve the right to exclude. I refuse the right to refuse service. I will take rights and freedoms and priviledges away from no-one so long as my rights are not violated . I am fair by nature. I do not envy my fellow man when he accomplishes something – I do not loathe him. I applaud him, and celebrate him. I stand and clap and cheer for him. Our competition can seem rough, but’s it’s voluntary and conditional to both sides agreeing tot he rules and conditions. My rules include a code of honor.
      I am not a machine you can program.
      I am not a resource you can allocate.
      I am not a number. I am a free man.
      I will converse, engage and deal with people (men and women) as I see fit an necessary.
      There are rules.
      Rule #1. You don’t get to tell me what to think.
      Rule #2. You don’t get to tell me what to do.
      Rule #3. Aside from protection by law, you have only the power of me that I afford you.
      Rule #4. Rights and priviledges given from me to you can be revoked at any time.
      Rule #5. If our relationship IS NOT BENEFICIAL TO ME, a good and fair person, the relationship is terminate without further notice.
      I have a right to choose, remain in and insist upon mutually beneficial relationships.
      Cohabitating with a female of the species is no longer beneficial. Cost has exceeded value.
      I am sorry. That’s just the way it is.
      Any questions?

    • Daniel

      you don’t really understand MGTOW at all.

      It is not an activist group. It is not and MRA group.

      Re feminism, it is in no way related t feminism, it is not even the opposite or a counter to feminism. In fact, if feminism was what it claimed to be regarding a rejection of gender roles, which feminism is not, it would be on the same page.

      MGTOW can not encourage or discourage women from or to indemnifying with the “group”. How could men going their own way in any sense include women? By definition it is a men’s “group”.

      Faye, you really don’t have a clue and have just jumped in and shown you utter ignorance, it seem like you just puked a pre prescribed comment out, one that has no bearing on what the discussion is.

      MGTOW does not label itself egalitarian, meritocratic, or in the least gender unbiased. In fact it is gender biased in the sense of the gender dynamic in romantic relationships between men and women. But not about women, MGTOW rejects the idea of men defining themselves re women and the social dynamic around men and women getting into relationships.

      Really Faye, I have not seen such a misunderstanding of anything in a while.

      You think MGTOW is the same as MRM, and even at that, your have a very off view or the MRM.

      The MRM is is a movement that, unlike feminism, has very clear goals, equality in areas there is a disparity for men. It is not anti women’s rights. It advocates for equal treatment in family and criminal court, and society in general. It does not aim to overthrow societies social order as feminism does. Feminism in fact has a flawed and unsupportable view that we live in a male ruled society that oppresses women. So clearly, to fight and defeat that, no amount of equality will do.

    • Illuminati NSA-PRISM-SpyProgra

      ‘noooooooooooooooooo we’re losing control!’

    • Rick Westlake

      @ Faye: “To those of you considering of identifying as MGTOW, I beg you to reconsider.”

      Beg away, Faye. I love the sight of fearful feministies groveling. I love the scent of their fear. Smells like … patriarchy!

      Yes, like another of your fearful, false constructs; the Straw Ogre of the “Patriarchy” that stalks through your fevered mind and your delusional rhetoric.

      Now go hide under your desk.

  • Etown Brown

    Fantastic article. My uncle went “MGTOW” 30+ years ago. He just stopped all relationships with women. I think a neat thing about MGTOW is the man’s INHERENT human right to define his own course, his dreams, his goals, and the way in which he will interact with society. MGTOW is not against anything, it’s just a man picking which paths to avoid when interecting within society and which to pursue. It’s nothing more than that. It’s *individual* personal empowerment using only one’s self as a resrouce and being accountable for one’s own success or failure and one’s own happiness or discontent. Thus, MGTOW is the *polar opposite* of feminism, which by definition is simply the systematic transfer of wealth and power from men to women in the name of equal outcomes thinly veiled as equal opportunity.
    Guys, I just don’t want to play the game anymore. Egalitarian marriage my @$$. She brings home 1/3rd of the household income but spends 80% of it and the shortfall for her “Kardashian” bullsh1t lifestyle is made up for by (spitefully) amassing consumer debt (because you’re not just brining home enough bacon, mister!) Another part of an egalitarian (BS) marriage is that MY income is OUR money and HER income is her money. My wife would say “I’m going shopping (for purses and shoes) with the $1000 I saved!” What? Can I put aside part of the household income – say $1000 – and spend it on discretionary items like sporting goods? Or just save it for household renovations or shingles or a new furnace? Why are we financing home repairs because she spent $1000 of *her* money that *she* saved on bullsh1t bling? I am the bad guy for wanting to keep the house from falling apart… LMAO.
    I am single now, I have less income and I have twice as much money as before. I am no longer trying to support a woman who thinks a $50K “woman’s” career job entitles her to the Kardashian lifestyle. F*ck Louis Vuitton. F*ck Burberry. F*ck Dolce and Gabanna. F*ck Hollywood. I am not subsidizing billionaires selling crap made in China to make a shallow materialistic woman feel better about her shallow materialist little self. Princess, the JIG IS UP.
    Guys, I am *F*CKING FREE!* and you can be too! It’s okay to be called loser or “can’t get laid” or whatever shaming language the feminists, maginas, white knights and beta-orbiters use because haters gonna hate, my brothers! Let those fools compete for the “prize” – they are choosing to live in denial and play the game the way society wants them to. FOOLS! And they ironically shame OTHERS! LMFAO!

    Swallow your pride and admit she’s giving you the shaft and making you stressed out and miserable and that *what she brings to the table* does not justify what *she demands*. It’s okay. You will feel like you’re giving up your ‘male ego mating arena status card’ and you are. Most of you are beta males anyways. Just resources for a human parasite of a woman, and you’re only around because you say HOW HIGH when she says JUMP! Yeah, such manly men, you all are. You’re SLAVES!
    You will lose your status among the other sheep-men working towards their first heart attack because of the hours, the overtime, the stress and getting sh1t and abuse and no sex just for doing it. You will come to respect the single only person you need to face and respect:
    Yourself.
    Define you own “MGTOW” way life, and then do it. And when they hate, smile and feel joy.

  • Libeller

    “Also a separate issue is the legal and social right to utilize pregnancy
    terminating medical intervention, either through surgical practice, as
    with abortion, or less invasive medication, such as a “morning after”
    pill. Pregnancy termination is a separate and distinct issue also.”

    Why is this a separate issue? It’s a separate issue for men. It’s not a separate issue for women whose bodies actually become impregnated.

    “Imagine a woman, convinced the sex she was having was “safe”
    because her partner in bed assured her he’d had a vasectomy. Turns out
    he was lying, and surprise, she’s pregnant, and finds that she has no
    legal right, and no social right to not be a baby factory.

    Tough luck, you should have kept your legs together, lady.

    Almost any sane adult will understand that such a social and legal
    standard would be absurd and monstrous.”

    Yet that is exactly what exists where access to abortion on demand does not exist! This is seriously problematic here. You can’t remove the concept of abortion from the concept of reproductive rights, because for women, reproductive rights = access to abortion. That’s it, that’s all. Can you get an abortion? If yes, you have reproductive rights. If no, then you are a slave, a baby factory, you do not have reproductive rights and you don’t even really own your body. Society does.

    There are all kinds of adults who support such social and legal standards, and I agree they are monstrous, but they are mainstream in the USA.

    • driversuz

      Most Western women have access to abortions. No Western men have the right to refuse parental obligations once a pregnancy has begun. This double standard is not problematic for you? Or did you just forget to mention it in your rush to point out that a small minority of women may not have the legal right to abortion?
      Gynocentric much?

      • Libeller

        The double standard IS problematic, I agree, but it’s not like reproductive rights for women are a fait accomplit…If we’re going to say that the American South is a backwater that doesn’t really count, then that’s fine, except that this article goes out of its way to say that terminating a pregnancy is a separate issue. Like how is it a separate issue?

        • driversuz

          We consider abortion a “separate issue” because we do not engage in the “pro-choice vs. pro-life” false dichotomy. That’s how it’s a separate issue. If that was your question why didn’t you simply ask, instead of arguing at length against what you choose to assume it meant?

          So tell me, do you feel that reproductive choice for women should be a “fait accomplit” before we seriously address reproductive choice for men? Even though Western women already have exponentially more “choice” than Western men? Why else would you come to a website for and about men and blather on about the importance of women?

          • Libeller

            There’s no false dichotomy. Anyway I didn’t come to blather on about the importance of women. I came to point out the absurdity of the paragraphs I quoted, which allow people like you to pretend that there isn’t a life and death battle going on for abortion rights in the west as we speak.

            I’m not foolish enough to imagine that I need to discuss anything else to point out the absurd or the false. I agree with the tone of the article and almost all that’s written. But bullshit needs to be called out and you don’t demand that someone who stands up and says “Bullshit!” when they smell bullshit explain themselves and get into a broader discussion about it! No, I came here only to talk about one thing: Don’t talk like restricting women’s bodily autonomy is some fringe position that no sane person would ever take, like this isn’t a real problem we’re dealing with.