A measure of sadness washes over me when I reflect upon the changed meaning of MGTOW, which now seems to stand for the marriage strike and curtailing any influence a woman may have over a man's life. It's not that I disagree with men on the marriage strike (I myself am not married and have zero intention of ending my bachelor status) nor do I disagree that men ought to have their spidey-senses tingling at all times to limit the harm women can inflict in our gynocentric society. No, the sadness is over the lost meaning behind MGTOW, which was and still is the most beautiful "solution" to men's problems within our culture. The key to MGTOW's philosophy is in its simplicity, which can be evidenced in The Men Going Their Own Way Manifesto.
The goal is to instill masculinity in men, femininity in women, and work toward limited government!
By instilling masculinity in men, we make men self-reliant, proud, and independent.
By instilling femininity in women, we make them nurturing, supporting, and responsible.
By working for a limited government, we are working for freedom and justice.
Women having "other qualities" is not interesting to men because we
don't need them! Femininity will be the price women pay for enjoying
masculinity in men!
This is the aim of "Men Going Their Own Way".
By holding this point of view, we are helping other men and, more importantly, we are helping boys grow up to become men.
This goal is to take away everyone's "right" to vote on other people's
affairs thus rendering it impossible for political organisms and
ideologies to impose their personal will on everyone else. It is not
about reinstalling patriarchy or revoking female voting rights or making
socialism illegal. It might have this as a side effect - but not
directly and not as a political ideology. Only the future will show what
happens and by going our own way we are preparing men and boys for
It really is pretty simple, isn't it?
It is not concerned with "ending gender roles" if it is about instilling
masculinity in men and femininity in women. Just the opposite. This
plays beautifully into the whole bio-mechanics and social-dynamics
sphere that many refer to as "game," a term I hate, but a subject that
is key to understanding the issues with any real clarity. As Pook
tells us, women are attracted to masculine qualities, not feminine
ones, just as the reverse is true of men being attracted to feminine
qualities. In our culture, propaganda has been force-fed down boys
throats almost since birth that for boys to emulate feminine qualities
is "good" while their masculine qualities are "bad." This carries on
further into relationships and marriage, where men have been brainwashed
into believing that if they "embraced their feminine side" that it
would make them more endearing to women, and thus be able to get along
with them better. Of course, this is the exact opposite of what actually
works. If men embrace their masculinity and wear it proudly, their
relationships with women will improve as well. The same goes the other
way, that if women embrace their feminine strengths, rather than
competing to see if she can be a better man than her husband, many other
problems will begin to solve themselves. As many in the game community
will attest to, it is not the masculine alpha male that gets charged
with domestic violence, but rather it is usually the SNAGS (Sensitive
New Age Guys) who've embraced their feminine side and in doing so
repulsed their woman to such a degree that she begins to hate him, and
then starts leveling domestic violence charges against them as she
enters into a destructive spiral, intent on destroying her family.
Instilling masculinity in men and femininity in women may not be the
solution to everything, but it is the lubrication which makes the
solutions work better.
Working for limited government is, I believe, the ultimate solution. The
less the government is involved in our personal lives, the more we will
be forced to make our personal lives work for ourselves.
Think of two people, a man and a woman, alone out in the woods. They
will soon come to depend upon each other willingly and along with
willing dependence, so will come the effort to make the relationship
itself work. A cabin will be built and they will both enter into the
roles they are best suited for just out of necessity, as was always the
case in the history of the world. If one betrays the other and leaves,
they will both suffer. I firmly believe that if relationships are to
work over the long run, a certain level of co-dependency will do more
good than a gajillion psychologists giving more of their sage advice.
The closer we can get to that idea of a man and a woman alone in the
woods depending on each other for their given talents, the better off
everyone's relationships will be.
MGTOW is not about raising money to fund lobby groups. Lobby groups
exist to pressure the government to create more laws, and to force
others to do that which they would not choose to do of their own accord.
That is growing government, not limiting it.
I love watching Ron Paul in debates because of his simplicity. Whenever
someone tries to challenge the guy, he stops and says, "Well, what would
the Constitution say?" and then he goes with that, and his answer is
pretty much bang-on every time. The same idea can be applied to the
issues of relationships simply by asking, "Is there a way to do this
with less government rather than more? And if so, is it simpler?" If the
answer to those questions are yes then it is almost assuredly the
For example, much of the Men's Rights Movement (MRM) is focused on the
plight of divorced fathers and the shrieks for shared-parenting are
deafening. Shared-parenting though, is pretty much asking for the
government courts to take 100% custody of the child and then dole out
baby-sitting duties to the parents on this day and that day. If one
parent loses a job and needs to move across the country to find
employment, he will have to beg the court for permission to relinquish
his duties to shared-parenting. Such a person has thus surrendered their
right to move freely about the country. What if the two parents decide
to follow vastly different religions? Well, the court will decide
whether the child is to be Jewish or Muslim, not the parents.
Furthermore, when shared-parenting becomes the norm, a woman's only way
to get on the current alimony/child-support gravy train will be to claim
abuse as the reason for her getting sole custody, and the amount of men
falsely accused of abuse will rise. While I don't have statistical
evidence of this (yet), I have had a phone conversation about
shared-parenting with someone involved in the movement a year or so ago,
and he did admit to me that in places where shared-parenting was
becoming the norm, false accusations of abuse are also rising. It only
makes sense that if you offer financial incentives - windfalls, actually
- for making false accusations, that false accusations will increase
and men will pay the price. Whatever the government touches, it turns to
shit, just like Midas - minus the gold.
So, is there an easier solution than shared-parenting?
Yup! There sure is! It is called marriage 1.0, or patriarchy. Although, it doesn't need to be called
that in order for it to work. It could be called the "Tooth Fairy
Surrogacy Contract" for all I care, so long as it resembles the
characteristics of marriage 1.0. In other words, the children of a marriage
(or a Tooth Fairy Surrogacy Contract) are the property, or are under
the custody, of the husband. No ifs, ands or buts. If the woman wants to
leave, nobody will stop her, but the children stay with the husband. If
women don't like that idea, then they are more than welcome to revel in
their single-motherhood, and get knocked up by a thug at the local
biker bar. In marriage 1.0, children of a marriage were the property of
the husband, and children born out of wedlock were the property of the
woman. No government mandated child-support, no nothing. Just basic,
simple property/custody rights. Were they married? The kids are his.
They weren't married, the kids are hers. The "owner" assumes all
liability and expenses. End of story. No need for much of government at
all except for a court to determine whether they were married or not,
and thus deciding upon "property" or custody rights. (Hey, that's just
how the Founding Fathers wanted things!). And do we know that this
minimal government system of child custody will work? Yup again! In
fact, there are thousands of years of evidence for it right in our very
own culture, up until around the 1860's when the divorce rate was less
than 2%. (Custody laws changed in favour of women in the 1870's and by
the 1920's, the divorce rate had sky-rocketed 700% to around 15% of
marriages ending in divorce. It has only risen about 300% since then -
think about that.) In this situation, both men and women have the
ability to meaningfully have children, and also, it would do
wonders to lower the divorce rates, as the discussion about who has
presumed custody (what kind of "marriage" you want to have with
princess) will reveal a lot to both parties before, not after. And if a
man goes ahead and signs up for being a Kitchen Bitch in Marriage 2.0, I
have little sympathy for him. He knew the risks, took them, and if he
loses I will cry about as hard for him as for those who lost at the
casino. They weren't robbed, just willfully stupid.
The best solution is always the one with the least amount of "government touch."
I'd like to discuss MGTOW more in the future, as well as touching upon
how the "philosophy" of MGTOW is also the perfect solution to stopping
the Marxist Dialectic. There is so much "good" about MGTOW that it is a
shame that its meaning has changed and these other aspects have been
In the meantime, here is the rest of the MGTOW Manifesto
for you to read. I challenge you to find even the word marriage in
there, let alone "marriage strike." I can find no fault with the
philosophy in it. It truly embodies what I believe.
It is important for men to have a practical approach to implementing our strategies.
PRIME STRATEGIES FOR ACHIEVING OUR GOALS
We have 3 main strategies:
1. Instilling masculinity in men by:
- Demanding respect for men
- Serving as good male role models
- Living independent lives
- Fighting chivalry
2. Instilling femininity in women
- We will hold women equally accountable to men and ignore and shun
those who refuse to take any responsibility for their own
circumstances. Thus we induce women to take a complementary position
with men instead of a competitive position, as is now the case.
Feminine qualities we want from women:
3. Limited government
In order to be independent of society, and live within it, while at the
same time work for limiting governmental influence upon our daily
lives, men will:
- Go Their Own Way
- Support other men
- Legally reduce any taxpaying
- Truthfully act out any duties in accordance with their conscience
- Use any rights to the benefit of other men as well as themselves
It is those 3 strategies that come together in one.
MEN GOING THEIR OWN WAY
This is the logo:
Every man supporting this idea is welcome to use the logo in this or similar contexts.
What we do as activism or the way we behave personally are the main tactics.
- Use of a logo which symbolizes the strategy.
- Run one or many web-sites and fora that promotes this.
- Run one or more web-sites which tells the truth about feminism.
- Provide stickers, T-shirts, etc., with various statements such as "Chivalry is dead!".
- Writing articles supporting our product.
- Producing music promoting our product.
- Hold international events and local meetings.
- Establishing men's clubs.
- Boycotting certain products.
You will basically be alone doing this. There is no organization
supporting you. You just go your own way and do what you believe is
right. You are never obligated beyond your own conscience. True
masculinity is also about accepting the rights of other men and not
letting them down for any short term personal benefits.
The men's movement does actually cover a much larger picture. By
instilling masculinity in others, as well as yourself, you will
actually be improving the lives of everyone, including women and
IF IT’S NOT RIGHT, GO YOUR OWN WAY!
Take care brother!
The MGTOW logos and the MGTOW Manifesto are public domain,
explicitly designated so by their creators (the men of MGTOW) to be
used by anyone for the purpose of promoting MGTOW. May 1, 2006
Beltway skullduggery wastes blood and treasure
10 hours ago