MGTOW, men who scare feminists.

One of the great things about the internet is that if you want to know who a certain group is and what they want, you don't have to read articles written by others about the group. You go to the site that the group almost always has, a site that almost always has forums or mailing lists, you sign up and talk to the members. An example is the MGTOW movement.

In particular, these groups intrigued me because I noticed one thing: they (although they are few) are mentioned mainly feminists, who have a clearly false narrative, and especially a completely concordant narrative. I mean, an official political position: feminists almost never all agree on something, except when it comes to a political manifesto.

And I was even more intrigued by the fact that the feminist attitude was not similar to what they hold with the "Incel" or with the retrograde fascists. It is clear that they fear them. They fear them of that phobic terror that stops you from opening a box, because you fear there is a mouse inside, or a spider, or whatever you have a phobia for.

For the uninitiated, MGTOW means Men Going Their Own Way. It indicates a subculture that has no political aims, but groups those men who by choice (usually after bad experiences) believe that women have a marked tendency to exploit men for economic reasons, and to oppress them for some fetishism towards power, or out of pure sadism. In their view, the woman is primarily an economic parasite, specializing in reducing the male to a source of income.

So I immersed myself in two of their forums, talked to them and watched them. And today I think I can divide them into different groups.

  • Economic MGTOW.

This faction makes a purely economic reasoning. The militants say: if I calculate how much I earned in my 10.15 years of marriage, and take away my personal expenses, I get that I should be a millionaire. Still, they are not. The delta went to cover the expenses related to the needs of the spouse, whose economic contribution was nil at best.

This current thinks that the woman is an economic parasite that with marriage aims mainly to find a source of income, and so far it is nothing new. But these people argue that the strategy is far more sophisticated. They evidently met women (from whom they generally divorced) who, according to them, have systematically prevented them from pursuing every possible hobby, going out for a beer, going to a gym, for the express purpose of being able to keep the money for themselves and for their expenses.

The evidence of this "hidden agenda" is like "if I tried to join the gym it was all a complaint that I was never at home and that I spent too much money, while she had manicures, went out with her friends, went to the beautician two times a week". Or "she told me that I was spending too much for my hobbies, but she had no problem paying a thousand dollars for a pair of shoes", "she had the right to rest when I was tired, if I tried to read a book she told me I didn't enough in the house. In practice, you made the good life with my money ”.

This faction typically then explains how beautiful life is when you're divorced, and you've taken back your finances. Many say how now they have lowered their work rates (or have been able to find less demanding jobs) and now they can have a life with hobbies, friends, and take care of their own well-being. Thanks to getting rid of these economic parasites.

  • MGTOW of an existential type.

This current accuses women of exploiting marriage and emotions for the pure purpose of sadistic enjoyment. They see women as sadistic and oppressive monsters, obsessed with power and control. Their reasoning is: before marriage I liked doing A, B, C. I know, I played an instrument, read books and did sports. She did D, E, F, which I know went out with her friends, attended a club for something, loved to paint. After the wedding, she continued doing D, E, F, while I stopped doing A, B, C. If I analyze why I stopped, I find that I have been pressured, both with active strategies (unjustified tyrannical injunctions) or through aggressive / passive strategies.

In this view the woman is a kind of sadistic and power-hungry being, and she uses marriage as a kind of noose to catch her victims. The result is that the personal development of males is (according to them) canceled, transforming the man of the house into a kind of serf, without rights, tyrannized, blackmailed or manipulated through feelings of guilt, or by exploiting / manipulating the sons.

Their personal experience is always of this type, and obviously since they talk after a divorce they also tell about how they regained their self-esteem and dignity after getting divorced. They tell anecdotes like "I had started a diet and she started cooking everything I couldn't eat, in order to destroy my self-esteem", or "I had enrolled in a pottery course and from that moment on evenings he suddenly needed the car for emergencies that had never happened before ”, etc.

  • MGTOW with extreme experiences.

Domestic abuse does not always and only go from man to woman, but it also exists from woman to man. In general, women are not violent, but the experiences of these men generally speak of women who, using mainly verbal tools or threats of all kinds, have reduced them to depression, burnout, psychological problems and other serious health problems. Problems which they later solved in divorce.

The experiences they relate are actual abuse, although not conducted with physical violence, and the effects are devastating. Often these are men who already had health problems, which have become the weak point within the couple. Their experiences are hellish, and I wouldn't have believed them if I hadn't (for other reasons, in real life) already met men who have had such problems. In general, you are amazed at how many there are, but in the end you do not know very well if they are "extreme cases", "extreme cases", or a phenomenon that exists but does not emerge because males struggle to report them, out of shame or for education (boys don't cry).

  • MGTOW wannabes asking for advice.

A big part of the discussions are legal, or "how to get a divorce without being bled", or advice such as "what to do when the whole society wants you married, you are the only single, and they look at you badly", or " how to explain to people that you are not gay just because you don't want a woman around your feet ”. In short, how to keep women away in a society where the "winning" male must be surrounded by beautiful women, and where the "adult" male must be married.

The part of the office / work is interesting, where they ask others how to avoid being alone in a room with a woman (they fear being blackmailed with false accusations) or how to get microphones or spy gadgets to record what happens ( always for the same reason), or how to avoid personal contacts in the office, with which excuses to avoid interviewing women without being accused of wanting to disadvantage them, in short, how to avoid any contact as much as possible.

Up to this point, it looks like a vent of divorced men, ex-boyfriends, cohabiting or not, or simply men who have decided not to marry / get engaged / woo (to date women) after listening to others. Their ambition is to take care of themselves, their heritage and / or their personal development, against a world of women seen as economic parasites, tyrants, or simply sadistic monsters.

  • infiltrated women.

There are also female infiltrators, who betray themselves in a few minutes, and give them the increased feeling of being a heap of rebels surrounded by thirsty beasts who want to take them prisoner again, to take away their money, freedom or happiness. They are divided into two categories: those who “despite being men” say they know women well and are certain that they have found “the wrong one”. All we need is an apple pie to comfort the crying baby, and the phrase "that didn't deserve you", but they believe that it is enough to start each sentence by saying "as a man" to sound like men.

Then there are those who find themselves in the situation of the cow trying to go through a keyhole, and they give themselves away when they start talking about complexity. Complexity does not pass through simplicity as a cow does not pass through a keyhole, and if you take a male and try to make it complex, all you will get is a complicated and problematic male. These are there to try to provoke, or to prove that they are wrong or react badly, but precisely, the cow does not go through the keyhole, and the complexity does not pass in a world of males. The male is first of all a simple creature, complexity doesn't work very well.


Having said that, the question I asked myself was: but why do feminists, many of whom dream of a world where women have no male between their balls, feel so threatened that they have a phobic reaction?

The answer is simple: MGTOW men are out of their reach. They do NOT seek confrontation, they do not engage in politics, they do not want to do it on principle, and they simply want to eliminate the female presence from their private lives.

This decision is simply a big "pissed off, stay away from me", which is exactly the reaction feminist movements have no means against. How can they accuse people who avoid contact of harassment or violence? How can you keep talking about assaults on people who don't even allow you to get close to them? If you complain about harassment at work, you can't do it with people who are developing techniques to NEVER get in physical proximity to you, even in the elevator. And if a woman gave you the job interview, you can't accuse anyone of discrimination.

Ultimately, that is, the problem with the MGTOW male is that the feminist dialectic doesn't apply to them. But especially the dialectical weapons are not applied to them. I visited two forums, one American and one German. In Germany they have decided to switch to "sie", ie formal German, with all female colleagues, in order to avoid personal closeness. And if you knew the Germans, you would know it's like having sunscreen in a bunker.

The feminist movement, on the other hand, wants confrontation. And essentially, or at least in terms of stereotypes, she appears to them as the exact model of woman they have in mind: sadistic, addicted to power, hungry for money. On the feminist side these men are monsters, but not because they are guilty of anything: because it becomes almost impossible to drag them to the dock with the usual accusations.

And the core of the problem is even worse: technically it is a form of gynophobia. The problem is that the reaction is not what the feminist movements would like. They were hoping for a dialectical confrontation, all they get is "I'm sorry, I have other things to do, I'll call you back".

I have not seen in any MGTOW forum any incitement to violence, confrontation or struggle. All I see is a determined will to live alone, taking care of one's goals, personal growth, well-being and happiness.

But that's the point. For a political movement that preaches a fight, an opponent that doesn't fight and goes off to have a beer with friends is the worst possible opponent.

So terrible that no one has to know about the monstrous strategy these men, rightly or wrongly, have invented: keep out and get their own cocks.

And that's why when a feminist journalist talks about them, she's careful not to explain what they are.

Last question: but did I learn anything useful by studying this subgroup? The answer is quite simple: yes. I learned the only possible, useful and working approach to modern feminism.

MGTOW, men who scare feminists.

This is a web trip that I recommend.

The sites to interact personally with these people are:

There are also interesting books written by MGTOW, here:

And if you want some insightful reflections on the phenomenon, here:

So at least, if you want to get an idea, you don't have to read what feminists tell you to read.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.