*Please welcome a MGTOW by the name of TFCNU who wishes to share his opinions on some things MGTOW related here at sheddingoftheego.
Pulling up the stake: When planting a tree, it can prove useful to put a stake of metal or wood beside it and tie the sapling to it in order to ensure that the tree grows up straight. This stake, while crucial in the early life of the tree, quickly becomes redundant and should be removed in order to allow the tree to grow further. We face a similar moment for MGTOW and it’s relationship to libertarianism. Libertarianism was in many ways our stake. Libertarian principles run through the old MGTOW Manifesto. The MGTOW sub-reddit still lists limited government as the first goal of MGTOW. An anachronism that can confuse newer MGTOWs. I understand that many MGTOW identify politically as libertarian and while I don’t, I respect their political view. This isn’t about changing anyone’s political leanings. This is about identifying and questioning some core libertarian ideas which have become embedded, like the aforementioned stake, in our MGTOW tree. OK, I promise I’m done with the tree metaphor.
So, what exactly is left of our libertarian heritage in MGTOW? Well, principally it is a deep seated distrust of the government and the idea that interaction with the state is somehow morally wrong. I ask you gentlemen, what does this have to do with gynocentrism? There are two arguments that I’ve heard where the state is accused of gynocentrism. The first, concerns the administration of marriage and divorce and the second deals with the disproportionate allocation of resources through social programs to women. I will deal with each of these in turn.
First, we must understand what, even in a libertarian utopia, we would expect any government worthy of its name to do. Many libertarians have a rather short list that includes the organization of internal and external security forces and little else. The one thing that any thinking libertarian would include, however, is the role the state plays in enforcing private contracts between persons. If the power of the state does not exist to enforce private contracts, it becomes virtually impossible to do business. This power has existed since time immemorial. We see it in the speeches of Lysias and in the trial scene of The Merchant of Venice. It is unequivocally not a symptom of the modern state. It is inherent to the very concept of the State. So, let us return to marriage and divorce. Marriage is a private contract. It has always been a private contract. Jewish marriages have been bound by the signing of the ketubah for thousands of years. The ketubah is a contract that notably outlines what would happen should the marriage dissolve. Principally, the ketubah outlines the responsibility of the groom to his bride in the case of divorce. So, again, this is not a new idea. Traditionally, marriages were governed exclusively by religious authority. There are some conservatives who, in the face of gay marriage, would like to see this return. However, as long as the state has responsibility to prevent bigamy, it is only logical that they retain some record of the marriages that exist and certify that they are in keeping with the law.
Marriage, as a contract, has, I admit, a unique set of clauses. As MGTOW, we generally object to the structure of the marriage contract viewing it as a form of indentured servitude best avoided. However, the State is in no way responsible for the structure of the traditional marriage. The law the State controls is divorce. A “successful” marriage, where there is a minimum of fear of divorce, is still inconsistent with MGTOW. We are not neo-masculinists in search of our perfect unicorn. So, if we cannot blame the State for marriage, the real objection must be to divorce. This is the real problem, right? Those divorce courts? Well, let’s do some quick mythbusting about how our modern divorce laws came about. We hear constantly from MRA’s and some MGTOW’s about the horrors of no-fault divorce. So what exactly are those horrors and how did they come about? Let’s do the second part first. Prior to no-fault divorce the standard in the Western world was divorce based on a finding of fault. Basically, the court determined which party was responsible for the dissolution of the marriage and structured any award of alimony accordingly (child support is not marriage-related; baby daddies owe child support). This changed not as a result of the merciless lobbying of feminists but because of the exhaustion of family law judges.
See, while divorce was riskier, it didn’t make people any happier in their marriages. People who wanted out of their marriage prior to the advent of no-fault divorce had to find a way to make it their partners fault. Divorce cases became acting contests with both sides saying horrible things about the other partner in the hopes of “winning”. All of the tactics that we rightly malign in child custody cases were used in divorce cases – spousal abuse, child abuse etc – plus things like infidelity, failure to perform sexually and anything else they could think of. Other couples would agree on some story in order to get out of their unhappy marriages. Family law judges were left with the unenviable task of trying to sort out who was telling the truth in all this. As work became physically easier and safer, women were increasingly looking for ways out of their unhappy marriages. Divorce rates began rapidly climbing in the 1960’s BEFORE the introduction of no-fault divorce. It was this crush of he said/she said cases and fabricated “causes” that led the California legislature and then Governor Ronald Reagan to pass and sign no-fault divorce in 1970. Other states quickly followed suit. Yes, the great social justice warrior Ronald Reagan brought you no-fault divorce. So what is no-fault divorce?
No-fault divorce in theory splits all assets created during the marriage evenly. In a scenario where both couples are paid the same amount, there should be no adverse impact on either party. Alimony (aka spousal support) only comes into play if the court decides that one partner forwent their career to help out the family and will be negatively impacted in their (her) earning potential moving forward. It isn’t actually the no-fault divorce system that screws men. It’s the fact that because of hypergamy most men make more than their spouse and thus by allocating resources 50/50 they are losing a lot of money. The more traditional your family, the worse it is. The stay-at-home-mom is the biggest beneficiary because she gets 50% of what she didn’t earn plus alimony because she “gave up” her career to “support” her husband. What you’ll notice is that the government is merely attempting to reproduce the conditions of the marriage. It’s the conditions of the marriage that, as MGTOW know, are atrocious for men yoked into the provider role. Why then do we lambaste the government? What are they doing that is so unnatural? So novel? They are doing what society expects, which leads me into the second big complaint: social spending.
It is well documented that women receive a disproportionate amount of the money spent by government on welfare and other social spending. Turd Flinging Monkey has a good video on the subject (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwpB8ncq36c) if you want the details. However, I want to challenge the idea that the State is the bad actor in this scenario. We understand as MGTOW that human beings are gynocentric. Whether you believe this to be by nature or nurture is immaterial. The reality remains the same. As individuals and as a society, we would rather help women than men. Why then would we expect a democratically elected government to not reflect that gynocentrism? I submit to you that all the extra assistance we give to women is not a grand conspiracy of bureaucratic social justice warriors intent on destroying men. It’s merely a reflection of our gynocentric system. After all, we can understand on a personal level why men act like white knights. Why wouldn’t a collection of men act the same way? I’m sure you’ve interacted with social circles with just one girl in the group. What happens? All the men treat her with reverence. Even if she’s dating one of the people in the group and there’s theoretically no competition for her sexually, the group will still go out of its way to assist her. Our government acts the same way. If people on sinking ships abide by “women and children first,” why would our government not do everything to help poor women and children before it addresses male homelessness?
Democratic governments are a mirror of their societies. We should not blame the reflection because it looks gynocentric. The only reasonable conclusion is that it is not the State that imposes gynocentrism on society but rather our society that imposes gynocentrism on the State. Therefore brothers, I ask you to pull up the stake and look best the simplistic libertarian answers which blame only government for all of life’s problems. It is no more sophisticated an analysis than blaming the social justice warriors, or feminism, or the illuminati. MGTOW should seek a deeper understanding.