Men Going Their Own Way - MGTOW

As I've understood it, Men Going Their Own Way is about men not getting into dependent relationships with women, whether that means avoiding social interactions with women entirely or exclusive dating relationships, and certainly refusing to marry or co-parent with a woman. I have also understood it to mean not being dependent on, nor reinforcing, gynocentric governments or certain other institutions. MGTOWs are certainly marriage strikers, but not the only ones. There may be some people who can be identified as both MGTOW and MRA (Men's Rights Activist) but not all MGTOWs are MRAs and not all MRAs are MGTOWs.

Faithful Leykis 101 students, who, while pursuing casual sex, avoid exclusive dating/romantic relationships, avoid living with women, avoid interacting with women in the workplace any more than strictly necessary, avoid conceiving children or co-parenting, fit in with the MGTOW movement, although Leykis, a self-proclaimed libertarian Never-Trumper, has stated he perceives MGTOW to be a co-opting of Leykis 101 with Trump support, and perhaps other things he doesn't like, added on. I think I heard him or others suggest MGTOW is racist, which doesn't seem to be the case at all, as I see men of all races active in the movement and most racists in social media strongly urge people of their own race to marry and pop out a lot of children.

My understanding of the MGTOW movement is that it is international, non-partisan, and generally welcomes men across the political spectrum (although it opposes laws and government projects and programs favoring women) regardless of religion, race, or ethnicity. Given MGTOW concerns about gynocentrism, it is understandable why they would have supported Trump as the only alternative to a President Hillary Clinton.

While there may be some incels (involuntarily celibates) who hide behind the MGTOW label, most men in the movement, which deliberately seeks to avoid marriage or any interdependent relationship with a woman, are NOT incels. They are VOLUNTARILY celibate (unmarried), whether they are chaste or they are fornicating. Indeed, many of them have been married and many are fathers. 

With the consideration that Wikipedia isn't always accurate, what I recently found there about MGTOW was this:

According to Vice writer Mack Lamoureux, there are five levels to MGTOW: 

Level 0 - Situational awareness: This is the lowest level of MGTOW. At this level, a man is viewed as having swallowed the "red pill" and thereby, MGTOW advocates claim men at this level "embrac[e] the idea that gender equality is a lie and propaganda." 

Level 1 - Rejection of long-term relationships: At this stage, a man "...rejects long-term relationships but will still partake in short-term relationships and sexual encounters." 

Level 2 - Rejection of short-term relationships: In level 2, a man does not meet women for "...hook-ups or any form of short-term or sexual relationships." 

Level 3 - Economic disengagement: a member at this stage "...refuses to earn more money than is necessary for sustaining life. He views the government as tyrannical and is trying to actively drain money from the bureaucrats."

Level 4 - Societal disengagement: "Here the man refuses to interact with society any more than ever", such as by living "off the grid" (e.g. in a cabin)

Hmmm. If my wife and I were no longer married, I'd probably fall somewhere between Level 1 and Level 3. I'd never go to Level 4. I have written extensively about what I think should be the aspirations of men.

One MGTOW supporter states that the movement is about "...living life your way rather than trying to make a woman happy or being a slave to cultural expectations”.

Definitely. Let's not forget that there are plenty of women who have insisted they should live life their way rather than trying to make a husband happy or being a slave to cultural expectations. The problem is, a lot of them have married, mostly to have the attention and financial support of a man who can be a domestic servant and bodyguard, and perhaps a sperm donor and SAHD.

MGTOW differs from the men's rights movement, in that while the men's rights movement aims at changing the status quo, such as by changing the laws, MGTOW call for focus on self-ownership and withdrawing from interactions from women.

There is no reason a man can't maintain his independence, keep women from being dependent on him, and seek to change the status quo.

MGTOW have been described as having a "serious problem with feminism."

That really depends on what is meant by "feminism". If by that term someone means independent women making their own choices, I don't think MGTOW guys have a problem with that. If by that term you mean a man has to pay taxes to support women or pay for their abortions, that's another matter.

Researcher Barb MacQuarrie said they are misinformed...and she states that their decision to live "separatist lifestyles" away from women is “pathetic.”

Why would someone consider it pathetic for someone to be independent? Criticism like that strike me as desperate fear that men won't be your ATM, servant, or doormat anymore. For some reason, this bothers people. That a man would choose this drives them crazy. This says a lot about them. These men don't hurt women. They don't beat women. They don't control women. They don't generate more of that drudgery of housework for women. They don't knock up women and then play the deadbeat. Women should be thrilled that these men are leaving them alone.
  No individual is under any obligation to marry and/or reproduce. I don't care if you want "your heritage" extended. I don't care if you want new taxpayers to pay into government-run ponzi schemes. That is your issue. Your fixation on demographics shouldn't obligate other people.
While misogynists may join the MGTOW movement (and, conversely, many of them marry instead), it isn't inherently misogynistic and most men in the movement aren't misogynists, unless your definition of a misogynist is "a man who refuses to sacrifice himself, his dreams, his desires, or his money for the whims of women." Ben Shapiro, who is married to a doctor, recently wrote about a incels at The Daily Wire...

They’re in the news because of a 25-year-old Canadian mass killer who rammed his van into a crowd of people, killing 10 and injuring 15; the killer had written a Facebook post stating that the “incel rebellion has already begun” and “all the Chads and Stacys” (incel slang for attractive people) would pay the price.

Again, it is important to remember that marriage strikers are not incels. You can't strike from something you're not being offered.

Ross Douthat at The New York Times has pointed out that for purposes of discussion, there are two types of incels: men who can’t get laid as a general rule, and people perceived by the Left-wing to be victimized by a society that has unfair standards of sexiness (“the overweight and disabled, minority groups treated as unattractive by the majority, trans women unable to find partners and other victims, in [the Leftist narrative], of a society that still makes us prisoners of patriarchal and also racist-sexist-homophobic rules of sexual desire”).

OK...

Douthat is undoubtedly right. He’s also right that conservatives have a solution that the rest of the world calls benighted and stupid: a sexual morality that takes into account commitment, and sees commitment as the fundamental need to be fulfilled before consummation of sexual activity.

Ah yes. Just get married! Well there are plenty of married people not having sex, too. But perhaps Shapiro (who is generally a great writer and speaker) doesn't care? Traditionally religious people seem to want everyone to get married. The problems that are glaring after they do can be addressed by spending time and money on therapy, seminars, and books!

The thing is, incels know that a lot of people out there are getting plenty of sex without marrying.

If we measure happiness by commitment rather than by amount and variety of sex,

And if we call peas delicious and ice cream yucky, we can have delicious peas! And as we've discussed on this blog, what exactly is the commitment?

the onus is placed on us to better ourselves in preparation for commitment – we must become worthy of someone else’s commitment, too. 

Worthy? Someone who has inherited a fortune can easily attract a wife. Does that make him worthy?

Shapiro then goes on to draw a dichotomy between sex being the goal of life, and commitment being the goal of life. What is someone's goal is to have a nice, independent life?

A commitment-first society suggests that you owe someone else your commitment – and the work necessary to earn someone else’s commitment -- before sex becomes worthwhile.

A lot of people find sex to be worthwhile if they enjoy it, and they can enjoy it without marriage.

But we’ve discarded that morality. In the process, we’ve turned men into sniveling brats complaining that they can’t get for free what they should have been working to earn. 

Part of the problem is that we've told guys that if they jump through these hoops and do these things, they'll be having lots of sex. Everybody is having lots and lots of sex! Everyone has a partner! And it just isn't so.

The solution isn't to tell men to do this, this, and that, and get married. Most men shouldn't marry.

Getting back to MGTOW: Any man can join the movement. It isn't about hating women. It isn't about tolerating violence against women. MGTOW-related observations are valid even if someone who claims to be MGTOW commits violence.