04 June 2013

Face it, MGTOW is a Cult

There is nothing of greater importance in a just world than holding oneself to the same standards as one expects from others. In the case of the MRM the hypocrisy is rife, in this sense. They understand the dangerous generalisations that come with feminist philosophy regarding male nature, but are far less inclined to see it right under their noses in the case of a cult within the MRM, known as Men Going Their Own Way, shortened to the acronym, 'MGTOW'.

Most in the MRM understand that feminists are enablers of misandric policies and theories, used as a justification to label all men as either direct or indirect beneficiaries of male power. This leads to consequentialist values that deem all men as deserving of punishment, regardless of how complicit they are. Either they are directly involved in oppressing women, or they are indirectly benefiting. Why make a distinction between the two given that both are living off the suffering of women? To some feminists this behaviour is inherent to male nature, while those claiming to be moderates feel they are tolerant because they see this behaviour as something that hurts men too, though still define masculinity as the root problem.

This thinking is driven from a leftist interpretation of struggle. Marx called it class consciousness. The theory is that an entire class suffers due to the tyrannical rule of the oppressive class. The consciousness of the oppressed class will eventually unite them, leading to the overthrowing of the oppressive class. Like everything Marx postulated, this is highly simplistic, and a theory that appeals to the ego of the victim class, while dehumanising the oppressive class. This is called ‘othering’ in psychological circles, which perpetuates different standards for those in the group, to those outside it. Those in the group are subject to conditioning that fosters supremacy over anyone that doesn’t belong in the circle, and those outside the circle are deemed inferior, and deserving of scorn due to the shortcomings of their oppressive nature and values. This entire process is called 'groupthink'. It was endemic in 20th century totalitarianism. Whether it was Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, both worked to foster such demagoguery, and inevitably a strong man later emerged to take charge and lead the group to utopia. The useful idiots then got more than they bargained for.

MGTOW are a carbon copy of feminism. This fit is so snug that leftists are flocking to the MGTOW banner, already accustomed to reinterpreting class struggle to different groups, be it race, sex, sexuality, or economic class. MGTOW believe that men have historically been kept down by women through obligations to protect and provide for them, and the entire system has been shaped for their benefit. By appealing to the ego of MGTOW, painting them as a victim class, this sets up the climate for groupthink. Pseudo-intellectual theories, backed by nothing but conjecture, are rife within MGTOW circles, deeming women as parasitic and incapable of virtue. Any exceptions to this rule are somehow dismissed through talking points, as either a statistical anomaly or a case where the woman has not yet taken advantage of the man in her life. Chief among MGTOW pseudo- intellectualism is Briffault’s law, created a communist, no less. It’s therefore unsurprising that class consciousness is central to his thesis, and has thus become endemic within MGTOW circles.

MGTOW constantly redefine terminology and facts to suit their outlook, thus gradually building up the mythology of oppressive female nature. The acronym ‘NAWALT’ (not all women are like that) was originally created to counter the deflection that women are not all like that, when it is used by feminist apologists to sideline any arguments that oppose feminist hegemony. It was supposed to indicate that while all women are not like that, this does not excuse the fact that many women can and will take advantage of men. This runs counter to the feminist notion that masculinity is the problem. Even when feminists acknowledge that some women are part of the problem, somehow the ‘problem’ always comes back to masculine nature or values. MGTOW have appropriated this term to suggest that ‘all women are like that’, using this as a deflection against anyone that challenges their fatalistic interpretation of female nature and intent.

Even the acronym MGTOW has been appropriated in this fashion. It was originally a term that had nothing to do with fatalistic female nature and class consciousness, and certainly not the marriage and relationship strike now compulsory to the participation in the MGTOW cult. This website here shows that MGTOW was originally an outline to encourage masculinity in men, femininity in women, limited government, and personal responsibility. None of those things are acceptable to the leftist interpretation of MGTOW, however.

Today MGTOW is centred on a denial of objective morality, and a total fixation on self-gratification. This is called egotism (a form of narcissism) and is why I often call MGTOW nihilists. Many MGTOW will openly acknowledge their adoration of Nietzsche, who is the quintessential nihilist, no matter what some philosophers might say - anyone that rejects values in nature, deeming all worth to be centred on individual perspective and desire is, by definition, a nihilist. It’s for this reason that leftists are all nihilists. They act as though nothing matters when shaping their reality, whether it’s socially engineering a utopia, or living like nothing matters except personal desire.

Such moral primitives care nothing for reason, like a gorilla moving around in the undergrowth, relying on instincts being fired within its limbic system, and occasionally making use of its barely developed neocortex. MGTOW do not feel that reason can be used to extrapolate objective values, such as the need to conceptualise reality and adhere to rational self-interest. Essential values for life do not factor into their reality, be it eating, sleeping, or reproduction. MGTOW act as though these things are not values, even though they are essential to virtue, for without reason, life as we know it will cease to exist. In this state humanity will be reduced to other primitive life. This is the biggest irony of all, since MGTOW consider themselves free of obligation, yet they stumble around like beasts in the wilderness, claiming that the world they exist in is subject merely to their hedonistic desires. Only animals lack reason in this manner. Conversely, human beings are creatures of reason, capable of discerning objective values from their superior minds. Without this human beings are nothing more than animals.

Thus these morally primitive MGTOW rail against nature. They call it ‘traditionalism’ (just like feminists and leftists) and attempt to conflate religion with rational values. While religion is an attempt to explain natural values through divine intervention it does not follow that these values are created by religion itself. This is akin to believing that the conceptualisation of an apple creates the apple, although the apple existed long before the act of naming it. Religion has always been a mystical attempt to explain reality. This is not the process of reason, but one based on superstition. When one steps back and examines nature rationally it’s clear that the relationship of the sexes is one based on complementation.

It is this relationship that has allowed men and women to traverse through the ages, men acting as protectors and providers, and women as nurturers. Without this survival and progress would have been impossible. It was essential that men and women accepted their strengths during periods where divergence from this could have resulted in great risk in a very hostile environment. To deny this is to deny reason. There is no war of the sexes, only survival and human progress. Those that attempt to frame this as a class struggle are like gorillas moving around in the undergrowth.

I do not use the word cult to describe MGTOW purely for dramatic effect, since the word is entirely applicable. As already demonstrated, groupthink is inherent to MGTOW, but this is also a critical part of cult behaviour. It is essential that cults perceive themselves as superior, be it morally or biologically. This is the justification to alienate those outside the group, while also alienating those inside the group from anyone that isn’t a part of the collective. Cults are also renowned for making participants feel there are stages of awareness that must be reached before enlightenment can be achieved.

Here we can see that this is also applicable, there being five levels of MGTOW awareness and participation. Level 0 is considered an awareness of the problems men face. These men, however, do not feel the need to drop out of the system. Level 1 is a rejection of all long-term relationships with women. Level 2 is a rejection of all personal relationships with women. This includes friendships. Level 3 denotes the refusal to produce anything more than is absolutely necessary for survival. Level 4 is the total drop-out of society, often called “going ghost”, and involves bare minimum contact with the “blue-pill” world (in contrast to the red-pill world, who are ‘aware’ of the truth).

It is worth noting that it is claimed on the site that these levels are not a necessary progression, although anyone with any contact with MGTOW will realise very quickly that the parroting of the risks of involvement with women are forced down everyone’s throats through hyperbole and conjecture, and that the only acceptable way to defeat the misandric system is to starve the beast through non-participation. Stoicism is rejected, and Epicureanism is at the forefront of MGTOW philosophy. Thus a realistic standard of expectation in life (the stoic approach) is vehemently opposed, and the Epicurean philosophy of doing as little as possible in life is elevated as virtuous. All these values are fiercely promoted through harassment of anyone that disagrees with this belief system. This becomes very vindictive indeed if anyone has the strength of character and integrity to refute these blatant logical shortcomings.

It is also interesting to note that according to mgtow.com “conservatives” of all stripes are not considered acceptable candidates for the MGTOW cult. How could they be, considering that they do not base their values on egotism, and respect the reality of nature and personal responsibility when upholding rights? At the same time no mention of the fact that feminism is a socialist ideology can be found on the site, or the fact feminism is entirely based on leftist thinking, through the very class consciousness already set out here. So it seems that the very left-wing ideologues that alienate men as an oppressive class are not considered out of bounds to MGTOW, while true conservatism (the belief that individuals have unalienable rights and responsibilities) are not welcome in a cult that bases all its assertions on class consciousness.

The men considering themselves MGTOW overwhelmingly give the impression of suffering with post-traumatic stress disorder, almost certainly originating in childhood. Indeed, everywhere that I encounter them online they are highly confrontational and vitriolic, repeating arguments that divorce is 50% probable, even though this is not initiated by women in every instance. The Critical G made a video explaining that, while divorce is at 50% in many places, this is not randomly assigned, and it is perfectly possible to screen potential females by maintaining standards of virtue. I have essentially been saying this for well over a year, and I would add that this can be further enforced by understanding how personality disorders operate, and generally being well informed on human psychology.

Alas, already Critical G quickly received a typically ignorant response from your common MGTOW egotist, believing that morals are subjective, and that even though divorce is not randomly assigned it is still more likely to be enacted by women. This does nothing to prove that a man has no control over the woman he associates with, much like the manner in which feminists deny agency to women. It merely denotes that where divorce occurs women initiate it more. This does not invalidate any of the arguments based on personal choice.

It is common for MGTOW to deflect in this manner, inventing acronyms like SATF (same as the feminist) to dismiss anyone that exposes the similarities between MGTOW and feminism, and reverting to the same type of apologism for extremism as feminism. MGTOW often state that people do not understand the MGTOW philosophy if they criticise it. We therefore have a situation where NAFALT (not all feminists are like that) becomes ‘Not all MGTOW are like that’. Meanwhile MGTOW, just as with feminists, do not connect the dots between theory and practice, and realise it has become exactly what it is fighting against. Feminism is supposed to be about ‘equality’ for example, but in practice it is a platform for extremely divisive class warfare. Yet MGTOW supporters seem to think that they are immune from such pitfalls.

Above all, it’s very easy to see how vindictive and hypocritical MGTOW are by dissecting this comment below, wherein I was accused of being a ‘traditionalist’ by those claiming to be supporting the adaptation of men away from traditional expectations:
"The only tradition you've broken with your wife is that you've managed to become the stay at home parasite, and she picks up your slack. I'd expect women to frame that as an equitable exchange but coming from a man it just sounds pathetic. You're a failed rocker housewife with no marketable skills, of course you'll support the traditionalist lifestyle when you dont [sic] have to actually do any of the work involved other than "homemaking" of course." 
This vile person is a YouTube user called ‘Tom Odd’, and the comment can be found on my video “Men’s Rights & the “Traditionalist” Smear”. The user has no activity on the channel page, which leaves me to question whether this is a sock account. I suspect this account belongs to one of the more popular MGTOW YouTubers. The account is regularly used to harass me in video comment sections, accusing me of being a parasite for looking after my daughter in the day, while my wife works. This is a common type of hostility I’ve received from MGTOW, who blatantly despise any attempt to make relationships work with women.

As it happens I do work, and run my own business in instrumental tuition, which suits my family for financial and parental reasons. However, this is unacceptable to MGTOW thugs, shedding light on the claim of MGTOW being 'whatever you want it to be'. Only by rejecting relationships with women altogether, and buying into the mythology surrounding corrupt female nature, are you allowed to be a part of the cult. If you try to point out the similarities with this attitude and feminism, or even just explain that it is perfectly possible to wisely associate with women without being exploited, then you will be increasingly attacked, until this is reduced to the type of ferocity that feminists are infamous for.

This sort of behaviour is what I’ve grown to expect from MGTOW – a vicious bunch of thugs that are no doubt a product of a fatherless and broken family system, where males substitute families with gangs. We’ve seen this throughout the Western world as feminist policies have been enacted, the UK riots, for example. It is for this reason that demagogic thugs like Barbarossaaaa are so popular within the MGTOW cult. He is a man that, by his own admission, was raised in a ghetto culture, and it seems that his idea of virtue is to spread this fatherlessness everywhere, in spite of the fact that it’s decimated countless communities across the Western world 

(Update: Barbarossaa, being as manipulative as he is, has tried to suggest in a video response that this is an accusation he was raised in a single-mother home. Nowhere has this point been made in relation to him personally. He has, however, condescendingly suggested he has been around ghetto culture in the past, though it looks as though his attempt to deny that the area he hails from is "ghetto" is yet more manipulation of the truth for his own benefit. It is also irrelevant to the fact that he does not make the connection that fatherless homes, in the areas he has previously drawn on to make a point, are not something to model, despite what he says). 

What is the difference between this attempt to destroy family life, and that of feminism? The answer is, of course, none at all. Those in the MRM that do not stand up to this are indeed the hypocrites I set out at the start, and it’s high time that any attempt to fight for men’s rights includes the ostracisation and destruction of the MGTOW cult.

Please note: any comments reverting to the type of deflections, consequentialist justifications, and shaming tactics highlighted in this post as being endemic to MGTOW, will result in the comment being removed. I have neither the time, nor the patience, to keep refuting and replying to this circular reasoning. Take it elsewhere, since I am long past the point of tolerating fallacious MGTOW talking points by vindictive individuals that need psychological help.

N.B. Here is my response to Barbarossaa's video about this post. Also, here is my response to Stardusk's predictable mimicking of Barbarossaa's actions.


  1. The common link with all "Identity" groups is exactly that... Identity.

    People that find Identity Groups, or Collectives that seem promote an agenda like a broken record, attractive all seem to externalise their identity.

    None of them seem to be able to form their own perception of themselves. They're not self aware? Wow

    Am I reaching here? Or is there something in this thought?

    1. I think you're right on the mark. They keep repeating their mantra over and over again, so that they can keep brainwashing themselves and others, while blocking out reason.

    2. One of the ads on this site was for Ukrainian women looking for mature men age 35+ to date. I had a much more articulate response to your very well-written piece, but that ad encompasses most of why I'm MGTOW. I shouldn't need to explain why.

    3. So right, it's unreasonable because they're arguing a UNIVERSAL, when all that can be accurately inferred is the particular. They say SOME women act predatory, therefore ALL women are evil. This is just bad logic and reflects more on THEM as men then it does on women as a whole. I right now do not have a partner, and I'm very selective about the women I spend time with because I've had bad experiences in the past, but that doesn't mean I'm vain enough to think that my life experience represents the penultimate of the human female; that's just childish. And childish sums up what I think of MGTOW.

    4. @James G. Your argument is spurious and not representative. Nowhere has it been said in or by anyone in mgtow that "SOME woman are," therefore "ALL woman are," evil. It is you who has rather ironically just inferred this in your argument above. This is a pathology you just created. Check yourself.

      @Rocking MrE. Making assertions of cult status without backing them up with evidence is just misrepresentation. I would speculate that this is just you attacking a movement to distance yourself from it as it may resonate with you on some level, and it could be a whiteknight instinct, instructing you to distance yourself, especially if you are in a relationship with a woman. Mgtow are not interested in using victim status to gain power, this is a further misrepresentation without sufficient evidence. Further, many of the more prominent people identifying as mgtow and producing content, such as videos on youtube, are giving advice on how to minimise risk in mens lives with evidence to point out general trends. This is far from a cult and is not destructive, but constructive. It is about honest conversation between men; a discussion that uses evidence to shine light on the destructive nature of woman and mens sovereignty over themselves. All the content creators continually suggest to men to do what they like and forge their own path.

    5. "the destructive nature of woman"

      Any scientific proof of this? This kind of dumb generalizing and superiority complex is why people don't like mgtow

    6. @Norris Lee

      "people don't like mgtow" Any scientific proof of this?

      This too is a generalization; it can't be claimed for 100% of people, yet it is still a valid observation. Had "the nurturing nature of woman" been used in a sentence, would you have still demanded scientific evidence? Even if the idea of woman as destructive is being discussed, it appears to cause many to attack those discussing it.

    7. "a generalization; it can't be claimed for 100% of people, yet it is still a valid observation."

      I take it this also goes for "the destructive nature of woman"?
      Can't be claimed for 100% of women?

      "Had "the nurturing nature of woman" been used in a sentence, would you have still demanded scientific evidence?"

      Probably not, because many (including me) are already aware of this.
      I wouldn't ask for evidence that the Earth is round, because it's obviously already proven, and I know it's round. Fair enough?

      "Even if the idea of woman as destructive is being discussed, it appears to cause many to attack those discussing it."

      I hope you're not just referring to me.
      And from what I've seen, when the idea of woman as equals with men is being discussed, it appears to cause many (especially guys) to attack those discussing it.
      And it's not even that bad of an idea!

    8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    9. 1st point. I agree. This is why I used the term generalization.

      2nd point. Fair enough but had this discussion taken place 500 years ago, the obvious answer would have been the Earth is flat. If we take a statistical look at the "nurturing nature of women" we may have a different view: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1xf78EltKM

      3rd point. No I wasn't referring to just you; if we take a look at the article above and many of the comments in this section, you will see what I mean but you have deflected from the point I was making. I am shining a light on how quickly people whiteknight and go on the attack even if it is perceived that woman, even in discussion, are somehow under attack. Also, from what I have seen too are that most guys I know are all for equality, but can discuss it honestly and know that not all are born equal.

      Additionally, since you seem to have stopped bashing and your rationale seems to be kicking in, why not take a look for yourself. At first I was not interested in what the mgtow movement had to say as all I had heard was negative about them. Now I have listened for myself, they are simply being honest with no holds-barred. Take a look it is just men (and woman) speaking honestly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kl2wB7Lwizo

    10. I have a lot to say, but I'm gonna have to try to keep this as short as possible:

      a) Call me what you want, but - considering some of the outlandish claims Stefan Molyneux has made before, and his biases, I'm inclined to hesitate before taking everything he says as solid truth and the right mindsets to take.

      As you may know, Stefan was a speaker at the 'A Voice For Men' 2014 conference. Which explains a lot.

      I've also seen your reply to another comment thread below concerning single dads vs single moms. I don't think you'll be surprised to know that I disagree with your sentiments there.

      b) I don't believe anything I've said in this comment section was "bashing". At least, it may not be the right word. But to each his own.

      Now I don't want to seem sensitive, but your occasional patronizing is irksome, and doesn't help your argument. My rationale never needed to "kick in" thank you very much.

      Frankly, I've seen an awful lot of MGTOW's who are very irrational and make the movement look bad. I know people who are neither feminists nor MGTOW's that agree.

      c) With regards to those youtube videos by Spetsnaz; I'm not buying everything he says, and I certainly don't share all the opinions of the many followers of his commenting on his videos.

      d) I just want to clarify - are you yourself a MGTOW or a non-MGTOW who agrees with their views?

      And what would you say are the 3 most crucial principles of the average MGTOW?
      I'm not certain it's the best way to go.

    11. I will keep this as short as possible.

      Quite honestly I find your use of language manipulative and full of traps, so I am feeling a bit annoyed about it. The points I have been making so far have been relying on evidence, which I have been pointing out.

      So far you have mostly given opinions and statements about how you feel about mgtow, and have yet to have made any real argument (apart from “I don't like them”), which may be a bit narcissistic to just talk about your feelings.

      I myself am not mgtow but I have been exploring this since I heard about it and have yet to see examples of the assertions you make about the movement - unless you want to use comment sections from websites as evidence, which would be pathetic for obvious reasons.

      I commented on your rationale because you did start bashing, you accused me of being a dumb generalizer and of having a superiority complex, as well as assuming that I am mgtow. This was albeit in a rather round-about way, but you appeared to stop attacking after your points were challenged. Forgive me for appearing a little patronising in response, as generally I don't tend to use sleights as a method in arguments, rather evidence is more worthwhile than opinion and popularity.

      It was actually a woman who first informed me about mgtow, and the youtuber Feminism LOL was the first set of videos I watched. I included them above. Maybe give them a watch, she certainly gives and interesting perspective.

      I don't feel like writing an essay for you - find out for yourself what the main points of mgtow are.

      Finally, and you can take it or leave it: I would suggest evaluating the content of what people are saying, and looking for and requiring evidence before making assertions about people. Rather than reacting to how you feel about and relying on popularity to do it for you. Good luck.

    12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    13. Ok. Here goes nothing...

      a) "Quite honestly I find your use of language manipulative and full of traps"

      I'm not sure how my language was manipulative and full of traps. My bad if it looked that way, but I had no intention of trying to trap you, believe me.

      b) "So far you have mostly given opinions and statements about how you feel about mgtow, and have yet to have made any real argument (apart from “I don't like them”)"

      You see - just about everyone has a bias/ agenda. Generally, a debate/ argument seldom ends with both sides changing their views on the subject at hand. That's part of the reason I wasn't sure if I should even bother stating why exactly I dislike MGTOW's overall.

      That being said; I don't want to ramble on TOO much, but the ideology/ idea of MGTOW itself is somewhat flawed and contradictory. A lot of the things these MGTOW youtube channels say (Sandman, Soluchi, xpalladoc, to name a few) are refutable, and more paranoid than rational to be honest. As you know, MGTOW's are especially prominent on the internet. So in this particular case, using "comment sections from websites as evidence" of some of their peculiarities may not be as pathetic as you think. If anything, it's evidence in addition to the other evidence I've ALREADY seen of their flaws.
      Basically, the comments from some of these MGTOW's I've seen are bonuses, if that makes sense.
      And to be perfectly honest, the most rudely sexist comments I've ever seen (so far) were almost all from MGTOW's. Dunno why, but they better be trolls considering most people have probably never even heard of MGTOW; seeing these types of people could make for a really bad first impression of MGTOW. Not good for the movement's image.

      "I have been exploring this since I heard about it and have yet to see examples of the assertions you make about the movement"

      Well lucky you. I've been exploring MGTOW quite a lot myself.
      My researching of all this MGTOW stuff is exactly why I don't really like it.
      Again, many of the things they say (youtubers and commentors alike)

      "I don't trust a gay man for one second" - "They're Mangina's most discard their masculinity"

      are not quite solid, and they seem to have trouble agreeing on certain things.

      "MGTOW's can be married" - "No they can't!"
      "I believe NAWALTS exist" - "There are no NAWALTS"

      And so on. Which is why I asked what YOU thought the main points of mgtow are. Perhaps you thought differently.
      There's also a lot of hypocrisy in MGTOW. In various ways, they're not that much different from the feminists they dislike so much.

      They can be nasty to people who even politely disagree with them, and it can be difficult to have a reasonable discussion with them. I can tell you this from personal experience, and other people have experienced this too (MGTOW's can be especially unmannerly towards women, even if the woman is level-headed).

      One guy said:
      "I was sympathetic to MGTOW for years, but they turned on me when they found out I was married. The vitriol I received was horrendous."

      I could be wrong, but you yourself seemed to make some assumptions about me; maybe justified based on what you saw from my previous responses, but:
      I DO evaluate the content of what people say.
      I DO put emphasis on the facts, not my feelings, believe it or not.
      I DON'T rely on popularity to do stuff for me or whatever.

      I've seen MGTOW's themselves criticize the movement in it's current place. I've talked with a MGTOW before who also disagreed with what some prominent MGTOW's state.
      And I've looked through the sites/ videos/ blogs/ comments myself, and did my research. Still doing it.

      Maybe now you'll understand why I think the way I do about MGTOW. As you can see, there ARE reasons “I don't like them”.

      Have I made myself more clear to you? I hope so.

    14. Norris, I agree 100% with everything you said.
      Overall, I find the movement to be more unhelpful than "constructive".

      "a discussion that uses evidence to shine light on the destructive nature of woman and mens sovereignty over themselves"

      "The destructive nature of woman"?
      God what a joke, no offense.

      I'm not sure if John Smith knows what he's doing supporting mgtow's.

      "evaluating the content of what people are saying, and looking for and requiring evidence before making assertions about people"

      Looks like he's not practicing what he's preaching..
      Seems kinda self righteous and pompous as well.

      Eh - good luck to him.

      As for the movement; it could use some serious cleaning up right now.

    15. This comment has been removed by the author.

    16. At this point, I can only hope for the best.

    17. Speaking of self-awareness, here are funny examples of the lack of it:



    18. Rocking Chair: You just don't want to go to the trouble of going without pussy juice to find reality.

  2. Excellent work. The buffoon who sent me a response video could barely contain his rage, and his argument was unsurprisingly shoddy. To be expected from someone who has saddlesores from being on his high horse for so long.

    1. You will find in due time that all MGTOW are like that. They are very self-righteous, and quick to deflect arguments with circular logic and passive aggression, which very quickly becomes covert aggression.

  3. My concern with mgtow, is that it apes or attempts to mimic that aspect of feminism that is so destructive. The exploitation of a human frailty, that of a perceived collective harm or grievance, projected as a subject of collective culpability onto another group, in fact this is one reason why feminism is intrinsically evil. You noted the apparent fact that mgtows all seem to be nutters ie. suffer from post traumatic stress disorder, this is not unexpected it's the mechanism from which personal experience is projected on to the wider context. It's not that I don't have sympathy for nutters, I might even include myself amongst their number on occasions, but you always have a choice just because you're a casualty doesn't mean need to adopt the role of victim. In fact that's what those who want to control you want, those who want to exploit your grievance and those who want to excise your volition ie. any contribution you have to make to the world.

    Although I think if the tide hasn't already turned against mgtow it inevitably will, those around at the moment just don't have any depth to sustain interest from too many people, the interminable procession of acronyms is a pretty transparent target for ridicule. That could change and of course it's possible to sustain interest if rhetoric is treated in a uncritical light, feminism for example, but mgtow is unlikely to be fostered by such interests that have fostered feminism in broader society.

    1. Good points. You hit the nail on the head when you addressed the fact that, while these men may have been victims, this is not a licence to hurt others. All 'villains' make this mistake.

    2. If there was a like button, I would like this article 50,000,000,000 times

  4. My biggest problem with MGTOWs is that they break the "circle of life"

    As a species, men & women are meant to live complementary lives - not the gender war which feminists wage against men - and to a lesser extent some MRAs against ordinary women.

    1. Actually Mgtow doesn't have to break the circle of life. I am a single male in the process of hiring a surrogate mother in Mexico. If all goes well I will have my first child this time next year.

    2. And you think that sort of environment is the best way to raise a child?

    3. Why not? Doesn't the modern feminist preach to women that they don't need a man in their lives? So we are damned if we play by the new rules of society as well. Without the state guarantees of support, would so many women embrace single parenthood?
      In all likelyhood if the claim of feminist are correct the man will be in a better position to provide for a child.

    4. Well the claims are not correct. And if you don't give a damn about raising children well, or value truth over ideology, then you're just proving the article's point - that MGTOW and feminists are the same.

    5. What is best is a Father and Mother as the parents raising the child. The next best by far is a child raised by the Father. All evidence points to this. When a man raises his children they are more likely to be high achievers. Not so with children raised by mothers. Males are roleless, violent and suicidal; females become more promiscuous. The majority (75%) of inmates in prison were raised in female headed homes. It might be a good idea for him to raise the child on his own.

    6. I know 9 people who have been raised in single father homes. They did not fare any better than the ones raised in single mother homes, seriously. The girls became slutty, the boys became lazy leaches or criminals. The reason there are not as many stats about them is because it is not as common.

    7. I wouldn't be surprised if single father homes are as bad as single mother homes. What the evidence shows is that both biological parents, raising children as a family, is what's most effective for a child's development.

  5. Damn, that Tom Odd guy is really mean. I'm sorry to hear about that, E, but when you broadcast your views, some people respond and not necessarily politely. But I commend your courage to speak your mind. There aren't enough Bernard Chapins, Ed Trimnells, or RockingMrEs to stand up to leftists and their politically correct poison.

    If we ever meet, I'd buy you a round. =)

    P.S. What do you think of YT user "vention1mgtow"? He seems all right and appears to be a fairly legitimate MGTOW in that he just prefers to have no serious risks associated with relationships with women.

    1. You're right, you do put yourself in the firing line in my position. But in spite of this these guys are truly vile. Tom Odd is one of many associating with that cult that have deep-rooted issues. Are we supposed to give them a free pass due to their problems? If we did then every criminal would still be walking the streets.

    2. Whoa, slow down. I didn't say anything about giving people free passes to do as they please, least of all folks like Tom Odd. I only meant that when you make your views or opinions public, and especially if they're about touchier subjects like politics and philosophy, then you can expect some heated, even rude, replies. You could disable comments and messaging, but I guess you feel they're still worthwhile.

      But on what the Tom Odds of the world say, I'm guessing my thoughts are about the same as yours. They may be nasty, but if we want free speech, they must be allowed to speak their minds and persuade others of their ideas, bad as they may be, although they can't force others to listen to them. Responsibility matters and so I wouldn't excuse certain bad behavior like harassing or threatening others. However, I am divided about libel. I know it's terrible because reputation is highly important, but I saw on a YT video a few good points from Murray Rothbard about how libel laws can do more harm than good.

    3. I'm sorry if my comment came across as though I disagreed with you. I don't. I simply made a general point that fools like Tom Odd are a dime a dozen, and will use any excuse to avoid growing as people. Instead they become what they claim to have been oppressed by.

      I should have phrased my reply better. Apologies once again.

    4. No worries. Thanks for clarifying.

  6. Last spring, Barbarossa made a video arguing that patriarchy always leads to feminism. I refuted his argument, and he deleted my comments. I asked why he would make a video to spark a discussion, only to delete it, and he said I was "spamming." He offered to discuss it with me outside of youtube, so I refuted his argument on on his blog. He claimed he was too busy with school to respond, and he would get back to me in a few days. A few days turned into weeks, and he eventually ignored it. 2 months later, he brought up the argument again in another video, and I refuted him again. This time, he not only deleted my comments, he banned me from his channel.

    I've always heard that liberals thrive on censorship, but I've never been banned for disagreeing with someone. While I don't consider Barbarossa a liberal, I think he suffers from the same problem. People with radical views are terrified of rational debate, because if you explore their ideas objectively, they're always full of holes. These people need followers to believe in their ideas, so they must silence anyone in the crowd who points out their nonsense.

    Here is my response in defense of patriarchy, that Barbarossa deleted in his original video:

    1) You say tradition always leads to feminism, but there are countless examples of patriarchies throughout history that never have. Feminism is the result of massive state growth and corruption. The majority of civilizations throughout history have never reached that point. Patriarchy manifests itself naturally, because it is an extension of human biology (men are naturally better leaders, women are attracted to leaders, women have their babies, etc.). Therefore, "traditional family values" exist with or without government. Feminism only exists with massive government control. You, not unlike the feminist, have defined patriarchy as a “social construct” and deemed it bad, by cherry-picking aspects of it that you disagree with. Suspiciously absent from your argument, however, is the efficiency of patriarchy in building healthy societies.

    2) Also like the feminist, you are intentionally lying about how much women have worked throughout history. You claim they've sat around doing nothing while men built society. In reality, women have drudged long hours on farms, run schools, cared for the sick and elderly, owned businesses, etc. while also maintaining households. You've painted a picture of gender dynamics that isn't true, but instead of lying to make women into victims, you’re lying to give victim-hood status to men. This is a despicable feminist tactic, and you should be ashamed of employing it.

    3) Under patriarchy, social work handled by women was far more efficient, and more importantly, their labor was not TAXED. This kept the size of government relatively small, the family unit stronger, and individual liberties much higher. This is unarguably a good thing for men, children, and society, yet you are against it. You deconstruct feminism quite well, but you look down on the only system that inherently keeps it from growing. Under your gender equality utopia, women are still in power because they still control the vote, still feed the state through taxable labor, and government is inevitably anti-male. The more women that pay taxes and vote against traditional values, the less freedom for men, period. There is no way around this mathematically. You can't be pro-men's rights and anti-patriarchy, because women aren't going to pay for and vote for men's rights. Once you understand how government works and why it needs to remain small, it becomes clear as day: to be anti-tradition is to be anti-male.

    1. The men are better leaders - it's debatable at best. And no they are not, nor are women. To be good leader you have to have not only some inate talents but also be in the right place and time with "your talents and gender".
      I don't understand the less freedom for men argument. It's imperative that when women gain more freedom men loose their freedom - over women, but why it's bad thing. Cause more freedom also means that people have more chance for immoral, unjust behavior. And the freedom you loose is not upon yoursef or you agency is upon other people especially women or other weaker groups- it's a good thing.

  7. This is my response to Barbarossa on his blog, after he made another video bashing the traditional nuclear family:

    SoTilted | May 7, 2012 at 9:26 pm

    This is yet another rant/video where you ignore the basic question: what is the best method to raise young boys into men? There is overwhelming evidence that the two-parent, patriarchal nuclear family is the best system for raising children, yet you continue to rail against this system, providing no alternative in its place. In your years of making videos, you haven’t even come close to addressing this topic, and now I see why.

    The primary goal of feminism was to end the nuclear family, because 1) taxing two parents is better for the government than taxing one, 2) splitting up families makes upward mobility significantly harder, and 3) weakening the family unit makes children more dependent on the government. There are other reasons that MRA’s expound on, but from a government and economic standpoint, these are the most obvious. Feminists were able to do this effectively by attacking patriarchy, cherry-picking facts from world history to paint men as oppressors, and women as victims. Most women have an innate victim mentality, so this worked like a charm. But remember, the primary goal of second-wave feminism was to end the nuclear family. And after a bit of prodding, you finally admit in this video that your ultimate goal is to… *drumroll*… end the nuclear family. So it’s quite clear that both your end goal (no more nuclear family) and your primary tactic (vilifying patriarchy) are BOTH identical to the feminist, yet you quench whenever you’re compared to them. Barb, you ARE the same as the feminists. The only difference that I can see is that you aren't asking for government intervention or laws infringing on women’s rights, but neither were feminists until they had the power to. Your ideology is rooted in the same false premise: that families aren't optimal, and patriarchy is bad.

    It amazes me how you claim to care about the future of men, without ever addressing how they should be raised. Not ONCE. I've asked you repeatedly to go into this, but you never have. My only conclusion is that you have a perverse ideology, based around rationalizing your personal choice to avoid having children. Every man going his own way already knows why fatherhood is a huge risk today, how our laws are anti-male, etc. We all agree here. Yet, it’s also obvious that men and women will still procreate, women will still give birth to boys, and the next generation of men will come from this generation of boys. What is your stance on raising these boys? What is your advice to the MRAs who already have children? What system do you propose that could even possibly work better than a nuclear family? If patriarchy works better than single parenthood (and statistically, it does– by a large margin), then how can an MRA be against a man having legal authority to lead his family? How can an MRA be against the best method for raising boys into men? What a joke.

    He never responded. Big surprise.

    1. It's no surprise that Barbarossaa has avoided replying to your arguments because his arguments are so flimsy that this would result in him being exposed for the fraud that he is.

      At least you tried. Well done, and good job posting the exchange here, so more evidence can be shed on Barbie's hypocrisy.

  8. It's great that someone stands up to these thugs. Some MGTOW/MRA recently said "MGTOW's did not start the fire, so why should men be the firefighters". But what is the use of starting another fire across the street? These are some of the MGTOW views I have come across lately: The bread winner should take it all in a divorce; Labor pains, women make that up and they need to stop bitching, was even compared to blowing ones nose and the difficulty of peeing out of a penis; Rape, does not exist.

    "You are a woman, therefor a feminist, therefor anything you say loses all meaning" is the reasoning I face most of the time and I'm being generous now, while some quickly respond with "Not all MGTOW's are like that". Oh, the irony.

    1. Unless more people start exposing these comments publicly these thugs will be able to continuously lie about their views when challenged and change the goalposts, so they can keep indoctrinating people and attracting more thugs to their cause. It's the duty of everyone to post these extreme comments and views, and to oppose them. If we don't all do this then all that will happen is MGTOW will carry on the work that feminism started, to destroy the family.

    2. From MGTOW to Elam, have you seen his "An open Response to Troubled Men". Just goes to show what a vile and disgusting human being he is.

    3. Hey, won't bother you after this but what do you think of the whole woolybumblebee thing? I don't agree with her on politics but she did the right thing critiquing MGTOW and was let go because of it. Now GWW throws a typical tantrum:


      "I'm so glad to know I helped pay for those four degrees she's using to sit in a lawn chair and gestate a fifth fetus with. A fifth child who makes me weep for the future of humanity, because regardless of whether you're a biological determinist/reductionist or whether you think it's all environment, you have to admit those are five fucked up kids about to be unleashed on the world."

      Big words from a single mother who doesn't seem to be doing much else these days than milk men of their cash and suck up to Stardusk and Elam.
      Maybe this is just a cat fight between the two, but I'm a bit more skeptical of GWW now than I was before.

      Before I leave your space with my mindless jibberjabber, how can they actually think they are any different from feminists with attacking those with families, people who actually take responsibility in raising their children? Why are they so bitter towards people who stay home and using their words, "do nothing"? In my honest opinion, not only do they blame women for all their misery like feminists do with men, but they also resent men exactly like feminists.

    4. There is no limit on the amount you comment. If you are amicable and intellectually honest you are free to comment as much as you like.

      I agree with you about WBB. I don't agree with her politics either, but she was 100% right on the money about MGTOW. Anyone objective can see that MGTOW is just the male manifestation of radical feminism.

      I am apprehensive to say anything negative about GWW because she has been very fair to me in the past. However, I do see the contradiction regarding her status as a divorced single mother, particularly as it relates to Starry, Barbie, and Elam. If nothing else it is testament to the fact that those three guys are anti-family and anti-heterosexual relationships above all. Men's rights are not truly on their radar at all.

  9. I say fuck 'em all. Fuck men, fuck women, fuck human beings. Misanthropy uber alles.

  10. I am not a MGTOW (well, maybe in the sense of "I am going my way, whats yours?) and I generally don't agree with the thrust of your blog post, but if you feel like criticizing MGTOW, than by all means do -- every philosophy needs opposition in order to become better. However, I am a Nietzschean, and so I found some of the things you said about him to be, somewhat misinformed, if I may say so. Right away I found myself asking "Has the author read Nietzsche, or is his opinion second-hand?"

    Nietzsche was a nihilist, but he overcome his nihilism in "Thus Spoke Zarathustra," in my view. He wrote extensively on nihilism and on both it's destructive and creative tendencies, and differentiated between different kinds of nihilism, such as what he called "European Nihilism." I am also curious as to who those other philosophers you referenced were, and what it was they said about him. I really have never seen Nietzsche discussed in MGTOW videos, that I can recall at least. I have seen Schopenhauer discussed in such videos though: perhaps you meant him? I am not sure.

    To leave off, I would like to leave one of Nietzsches own definitions of nihilism, from "The Will To Power," Book One. European Nihilism, section I. NIHILISM, second aphorism, written some time in the Spring-Fall of 1887: "What does nihilism mean? *That the highest values devaluate themselves.* The aim is lacking; "why?" finds no answer." (Stars indicate his emphasis in italics.)

    Thank you for your time.

    1. With full respect, I've heard it all before with Nietzsche. There are different problems to the existentialist problem of godlessness and a finite existence, and yes, to many MGTOW it's something along the lines of pessimism and nihilism - so not entirely Nietzchean. The Will to Power however is a morally bankrupt creed, where power is deemed the basis for morality. If ever you want to know why totalitarian ideologies gravitate towards Nietzsche it doesn't get more obvious than this.

    2. I think you're misunderstanding Nietzsche here; to be fair it's a common mistake. What N was saying is not unlike what your friend Ayn Rand was saying in that the idea of selflessness is an illusion and a lot of good work comes from things the morality of western society deems to be evil. It makes me wonder how you can miss the obvious connection there.

    3. Only I haven't misunderstood anything, and you haven't adequately explained what it is I've misunderstood anyway.

      Either way, Nietzsche tends to attract followers that will selectively present his views, when in reality he despised weak people and saw strength as the foundation for morality, rather than seeing individuals as beings with their own inherent rights to freedom.

      Perhaps he was projecting because he himself was such a sick man, but I do tire of his acolytes misrepresenting his views, much like with other thinkers, Marx being one significant example.

      So if you're going to comment here in future, at least show me the courtesy of realising that I've done extensive research into what I address.

  11. re posted to fix some grammar and spelling:)

    No one is under any ethical or legal duty to perpetuate the human race nor is it practical to force them to. It also goes without saying that no one is obligated to seek out a romantic partner as well. I as a young man weighted the costs vs the benefits. Filtered that through my own life experiences growing up in a broken home and added in the constant cultural meme that denigrated fatherhood and decided this simply was not for me. All of my life I have been told I am the bad guy but how could I be a rapist if I don't ever lay a finger on you. How can I be a spouse abuser if I live alone as a bachelor. How can I be a dead beat dad if I never father a child. How can I be the bumbling fool portrayed in so many sitcoms if I abscond from that role in our society. Why should I expose my self to the legal risks that marriage is for men. In fact Id go so far as to ask bluntly whats in it for me? Nothing of value and a great deal of risk where the stakes our my very freedom. I have seen with my own eyes as friends and family members have been ruined in divorce and the subsequent family court system.

    Perhaps people like Barbarossa are simply breaking the first rule of fight club. Whats the point in talking about it. It is not like this is some organized and directed movement. It is simply men such as myself coming to a conclusion and acting on it. Criticizing him likewise will have no effect. This is an individual case by case inter-subjection contemplation of each and every man that has given thought to this. We are not taking marching orders from anyone. So criticize Barbarossa, Paul Elam or anyone else, it wont matter at all to me. All I ask of womenkind is that they extend to me the same courtesy I have given them, namely to be ignored.

    1. The most important part of your entire comment is stating that you came from a broken home. It appears you have had a tough life, and I am very sorry that you had to go through it. This is clearly what you need to break down, preferably with a very good psychotherapist, if you want to be a happy person. At least you are honest about your past. Many MGTOW are not be so virtuous.

      It's what you do when faced with adversity that is the difference between good and evil. We do have an obligation to keep civilisation alive and healthy, otherwise a) do you even have the right to live in civilisation, as opposed to the wilderness? And b) why are you even here if you don't want to give anything back. Do you really have a right in this situation?

      What these obligations/responsibilities are is a discussion for another day, but most of all you will do nothing in your life if you allow fear to consume you. Also, don't allow fear to turn to anger, and anger to hate, because that leads to suffering.

      I think I heard that in a movie somewhere :-P

  12. I would just like to say how pleasant it was to read this. Barbarossa is a nut job who lives on a planet far far away from this one.

    1. I won't disagree with you there. Check out my video "Shrodinger's Divorce" for some of Barbie's latest antics.

    2. I'll give it a watch when I get a chance. I think it is only natural that a lot of damaged men are going to flock to the MRM and all it's guises. In part feminism could probably be held to blame but there is an aspect that is mirroring feminism where feminism itself was and still is a magnet for damaged females. There are damaged people in this world unfortunately but that damage is generally far more complex than something that can be explained away as the product of any one single political or sociological phenomenon. Baba is indicative of the extreme views that come out of the lack of parity in this world. A lack of parity on a diverse range of socio-economic as well as gender based issues. Although I think that the MRM can play an important role in achieving parity on gender issues I am personally mindful that the extreme elements (left, right and in-between) have the potential to be just as damaging as the extreme elements of feminism (I realise I am stating the obvious here). I absolutely enraged Paul Elam by suggestion that his website and forums has a hidden extreme element that he as unwittingly attracted to his himself. Hopefully as more people's eyes are opened people of a better nature will join the conversation and extremists like Baba will be confined to the dustbin of history. There are certainly "gentler" elements within feminism and hopefully the same will emerge out of the MRM.

    3. You're almost entirely on the money, although I'll add that it is a lack of out the box thinking that causes these problems you describe. Part of that is sex based identity politics itself, which is an entirely leftist tactic.

      So it isn't "right" that is the problem, not if it is true individualism, which is entirely a right-wing phenomenon. What's happened though, as usual, is that moral cowards and sycophants pander to the popular meme of class consciousness and acquisition of privilege, to acquire influence, and that's exactly what Elam has done. It's no surprise to me that when you pointed out his flaws he flipped out.

      A backlash is marginally emerging, so maybe eventually the MRM can become something like a movement based on individual rights and responsibilities, not collective privileges designated by absolute authority, a la feminism and Marxism.

    4. Ha ha, it doesn't take much to get the steam pouring out of Paul Elam's ears. I personally find him to be a bit of a cantankerous old git.

      Where Paul deserves all credit for raising awareness using his own brand of "shock and awe" it's those same tactics that places a ceiling on Paul's potential.

      His form of "militant parody" (if you will) might be good at bringing more readers to his site but his complete lack of sensitivity won't bring the opposition to the table.

      I personally don't think I am stretching it in anyway to say that Paul is trying to fight feminism with yet more feminism. You only need to take a summarily view of his website's content to see that it full of the same pseudo-intellectual nonsense as feminism - and all this from a man who calls himself a libertarian.

      Left, right or in the centre, I personally can not think of of any schism throughout history that was mended without open free dialogue and compromise.


    5. I'm not sure about "compromise" per se. Leftists rely on a creeping totalitarianism via "compromise". They then implement rubicons that you cannot easily go back on, and then they keep "progressing" towards social collapse and a totalitarian take over. Basically they wreck everything, and then say "See, I told you there was a problem! We can solve it with more of the same though..." It's a classic sleight of hand.

      Saying that Elam's limits are certainly his tactics as you say, in that he is just making the MRM a new form of pro-male feminism. Who wants that? Well, the type of idiots that made feminism such a problem in the first place. This is no solution to anything. It's just more of the same manufactured sex war that I for one am sick of.

    6. I see where you are coming from. I grew up in a country where compromise between the left and right prevented an all out race and civil war but it's a place that's stability relies on a continuous maintenance of that compromise.

      I speak from my own life's experience that personally choose neither right or left. I will listen to the left up to the point where they start spewing out marxist bullshit at me and I will listen to the right up to the point that they start spewing out racist bullshit at me. That is based entirely on my own life experience however.

      I have all the time in the world for right leaning people who value individualism and all the time in the world for left leaning people who are simply concerned for the less fortunate in society.

      Myself, I just try to hone my ability at maintaining a grass roots individualism. In that I mean an individualism based on who I am and where I am going.

      Something I will say, and this is entirely my own opinion, at this point in history the people on the right are the ones making sense and have the most honest point of view. In my own life I a currently hard pressed to find anyone on the left who makes sense let alone understands the world in any great detail.

      People like Elam are fighting a war of attrition in my opinion. But it's important to observe and be aware of the dangers that come from these elements in society. If the MRM goes the same way as feminism we are in for a very dark part of human history.

    7. I think your views are generally not only pragmatic, but rational and compassionate. I will ask that you reflect on the idea that individualism (or the "right") doesn't care about the poor. It's just much harder to make people see that when the left relies on appeals to emotion to create co-dependence through statist scraps and demagoguery.

      Meanwhile individualists are the ones to say that self-reliance is the key to eroding poverty. It's not a question of giving someone a fish, but teaching them how to fish for example. That is the epitome of true individualism, and collectivists hate to see people being independent and self-reliant.

    8. I also neglected to mention that racism in politics and ideology is generally a collectivist phenomenon. For example, look into the history of fascism, a national socialist movement that is merely a rendition of the international and Marxist variety of the same ideas.

    9. Thanks for the kudos.

      My life has taught me that there are selfish people who's selfishness is both supported and perpetuated by an expert ability to find excuses for their selfishness. A solid excuse is all you need to prevent any guilt that might come along with a selfish act.

      So where there are definitely honest decent people on the right there is unfortunately an element who co-opt right leaning philosophy simply as a means to excuse their own selfishness. Where there are people such as your self who believe that help comes in the form of a hand-up instead of a hand-out, others will take that belief and use it as an excuse to be blatantly selfish and take no interest in the well being of others at all.

      In Thatcher's 1980s UK a meme went around that basically allowed people to excuse their own greed. I am not sure if Thatcher even said it herself but the idea that greed is good was certainly a meme that infiltrated the "philosophies" of many who claimed to be on the right.

      Greed is not good. Greed is not only selfish and damaging to the less fortunate but is also self-deprecating over the long term. Greed can never be a good thing simply because it is unsustainable.

      That said, I doubt many honest people, right or left would ever argue that prosperity is not good. Prosperity that is sustainable is a very good thing, especially when it can serve as a means to provide a much needed hand-up to those seeking it.

      I myself have often found it hard to explain to left leaning people that you are not always helping people simply by tending to their most immediate needs. I certainly agree with you that, in the longer term, you help people by enabling them to help themselves.

      Now all that said, there are definitely people (and I speak from experience) who use left leaning philosophy to excuse their own selfish behaviour. I have seen more than one female using leftist feminism as an excuse for their infidelities. And there are no shortage of people who abuse the benefits system in socialist countries.

      But to me that does not mean leftist philosophy should be shunned all together. For example, where an older person has come up short in their old age I have no problem with the idea that the government takes a reasonable amount of my income and re-appropriates it to that person for the sake of taking care of that persons immediate needs. And to that end, sometimes it makes sense that the government can provide a hand-up to others by re-appropriating wealth (as long as it doesn't damage the lives of wealth creators of course).

      The problem with the left is firstly Marxism (hate it!) and the Marxist leaders in the left who co-opt people who would otherwise be well intentioned. What goes from being simple good intentions gets turned in to irrational utopian ideologies.

      The type of racism I experienced growing up was vehemently against any kind of collectivism (or rather communism). The powers that be where able to use people's genuine fears of communism and use them to perpetuate a racist system. My understanding of this particular brand of racism is that the racism itself is seen as a kind of individualism. But it isn't individualism at all. It was a racism based on fear of the unknown and fear of a loss of cultural identify. However the culture it sort to protect was one based deeply on individualism. It's ironic really and blatantly stupid. But then racists are stupid.

      There are similarities between Nazism and Apartheid South Africa but then both regimes where that complex that there were probably just as many differences. Nazi Germany for instance was an all-out dictatorship where Apartheid South Africa did practice a limited form of democracy.

      Nazism was dumb and shows how dumb the masses can be. IE "Hey everybody the communists are bad, we are socialist, lets go fight people who are not only following the same political philosophy as us but are also known to be just as racist and anti-semitic".

      Anyway, I have probably gone past the point where I making sense :)

    10. Again, some great comments that I largely agree with. Racism is a product of tribalism though, and this in itself is "collectivist". As such this again shows that racism is an irrational and primitive affinity to your collective race. The point is that there is no connection between racism and real individualism, where merit is the core value.

      Egoism is what you are describing in relation to this selfishness. I have also noticed this corrupting element in both individualist and collectivist ideologies. The corruption starts with nihilism, and then it all falls apart from there.

      I am not so sure about the government providing any welfare, not because I do not believe in welfare, but because the government does it so badly. Traditionally there has always been charity, but at least when it's privately run it cannot be co-opted to buy votes and create a dependent class, which socialists/Marxists rely on. This is the usual sycophantic/demagogic tactic.

  13. Agreed on all points pretty much.

    The Afrikaner Nationalists that brought the apartheid system in to law believed that they were a people especially chosen by god to enter in to a promise land and civilize the native people. And like all people who oppress others they believed it was they themselves who were victims of oppression by the European powers of the day.

    It is true that they were victims of oppression. Their women and children were the fist people ever to experience concentration camps. But despite the fact that they fought and eventually won their independence, the continued their sense of victim hood and used it to oppress others.

    So yes, tribalism but tribalism with a big serving of victim culture for good measure.

    I think no matter how good any political philosophy is as soon as you hand it over to the masses it is going to be corrupted. This will always be the case with any system of governance. I find this to be a sad aspect of human nature. It is this understanding that lies at the heart of my belief in the need for my own values based on who I am and my own self-reliance based on what I need.

    Anyone who places trust in a government or (even a charity for that matter) for their own continued well being is foolish.

    You can imagine my shock when I moved to the UK and started to meet people who saw the government as having the greatest responsibility for their own well being. I would personally feel nothing but shame in taking a hand out from the government. It would be a sign that I had failed myself as a person.

    As much as I don't mind a reasonable portion of my income being used to help the genuinely less fortunate I would not want the same hand out myself.

    Something that does piss me off to a very high degree is the fact that a certain amount of the tax I pay lands up in the hands of the corrupt. When that is the case then it is noting less than blatant theft.

    1. The biggest problem I see is that welfare becomes interchangeable with bribery for political votes, just like lobbying at the richer end of the scale. As usual it's the middle that is squeezed, because they don't need welfare, and their choices in life are squeezed by regulatory capture via lobby groups. The middle is constantly scapegoated. But without this group the whole system collapses, and it's this portion that is the biggest threat to the ruling class. It's exactly as Orwell described in 1984.

    2. I stop short of succumbing to the idea that we are now living in an all out Orlwellian society. We wouldn't be having this conversation if that was the case.

      I couldn't argue with the idea that we are heading there though and I my opinion is that we are heading towards something that is potentially far worse.

      What angers me the most is that we are heading there because people are such selfish lazy thinkers.

      Makes my blood boil it does!

    3. I'm not suggesting that we ARE in an Orwellian society. But we're certainly moving in that direction, as you say. And yes, it also makes my blood boil for the very same reasons you highlight.

    4. I think we are on the same page. You certainly don't come across as someone who would work yourself in to a state of hysteria.

      On the contrary, you seem like a decent caring and objective person.

      So yeah, there is war on and the enemy is stupidity ;)

    5. Thank you. It's not easy trying to be objective when there are so many that are utterly obsessed with tribalistic ideology. I guess that's why true individualism isn't popular. it takes a lot of courage to go against the grain, and my online popularity has certainly suffered for it.

    6. Well keep it up.

      As more and more people turn away from the populist rhetoric of Paul Elam and the like they are going to try seek out a more objective truth.

      Others may be able to reel them in but somebody still has to teach them how to fish ;)

    7. Thanks. I appreciate your faith in me. Whatever happens I'll never sell out just to be popular, like the main players in the MRM.

  14. MGTOW is biased towards men. Feminism is biased towards women. Feminism is a big, powerful, multi-billion dollar organization - with very little opposition. MGTOW, if anything, provides some much-needed opposition.

    Feminism (in general) is completely biased towards women. In theory feminism should be about getting rid of ANY gender inequality (by this definition I am a feminist). But it doesn't. It looks for all the areas women are disadvantaged and seeks to eliminate said disadvantage, while ignoring (and often even encouraging) disadvantages affecting only men. There are so many millions of dollars and organisations devoted to solving any issues of women - while selectively ignoring the men who face the same issues. (e.g. shelters for women while more men are homeless, female only scholarships while 60% of graduates are female). This money comes from the tax dollars of both men and women. From what I can tell, MRM is more of an effort to balance it out. I'm not saying that what they say or do is "right" in every sense of the word. But it is unfair to men in general if we have a feminism-dominated world, with no opposition. Because there is no way in hell that feminism (on the whole) acts the way it claims to (aim for equality).

    As a final point, ask any feminist why we call it FEMinism. Their answer is that women have been oppressed more, historically, than men have. The simple and standard counter argument is valid. Men were also oppressed - by other men. In fact most men were oppressed by this (relatively small) group of men (and some women, e.g. Queen Elizabeth) in power. Men were sent off to battle to die. Although men "had a choice" to go out and work, as his wife was not allowed to work, he - along with his family - would starve to death if he did not work (often back-breaking labor-intensive jobs). So the "choice" part is a bit questionable. To say that women were historically oppressed any more than men were is entirely unfair and subjective. Neither gender had it great, compared with how we live today.

    So why do I support the MRM movement? Because at the moment, the world is feminism-dominated, and feminism is not the fair and equality based organisation some paint it out to be. MRM, if anything, provides some much needed counter-balance.

    1. You made some good points. But unfortunately you haven't spotted the hypocrisy of saying "MGTOW is biased towards men. Feminism is biased towards women." As I regularly allude to, all MGTOW do is replicate the same flawed ideas feminism, but make them biased against men. That is why MGTOW is never going to do anything but perpetuate the same types of problems of feminism, and we can see this very clearly in the ideological dogma that MGTOW is now pushing forward.

      All they've done is taken class consciousness theory, and turned it into a male version, just as feminists did for women. I am sick and tired of all of that - it's just leftist demagoguery that exaggerated and distorts reality.

  15. My father and mother loved each other very much. A few years after she passed away with cancer back in 1994, my father tried to date once again but to no avail. He described women as being extremely deluded with no sense of true companionship. Two of the relationships that he had ended because the woman thought she found a better man but came running back when it didn't work out (we now have a term for this called hypergamy). After all of this, my father stopped trying saying it was pointless and a complete waste of resources. In a sense, he went his own way and this was long before the term MGTOW was ever coin. My dad was just one man that said, "Fuck it" i'm done. He didn't join any group, he didn't donate to any organization. He just said, "Fuck it". Now after twenty years, it is me who is dealing with the same issues. However, I'm the lucky one. My friends have suffered at the hands of the family courts - some who are still digging their way out some five years after it went down. I've never been married and I realize I am much further ahead in life because of that fact. The only thing that I hate is that I may never have a child or family... Many MGTOWs and MRAs have told me that if these things are so important to me I should look into living in another country. So in a sense, I guess I will ultimately be exiled if I choose to be a family man...

    1. It may be harder to find a woman in today's culture, but it's far form impossible. You just need to do a lot of study into human psychology, and be introspective in relation to your own qualities. That will give you an edge when uncovering sociopaths that will exploit men. As long as you exercise mutual respect, a woman of virtue will always reciprocate your efforts.

    2. But there is allways two sides of story. I believe a lot of times the people should look at themselves not only their partners bad behavior.
      Women and men can be cruel and behave badly.
      Also from my experience a lot of times left men look innocent from outside, but not from inside the family: there are a lot of drinking, psichological violence, emotional abandonment of wife and kids etc.
      If nothing else your father made bad judgements about people or had some faults i himself but did admit it or even was aware.

  16. A woman of virtue??? I had hoped to find something like that in my youth. I even had the balls to mention my dream it to an Arabic man. He merely looked at and me with a respectable nod and asked "What's a virtuous women, and how many of them exist today." I had no answer of course, no one would on the spot, but then I realized, most women don't have virtue, it's something passed down from parent and culture. However the teachings needed to make a virtuous women has been long lost. It's been removed from western culture by women themselves.

    Now yes, I agree there is cult like behavior in the Mgtow faction. It's dangerous to young men that can be influenced by logic that doesn't hold enlightened depth. This is why more men with positive ideals are needed. The Mgtow path isn’t wrong it’s just distorted. However this doesn't change the fact there's still some truth to the current Mgtow way. The bottom line is it's time for men to man up and move on. Western women can't provide us with what we need anymore; they no longer complement use in that aspect. Nor will they ever do so again, they'll never realize this because they never reflect, they'll never change, it’s time for men to accept. No matter how hard you wish you can't change reality, and as we all know (When a woman’s right she's right. And when she’s wrong she also right.) So the only answer left is for men to change themselves and that’s what’s taking place.

    Removing the ancient co dependant need of the opposite sex is what this is all about. Women got the ball rolling. Strong and independent they are. Now men are simply following suit, doing it in their own way. Mgtow doesn't need to be silenced. Women need to change to salvage the good that is left of the old world. But every man knows that won’t happen. Aiding the changing hearts of men in a positive fashion, that’s all that can be done.

    It really sucks when brought into perspective doesn't it? But regardless of all feelings or opinion one one must accept reality and embrace the change.

    1. I think you need to be careful when you pigeon-hole entire demographics, especially when they are as vast as "Western women". Are there many Western women that are parasitical in their behaviour today? Sure. But then again there are many Western men that are no better. The only difference is that the state enables hypergamous female behaviour in the present system as a form of demagoguery. In the end this comes down to virtue, and most people prefer what feels right, not what is right in a rational sense.

      As for this notion that men and women can be independent, it's bogus. Women are not independent. They sponge off the state and turn their backs on healthy childrearing. Should men copy that? Absolutely not. If we don't raise children as mothers and fathers as a team, then we will quickly regress to a more primitive state, hence the reason that the nuclear family is at the heart of Western advancement.

    2. Yes I apologize for the generalization. That was poor writing on my part. Know that I'm not the type to deal in absolutes. Now even though I may not have meant all Western women, I did mean most. They are creatures without reason. To hope for such a creature to change is a waste. If such a being is granted power it would loss form, empathy, or even virtue. Their empowerment came at a hefty price.

      Now to explain things more into retrospect in terms of independence, I didn't mean financial. As most know, men and women needs are different. Women look for stability and men look for purpose. That's how it was and should be. But for the last thirty years women have decided to stand alone, she refuses she needs a man to feel secure, she'll defend that ideology even if it means turning to the state. She'll do all this to feel independent, and in a way she succeeds. However this selfish act of leaves men without purpose. After all our entire ecosystem of masculinity is built upon a woman’s' need of us. Her dependency brings fulfillment and focus to our lives, meaning that makes us better men, we become stronger than we could possibly imagine. Yet in order for this to occur women must submit, and submit's a forbidden word in these modern times.

      There for the end result is men claiming a form of independence of their own, that being done by removing his sense of needed purpose to a woman. Mgtow, the name says it all. Does this sever a healthy connect with our other halves, Yes. But at least he's free to define himself as he pleases. Western women aren't compatible with real men anymore. knowing this he can finally move on, he can go live his life and enjoy. By doing so he is independent man.

      Still have to agree with you completely. The nuclear family is the heart of the western world, or more like the dying world. But if men and women can't provide their needs a family can’t be established. “Independent” women don’t submit and so now the children suffer. Men have come to terms, they’re frustrated and don’t know why. This is something that can't be changed. Creatures without reason have been given power. It’s out of our hands now and there nothing men can do. Go find peace, live life, move on.

  17. how to lose an argument on youtube and spin out.

    1. How to make an argument, without actually making any arguments.

  18. >MGTOW is a carbon copy of feminism.

    Precisely! Finally I found someone else who came to this conclusion on his own.

    Feminists blame men and society for all their ills.
    MGTOWs blame women and society for all theirs.

    I wish people would start exercising personal responsibility for their individual problems. We used to live in a culture that was more geared that way. Unfortunately the nanny state now provides.

  19. To put out the fires of both Feminism and MGTOW, we need to turn society into an environment where boys and girls are raised and grow up to be rational beings. No more self-serving, self-entitled, poisonous attitudes that only create more and more divides between people, and we need to cut the politically correct crap out too! Men need their manliness back, and women need their femininity back.

    The day I meet a woman who can think rationally, for herself, and isn't 'plugged into the Matrix' so to speak, is the day I'll gladly create a family with her (basically what you had talked about in your MRA+ video), but other then that, I'm happy with creating opportunities and trying to accomplish things for myself in life.

    My MGTOW phase is part of what woke me up to some of the bullshit, but I realized that rather than inspiring men to REALLY do their own thing (life goals, making a difference in the world etc.), they just spend a lot of time on the net talking about how 'AWALT' and hating on women who just aren't worth their time, really.

    These guys are better off just pursuing their hobbies or achieving goals they have set for themselves, rather than being the male equivalent of a Feminazi.

    If you wanna spend your days surfing on the beach, then be the man that spends his day surfing on the beach, not bagging out women all day while pondering on whether or not you should take up surfing!

  20. Here is a post from a blog with a wealth of information, specifically this post is from 2008 regarding MTGOW, but it has much wisdom in other posts if you have the time and inclination.....


    1. That was profound. It's funny how this person drew the same conclusions all the way back in 2008. Some things never change.

  21. The comparison that MGTOW and feminism are two sides of the same coin doesn't quite match up with what I know of both. Feminism just amplifies the natural instincts of women to act out of self interest and to demand provision and protection. It's not new. It has happened before (Roman Empire and it's subsequent collapse). Saying it is a new philosophy doesn't identify it as an inherent part of female nature that beckons to female nature. MGTOW is a new philosophy in that it rejects the classic male disposeability (provider/protector) role and takes responsibility for their own happiness. Some have done a cost/benefit analysis of dealing with Western women whose natural instincts have been turned up to eleven or the laws which favor women over men in any conflict and come to the conclusion that the multitude of risks far outweigh ANY transitory benefit or pleasure. The calling this a cult doesn't quite track as well in that there are no real singular charismatic leader, mostly a growing number of men saying "Ok, here's what I've learned..." They don't expect people to follow their dictates, just consider their information. That doesn't sound like a cult to me.

    1. MGTOW is like proto-feminism. It's all the Newspeak and groundwork that led to what state backed feminism is today. It seeks to use hyperbole to ferment a professional victim narrative, and hijack sincere agendas, twisting them with Marxist class consciousness and collectivism.

      It's disingenuous to ignore the separatism and pseudo-science behind MGTOW. For starters, Briffault was a communist, and his theories are nonsense. Another popular MGTOW intellectual is Shopenhauer, who was an anti-natalist, and then there's Nietzsche, who was a proto-fascist. Nice!

      It's obvious to me, though, that your comment aims to derail facts. So please avoid commenting if you can't resist this urge.

    2. I might also add that married men, and those in relationships, have been viciously attacked by MGTOW, and to top it off stats about relationship risks have been severely exaggerated. Like feminists, MGTOW do not believe in agency, yet I've never met a woman in my 20's and above that I could not see right through. MGTOW are the fools that date whores, but don't have the integrity to admit they were conned. So they lash out at the world because they have mommy issues that destroyed their ability to identify decent women. They'd rather wallow in their pessimism than admit that they have some learning to do.

  22. Don't get me wrong, being conned might be the spark of the mgtow. You could even say it plays a part in the trending fire behind the ideals. But a lot western women have been distorted by what I call negative attributes of feminist. You can easily find yourself knee deep as you try to sort through the filth. I've met plenty of females with the notion of wanting to be traditional wives. They claim to be traditionalist but haven’t the proper edict to perform the role. This is mainly because it's been bred out of them. And yes, you can take the time to train them, but when you’re dealing with women in their late 20s to early 30s should you really have to? Is it worth it?

    Feminist have utilized feminism to separate women from men for 40 plus years. When feminist claim independence one must ask independence from what or whom. Mentally and emotional a solid wall has been built and fortified for nearly 20 years in a womans life. This applies whether the woman is educated or not. Either way as a man to get what you need this wall has to first be bypassed or broken. This is mentally, emotional, and spiritually draining. Precious resources that should be used to build a family are squandered training a women conditioned to separate herself from men. Is it really worth it? Or is it easier to simply say "Western women aren't women for men, they're women for themselves. I'll treat them just as they treat me. And if I come cross a women worth my newly found freedom then maybe, just maybe I'll reconsider."

    So let be real, Is mgtow and feminism two sides of the same coin??? In many was yes, but when we live in a society where women can't be corrected because there’s hardly any social pressure to do so. They practically act however they please inside and outside of relationships. And above all, where men no longer have a voice or the power to fix the problem and address poor behavior. What other option can men hope for except to go there own way?

    1. "And yes, you can take the time to train them, but when you’re dealing with women in their late 20s to early 30s should you really have to? Is it worth it?"

      You're very right about this - the older the woman, the harder it is for her to change. Moreover, a relationship needs to time to blossom, and therefore it helps a lot if couples meet younger, and take the time to grow together. Unfortunately both men and women don't want to settle down in their early twenties any more due to pick-up culture. That is the fault of men and women, and it's something that needs to be broken down, for a prosperous society to flourish once more.

    2. Actually i think it is a fault of the birth control pill.

  23. Have you actually taken the time to really analyze what Barbarossa is trying to get across? If so, than you would have noticed tha it'd not really traditionalism per se, that he is against, but it's the realization that it is no longer a foot working model in a world where women no longer wish to go back to those roles. Why attempt to force them to ?

    1. I've taken plenty of time to "analyse" Barbarossaa. He is a leftist subverter who hates the family as much as any feminist, and uses similar confirmation biases and straw-men to justify his position. When he is challenged he reframes his language and gaslights people. He's an utter scum bag - and I'm sorry that you don't see that.

      Case in point; no one is "forcing" anyone to do anything. Only a social justice warrior would twist the truth in such a way.

    2. I'm not going to chastise you for not seeing through Barbie. But at this point, well over a year after this post was made, and with so many more signs, I have no doubt that Barbie has a cluster B personality disorder. He is very Machiavellian and egotistical, and changes his personality to suit his audience. It reminds of narcissism, but there might be something even more sinister going on.

      There is no doubt at this point that Barbie is a cultural Marxist - and certainly nihilistic. This leftist personality might just be a current incarnation he has concocted to gain prestige and reward. But he is not to be trusted, and has absolutely no honour as a human being.

  24. So what I've been reading up on this topic takes me to this conclusion: Its a bunch of men who think stuff like dating women, marriage and children are not worth the trouble in present society. Certainly not with the increasingly strict anti-rape laws which only negatively effects men. They stopped caring. So why should you or I care about them not caring?

    1. That's begging the question. It's not about "caring". It's about replicating the very ideology that caused the problems they are experiencing in the first place.

  25. Perspective is often overlooked. There are swaths of men that were screwed over by women. There are swaths of women screwed over by men. People are overly attached to labels.

    I find that when I enter one of these spaces of contention and insert my disagreement with a point or two (it doesn't matter which side) I am often attacked as if I represent the opposing lablel. My perspective is assumed for me on topics I didn't even address. The power of the influence these labels have is absurdly high.

    It seems obvious to me that even if I'm given two options between chocolate and vanilla ice cream that I still have a plethora of options, not just two. I could pass, or I could mix them to varying ratios. Most things aren't black and white. Why is it that people so vehemently try to force false dichotomies?

    Again, a perspective issue. Do they only see two possibilities? "If you aren't with me on some things, then you must be against me on all things!" Maybe I don't give a fuck and I would prefer to watch both sides destroy each other so I can have all the "phat loots" to myself, or maybe I can disagree with you on a few points but still wish to ally myself with your overall position and help defend the points I do agree with.

    People are very quick to turn away allies, that is scary. That will be our undoing. The Walking Dead may not be all that fictional. I see zombies everywhere. It is those hoards that anyone with any real sense of reality faces when approaching these issues with a rational mind.

    1. I sent too soon and can't appear to edit

      MGTOW is not a cult, but making it one would be to the advantage of the opposition. Inevitably it will become one because it's already a prevalent notion. I don't identify as one, because it has become a tainted label, because of the irrational types that hop on board and are searching for an identity. Identity comes from within. If you seek it externally, then you're on your way to becoming another zombie.

      I am, however, going my own way in the sense that I'm not going to align myself with these bullshit labels that create problems, not solve them. I was put here to grow, gain knowledge, figure things out, trace symptoms, find problems and solve those problems. I am happiest when I involve myself in these things, I am least happy when these current popular influences get in my way creating problems and making it nigh impossible to solve them or to solve some of my own. I am true to my nature as a man, I seek truth and refuse to participate in the fakery and lies that is modern society, and I will not compromise who I am.

    2. MGTOW is a cult, at least the version is that emulates Marxist-feminist ideology.

      Have you ever considered that MGTOW ARE the opposition, only in a different form? Leftists fight amongst themselves all the time, and always have. This is just another manifestation of this.

    3. Rocking Mre You are nothing more than a Blue Pill Mangina. You expect men to engage in a fight a battle they cannot win on a battlefield made my feminists and controlled by society laws. MGTOW tells men to walk away and live life by their own rules. Tell me, have women rewarded you for your white knight efforts? I bet not. Male Feminists are useful fools and you perform that role very well. And when your usefulness come to and end, you will be cast out like some much trash. I feel very sorry for you. You will see the light, but it will take another 10 years.

    4. So fj do you agree that women are all materialistic greedy liars that are incapable of love, like how feminists believe that all men are sex loving misogynists pigs that are incapable of love?

  26. Thank goodness for something rare and refreshing! I've been opposing feminism for a while, but trying to find opposition to MGTOW that isn't coming from feminist sympathizers is really tough. Your post fits the bill. It's the best of two articles I've come across. MGTOW is just as ridiculous, self-serving and repulsive as feminism, and I really like your comparison of these movements to an ape species. That is literally what it comes down to for these gender phobic extremists.

    1. I'm happy that you found this piece valuable. The opposition to MGTOW is growing, so take heart.

  27. You hit the nail on the head there Rocking MrE. Couldn't agree more with your assessment. Bar bar really ticked me off with his main video, "Flawed male desire leads to traditional parasitism." He sees women as for sex only and sees no value in mothers at all or being a mother, by his lack of talking about women as mothers or companions to men. He sees women as having no value other than sex. These men also talk about their childhoods and they sound like a bunch of spoiled brat man children. Many had fine intact families, but see their mothers as flawed. I think these men are jealous of anyone who makes good choices in life... so staying home with children is deemed as lazy, whether you are a man or a woman... because they couldn't find anyone like your wife, due to their own bad choices in women. I think they are jealous of women actually. Women do have more choices in life than men and they hate it. Well, someone has to raise children, but you'd think that they raised themselves according to the flawed logic of Mgtow and it is very flawed. They make tons of mistakes with their charts and pseudoscience. Identity politics always has wing nuts. Bar Bar is a very angry man child. His anger just seethes in his last video. Star dusk there with his huge over generalizations and ego has a great vocabulary tied to a brain with no real understanding of science statistics, other than to make it what he wants it to be. If you really watch Evo Psych professors on Youtube give lectures, they'll tell you men are flawed by evolution also, but that doesn't count in their 'manosphere'. CS Mgtow and Coltaine make huge mistakes statistically on their charts in their videos. CS made huge math mistakes in one video and the men who watch never caught it. I actually like Coltaine though, just not Mgtow. He's probably the only one I think is smart, but he's also made mistakes in videos with statistics and over generalizations. Still I have hope for him one day in life. He the kind of guy who will one day find himself and see reality. One day. Sandman is just a salesman making money. I doubt he believes a thing he says. Anyway, really good blog.

    1. I am quite amazed that people are still reading this. Even to this day it is one of my most popular posts. I figure people are Googling 'MGTOW is cult', or something along those lines, and then ending up here.

      When I wrote it a few years ago, many people didn't notice what I pointed out. But now people see that these men are children in men's bodies, as you explained. I am glad you took some value from reading it.

      Kind regards.

  28. I have read this article before probably somewhere a year to 8 months ago. I removed that MGTOW label from myself although I was still active in the community.

    You are spot on with all your points considering I was in the mgtow communtiy for 2 years. There is big time group think. There was only a small minoority that agreed with my thoughts and ideas.
    When I brought up a subject I can pretty much completely ignored or responses was very weak. There was no real discussion.
    When I get tired of the bullshit I got a little aggressive. These men all of a sudden wanted to speak their point. But clearly these men are in deep mindless sleep. Keymaster on mgtow.com called me names and justified his points by pointing to feminists.

    There is no personal accounatability among these men. Keymaster never ever talked about his father yet talked about his mother on many occassion. He did claim his parents were married until his father died. But that doesn't prove he was raised by both parents.
    He did state he was in military school. Odd that military school doesn't mean about accountability about males?

    Keymaster stated I am racists because I use label white. He has also lied other things about me. It is clear these people are feminine in nature. They cry that women lie all the time but they do the same in there is conflict or differences.

    Sadly mgtow is growing and I like to see it gone. There are so good mgtow videos but most mgtow don't watch them so they are very bitter at women.

    I hate to say it but while I was in the community I was beginning to have violent thoughts against women and manginas. After I left these thoughts went away. I wouldn't be surprises some mgtow will physically harm people. This is how much mgtow hates women.

    Have you watched Alexander mgtow the left wing nut job? Now it's not about just religion but about politics and even racism. MGTOW is mostly bitter white men who are feminine.

    Casting out the Rightwing Dysfunction #MGTOW

    1. I listened to bits of that Alexander vid, and it's what you always get from the Left; they blame everything on "the right", and there isn't a single sin their leftist ideology has perpetuated. Somehow it's the fault of "the right" that fathers and men are disenfranchised, when it's the gender class consciousness of the Left that keeps attacking family and natural/traditional roles for men and women. MGTOW has just continued that theme.

      I'm glad you got away from that festering groupthink cult. It will destroy your mind, and it's only when people disagree with the narrative in the slightest way that they often see this for what it is. I'm glad you did that. You can now take responsibility for your life and become happier as a result.

      I wish you all the best with that.

    2. How exactly does urging men to cut themselves off from society help matters. Is that a viable option for most people? I'm afraid open and rational discussion seems to have gone the way of the dodo bird, with the advent of identity based ideological echo chambers.

    3. Maybe you need to go to MGTOW and watch their videos and read their articles. You just might learn something.

  29. I know this is a very late reply, but I'm just really happy to have found people who can actually see through the MGTOW hypocrisy. They really are the male equivalent to feminist (feminazies in reference to the extremist type.)

  30. MGTOW literally are the male version of bitter, lonely "Crazy cat ladies". They both hate the opposite gender and are bitter about what has "been done" to them by the opposite gender in the past. They look for any excuse to hate them. Usually, MGTOW use statistics, and they ignore the fact that statistics can be manipulated in a number of ways to show different points, using the same raw data. So to base their entire lifestyle off of something so flimsy as statistics is just an excuse, really, for them to behave like antisocial children.

    MGTOW don't take into consideration that they NEED society to function. They have to go to work, and spend money in public. Society does not take kindly to a crazy cat lady, but what would they do to a "creepy single man" who abhors women? Most likely, such a man would eventually be suspected of being a pedophile, or some other kind of pervert.

    Employers are more likely to employ a man who has wife and/or family, than to employ a single man who is antisocial at work, or who only associates with men. As the MGTOW man ages, this kind of lifestyle will cause him to be ostracized and possibly fired in the workplace. MGTOW fail to realize that you cannot function in a bubble, you need society's approval to do many things in life. While a "crazy cat lady" might survive on pity and the sympathy of other women, a single, antisocial and possibly predatory man will only alienate those around him.
    Simply put, MGTOW are pathetic.

    1. You sound a lot like Yobyaxis... Yoby is that you? Do you need a dog treat? Stop fronting for Paul Elam... MGTOW is basically Alcoholics Anonymous for men but in dealing with the sick addiction to p*ssy that so many of you Traditional thinking men (and men in general) have but allow to get out of control.

      You fail in your attacks against the MGTOW community. And you only add men to the ranks that support MGTOW even if they do not follow it themselves. MGTOW men go their own way and make choices to avoid 80% of the major risks out there that marriage and living with a woman generate.

      Go check out mgtowpanic(dot)com and get educated in a thorough way. Otherwise, I posted the most important tenets of MGTOW below that have not changed since day one.

      As Bartleby the Scrivener said, 'Thanks, But I Prefer Not To (Get Married)'

  31. Also, MGTOW are either ignorant of, or are purposely ignoring, the statistics and facts about the rise in STDs in modern society. So for them to tell other men to eschew a monogamous relationship with a woman, and instead to pursue numerous one night stands, or to have sex with numerous prostitutes, MGTOW is indirectly telling other men to contract and spread STDs.

    The STD rates have been rising steadily in the United States for decades. To pretend that it's still safe to have numerous sexual partners who are all strangers is very irresponsible and downright delusional. To pretend that living a life of solitude and then having one's sexual needs met by dozens of prostitutes over the years is also delusional.
    STDs do not only affect the genitals. Herpes effects the entire central nervous system, and has been linked as a cause for Alzheimer's. Syphilis rots the brain, among other things. There are several strains of HPV that cause cancer, and can cause a man to die even in his early 30's. Of course, there is also AIDS.

    So to suggest that monogamy is more dangerous than contracting numerous fatal STDs via being an MGTOW is ridiculous and is akin to encouraging men to commit suicide.

    1. "MGTOW is indirectly telling other men to contract and spread STDs."
      No no no. You are mixing up Pick Up Artists, with MGTOW. Pick up artists are the ones out humping multiple sl*ts and wh*res. Many MGTOW simply choose not to have intercourse with women very frequently at all, even though such discipline is extremely difficult, kind of like being a "pack a day smoker" and just quitting and being able to handle it. Where the pack of smokes is your Wife/Girlfriend. See my video on STD's please, it's on the Paul Mgtow Songs youtube channel

  32. MGTOW are a hate group, and are violent bullies. They are akin to someone who goes around on the internet and finds an emotionally vulnerable person, and encourages that person to kill themselves. The kind of behavior that the MGTOWs endorse is violent to the men themselves, as well as being violent to women, and violent to society as a whole.

    MGTOW are WORSE than a feminist, because a feminist does not advocate the spreading of life-threatening STDs, as MGTOW indirectly does.

    1. You're a fucking idiot.

    2. This Aritrea is the one spouting hatred... Here are the MGTOW principles, the same two principles have not changed over the years:

      1) Men, do not marry.
      2) Men, do not live with women and do not let women live with you.

      That's it. After that you are on your own path going your own way!

      Aritrea you have failed in your attack against the MGTOW community. Try again. Every time you do so, you only increase the number of men who research MGTOW and discover sites like mgtowpanic(dot)com

  33. Yes, Canadiandude or CrazyCanuck (was that your username at mgtow.com?). I just recently came to the same conclusion. The forum consists of mostly bitter, white men. Talking shit about muslims and women.

    Disagree with that keymaster dude, and you will be reduced to spectator.

    That forum will make you a very angry person. That's because it's filled with negativity and bitter people. The same bs every single day. The same posters spend countless hours, just talking shit about women and muslims, every single day.

    Being aware of the facts is one thing, but constantly concentrating on negative things cannot be healthy. I'm on my path to recovery now. MGTOW, the shelter for bitter, white men is finally behind me and I can start enjoying my life again! Hopefully soon!

  34. Read the book... Men on Strike... If you want statistics and information from someone credible.

  35. Good. Stay informed, but don't inundate yourself with all the bad news.

  36. MGTOW is just feminism for pussified men who can't pick themselves up after throwing themselves at anything with a vagina and getting preyed on for it for being thirsty.
    Period and end of story.

    1. Nope. Just for guys who woke up to the "Me me me" of the wedding and of modern women in general and the scam called marriage which only has two logical conclusions--someone cheats or SHE gets bored and robs the man of almost everything he owns and his will to live courtesy of the family courts.

    2. How come MGTOWs are so obsessed with marriage and women in the first place? It's all you ever talk about.

  37. I'm pretty sure this article is full of shit.

    1. This article seems to be the continuing fallout from the rift between the MRA (Paul Elam and others) and the MGTOWs who pointed out how 100 years of Men's Rights Activism has lead to nothing but getting men doxxed and mistreated and labeled as sexist.

      The ones that spout off about Muslims and Jews and the decline of White babies and the decline of Black babies and other such things are not discussing MGTOW. MGTOW is just not marrying women and not allowing a woman to live with you in your home / space or living in a woman's home / space.

      Basically, MGTOW is gender segregation on a LEGAL level. If you live with a woman (who is not a blood relative) you are entering a LEGAL agreement with that woman that can be enforced by a court just like marriage. MGTOW refused to let the state take that kind of control over their lives.

      White men who are full of anger over all sorts of topics have nowhere to go so they filtered into MGTOW channels and areas to spout out about these other non-MGTOW issues. It's going to take time to get them to educate themselves to see how pointless it is to argue those issues, and we'll see them spouting out as men take the initial hit of the Red Pill and get the Red Pill Rage.

      The MRA / MRM hate MGTOW because we MGTOW don't march, don't go to protests, don't sign petitions, don't spend money at Paul Elam's conferences, and don't even really care about the movie The Red Pill. It's pointless. The movie 'Borrando a Papa' was a masterpiece and struck at the heart of the harmful Feminist march through Argentina and other parts of South America and it was resisted and actual theaters were firebombed by feminists with attendees seated and nothing was done. No one cared and the film was even banned from Argentina entirely, even online access was banned. No one cared. After some men were able to get it seen and such, it made NO EFFECT. it's a great film, 1000X better than the Red Pill. You can see it here: (toggle the subtitles, original in Spanish)


      Or search for 'erasing dad' or 'borrando a papa'

  38. Read the new book that just came out called:

    The Feminist Lie: It Was Never About Equality.
    By Bob Lewis

    Amazon price is around $11 USD and you can get it as an Ebook from Amazon and several other sources. Search. It's a great book and it gives excellent tips on how men can deal with Feminists when they attack with vicious language or accuse you of being 'sexist' when all you are pretty much doing is breathing and going about your daily life.

  39. MGTOW is Feminism and Feminism is MGTOW. Feminism is contradictory, inconsistent, and immoral. MGTOW is contradictory, inconsistent, and immoral. Both movements reject God and the Catholic Church and promote a right to do evil under the guise of doing whatever one wants to do without consequences. Before, men were saying that women should stay at home and raise the kids. Now they're saying she should work. They're also advocating for one night stands. Isn't that what the feminists were advocating for? And then some of the pictures and images some men in the MRA are using is completely inappropriate, reinforcing their view that women lack virtue. But how can that be said when you have pictures of scantily clad women as your avatars? And now men are claiming to be oppressed by women? They're claiming to be slaves to women, slaves to marriage, and slaves to traditional masculinity(yet at the same time, modern society is gynecentric? Right... tell that to a traditional feminine woman today) Oh, the irony! Because society has rejected traditional morality, traditional and natural roles for men and women, and the traditional nuclear family, a woman today cannot just go home and stay there doing housework, cleaning, cooking, laundry and the like because it's not allowed now. No one will allow that, particularly if the woman is a young woman who isn't married yet. Today, a woman is subsidized by the government to go to high school, go to college, get a degree, and work. If a woman graduated from college, she's going to work, not because she wants to but because she has to, contrary to the claims of feminists and the MGTOW. Much of what women did in the past 200 years or so is now obsolete. It's not there anymore. The average woman today has broken completely from her past. Now, they're trying to convince the average man to do the same. And they're falling right into that trap. Men are now falling for the same deceptions that women fell into. The problem is that they don't see that at all.

    1. You sound like some demented religious nut.

    2. I am a Christian and with that said, fuck the Catholic church. Study your bible the Catholic church is evil.

  40. Honestly you just sound bitter about MGTOW, I play video games every day, eat junk foods, smoke and have never had a job or any sexual contact with women at all, i'm 24 and couldn't be happier. You don't need women to be happy mate, you just need you.

  41. Atheism made MGTOW into a cult. The idea of men being men and waiting for marriage is a biblical concept. There are hundreds of stories of evil women in the Bible fucking over men from rape accusations to killing children to take the royal throne. Men have been warned in the Bible. MGTOW itself is simply a modern day biblical man.. atheism has turned it into a women bashing cult.

  42. It is great this article was written in 2013 because all you need to do is go to www.MGTOW.com and see directly what MGTOW is. Since 2013, we now have in our society: sperm jacking, women buying and selling Positive Pregnancy tests and urine on Craig’s List, a rape culture pushed by feminist that states that if a drunk man and woman are having sex, the man is the rapist, stealthing ( women forgetting to take the pill to get pregnant) courts forcing men who are not the biological fathers to pay child support to women, domestic abuse under reported when it is a man who is the target, the police laugh it off, false rape,( duke lacrosse rape trial and Mattress Girl) Who would have thought this would have been added to our society? And you wonder why MGTOW is growing around the world?

  43. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XmMDr3o9-L3z89-WETNpTgfIWrXn03JTm4HnfGw9-ic/edit?usp=drivesdk&ouid=106916908239598351309

    1. Unfortunately, we can bitch and Miami about mgtow all day. However, it has stumbled upon some unsettling evolutionary facts, that are rock solidly provable.

      Without the brutal realities recognized by mgtow, none of us would be here typing on computers.

      That Google docs explains it in detail.

  44. The reality is most of the MGTOW are total douche bags with no ability to critically think beyond "women suck" They claim to be red pill but cheer on their statist government. Anyone that voices an opinion that doesn't align with MGTOW cult is singled out and attacked. They are bat shit crazy and their website MGTOW.com proves it.

  45. MGTOW and feminism are just symptoms of living a sinful life.

    Sinful people always sound miserable and angry.

    The only happy and joyful people I have ever known are those who have overcome sinful habits and lived their lives totally in the service of God.

  46. MGTOW is not a cult that has membership. It's really a philosophy, and serves as a warning with regard to the pitfalls of relationships in the west or feminist societies. Some of those who call themselves MGTOW are a bit out of balance. If you listen to the Tom Leykis show, women give the show away. Mostly in the USA, directly and indirectly, it's about money. There is indeed a big contrast between many foreign women/cultures and American. Travel more and see for yourselves. It's also wise to listen to men who have been fleeced by family courts, and very informative to note that the male suicide rate in the US is 3.5 times that of female. Helen Smith makes a lot of good points in her book, "Men on Strike." Many men have denied it can happen to them, until they've wind up in divorce court. I would never marry or raise children in the USA again. I live in the Philippines now.

  47. We have sell some products of different custom boxes.it is very useful and very low price please visits this site thanks and please share this post with your friends. Best Face Painting Kits

  48. I've seen a couple of Barborosa's videos, and I find common ground in that what he says does seem stupid. This may be because it's groupthink.

    The main MGTOW YouTuber that I came across was Sandman. I didn't get a similar vibe from him, but the "meat" of the information that he presented (i.e. the parts about female nature) did seem too crazy to be true. However, one of these was seemingly confirmed as being true when I looked at a video from Stefan Molyneux entitled "An Honest Conversation About Hypergamy" where you get the information straight from the horse's mouth. There is also information about females naturally manipulating men that is also provided straight from the horse's mouth in the book "The Manipulated Man." I'm assuming you'd categorize Sandman's content as being indicative of a cult as well because he probably talks about men as being an oppressed class, although I'd be interested in what you'd have to say about that if you want to.

    I don't know. I imagine most cults as being devoid of any evidence to back up their claims, and given the information I've provided (maybe it's not enough), I don't really see it being a cult. I've also not really heard about the early 20th century totalitarian movements being called cults, although I do agree that they are wrong. When I hear of cults, I think of Heaven's Gate or Jonestown.

    I think traditional conservatives have got it right, so I disagree with MGTOW's and Sandman's assessment of this, but they seem to be hitting the nail on the head on a lot of other points.

  49. MGTOW is a real life saver for many of us single men nowadays which keeps us very healthy, saves us a lot of money, less aggravation, and we don't have to deal with these very pathetic low life loser women either.

  50. RockingChair: I got a better idea. You're a cult and MGTOW is reality.

  51. Feminism is much worse than cancer which is the real excellent reason why so many men are single today because of these very nasty women that are real men haters to begin with. Then again, most women have a real mental illness today since they really have no manners and personality at all when it comes to us men really looking for a very serious relationship now.


  52. After reading this outdated, rambling, rush to judgment concerning MGTOW in 2013 . . . what does one even say? MGTOW is merely a sentiment, having great variation, but hardly qualifying as a cult. This essay seems more mangina disinformation than anything (I hope more people would notice the mangina in V ranks image at the top of the article). One of the most significant absurdities is the perceived equivalence between MGTOW and 3rd Wave Feminism. Just because there are superfluous similarities does not make them the same. Fundamentally, feminism is a proactive terrorist quest to overpower society with foolishness and to emasculate men. MGTOW is a reactive walking away; to absolve themselves from abuse. And, one has to be a sick and inexperienced fool to think men are not being systematically abused.

  53. As a man of 61, and a man with a faith base and faith tradition, I find the MGTOW/Return of Kings/MRM ilk to have great animus towards men like me. Granted, the family courts are clearly anti-male, and much of feminism has hurt the nuclear family, but the hateful Nietzsche/nihilism/atheism of this whole red pill cilulture (wasn't red pill from the "Matrix" movie, a pointless boorish sci-fi fantasy script produced by a couple of transsexuals?) is no different from militant feminists and many on the left. Seems to be a victim culture of young men influenced by these atheist men's gurus.

    1. "a pointless boorish sci-fi fantasy script produced by a couple of transsexuals"

      What relevance does that have to do with the film? This comment is also just made by someone old enough to be my senile grandfather, why should i take it seriously? I'm a 25 yr old young man who has to deal with reality of today, when you were 25, your reality was different and you refuse to catch up and understand us.

  54. Feminism is the real cancer caused by these very pathetic women today, for which there is no cure for this very terrible disease at all. Go MGTOW.

  55. I've seen many MGTOW saying "If a woman can have an abortion, then why can't a man have the right not to assume paternity?"

    I don't understand why anyone wants the right to "abort paternity" if they don't want children! Not wanting to be a father is already a guaranteed right. Therefore, mgtow's struggle is not for paternity, but for the "right" not to be held responsible for a pregnancy.

    I also saw mgtows saying that only the woman is guilty of pregnancy because she has the uterus. But it is the red pilled ones themselves who say that the male imperative is to get many women pregnant. The female orgasm does not raise children, but the man's orgasm, the man takes pleasure in ejaculating in the woman.

    1. Women avoid responsibility for pregnancy ALL the time but they won't do it when men request it? How is it even remotely fair? And this is just the TIP of iceberg, there's Alimony laws and all the new draconian feminist rape laws.

  56. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.