The Tao of MGTOW

This post is about MGTOW [mɪgtaʊ], which stands for Men Going Their Own Way. It is a growing trend in the West.



What is MGTOW? Is it a hateful ideology that needs to be shut down (as YouTube, Reddit, and other platforms have often decided)? Here, I attempt to frame the MGTOW conclusion in terms of a rational argument and then briefly evaluate those claims.

Disclaimer: I don't consider myself MGTOW, nor do I have first hand experience independently coming to what I call the MGTOW conclusion. In any case, I welcome feedback, especially from those who have personal experience with MGTOW.

Going without


Cultures have long recognized the advantages of going without things. One example I have had at least a bit of experience with is fasting. Another common practice of going without is seeking solitude, whether for a religious purpose, health, or some other motive. In the current Internet era, there are many apps, browser extensions, and such dedicated to helping people stay focused and "fast" from social media, opening unlimited tabs, etc. Many people recognize that the people, culture, and technology around them are detrimental to achieving greater understanding (e.g. of God, of subjective experience) or are just downright harmful in a more direct sense, so they swear off Coca Cola or alcohol or video games or whatever their vice may be.

People, likewise, may choose to refrain from more abstract categories. For example, in my post "relentlessly prune bullshit", I explored how one might refrain from indulging in bullshitting and engaging with bullshitters. I have similarly seen how friends choose to stop engaging with people they deem to be toxic. Maybe you deleted all your FB contacts that voted for Donald Trump.

Thus, withdrawing or refraining from things, people, and ideas is something that people across all sorts of political, social, cultural, and economic groups partake in. There is nothing new about the idea of choosing to go without. With that established, we turn to the main topic of this post: MGTOW.

MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way)


 MGTOW has been described as a philosophy, rather than a movement since "going their own way" implies, choosing one's own path rather than moving with a group. Though of course, individuals may choose to move in similar directions.

The conclusion MGTOW practitioners have reached is that choosing to forego long term relationships with women is, in general, preferable to pursuing or maintaining a relationship with a woman. As sandman describes MGTOW, there are various "levels" one may choose in response to certain truths—from being cautious with regards to women to outright refusing to interact with women in all possible circumstances.

An Argument for MGTOW


The MGTOW position sounds radical, I imagine, to most people when they hear it for the first time. Let me give a try at laying out the core arguments for the conclusion that going MGTOW is a good idea:

Claim 1: Men and women have fundamental differences due to how humans have evolved. Whereas men seek to please and impress women in order to attract a mate, women look for the best man they can (hypergamy), from which they can expect to reliably extract resources from in order to bear children and raise healthy offspring. Whether we are conscious of these desires or not, they are hard-wired into us humans as a species.

Claim 2: Women can be evil. Tactics such as "shit tests" are particularly pernicious. Whereas men too can be evil, feminists and their allies have promoted the narrative that all men are evil while women are blameless victims. Many men have come to believe this narrative.

Claim 3: Western societies have allowed women to abuse men's desire to serve, turning their naïve willingness to please against them. Men, listening to the grievances of women, granted women tremendous power, such as the right to vote, access to careers previously only available to men, and access to their resources through arrangements such as marriage. These privileges have been used against men, particularly through the power of the state, which is something of the ultimate alpha male. Whereas women can use the state to do without or even attack men (e.g. living off of welfare, extracting resources from men they no longer are with through decisions in divorce court proceedings, make accusations backed by little or no evidence), men are severely disadvantaged in the very systems that are supposedly "patriarchal". Particularly egregious are cases where women take advantage of incapacitated men (e.g. men that are no longer able to provide because of injury, sickness, etc.).

Claim 4: As they stay in relationships longer, men tend to have increasingly more to offer of what women want while women have less to offer of what men want . For men, it takes time to develop the skills, organization, etc. to  be a provider of resources. Men become better and better at providing resources throughout most of their lives.

Claim 5: The main reason men choose to commit to long term relationships with women is for sex. Men don't need women for companionship, friendship, etc.

Claim 6: Men can find many of the things they may want from a long term relationship elsewhere. For example, men can find meaning and purpose doing something they find fulfilling (e.g. building a company, inventing something useful, writing a novel). Men can have their sexual desires satisfied.

Given that there fundamental differences between men and women (claim 1) and the fact that women are (like men) capable of evil (claim 2), men are justified in viewing women cautiously and guarding their resources (such as time and money). Paired with recognition of the reality that there are incentives in society for women to mistreat men (claim 3), and the likely scenario that a committed relationship will be increasingly against their favor (claims 4 & 5), the cost of settling with a women is very likely to far exceed its benefits. In view of the alternative of simply choosing to not engage with women (in long term relationships, or to a more extreme level), men can choose a path they know can give them many, if not all, of the things they want (claim 6). Therefore, choosing to forego long term relationships with women is, in general, preferable to pursuing or maintaining a relationship with a woman.

A Rebuttal!


Can the above claims be supported by adequate evidence? A central symbol in MGTOW (as well as many other philosophies emerging circa the 21st century) is the red pill. First appearing in the movie The Matrix, red pills symbolize learning truths, even if they are more difficult to swallow than convenient lies. Those lies, which trap most in moderately comfortable slumber are blue pills.

Take your pick

As the red pill suggests learning Truth, all claims labeled as red pills ought to be subject to test by reality. So to disprove the MGTOW conclusion, we must show that the red pills are empty.

Before we begin


Before proceeding further, I would like to point out that many MGTOWs are not committed to their current path for life, but rather view it as a wise decision or preferable strategy in their present circumstances. Note that claim 3 is about how society currently is—many men now practicing MGTOW may choose a different path (i.e. decide MGTOW is no longer preferable) if society changes in a way they deem sufficient to disincentive mistreatment of males. Likewise, if a man find a woman he is convinced is virtuous, this may be sufficient to for him to consider claim 2 moot for his own situation, and therefore choose a path other than MGTOW. An ex-MGTOW may consider himself lucky to have found an excellent partner, but may still maintain that claims 2 & 3 generally hold true and hypocritically advise his friends to choose the MGTOW path.

Let's likewise remind ourselves of a couple points to consider while thinking about data and how it informs decision making:


MGTOWs don't claim all women are a certain way; they even have a term for exceptions: NAWALT (Not All Women Are Like That). This term is often used as a noun referring to a class of people, just as MGTOW is. However, MGTOWs do claim that all women have the potential for the aforementioned forms of bad behavior. For this, there is the term AWALT (All Women Are Like That).

Okay, with these preliminaries out of the way, let's discuss some evidence. Can we reject any of the red pill claims?

Testing the claims


[OOOOO] Claim 1: Men and women have fundamental differences due to how humans have evolved. We have metrics, such as hormone levels, to see how prototypically male or prototypically female people are. And we know that there are some people that do not neatly fall into either the male or female category for biological sex. Therefore, while we can say that men and woman can be said to differ fundamentally on average, particular individuals may defy the typical patterns.

[OOOOO] Claim 2: Women can be evil. If we want to have anything like an ethical society with gender equality under the law, we must allow all mentally capable mature adults as being morally culpable agents. Women can be evil just as men can. We don't need to reject this premise.

[OOOOO] Claim 3: Western societies have allowed women to abuse men's desire to serve, turning their naïve willingness to please against them. MGTOW is only really happening in Western societies. In more patriarchal societies (e.g. under Shariah law), there is no MGTOW. Western societies have given women many liberties not enjoyed in more traditional, patriarchal societies. And there are many, many cases of women have using the force of the state to wrongfully hurt men. Whereas MGTOW is in its essence a peaceful solution of disengagement, there are many men who would prefer to reinstate (or create anew) more actually (very) patriarchal societies into the West.

[OOOOO] Claim 4: As they stay in relationships longer, men tend to have increasingly more to offer of what women want while women have less to offer of what men want . For couples that are able to find shared meaning (e.g. through religion, through music, through cooking, ...) or create a sustainable, mutually beneficial relationship through proactive steps to discover how to actually help each other, both men and women can co-create a desirable future.

[OOOOO] Claim 5: The main reason men choose to commit to long term relationships with women is for sex. Doubtless, sex is a very important factor for many men. But men may have many other reasons for choosing long term relationships as well. MGTOW, ironically, may be a path whereby men can think of other paths/reasons to commit to a long term relationship with a woman for a reason other than sex.

[OOOOO] Claim 6: Men can find many of the things they may want from a long term relationship elsewhere. Some men really just want to do things besides settle down and have a long term relationship with a woman.

The verdict?


Based on my little red/blue pill ratings, I find that while yes, the claims leading to the MGTOW conclusion are by in large supportable. They likewise leave room for exceptions. Therefore, it would by no means be wise to recommend MGTOW as an unconditionally favorable strategy to any man.

im triggered—shut down MGTOW


So I opened this post with the (hopefully thoroughly unoffensive) claim that going without is a morally defensible—if not admirable—practice found in many cultures. Then I presented the MGTOW conclusion as I understand it, followed by an argument one might follow to reach that conclusion. The MGTOW conclusion, as presented here is essentially a type of going without. It is foregoing longterm relations with women.

The Flames and the Snowflakes


As many practitioners of MGTOW are often not particularly in speaking to opposition, they often present their ideas with flames hot enough to melt enough moderately robust snowflakes. Chief among potentially offensive statements by MGTOWs are their unapologetic portrayals of women in the West as manipulative, hypocritical, emotionally driven benefactors of state power at the expense of males who seek to serve them. Men at large are portrayed as makers while women at large are portrayed as takers. The recent satirical cartoon Man Paradise Episode 1 (Feb. 2018) is an example of, what to many people, will be an offensive cartoon. MGTOW content is often pensive and constructive, but likewise there is much out there that seeks to shake up impressionable young men via (often very dark) humor, appeals to emotion, and other tactics. While you may have a distaste for such tactics as used by MGTOW, such techniques are surely used by people of all sorts of philosophies, whether we're talking about post-modern artists ridiculing contemporary standards of beauty or Hollywood movies portraying men as bumbling idiots.

Because many MGTOWs are unafraid of offending, and often use gender stereotypes (of course), racial stereotypes, and other taboo themes in their content, it is no surprise that MGTOW communities are subject to so much internet policing by major social media platforms, who we may assume are political enemies of MGTOW. They don't want the MGTOW message to spread. We'll leave aside discussion of what should be free or protected speech later.

Is MGTOW a hateful path?


Practitioners of MGTOW may be hateful, as may communists, Jihadis, and guitarists. The question to ask is not whether some practitioners of MGTOW are hateful, but rather to ask, does MGTOW contain specific doctrines that inherently espouse hateful ideologies?

 Here, specific doctrines is taken to mean ideas widely accepted by practitioners as defining principles of their moment, inherently espousing means logically entailing without unreasonable mental gymnastics, and hateful ideologies are those that advocate for the initiation of force or violence—which is not done in self-defense—against a particular group based on specific characteristics of that group .

To show that the above terms are workable, let's consider how they might apply to an unambiguously hateful group, the KKK. Assuming that the KKK is a group that advocates for establishing white political rule by employing violence if necessary, we can then conclude that choosing to be a part of the KKK is choosing a hateful path. You can try the same criteria given above for what is happening against the Boers in South Africa now as well, and see if Nelson Mandela's party also qualifies as advocating a hateful path. Let's not be racist and only apply our definitions of hate to certain people groups 👲

On the other hand, flat-earthers and Japanese nationalists need not be called hateful. Believing the world is flat, questioning whether Joseph R. McCarthy was really an intolerant witch-hunter of communists, or otherwise being skeptical about "undeniable" mainstream narratives does not entail using force or violence against others. Nor does seeking to preserve a place called "Japan", which looks and feels Japanese. Private property and self-determination are not calls for initiating force and violence against others. Of course, all sorts of awful things may be tied up with these positions. The Japanese imperialism in the 20th century, for example, might be called hateful because it involved asserting dominance over others. But then again, so might  communism (and the starvation and death that followed failed central planning) be considered hate rather than naive idealism.

MGTOW explicitly recognizes differences between males and females. Is this hateful? If accepting empirically testable claims as true—such as the claim that Chinese people tend to have black hair and brown eyes—is hatred to you, then there is no use continuing this conversation. We have to be able to discuss evidence. We can discuss evidence "in good taste" or "in bad taste", seeking to use evidence to help empower people live better lives or using it to attempt to justify violence. But we must allow data/evidence to be discussed, even if it is inconvenient for our own socio-political leanings.

As I see it, MGTOW is built on empirically testable claims which lead to a radical-sounding conclusion. This conclusion though, sounds less radical when we think of similar paths people may choose when trying to accomplish big things. An athlete may choose to only spend time with other athletes for months, or even years on end in order to train. A person wishing to learn to speak Hungarian may refuse to speak in their native language during a stay in Hungary. MGTOW appears to me to be ultimately about making rational choices in the face of evidence. The world is difficult place to navigate for men, so reasonably they ask: what are my options?

Wrapping up


I maintain that going without is a time-tested, honorable practice that need not entail hatred. Of course going without can be blended with hateful ideologies, but so can drum solos, geometric shapes, and soy beans. None of those things are inherently hate mongering, of course.

We want people to have enough to eat, but we shouldn't take away the choice to fast. Likewise, we want people to be able to find communities. But, we shouldn't take away people's choice to withdraw from them either, if they so choose. You're allowed to quit the football team. You can tell your boss you aren't coming in tomorrow. Needless to say, there are consequences for all these actions and I don't think society should be forced to bear the costs (e.g. through taxes) of people choosing to not do things. But we should also look at the costs of doing things—i.e. "playing the game".

MGTOWs have no problem with people that are not MGTOW. Yet many people have problems with MGTOWs. So much so, that some MGTOW's have, in addition to describing what they are, taken the time to also described what they are not. Blue Skies in a post on mgtow.com titled "Comprehensive Introduction to MGTOW beliefs" defines MGTOW by what it is not in addition to what it is, by stating for example:


MGTOWs, more often than not, express contentment with their lifestyles. Likewise, as could be seen in the Google trends graph put at the beginning of this post, MGTOW currently appears to be growing.

If you don't like MGTOW, how should you respond to it? As expressed early in this post, I think that MGTOW can be stated as a conclusion supported by a number of claims. Disproving any of those claims (whether as a personal example, or as part of a broader social movement) will make the MGTOW conclusion appear less appealing. In the words of a practitioner (Blue Skies):

If MGTOW's growth is alarming to you then you're going to have to change what causes them to go MGTOW. Which means change the divorce courts, the attack on masculinity, the institution of marriage, social expectations on men, etc. Things such as shaming them, calling them "man-boys", having white-knights attack them, and other methods will do nothing to stop this growth. The problem people have with this is that to a certain degree they are going to have to assign blame to themselves.

So, if you don't like MGTOW, and really want to get rid of it, the best thing to do (according to MGTOW) is to understand MGTOW and address some of the claims MGTOW makes. Name calling, Internet censorship, shaming, and other tactics do little other than fan the flames of a growing school.

Going our own ways


MGTOW can be a temporary thing—like choosing to live overseas for some time, visiting a silent meditation retreat, or pushing aside all but necessary social interactions while learning computer programming in order to find a new a job. Likewise, some men may find out they just really like MGTOW and want to drop off the grid. Should they be forced to do otherwise? There will always be (as long as humanity survives) plenty of men that aren't MGTOW. Likewise, many men through MGTOW will likely find that they indeed want a long term relationship.

So, let's support people exploring peaceful solutions to social problems by allowing them to choose their own paths. Just as many women choose to develop careers over raising children, many people choose to learn new languages and adapt a culture other than the one(s) they were born into, and so forth, so there are many men that want to walk away from prevailing social norms about long term relationships and gender relationships. I hope that we can better strive towards building sustainable, voluntary relationships with each other based on mutual support. MGTOW is individual men's negotiation with society, just like a vegetarian's refusal to eat meat, a high school's student to go straight to work rather than take on college debt, and a person's assertion of a non-binary gender are. Negotiations, of course, may succeed, fail, generate a lot of talk, fall on deaf ears, etc. But, for as free a society as possible, should not be shut down.

Labels: , ,