There has been a ton of talk about MGTOW within Men’s Rights circles recently. I think I should weigh in on this. Most the issue at hand is what exactly IS MGTOW. The acronym is simple enough Men Going Their Own Way. But what does “going their own way” really mean?
Paul Elam just made a video and is working on getting a book published that are his views on the subject. Simply put he is wrong.
His primary argument is that the very existence of a litmus test is counter to the idea of MGTOW. That I as one Man Going My Own Way can not define what the path should be for other men going different ways. The problem with his argument is that he then proposes his own litmus test for MGTOW, counter to the argument he just made. While the more exclusionary MGTOW want the litmus test of “A rejection of outdated male obligations typified and exemplify by the institution of marriage” Paul argues for the litmus test of “A rejection of outdated male obligations typified and exemplified by the unthinking acceptance of these obligations by white knights and purple poodles”
He does this because with out some litmus test the very concept of MGTOW is meaningless because it is absolutely all inclusive of everyone every where at all times and situations. With out some litmus test all the blue pillers, the White Knights, the Purple Poodles, the Feminist male and female are all MGTOW.
Really all Paul is arguing for is a slightly less restrictive litmus test for MGTOW so that he can claim the label himself and use it.
I really like this take on the whole debate, it frames MGTOW not as a movement or philosophy, but as a descriptor. You can’t call people standing inside of a burning building, people that ran out of a burning building.
Lastly my opinion on the topic. Yes a litmus test is needed. If we don’t have a litmus test then MGTOW and Men’s Rights Activism by extension will have the same problem as Feminism and their functional definition of feminism being “Anything and everything and all things and nothing and that thing and puppy dogs and unicorns”
There is a “correct way to be MGTOW”. This is not defining what you are moving towards, but what one who is MGTOW is moving AWAY FROM. It doesn’t matter what path you take what your hobbies or life looks like so long as it is far away from/ moving away from the traditional male role of disposable utility object and the institutions like marriage that support it.
If you are married, then you are not keeping yourself far away from institutions of male disposability. If you have a long term live in girl friend, then you are not keeping yourself far away from the institutions of male disposability. Having sex is not an institution of male disposability, only progressing romance into a relationship. It is the relationship dynamic that is an institution of male disposability, not the activity of sex.
The Poisoned Well 
Here’s the litmus test! AVFM are a bunch of naive fools! Anti Feminists are the scourge of MGTOW:
There are a lot of tradcon/half-ass/white knight/captain-save-a-ho/anti-feminist/feminist MGTOW. Why? Deep down, they can’t live their lives without a woman or man in it. They either need women to prop up their low self-esteem and egos, or a man to do the same. Anti-feminists invade MGTOW spaces to promote a return to “the patriarchy”, as do feminists and white knights.
Why does a men’s right’s site have female mods? You know why. Why do mods on the more devoted MGTOW sites ban other MGTOW when they bluntly state the truth we all know regarding women? You know why.
A lot of self-proclaimed MGTOW really just want to change the system back to the 1950s, where men were happy disposable ATMs/slaves and women had more power and control over men through divorce. These men aren’t MGTOW. Instead, they hope to return men to “the patriarchy”. A lot of MGTOW are really just anti-feminists in disguise.
As a MGHOW, I despise feminists, anti-feminists and white knight/captain-save-a-hos. All three are deeply harmful to the majority of men. Anti-feminists, like those at AVFM, want to return men to their slave positions. Anti-feminists are anti-MGTOW. Feminists just want more power and control over men.
I’ll take a WGTOW over an anti-feminist, feminist, white knight or MRA any day. I can only hope the WGTOW movement succeeds. With every woman that goes her own way, another man will be saved from the life destroying slavery of marriage. WGTOW are, as are MGTOW, my heroes.
WGTOW are the most anti-gynocentric, anti white knight, anti-feminist and anti anti-feminist of all women. MGTOW need to embrace WGTOW.
The end of the gynocracy and patriarchy comes through an alliance between MGTOW and WGTOW. Let me be the first to offer my ambassadorship to WGTOW issues.
The success of WGTOW should be MGTOW’s top priority. MGTOW have much to teach WGTOW, MRAs, feminists, white knights, the patriarchy and the gynocracy. WGTOW are MGTOW’s equal. Let us not waste this opportunity.
Screw you – AVFM frauds! MRAs are white knights in waiting. Especially that curly haired, blonde bimbo that leads the MRAs (LOL)!
Well, I agree about AVFM. You just worded it more strongly than I would.
You can’t be against Feminism (anti-feminimism) and against anti-feminism at the same time. Now the brand of “anti-feminism” embraced by AVFM leaves a great deal to be desired. Anti-feminism and anti-AVFM, but Anti-Feminist and against your own position simply is asinine.
I agree that WGTOW are a great thing. My point was that women can’t be MEN going their own way. Women going their own way is great, they just can’t do it as men.
“You can’t be against Feminism (anti-feminimism) and against anti-feminism at the same time.”
Here we go. You’re going to pretend that feminism and anti-feminism aren’t two sides of the same coin. Feminists and anti-feminists skin the patriarchy problem from opposite sides of the coin. Women are clever that way. Both wish to hold onto the aspects of the patriarchy that benefit them the most, while simultaneously eschewing the parts of the patriarchy that benefit them the least. That’s why you have a demand for female quotas in the board room, but none for front line battlefield, construction or et.all. positions. Feminists and anti-feminists have silently teamed up to oppress men while steeping up the ladder. I’m not a fool. Anti-feminists aren’t coming out in numbers to stop the oppression of men. If anything, the anti-feminist presence is all for show. Again, you must think me a fool.
Anti-feminists stay silent while women get more and more rights that harm men (quotas for boardroom positions, the removal of men’s rights to presumption of innocence/due process), but bugout when it comes to the end of alimony and child support and the demand that women represent half of front line troops.
So you see, I can be against feminism and anti-feminism – at the same time. You just don’t like it (or don’t want it to be known) that I’m right in my assertions.
Either way, I’m correct and you’re missing the point.
If you don’t want quotas in the board room, your anti-feminist. If you don’t think women should have more rights than men, your anti-feminist. If you think that due process is important in rape cases, your anti-feminist.
You can’t be against something and against opposing it at the same time.
If you are trying to say you are against AVFM and it’s version of anti-feminism, Then would agree with you. But you can’t oppose feminism and oppose opposition to feminism at the same time.
“If you don’t want quotas in the board room, your anti-feminist. If you don’t think women should have more rights than men, your anti-feminist. If you think that due process is important in rape cases, your anti-feminist.
You can’t be against something and against opposing it at the same time.
If you are trying to say you are against AVFM and it’s version of anti-feminism, Then would agree with you. But you can’t oppose feminism and oppose opposition to feminism at the same time.”
See, that’s where you’re wrong. I want (MGTOW want) equality across the board. We want to end child support and alimony. We want women to have half the board positions, and half the life threatening, dirty dangerous, life threatening/ending shit jobs as well. Why are the majority of mid-level corporate and government positions filled by women now (some 85%)? Why are a a tiny minority of men represented at the top and the majority represented at the bottom? Why have women’s pay rates raised some 800% over the decades while men’s pay rates have dropped precipitously?
Why do they call it the man-cession?
You don’t speak for all MGTOW. I am a MGHOW, and I disagree. I want the valid gender differences recognized and for the high end positions to based on meritocracy, not gender quotas.
There are very real very significant differences between the genders. If you want equality in outcomes, not equality in opportunity (that will result in different outcomes), you are a Gender Feminist.
There are very real reasons that women are the majority in mid-level corporate and government positions. There are reasons why women prefer nursing and teaching over computer science. There are reasons men dominate fields like construction. But these differences also explain “The Wage Gap”.
While I don’t want to pick a fight or defend feminism or anti-feminism here, I do want to address the quotas issue that was mentioned above.
While I am sure that there is crossover in these fights, it is mostly women who have fought for the right to defend their country on the frontlines and who had won small grassroots victories until the official repeal last year. It is also mostly men who have fought the repeal and it’s progress towards placing women in these fields, at least at the grassroots level. I don’t know if you know any men in men only fields in the military, but they are staunchly against women being integrated into their ranks. They have their reasons, and I don’t want to denounce or defend those reasons. It is just a fact that the men that will be affected the most by this are the most against it and fighting it every stage of the way while women are actively trying to get into those positions. We are nowhere near the position to be able to reasonably advocate for quotas in those jobs, but it will come. This is a delicate issue on both sides for this reason. I do understand where you are coming from, though, and I can’t wait to see how we get rid of the male-only requirement to sign up for the draft. I hope it’s something that I get to be a part of one day. Not the draft itself, I’m not young enough for that, but repealing the male-only requirement.
Best of luck to you both and the MGTOW movement.
Okay, so I thought about it and do want to stress that I mean at the grassroots, people who are in the military way. I don’t have the numbers on which of those people in Washington are advocating what. I just know that many women are constantly pushing from within the services to get the positions opened up that were promised, most of which was the combat/frontline kind of stuff.
Actually, I’m just gonna delete those when I get home, please disregard. I believe to be true from experience but don’t have hard statistics that go beyond my own experience with people. I apologize.