Is the MGTOW phenomenon a good thing or not?

The MGTOW trend (MGTOW – Men Going Their Own Way) has a few different factions, and more evolve.  It is not important to define what exists or is evolving.  It matters that splits happen time and again.  That is the nature of life, the nature of social evolution in action.

Quite some years ago I began to keep track of how many factions of feminism there were. I gave up a few years later, when the count came close to a hundred or so.  The definitions I had compiled in the process of doing that show a curious variety of feminisms.  They make for interesting reading, especially for anyone who firmly believes that feminism is one.

Something similar is happening with men’s rights activism (MRA) and the men’s rights movement (MRM).  The count there hasn’t reached a hundred yet, but it will get there.  Splits happen.  They happen with religious denominations, political movements, political parties, all ideologies, and with human rights movements.  They happen with Internet discussion forums, while the venues in wich they happen in the social media censure and to some extent dictate the extent of the political correctness of the context in which splits in the nature of no-longer-common but dissenting interests occur.

There are MGTOW communities of interest on social media that cater to men who want nothing to do with women, some that have a queer focus, others who want to be MGTOW but not without women, some who even invite and welcome women.  There are all sort of MGTOW, but so far things are only beginning to crystallize in those respects.  They have not yet crystalized to the extent that the welcoming of MGTOW of various persuasions or their exclusion progressed to where they expressed their ideological boundaries to signify anything more than the liking or prohibiting of specific forms of speech and censoring of free speech, such as on Facebook.  On a FB discussion forum that calls itself a friend of MGTOW, the censorship and the sorting out of ideological colours of choice may or may not extend to the expulsion of particular proponents, say, the blocking of someone who insists that MGTOW logically means the exclusion of all things feminine, including women — feminine or not — if the majority of the membership of that group favors the inclusion of women.

For outsiders, say, journalists who are not familiar with the MGTOW phenomenon but are fascinated by it and wish to explore it, it is likely somewhat bewildering to find that the ideological directions and party lines of the MGTOW phenomenon are somewhat fuzzy, in a state of flux, and not at all clearly defined.  Of course, things are not being helped at all by the fact that no universities have male-oriented gender studies programs, let alone some that, as was the case with clear directions for women during the rise of feminism to power, provide clear ideological directions for men, MGTOW or not.  There is no clear direction for the MGTOW phenomenon and interested parties.

The main reason for that is that men, as well as women, find it hard, perhaps impossible, to prevent ideological dissent and separation from happening. People cannot submit their dissenting opinions to majority rule.  Majority rule cannot prevent people from dissenting.  Dissenting is part of social evolution.  The social media evolved, caters to and exploits the human drive to diversify through dissenting.  One could even argue that the social media encourage and intensify dissent and dissenting, if it weren’t for the fact that they appear to be designed to encourage and intensify tolerance for accelerating dissent.  Thereby, an acceleration of the speed through which social evolution happens cannot be avoided.  It is not entirely unreasonable to expect that the speed of social evolution will in short order move along at breakneck speed.

In other words, the more we differ, the more we are the same, as long as those differences and the tolerance for them do not welcome anything that remotely favors conservative traditions.  It is as if people are being nudged ever farther away from the social traditions that had brought humanity, and the civilization to which it had given rise, to its apex that we not all that long ago had a chance to enjoy.  Then civilization began its decline into the social media that appear to absorb our civilities as a dry sponge absorbs water.  The good thing is that fights fought over dissenting opinions by means of movements of thumbs on smart phones are unlikely to erupt into physical violence.  On the other hand, just as water absorbed into a sponge is not likely to contribute to flooding or other damages, so has a civilization absorbed into and by its social media become essentially neutralized, or, if you wish, neutered.

Still, back to the phenomena of dissenting opinions, the feminisms to which they gave rise, and to the major social reaction eventually caused by the latter, a hundred years or so after the rise of radical feminism (a.k.a. Marxist or socialist-feminism).  Yes, MGTOW is without a doubt a consequence of the rise of feminism, a reaction, fortunately not a violent one, but somewhat like society or civilization having an allergic reaction to feminism.  For that to come about, many things had to happen and a lot of time had to go by to let those things settle and take root.

That did not do feminism any harm, because the radical feminists (a.k.a. Marxist or socialist-feminists, or radfems — more accurately known as redfems or also as feminazis) quite early on in the mid-1960s did their best to infiltrate, subvert from within, dominate and control the education system.  From there, through the indoctrination of female and male students, they spread their ideology throughout all sectors of the bureaucracy and society. The redfems succeeded with that because they convinced the masses that they spoke for all women and were victims on account of biological design, painting themselves as victims but at the same time insisting that their victim status was a result of oppression by the patriarchy (after all, God is without a doubt the supreme patriarch).  

The male feminists who graduated in social sciences (women’s studies courses were made mandatory for the obtaining of degrees in social sciences) went along, with some of them becoming avid supporters, many of them because they were oriented that way, and others for no other reason than that to do so helped their careers.  Before that was half-accomplished, any pro-male courses or opinions were no longer politically correct and produced nothing more than dead-ended careers, at best.  I don’t know of any university or college in North America that does not have a women’s studies program now, while none of those institutions of learning have men’s studies programs (there is less than a handful of exceptions in the world, although those are of questionable value).

Men’s rights activism, of which the MGTOW trend is a fairly recent addition, suffers no more from the frequent splitting into factions than the women’s movement did. What holds the MRM back is that its roots do not go back to a major goal of a common ideology that was taught at any university or college since the time feminism rose to power and choked all pro-male ideas out of existence in the education curriculum. The common ideological goal for feminism was women’s liberation from patriarchal oppression.  It was first promoted and popularized in the theories of Marx and Engels. Feminism is communism in drag. No man can be a proper communist unless he promotes and fights for women’s liberation as well as for the eradication and the atonement of the sins of the patriarchy against the status of women. The terms “patriarchy” and “status of women” in that context were expressions coined by Marx and Engels, and there isn’t a radical feminist-lecturer at any university or college who doesn’t quote or hasn’t quoted verbatim in her lectures and writings from Marx and Engels.

The lessons taught about feminism and women’s rights were well-learned and used to transform the rest of the education curriculum, from Kindergarten to Grade XII, to post-graduate courses. In the mid 1980s, for example, there was a massive purge in Canada of the contents of all text books, to re-write them according to feminist theory and to blot out all pro-male substance. The books that could not be revised were pulped and replaced with books that contained only politically-correct and feminist-approved material and ideas.  Perhaps not as quickly but just as effectively, similar Maoist purges happened in other nations, especially in the USA.  (More: “Who killed Canadian History“)

By the time pro-male lecturers and forces in the education system woke up to what had been done, it was too late. The rout by feminism was an accomplished fact. Any lecturers who tried to resist were marginalized, dead-ended into minor administrative positions, forced into early retirement or outright fired. There are examples galore of how that was done in the USA, in the UK and in Canada. I am certain that MRAs from other English-speaking nations can vouch that the same things happened in their countries. I know that they happened in Germany, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, France and in Spain. Spain was a late-comer in the program of feminist social re-engineering but has been brought up-to-par, with the consequences there being much more severe than elsewhere. That is because of the compressed span of time in which the feminist transformation occurred in Spain, they were much more noticed there, unlike the death of the thousand cuts that took place elsewhere.

Regardless of how anyone in the MRM (MGTOW included) feels about what has happened and why, it is not easy for anyone to prove that the MGTOW trend is much more than a marriage strike and a program designed to promote the failure to procreate, for purposes of population control. Men are beginning to revolt and to oppose the feminist transformation of society in the only way that can be made to count, regardless of the name associated with the phenomenon. Short of a massive, escalating epidemic of suicides, the only practical way left for men to fight the developments is to go on strike, by refusing to have children, to get married and to become wage slaves. Of course, that takes a bit longer than mass suicides do to have a marked impact. In the long run, a strike like that is just as effective. It will eventually bring national economies and the economy of the world to their knees. (More about that in “Men and energy, the foundation of modern civilization“)

I am not stating any of this because I am critical of MGTOW but hope that MGTOW of all sort will be aware of what they are triggering, some more and some less so, regardless of their motivation. Whether we consider suicides of individual men or the fall of nations brought about by men, the decision to bring about either must not be taken lightly.

God have mercy.

This entry was posted in Family, Feminism, Men's Issues, Paternal Rights, The New World Order. Bookmark the permalink.