MGTOW

Gender Management Theory and MGTOW

mgtow
Comments (44)
  1. tamerlame says:

    Great article.

    What I find very telling is the fact anti feminists debunk the feminists with ease, but they only offer MGTOW emotional arguments, heck they will not even speak to us at all really.

  2. tamerlame says:

    Been trying to get a anti mgtow into a hangout for ages, they are too scared.

    They seem to be more like the feminists than we are.

    1. William Eastwood says:

      Not surprised. They prefer to stay ignorant of female nature.

  3. barbarossaa says:

    To be honest, if these people really wanted to find something in my videos to make it look like i’m a misogynist or whatever they could, it’s about the “gotcha” moment with these folks, they like to quotemine mgtow in their deepest moments of red pill rage and depict us as crazies based on that alone, they wont ever credit the intellectual accomplishments of people in the mgtow community because their main interest is to give their subs an echo chamber to feel all intellectually superior to whatever punching bag they’re beating at the moment. It’s why I generally don’t pay much attention to them, for the most part, left to their own devices they stick to making boring anita sarkeesian debunk videos till they can’t stand it anymore and then occasionally go after mgtow because they need a constant supply of new communities to qoutemine. it was only a matter of time before they chose to attack mgtow I’m not really worried about them.

    1. BludStaynD MGTOW says:

      Ive noticed that people generally go after the lowest hanging fruit like SexyMGTOW or Mayor of MGTOW. It makes for great youtube drama but poor at expanding ideas.
      The thing to about channels like those guys is that their channels dwell in the red pill rage stage, its where many of the earlier MGTOW channels got their initial spike in subs. When you keep some men angry you can keep dragging them around because as if its “edgy” ( the “women are not human” phenomenon.) I call those subscription based mgtow channels rather than those based on idea transmission.

      While the previous two channels I mentioned are done unintentionally it is to my belief that Sandman has a deliberate formula for operating on men’s emotions AND IT WORKS! Those three are the main channels I see that become the punching bags of anti-feminists and feminists alike. Unfortunately, thats the face time MGTOW gets for the larger audience.

      I think as a community a larger effort is needed and that is to bring the channels with the larger ideas to the forefront. While TL;DR is not a self described MGTOW he did present the Colltaine Trilogy. What this does is present the more profound concepts of human ecology.

      From my observation MGTOW discussions are making their way towards reproductive abstinence and a bit of antinatalism (lower case antinatalism that is) by nature of observing male/female dynamics and sexual ecology. The possible consequence for this for the common traditional male is that it nulls the value of their reproductive pursuits because they follow the reproductive imperative. The abstract value of reproduction acts as a symbol of purpose and to challenge those traditional relationships is to challenge the common man’s very culturally defined purpose. The strawmen that subscriber based anti-feminist channels use as a punching bag (SexyMGTOW)act as a buffer to a discovery of a MGTOW based TMT.

      1. kirea says:

        Actually, I haven’t seen feminists attack MGTOW to any extent. I don’t think most feminists even know it exists. Those who really attack MGTOW are tradcon anti-feminists/MRAs, for the reason you pointed out. It threatens their sense of purpose. It’s fear of loss of identity. Purpose seems to be a very important source of male identity. Men tend to identify with what they do, such as for example providing for a family. If you see that as your main purpose, you don’t want to hear people telling you that it might not be a worthwhile purpose or that the risk might not be worth the reward. One thing that MGTOW doesn’t provide is purpose. I think that scares many men.

        Feminists on the other hand seem to mainly attack MRAs. There is an active conflict going on between MRAs and feminists and between MRAs and MGTOW. Between MGTOW and feminists it’s more of a cold war.

        1. BludStaynD MGTOW says:

          I agree, I guess I should have clarified. My post was becoming a bit long so I had to condense.

          “One thing that MGTOW doesn’t provide is purpose. ”
          That is very true and is the single thing that differentiates it from other ideologies/philosophies.

          ” Between MGTOW and feminists it’s more of a cold war.”
          I like that analogy :)

          1. kirea says:

            I think not providing purpose is one of the strengths of MGTOW. It prevents it from turning into religion. It’s also a great weakness though. It’s very difficult to sell something to men if it doesn’t provide meaning and purpose. Only men who have been hurt in one way or the the other are going to fall for it. Those who have not been hurt tend to prefer the bliss of ignorance. It’s hardly surprising that many get stuck in the red pill rage stage. No one answers the ubiquitous “what next?” question with anything else than platitudes like “stop caring about women; focus on your career”, but what if the purpose of that career was being able to support a family?

  4. Traversable says:

    I used to have this Boss . He would sit in his chair and smile knowing he had the best Job . You see he shared with me one day while having our morning coffee . He said Joe ” All I have to do is find an occasional mistake in others ‘any retard can do that ” The real problem with life is finding out that we have become so middle ground on everything that we have lost part of are self’s .
    To conjure up a whimsical Image “We get lost staring into the middle distance that magic place we retreat to when listening to some women explain how her cat is a hunter while opening a can of little frisky’s. Its safe and nice .
    The strength of a mgtow is not something you can capture in surfing though hundreds of videos looking for that golden nugget of vitriol. although most men will gaze endlessly into void . Swishing around that sweet nugget in there mouths while disregardful of the total Massage .

    1. tamerlame says:

      Are you traversable MGTOW on youtube?

  5. “But when you confront them about it, when you link them to the channels of Barbarossa, Stardusk, Spetnaz, GirlWritesWhat, Colttaine, CS MGTOW etc. etc. and ASK THEM TO DEBUNK THE CONTENT LIKE THEY LOVE DOING SO MUCH TO EASY TARGETS, they start squirming!”

    if you guys really want me to debunk some so-called MGTOW content, I am up to the challenge…

    Just don’t start crying and say SWAB is some mean bastard who hates everyone and is bitter because his only friend is his dog and only because he gives him steaks and eggs…

    https://stonerwithaboner.wordpress.com/2015/08/03/i-believe-that-libertarianismand-mgtow-will-ultimately-be-incompatible/

    1. kirea says:

      I agree with you about this “libertarianism” hysteria. It was obviously started by traditionalists. Big Daddy Government is undoubtedly the archenemy of married men, so is it surprising that they want less government? For MGTOW though it’s much less clear-cut. You might happen to have a job (at the moment) and hate paying taxes, but what if you lose it and need welfare? For a married man the situation is very different of course. He might also be able to get welfare, but that won’t prevent his once “loving” wife from filing for divorce and taking the kids and the house. The absence of welfare will reduce the risk of divorce. The bottom line is that what benefits married men doesn’t necessarily benefit MGTOW.

      1. yes and let’s look at another issue-“paper abortion.” What happens in a “libertarian” society? Someone’s gotta pay for that baby, so it’ll be the “daddy” (sometimes not even the genetic father) but of course someone has to pay. The only way paper abortion could become a reality would be in a country with a strong safety net. Even right wingers like Bill O’Reilly don’t want kids starving in the street. (Not sure about Ste-fan Molly-kleenyux though.) So if a so-called MGTOW is going to talk about “paper abortion”-well, then he has to talk about the kind of country he would need where that could happen and that would likely be what most people call socialist….

        I’ve dropped this like here before but no one bothered responding to it, I guess it’s allot more fun (and productive, sorry that was sarcastic) to gloat over the most recent youtube drama than discuss how two disparate philosophies got sandwiched together…

        http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft5h4nb372&chunk.id=d0e823&toc.id=d0e823&brand=ucpress

        –similar to how 2nd wave feminists and evangelical Christians both hate pornography, so they both seem similarly puritanical–

        make no mistake though, from my viewpoint, what Bernard Chapin and Aaron Clarey are pedaling is much closer to traditionalism mixed with “pull yourself up by the bootstraps” rather than “sons of liberty.” How come prominent M(h)RA’s haven’t advocated for the release of non-violent drug offenders? This would be a huge men’s rights issue as it would get lots of men out of jail. And, likely something they could accomplish with relatively little complaint from feminists. I think I know why. Because it would alienate their base, traditionalists like Judgy Bitch. I’ve been asking the tough questions and their views do not ad up to being pro-male or pro-bachelor. If anything they seem to want to”return to the 1950’s. Of course June Cleaver doesn’t exist (if she ever did) and the stable jobs have been outsourced (and will eventually be done by robots anyways.) But if you try to bring this up to Paulie Elam, you’ll get shouted at. And really, I doubt someone like Ziggy Stardusk would give this a fair hearing either, he has to talk about Muslims and entitled millenials so the “outraged” guys keep “donating” for content.

        1. kirea says:

          Libertarianism and traditionalism are disparate philosophies, but in practice, I’m having a hard time seeing how the former won’t lead to the latter. I think the reality we will have to deal with is that women and especially children will be taken care of in one way or the other. Without socialism there will be traditionalism. For married men, traditionalism of course preferable, but i think that for MGTOW socialism is the lesser of the two evils.

        2. kirea says:

          Moreover, this return to the 1950s is just ridiculous. If you want real traditionalism, it should be more like return to the 1850s or maybe even the 1750s. Of course no one wants to do that.

        3. tamerlame says:

          Stoner do blog posts about this.

          This is a subject that needs talking about.

          I consider the right a dead end for men in general.

          (Not endorsing the left btw.)

          1. Tamerlane,

            I have done several…

            Why do you think I am so hostile towards Jack Donovan, Bernie Chapin, Capt Capitalism, Matt Forney and the Neo-reactionary/dark “enlightenment”/HBD crowd…

            Also why do you think I was so critical of Stardusk when he showed Alt Right tendencies? (I originally thought he was a liberal, don’t much like those either.)

            Just a nice stat when the “libertarians” rant that “the producers” should be able to keep what they earn, you can nod in agreement and say abso-mutherfucking-lutely when you drop this link:

            http://www.epi.org/press/wage-theft-costs-american-workers-50-billion/

            Infact, I was likely “misclassified” as an independent contractor when I was an employee by an unscruopulous employer, why aren’t Bernie Chapin, Aaron Clarey and Ste-phane Moly-kleeneyux yelling for my rights? Probably because they’d rather see small guys like me as expendable….

            (and also see me pay more into Social Security that I likely won’t receive so their fat boomer asses can get a big payout.)

        4. kirea says:

          Those “libertarians” only seem to be interested in less government. Other parts of libertarianism like free speech and not prosecuting victimless crimes do not seem to be of interest. What they basically want to do is deprive women of public sector jobs and welfare so that beta provisioning becomes more attractive. I you’re Matt Forney and you want to get laid, money is your friend after all. They don’t care about men, especially not poor men.

  6. Radium J says:

    I’ve used the term “secular religion” to describe the various ideologies that provide comfort. Feminism is a great example of a secular religion. It is full of concepts like Patriarchy that absolves women of original sin and responsibility. It is also filled with symbols such as the vagina. This is why feminists are always doing seemingly nonsensical things like baking vagina cookies for their kids to take to school or baking bread with vaginal yeast (yeah, that really was reported to have happened). And as a secular religion, it’s dogmas such as the pay gap are as impervious to facts as the immaculate conception.

    1. kirea says:

      Anti-feminism is also a “secular religion”. It’s central dogma is that feminism is exclusively an ideological movement and has nothing to do female nature and how it reacts to economic and technological development. Since they view feminism as purely ideological, they think it can be defeated by means of political activism. MGTOW who say that the problem is not rooted in ideology but in human nature itself obviously make them uncomfortable.

      1. BludStaynD MGTOW says:

        Excellent!

  7. Mike says:

    This was a great article. Great read and very thought provoking.

  8. Tim says:

    Women. Who needs them? Refuse to do the one thing in life that women most covet – Men giving up their balls to the marriage/castration contract.

    If you’re smart enough to avoid signing that most manipulative of man-hating contracts, you will live a life of peace and prosperity you once though impossible.

    Here’s my sandwich:

    Never give a cunt the ring of power. If you do – she’ll use it to destroy your life.

    1. kirea says:

      Interestingly, 2nd wave radical feminists were just as anti-marriage as MGTOW. They saw it as the pinnacle of patriarchal oppression.

      1. Tim says:

        Interestingly, the male progeny of 1st wave taking-it-up-the-ass-by-women feminists got fucked by 2nd and beyond wave feminists for the next 40-50 years.

        I see that as the pinnacle of cunt oppression.

        Doubt seriously most here would disagree.

      2. Multishadow says:

        Feminists have simply adopted a different strategy for taking a man’s money. They don’t do it on a one vs one basis, chained to a man every day having to negotiate who does what. They simply go to Big Alpha Government and have them force the man to give her whatever she wants.

  9. William Eastwood says:

    Most anti-feminists are still traditionalists at heart. They argue against MGTOW philosophy with their “not all women are like that” arguments, with nothing more than the premise of the women from the older generation (who grew up with more traditional mindsets and values).

    When engaging with the gynocentric anti-feminists and alt-right mob, remind them that women are able to wear as many hats in order to get married for their cash and prizes.
    Also: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/soloish/wp/2015/08/27/why-women-are-more-likely-to-initiate-divorce/

  10. “Interestingly, 2nd wave radical feminists were just as anti-marriage as MGTOW. They saw it as the pinnacle of patriarchal oppression.”

    This is part of why many people compare MGTOW to rad-fems….

    I believe this is a wrong comparison. In fact I believe that man-0-sphere types like Jack Donovan are much closer to rad-fems. But I won’t go on lest all you liberals call me “homophobic.”

    I believe most men who opt out of marriage are doing so because they have seen fathers, uncles or brothers destroyed in family court and wish to spare themselves the pain. I believe that many men have also seen “empowered” womyn demand better treatment at work and school without additional responsibility and realize that entering into a legal contract with someone like this would be about as advisable as working for a sociopath.

    1. kirea says:

      I think it’s actually a valid comparison. Here are some views MGTOW share with 2nd wave radical feminism:

      1) Anti-marriage.
      2) Viewing marriage as long-term prostitution.
      3) Anti-essentialism.
      4) Recognition of male disposability.
      5) Recognition of male utility and how it’s being devalued by the mechanization effect.
      6) Acknowledgement of the existence of a conflict of interests between the genders as opposed to the traditionalist view of complementarity.
      7) Support for gender separatism to varying degrees.

      Those similarities don’t make MGTOW any less valid though. Feminism is not Satan. Just because a feminist doses or says sorting it doesn’t necessarily have to be bad.

      1. 1)-yes, but for different reasons…

        2)-yes, and dating in fact… I think many MGTOW support legalizing prostitution and some 3rd wave feminists do. I know porn/prostitution is a very divisive issue for feminists though…

        3)-unsure, is this what you are referring to? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-essentialism

        I know many feminists and M(h)RA’s are atheist’s. I personally am not an atheist. I think it can lead to a pessimism that can be unhealthy. I think religion can be dangerous. I believe their may be a god but if I must be limited with labels, let’;s go agnostic. But I’m rambling because this isn’t about me…

        “Just because a feminist doses or says sorting it doesn’t necessarily have to be bad.”

        Radical feminist’s have been more honest here. They have said things like “Feminism is designed to liberate women” and if men have their own problems, they need to address them themselves which should be easy because they are “privileged.” Moderate/liberal feminists have been less honest. They say “feminism is about equality.” Then when someone says, “well men and boys are hurting here” they are met with sarcastic comments like “what about the menz” or “I bath in male tears.” If you think this is an exageration, go to David Futrelle’s horrid Manboobz site.

        4)-I think Warren Farrel coined that term. (Always suspected he might’ve been a closet Metallica fan and taken it from “Disposable Heroes,” afterall, I think the song came out a few years before his book.) I know he was a feminist at one point. I know he is controversial among feminists, a 2nd wave feminist from Genderratic spoke highly of him and even said he wrote back to her when she wrote him a letter. 3rd wave feminists like Manboobz hate him.

        5)-I have not seen this with online feminists, If you have a link that would be interesting…

        6)-Yes, but from opposing views…

        7)-I personally don’t advocate for “all male spaces,” prison and the military are both exceptionally dangerous places for men. Again, this is where I see a man-0-sphere guy like Jack Donovan advocating this and I’ve politely tried telling MGTOW’s the pitfalls as I see it. (Hasn’t gone well BTW.)

        However, I don’t trust feMRA’s like Typhone Blue or Girl Writes What. I believe they have an ulterior motive. (It may be to gain status or attention.) We have seen many male feminists such as Hugo Schwyzer use feminism as a way to get laid. I doubt feMRA’s use it to get laid as even an overweight woman can easily get sex just by going to the corner bar and waiting to get hit on but still, I don’t trust broads who call themselves MRA’s, most the time they are traditionalists trying to get men “to come back to the plantation.”

        1. formatting got weird..

          this was supposed to be last paragraph instead of the middle…

          “Just because a feminist doses or says sorting it doesn’t necessarily have to be bad.”

          Radical feminist’s have been more honest here. They have said things like “Feminism is designed to liberate women” and if men have their own problems, they need to address them themselves which should be easy because they are “privileged.” Moderate/liberal feminists have been less honest. They say “feminism is about equality.” Then when someone says, “well men and boys are hurting here” they are met with sarcastic comments like “what about the menz” or “I bath in male tears.” If you think this is an exageration, go to David Futrelle’s horrid Manboobz site. .

        2. kirea says:

          Essentialism is basically the belief that things are meant to be in certain ways according to some kind of natural order, like for example that women are meant to stay at home and take care of the kids because they are able to give birth and breastfeed or that men are meant to be expendable worker drones because they can’t get pregnant. Traditionalists love this kind of reasoning, feminists and MGTOW not so much. Feminists tend to oppose the former assertion and MGTOW the latter.

          When it comes to male utility and the mechanization effect, I think the best example is Valerie Solanas’s “SCUM Manifesto”. It’s about how men should be killed off after their labor has been replaced with machines.

          http://prdupl02.ynet.co.il/ForumFiles/3714465.pdf

          I think that if you want to understand what feminism is all about, you should look at radical feminism, because they don’t sugar coat it. They basically say that they want to empower women, and men can go fuck themselves. This is much more honest that all this bullshit about equality and how the patriarchy hurts men too. The latter might be true to some extent, but it’s pretty evident that feminists aren’t going to do jack shit about it. I think so called “moderate” feminism is mostly radical feminism that has been watered down a bit and then sugar coated so it can be sold to men, and to the majority of women who aren’t man-hating lesbians.

          I also think female MRAs are in it for self-serving reasons. It could be attention and status, a competitive desire to put other women down, not wanting to see their sons grow up in a feminist hellhole and get used and abused by women, boosting their mate value by coming across as pro-male, seeing how feminism hurts women and wanting men back on the plantation, etc. It’s not for getting laid of course, because that’s something women can get ridiculously easily, but it might very well be for getting married. Being male is not a proof for not being in it for selfish reasons though (Paul Elam anyone). To be honest, I actually think Karen Straughan is more legit than guys like Paul Elam, Roosh V, Matt Forney and Aaron Clarey. She’s in for selfish reasons of course (her sons and probably attention and popularity too), but what she says makes sense and she isn’t attacking MGTOW with shaming language.

  11. Tim says:

    Women must learn to live in a world where men see women as the enemy.

    Women must lean to live in a world in which women purposely work to deny men’s rights.

    Women must learn to live in a world in which men understand women’s desire to destroy men.

  12. Tim says:

    One of the biggest lies being told is that the mass immigration going on in Western countries is due to the warm hearts of the governments involved. Nothing could be further from the truth and the real truth can’t be spoken due to the NAZI PC establishment’s retribution tactics.

    The real truth is that Western countries are now outsourcing birth. Marriage rates and birth rates have already/are tanking in nearly every single Western country. The only reason any Western countries are near the replacement birth rate is that first generation immigrants are the majority of those having babies.

    Men are learning that the courts are setup to privilege women over men. Women get half the sentences of men for the same crimes, women have preferred status in employment and education through affirmative action and Title IX, the majority of state and federal spending on health and welfare goes to women, women live longer than men and if a women accuses you of harassment, sexual assault, rape or in some cases bumping into them (see Souad Faress), your life may very well be over. Most men would never have seen the inside of a prison if men were given equal sentences to women for the same crimes.

    What I’ve personally learned from all this is to NEVER EVER give a woman the ring of power. No fault divorce was written by the National Association of Women Lawyers (NAWL) way back when to guarantee that women were given legal rights to their husbands current and future assets and income in the event of divorce.

    The marriage contract is a misandric contract that gives women the power to destroy men’s lives. Leveraged with laws like VAWA and the new and upcoming “Affirmative Consent”, you have to be either very brave or very ignorant to give women any legal or financial power over your life.

    Signing the marriage contract is the most foolish thing a man can do. It’s right up there with driving drunk, shooting heroin and gambling away your life savings in Las Vegas. Yet every year, around a million men in the US alone sign up for the life destruction marriage often brings men.

    If someone else has the right to make your sandwich unpalatable – then deny them the right to have a say over your sandwich. Fuck anyone that thinks they have the right to dictate life to you.

  13. Tim says:

    You can touch my boobies. The five words every man wants to hear from birth.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sQEb9TSACY

  14. Kong says:

    GirlwritesWhat said herself she would likely be dismissed or hounded out of the building if she was a man.

    I am a huge fan of hers, and would rank her third after bar bar and Stardusk. However for the first time i detected a little hint of gynocentrism from GWW concerning a video on women and the draft. She said she thought exempting women from frontline military roles was acceptable because hard physical work can effect a woman’s fertility. Needless to say I disagreed with this and told her so. Losing fertility is the least of a mans problems when serving in frontline roles. Men risk injuries just from training that an end their career and cause life long issues. I also pointed out to her that the male body is neither designed to be marched 25 miles and be shot at with machine guns. Thus far she has t replied to that comment.

    1. kirea says:

      I also found it pretty disgusting. I see two possibly valid reasons for keeping women away from frontline combat, or at least in gender-segregated units.
      1) They might not be physically fit enough for the mission.
      2) They might have a negative psychological effect on the men’s performance. Men tend to become less cooperative and more hostile towards each other when women are around, as a consequence of the instinctive drive to compete and impress women. There might also be the risk of men white knighting for the women, to the detriment of both their own safety and to the mission.

      Exempting women because they might get injured is nonsensical, as if men never get injured or killed during military service, not only in actual combat but also in training accidents. Sure, women’s bodies are not designed for being marched for hours at end without rest and getting shot at, but neither are men’s. Keeping fertile women out of harms way might have made sense once upon a time, but hardly any more. There is no shortage of fertile women whatsoever. The reason for the low fertility rate is that people simply don’t want to have children. If fertility were that important, contraceptives and abortions would be illegal.

    2. kirea says:

      I think you’re more or less right about her general position, but that doesn’t change the fact that her talk about women risking permanent injury and loss of fertility was an episode of good old “protect the wimminz” gynocentrism.

    3. Kong says:

      I will watch her video again, but I don’t recall her saying anything like that. So far as I could see her main point was that women aren’t physically strong enough and their fertility can be effected.

      If that’s correct then I’m afraid I disagree with her for the first time ever. My thoughts are yes frontline military roles should be open to women but in segregated units – a female only infantry battalion etc. Few women can make the cut I know, but enough will where an effect infantry unit can be created and we won’t know just how effective until tested in war. So there’s only one way to find out.

      Men have been used as guineapigs for centuries so let’s use the women in the same way.

    4. Multishadow says:

      It’s not like we are in a population shortage. Equal rights means equal treatment, right?

  15. Tim says:

    YOU have a choice as a man to either (1) Accept being fucked for life through the marriage contract and/or (2) remaining free of the horrific power that white knights and women hope to use to destroy men.

    There’s too much pussy to devote yourself to one man hater. Real men say no to the man hating, societally acceptable path of marriage.

    Marriage is a woman thing. Just say no to marriage. Let me guarantee you – being a man free of the power to destroy men’s lives is the way to go. I’m such a man. I have a good education, I make great money, and there’s no way I’d allow some cunt to dictate life to me. Women are hoping that they can exert enough power to destroy men. That’s what this is all about.

    If you don’t get it – you represent the end of civilization. Remove the cost of women from your life as a man.

  16. Multishadow says:

    I think why MGTOW is so confusing to define is because the acronym throws everyone off. If there were separate labels like “Feminism” and “Feminists”, one could easily recognize that there is an ideology, and particular followers of that ideology.

    Then on top of it, the idea that there is this trend of phenomenon of men opting out, further complicates things.

    To me, the men opting out phenomenon isn’t directly related to MGTOW. MGTOW is an ideology/philosophy of theories attempting to gain an understanding of gynocentrism, which most of society ignores. Men who adopt the label are men following the ideology, gaining and sharing information.

    Men who are opting out, the trend or whatever, don’t need a label.. even though they are sometimes labeled by others, such as Japan’s “herbivores”.

    Personally, I don’t mind the “same as the Feminists” smear. At one time, Feminists actually had some merit. Women weren’t allowed to work and were treated differently (although we know in most cases women still wielded a lot of power).

    The ideology/movement of Feminism eventually changed that, and then kept pushing through the creation of lies. MGTOW is at a point where it has merit, and seeks some sort of change (although not on a purely social level, like other social movements).

    MGTOW is in the infancy stage of raising awareness as an ideology, although the change it seeks to create is primarily on a personal, individualistic level.

  17. The article is well arranged. I see the author has a real knack for this
    subject. I like that subject, and I’m in constant search of new
    bits and the most recent news. I really loved that
    one, as it’s filled with interesting facts and it is a
    sort of easygoing article. I spent only a few minutes
    reading and due to well-structured text, so I know it totally.
    Thanks!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *