Friday, June 26, 2015

Free men, not losers: What's right and wrong about MGTOW

This article/post from Return of Kings' Matt Forney is getting some play in the manosphere: Why “Men Going Their Own Way” is no way for men to go: The creeping cult of male loserdom. Like the thing he's criticizing, a lot of what he's saying is true (the form he's attacking is selfish, even autistic, like what's wrong with libertarianism, and denies human nature as God made it, not just sin) but the premise and conclusion are a little off. Strawman? First, there's Black Poison Soul (you bet he's bitter, understandably), the blog where I found out about this. MGTOW ("mig-tow" or, like the Greek T, "mig-tau") is far more than losers angry they can't get a date, which sounds like the mainstream trying to shame them back into being targets for its sadism (back into the Matrix). Obviously it appeals to such but a lot of it, including apparently its founding fathers, is like the divorced New Zealander who writes Black Poison Soul, worldly successes by just about any standard, married, whom fallen feminine nature (including hypergamy, a.k.a. trading up; men do it for younger and better-looking, women for power and status, both for obvious reproductive reasons, and, for women, survival/self-preservation) and modern mainstream society took to the cleaners (frivorce, alimony).

By the way, the man behind No Ma'am who's written the better manosphere map (real alpha males are leaders, nature's kings, who build society, faithful to their sexy alpha females; sociopath pickup artists destroy it and themselves, just like feminism; beta's just normal) is Rob Fedders, apparently one of the MGTOW non-movement's founders. (Thanks go to manosphere critic Bob Wallace for linking to him.)
These people who are starting to shame the MTGOWs have thus far have not suggested any viable options other than just criticize the guys who are getting their act together and living life on their own terms.

Over the last few months more and more regular guys in all sorts of forums and sites have said "Well, I'm living my life my way for my benefit rather than for the benefit of some female, so I guess that means I'm Going My Own Way". As many have said, MGTOW isn't a group, it doesn't have products, it doesn't have spokesmen. It has a couple of really simple principles: don't live for the benefit of a woman, and find yourself a project or goal of your own. MGTOW lets men do whatever the heck they want, including getting married and raising children, as long as they do it on their terms. I like its phrase: the answer to what a man is cannot depend on a woman.
It's about men learning to be men again.

As I like to say, nobody owns a great man. (Even great men I don't like or agree with, such as Pope Francis.) Like the centurion in the gospel, we're all men under authority, God's law including the law of the universe, but within that authority, man is free. It's how leaders among men, whom women naturally want, by the way, live. Neediness isn't sexy to a woman; she wants a strong man who will make strong babies with her and take care of her and her babies. Mainstream society and well-meaning Christians pedestalizing women want you to think that today's society is or reflects God's plan. (Egalitarianism including affirmative action, as if giving women power and not standing up to them endears a man to them.) Living as a free man doesn't necessarily mean abusing women. Fedders, for example, is clear it doesn't. Game isn't necessarily about that; it's just a tool, social skills. And Roissy, for example, isn't selling snake oil. Learn social skills, he says, and your social life, including your sex life, WILL improve, at least just a little. Even bad game's better than no game or anti-game. A smidge of game will do you good (he covers that: calibration, or how naturals subtly adjust their approach for each woman). Pickup artists are destructive, disrupting a community, because game does work.

P.S. A good one from Roissy's picture blog: dads used to be cooler when they were more emotionally distant. Score one for British reserve, or why the world's still crazy about James Bond. Learn from nature's leaders among men: charming and even caring but also keeping some distance; men of mystery. (Much like Roissy's point about chicks digging jerks; an "uncaring asshole" isn't needy.) As I like to say, leftism's a Christian heresy so I understand the appeal, if you will, of the man in the picture. But compare that to the truthful snapshot of the female libido, the romance-novel cover or the movie idol, even the aging Harrison Ford. Mainstream relationship advice is at best worthless; disinformation. As manospherians note, it's even money this wife (yes, she's cute) gets bored and in a couple of years divorces the man, who's done everything society and even Christians have told him to do; alimony and child support (transfer payments to women) but no more sex for him. Way to stick it to patriarchy, girls. The other picture: Ward Cleaver, neither a mouse nor a monster. Probably not a millionaire or president of the firm, but happily married, etc. The American dream.


  1. The fellow in the picture takes dad dorkiness just a /bit/ too far. I would carry my daughter around in a backpack sort of thing because it was far more convenient for both of us than lugging her around in my arms. That level of involvement is on the level of a guy in public with a puppy (that will one day grow into a manly sort of dog, mind you) -- It's attractive because it advertises that the man is capable of caring for something, but does not overindulge in it or spoil it.

    Put another way, a baby whisperer (eg when a man's son or daughter is konked out effortlessly in lap) is attractive. The apologetic attention seeking of that guy isn't.

    1. Exactly.

      One thing I just noticed: this couple fits one manosphere home truth that science has proven. Women universally prefer men taller than they are; even tall women won't budge on this. Much of the humanities now is about spinning furiously (the "rationalization hamster" in women's brains that Roissy et al. describe) to try to dismiss such hardwired, primal stuff as a social construct.

      Chances are his apologeticness (distortion of Christian humility) will cancel out his height and doom his marriage. While it's true that white liberals are often personally virtuous in an Eisenhower-era way (faithfully married and domestic; the Soviets were socially conservative because it builds society), society is telling this cutie she doesn't have to settle for this loving, boring wimp; she can get money from this sap and others to take care of her baby (pay for day care, etc.; the government and the corporation as father or husband), without having sex with them, have sexy encounters with strangers, and laugh over them over mimosas and brunch with her "best friends forever." (Feminism: having it both ways, male power without male responsibility.)

  2. Ha. It reminds me of one of the more powerfully funny lines in the film /As Good As It Gets/. A book groupie asks Jack Nicholson's character, "How do you write women so well?" "I take a man, and I take away reason and accountability." Bam!

  3. John I'm a little taken aback that we're speculating about this couple's inevitable marriage fail based on a photograph.

    Yes, he's painfully dorky, the sign is sad and the getup is sad town - wear some real shoes, pants & anything but the damn novelty shirt big homie...

    But predicting the inevitable dissolution of their marriage seems to lack charity and be almost nasty... that is something I don't expect here.

    1. You're seeing a word that's not here: "inevitable."

    2. Your dodging what's implied with semantics.


Leave comment