Spend enough time cruising around alternative media and it is inevitable that one will eventually run across material coming from the MGTOW (Men Go Their Own Way) community. When first encountered, the MGTOW movement will likely appear strange and perhaps even extreme. However, whether we agree with their arguments or not, it is important to understand their position, and what has led them to it.
What MGTOWs Believe:
– Society, whether operating under traditional or modern feminist principles, is biased against men and in favor of women.
– False rape accusations are common. Protections against false rape accusations are practically non-existent.
– The family court system is heavily biased in favor of women.
– Modern women are manipulative and hypergamous.
– Men should concentrate on satisfying and improving themselves rather than serving the needs of a family.
Why Do MGTOWs Believe These Things?
At first glance, these ideas seem to be a tremendous overreaction. It is tempting, even, to believe that they are the male equivalent to third wave feminism. However, I think a brief thought exercise will serve to understand, though perhaps not justify, the MGTOW position.
Imagine that you are a young small business owner. Suppose that, though your business is neither wealthy nor influential, you are experiencing impressive growth, and that it is reasonable to conclude that within a few years you will be quite successful. One day you are approached by another young small business owner who proposes a merger between your two business. This person promises you that they will always work toward your mutual benefit, and that your two companies will always remain together, even during periods of economic decline. Furthermore, this business owner tells you that the merging of your two companies will spawn additional small businesses, and that in two or three decades your overall business empire will be wildly successful. The other business owner even produces a seemingly binding legal contract that precludes the possibility of dissolving your union under the threat of severe consequences.
Now suppose that you tell this other business owner that you will consider their offer. You spend the following days doing your due diligence on the outcomes of other small businesses that have made similar agreements. You discover that there is between a 41-60% chance that your agreement will be dissolved, and that there is a 65-90% chance (depending on a number of variables) that it will be the other small business owner that will initiate the dissolution. Furthermore, you find that the most likely reason for this dissolution is not fraud, criminality, or a violation of contract, but rather dissatisfaction. You also discover that while the wording of the contract which the other business owner provided is strongly worded, the courts rarely uphold such contracts when they are violated.
Your research further uncovers that in cases of dissolution, courts are overwhelmingly likely to award ownership of assets and jointly owned subsidiaries to the other business. Moreover, the courts will almost certainly demand that you pay the other business a significant sum of money each month. If you find any part of this process to be unjust and simply refuse to participate, men with guns will show up at your doorstep and drag you off to prison.
Now, if you were this small business owner, would you agree to the proposed merger? Would you not at least attempt to discern a difference between those mergers that failed and those that succeeded? Would the probability of failure and the costs thereof not scare you half to death? What kind of assurance would you need in order to make such an agreement, given the risks involved? Does the MGTOW position still seem quite as absurd?
The Validity of MGTOW
As I see it, MGTOW philosophy settles out into two broad categories: Cost-benefit analysis and an indulgence in vanity. The cost-benefit analysis I tend to agree with. Given the current legal and socio-political environment, marriage or even close association with women is a profoundly risky business. Divorce rates are high, most divorces in the west are initiated by women for vain and petty reasons, and false rape accusations are far more common than most suppose. Indeed, a false rape accusation, though disproved in court, is almost certain to ruin one’s life forever, and the less virtuous among women know it.
However, I find the MGTOW philosophy that comes out of this cost-benefit analysis to be deeply flawed. First of all, let’s correctly lay blame. It is the current legal, social, and political bias toward women that is the problem, not some fundamental aspect of female nature. Yes, women do seem to have a particular weakness for the vanity offered by the state, but then again, so do men. Anyone who doubts this should take a good hard look at Islam. Why does the state here in the west favor women over men? For the simple reason that women vote more often than do men, and politicians who do not favor women do not get elected. Thus, the solution is social, political, and legal in nature, not a complete and unilateral and permanent denial of all female association for all time.
Another problem I have with MGTOW is the insistence on the satisfaction of self. Many MGTOWs assert that the greatest good they can do in the world is to satisfy their ambitions and appetites. This is simply replacing female vanity with male vanity, and I do not think it requires much explanation on my part to point out how that is a problem.
The final problem I have with MGTOW is the simple fact that families are necessary for the survival of the species. The west has already dropped well below population replacement levels. This is viewed by many historians as the death knell of a society. What MGTOW is saying when they demand that we avoid women and families is that the west is unworthy of survival. It’s not as if there will simply be a population reduction in North American and Europe that will gradually be repopulated over the next century, either. Millions of Muslims have already immigrated to Europe, and any reduction in the native population will certainly be made up for by Muslims already living in Europe. So let us not think that this will simply be a period of European population reduction. Europeans, the people who gave us representative government, philosophy, the scientific method, the free market, and Protestantism, will cease to exist. For more on that, research the demographic winter.
Of course, none of this addresses the immediate problem. While I think the problems of divorce are understood by many a conservative, it is unreasonable to think that they will be solved any time soon, and perhaps not even before western society itself completely disintegrates. Even if we are to assume that this will be solved, it does not address the difficulty of young men try to form stable families now. So what are they to do? Avoid promiscuity, restrict your association to young women who hail from stable homes with strong father figures and who likewise avoid promiscuity, and determine before marriage your prospective bride’s attitude toward divorce. Do not get a prenuptial agreement! Such agreements are simply paving the way for divorce before the marriage even begins and practically guarantee that your marriage will end in dissolution. I would also recommend finding a woman who has made sacrifices in her life in the name of her principles. If you can find such a woman, you are practically guaranteed that she will not sacrifice you and your children upon the altar of the family court system.
- Brinig, Margaret F. and Allen, Douglas W., ‘These Boots are Made for Walking’: Why Most Divorce Filers are Women ( 2000). American Law and Economics Review, Vol. 2, pp. 126-169, 2000.
- Rumney, Philip N.S., “False Allegations of Rape” (2006). Cambridge Law Journal, 65(1), pp. 128-158.