MGTOW

[PGP]

I want to explore the issue of MGTOW as a social phenomenon. The proponents/advocates of MGTOW present it as a rational path in the current society/culture/legal framework/economy etc. I have watched a number of the videos such as from Sandman, BarBar, Clarey etc. As an individual actor I can appreciate the rationality of their analysis. Some men get screwed badly and most men get screwed a little. So, there is the relationship dynamic with women and then the wider sociological conditions of state etc.

 

I want to explore the sociological drivers for MGTOW here.

Is MGTOW just another expression of something that has always been? 

Is it possibly a population-level stress response to conditions?

If so, is it perhaps even a biological response as much as a rational response ie. population levels and differing stressors to the past. E.g. post WW2 period in the US vs now.

As it could very possibly lead to alot of single men for life, the strategy for a search for meaning in life in MGTOW discards tradcon and questions the nature of the civilisation that has been cultivated. Hence the "red-pill" metaphor. It has occurred to me that it could very well be a sociological "branching-off" of perhaps some of the best minds and talents on the planet (possibly). 

What does all this mean?

 

 

[ParaSait]

I'm an exception to rule, but I'm a mghow simply because I can. I'm asexual, aromantic and I dislike children. I can only see the miserable, expensive, freedom sacrificing part of it all. It's my natural state of being, and getting to know mgtow I now feel glad about it too.

The vast majority of mgtow are straight men with a normal to high libido, though. That being said, I hugely empathize with those. It must be tough.

 

My opinion about the mgtow phenomenon in general is that it's a long-term stress response to feminism going completely out of hand. It's no wonder that Canada is the greatest feminist country as well as the greatest mgtow country.

[PatrickC]

The way I approach MGTOW (or MGHOW if you prefer), is both from an historical and philosophical perspective. Historical because I think a lot of men have just forgotten about the benefits of their relationships with other men. Feminists have been so busy carving up all the male spaces by either getting them banned or enforcing female participation on them that men just have no idea of the benefits such spaces bring them. It's one thing I hand to the Christians, they often have men's meetings and groups in the church. Traditionally women encouraged these spaces because they brought a lot of profit to their families. Insofar as men networked, did business together and solved problems etc.

 

Philosophically MGTOW is just a practical way I avoid 'unvirtuous' women, concentrate on my own needs and improve my bonds with virtuous men. Sex plays second fiddle to my long term needs as I seek mastery with the help of other men. Likewise I will reciprocate with them in a similar manner.

 

It's funny because I think asking a guy why he's interested in MGTOW you are unlikely to be met with a collective response. Which is kind of the whole point of it of course.

[J. D. Stembal]

I want to explore the issue of MGTOW as a social phenomenon. The proponents/advocates of MGTOW present it as a rational path in the current society/culture/legal framework/economy etc. I have watched a number of the videos such as from Sandman, BarBar, Clarey etc. As an individual actor I can appreciate the rationality of their analysis. Some men get screwed badly and most men get screwed a little. So, there is the relationship dynamic with women and then the wider sociological conditions of state etc.

 

I want to explore the sociological drivers for MGTOW here.

Is MGTOW just another expression of something that has always been? 

Is it possibly a population-level stress response to conditions?

If so, is it perhaps even a biological response as much as a rational response ie. population levels and differing stressors to the past. E.g. post WW2 period in the US vs now.

As it could very possibly lead to alot of single men for life, the strategy for a search for meaning in life in MGTOW discards tradcon and questions the nature of the civilisation that has been cultivated. Hence the "red-pill" metaphor. It has occurred to me that it could very well be a sociological "branching-off" of perhaps some of the best minds and talents on the planet (possibly). 

What does all this mean?

 

I have an alternative theory regarding the MGTOW movement.

 

I don't buy into the anti-natalist and anti-consumerist arguments that Barbarossa and Sandman sometimes put forward. I don't want to straw man either of them, but the argument sounds something like this, "Since women are responsible for 80% or more of consumer spending, it is environmentally irresponsible to marry or start families with them."

 

Ultimately, it does boil down to money, but the MGTOW proponents echo the sentiment that the world will run out of food, water and petroleum unless the human population can be checked. This is neo-Malthusianism, and it is devastatingly inaccurate.

 

If we really were in danger of running out of petroleum, the price would be going up, not down. This would signal to the market that another consumer fuel was required, and thus, the price of another fuel would go up and then stabilize until we could no longer source enough of it. Prices of oil have been relatively stable over time when you price it in gold. http://www.macrotrends.net/1380/gold-to-oil-ratio-historical-chart

 

If you look at the chart, one ounce of gold bought 18.72 barrels of petrol in October 1947. In November 2014, one ounce bought 18.11 barrels. While this ratio has fluctuated over time, it does illustrate exactly how the lack of a gold standard for the American Dollar is damaging consumer spending power. In fiat dollars, we spend 3 to 4 times as much for gasoline than we did 15 years ago.

 

Now we need to take a look at the national debt, which will soon pass 18 trillion, yet interest rates are at all time lows. http://www.usdebtclock.org/ If interest rates reflected the true scarcity of money, resources and time, people would be able to make more informed decisions about starting businesses and a family is the same as a business, economically speaking.

 

It's not too difficult to see why men are fleeing from marriage like rats from a sinking ship. Children are an expensive proposition, and marriages even more so due to the feminine desire to spend instead of save. Men have done the mental calculus and determined that they don't want to be stuck paying all the bills when their wives divorce them during the upcoming global depression that mathematically has to occur.

[Josh F]

My biggest criticism is that it contains a bunch of political actors, seeking to engage in politics.  I highly recommend to MGTOW people they check out this excellent video about Mist, a browser for the crypto-platform coming out shortly called Etherium.  It shows how one can quickly set up personal, irrevocable, private contracts between couples without the state.  For me, I'm always most interested in technological achievements which circumvent politics than engaging with politics.

[J. D. Stembal]

My biggest criticism is that it contains a bunch of political actors, seeking to engage in politics.  I highly recommend to MGTOW people they check out this excellent video about Mist, a browser for the crypto-platform coming out shortly called Etherium.  It shows how one can quickly set up personal, irrevocable, private contracts between couples without the state.  For me, I'm always most interested in technological achievements which circumvent politics than engaging with politics.

 

I will definitely check out Mist and Etherium, but seeing that prenuptial agreements are not always honored and will probably be honored a lot less in the future, I'm not sure how this platform will help men in the long run. Specifically, I see this as a possible platform for child surrogacy agreements, where the men have the ability to get their crypto-currency back if the surrogate mother decides to take the money and keep the child, thus defaulting on the contract.

 

How is MGTOW a political action? I'm not disagreeing, necessarily, I just never thought of it that way. It's more philosophical than political, in my estimation. There's no way to vote in the polls to expand programs that benefit men. MGTOW is men voting wisely with their money by only entering into arrangements that benefit them, and avoiding circumstances which punish them.

[Josh F]

It is not a prenuptual agreement.  It is a contract not bound by law, but by code. Its a replacement for lawful nuptuals, not an addendum.  So what I mean is that instead of getting married by the government, a couple can use this technology to create a binding contractual arrangement based on their own personal (idiosyncratic) needs.  They can set their friends are arbitrators, and delineate how at least some assets are divided, the conditions for divorce, etc.  

 

MGTOW is quite political, as it includes groups like A Voice for Men and others.  Not unlike feminism, its public face is often blogs and videos and all that debating and making philosophical arguments.  However, the goal of many of these groups includes activism, lobbying, changing laws, etc.  While its message is better, imo, than feminism its structure is similar.  

 

http://www.avoiceformen.com, check out the section called Activism for just a small set of examples.  

 

Personally, I signed up for a few different groups and channels and all that.  I tried to get into it, but its not for me for these reasons.  Though I will say, I did start a topic in a large facebook group for MRMs about not using the state but finding alternatives within the market to combat injustices towards men and I got a great response from a lot of the other people.  We talked about projects like setting up scientific contests similar to things like SpaceX to promote the male pill, which was received pretty well though none of the people I talked to, including me, really had the expertise to do something like that.  

 

So it isn't hopeless, I think this criticism is in time and I'm not the only one making it.  

[PGP]

 

 

MGTOW is quite political, as it includes groups like A Voice for Men and others.  Not unlike feminism, its public face is often blogs and videos and all that debating and making philosophical arguments.  However, the goal of many of these groups includes activism, lobbying, changing laws, etc.  While its message is better, imo, than feminism its structure is similar.  

 

http://www.avoiceformen.com, check out the section called Activism for just a small set of examples.  

 

 

I respect your position but I completely disagree. Whatever goes on in avfm or MRM or any other so-called representative group is irrelevant to me and to MGTOW IMO. Some may be advocates for both but they are mutually exclusive IMO. The very name avfm implies that someone is speaking for me. This will not happen by my consent. MGTOW is IMO a dislocation and partitioning from existing or any structure really insofar as it is possible. For me it is not to need anything from anyone, be independently sufficient and to pursue things if you desire them. In short IMO it is self-mastery and any political position is tertiary and IMO remote in importance if held at all. 

 

I wanted to explore the larger issue of a segment of the male population pursuing MGTOW here, the drivers and the implications, not individual mens reasons for pursuing MGTOW. Perhaps my first post was not clear on this. I will try to clarify in another post.

Thanks all for the replies so far, much appreciated.

[PatrickC]

Yes MGTOW is a very personal process for me. It has very little to do with politics. Perhaps (in part) it's a way to passively approach and confront the current culture.

It's not just about holding other people to high standard, but also myself.

[Josh F]

ah okay perhaps I incorrectly blurred MGTOW with the MRM and Men's Rights Groups.  

[King David]

MGTOW is in my humble opinion the result of economic and technological developments.  MGTOW has grown not just with the internet growth in the late 90's, but more so since the crash of the stock market in 08'.

 

In the old days such a crash would have driven men to radicalism, militarism, politic ism, and potentially many other ism's.  Now, finally in the information age we are talking instead of dueling,  and lo and behold us former duelists have found we have something rather remarkable in common.  

 

We have found that a life of servitude, ego checks, and pussy pandering is not the only choice available to men.  In fact, there are many, many choices available to said men.

 

KD

[J. D. Stembal]

MGTOW is quite political, as it includes groups like A Voice for Men and others.  Not unlike feminism, its public face is often blogs and videos and all that debating and making philosophical arguments.  However, the goal of many of these groups includes activism, lobbying, changing laws, etc.  While its message is better, imo, than feminism its structure is similar.

 

Many of the actors, as you put it, recognize the heavy gynocentrism entrenched within modern politics and have no desire to engage with it. There is no activism other than spreading the message to other men via videos, forums and blogs. Unlike feminism, it relies on personal financing and donations for funding instead of tax dollars, much like FDR. Feminism violates the non-aggression principle, MGTOW does not. They don't lobby or hold meetings with legislators or hold public office. MGTOW is completely off the political grid. With all due respect, you are completely off the mark with this observation.

[Josh F]

Like I said, I might have blurred it with Men's Rights Groups, which do lobby  I mean many of those groups have expressed goals of changing custody laws and divorce laws, which would require lobbying to be successful.  Compared to the massive, entrenched, feminist lobby's like NOW it isn't even close, you're right.  

[MMX2010]

Like I said, I might have blurred it with Men's Rights Groups, which do lobby  I mean many of those groups have expressed goals of changing custody laws and divorce laws, which would require lobbying to be successful.  Compared to the massive, entrenched, feminist lobby's like NOW it isn't even close, you're right.  

 

The majority of MGTOWs are not MRAs. 

 

I would guess that only 20% of MGTOWs are MRAs. 

 

Of the other 80%, about 75% have zero interest in MRA-politics.  They know that MRA-politics exist, and shrug their shoulders in response. 

 

The other 25% are overtly-hostile to MRA-politics, and the two most common hostile arguments are: (1) "To engage in MRA-politics is to perpetuate the subservience of men to government, women, and culture.  Men shouldn't be subservient; they should lead."  (2) "To engage in MRA-politics is to engage in a massive fight against both female biology and modern American culture.  It is much more enjoyable to understand female biology - (through studying game) - in order to acquire prettier females to sleep with but not necessarily to commit to; sex with pretty women is preferable to politically-induced celibacy." 

[PGP]

Here is a remarkable narrative of a black mans experience from the 70's to this day as regards the welfare state, single parenthood, poverty, child-rearing and the social engineering he considers has been carried out on the black population of the US and is now graduating to the entire population. It gives a perspective on the origins of the reasons for MGTOW developing and perhaps the implications.