When a Woman Meets a MGTOW......

[Cornfed]

The best definition of MGTOW would be men who choose to withdraw from traditional relationships with females to some extent as a response to the feminist persecution of men in such relationships. Of course there are degrees of withdrawal - not getting married vs. not living with a female vs. not having a girlfriend vs. not seeking sex with females vs. minimising all contact with females vs. joining a Trappist monastery.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

Because I have read what else you wrote I know more or less what you mean when you say MGTOW. But for someone reading the one-line definition for the first time knowing nothing else, they might justifiably think that a Catholic priest fits it. I disagree that they'd have to be a moron to. Look at all the confusion about what this word means. This is not about who MGTOW is for. This is about having precise terminology to serve everyone whether they care to be MGTOW or not.

I would say that MGTOW is not for men who would not be intelligent enough to understand that Men Going Their Own Way does not encompass men in prison, Catholic priests, quadriplegics, and those living under comatose conditions. If it is that complex a concept to understand from even that condensed description, than they do not have what it takes to be MGTOW.

If it makes you happy, you could say: MGTOW are "Red Pill" aware (having an understanding of true female nature and state-supported gynocentrism) men who avoid marriage and fathering children as a means of shielding themselves from legal and the financial exploitation from women and gynocentric state institutions. Many MGTOW actively engage in casual romantic relationships with women, others do not. Still others go so far as to relocate abroad to traditional cultures and countries less legally hostile to men.

At the core of MGTOW is the desire for maximizing personal sovereignty and personal freedom, and avoiding the legal and financial perils of marriage and fatherhood in many Western societies.

And as to your position that PUA has anything to do with avoiding marriage, it has no connection. RooshV was a PUA who made known his desire to find a wife with whom to start a family all while promoting is PUA business and materials. He has not found one yet, but he no longer considers himself a PUA. Mr. Locario is a PUA and he has been married for many years. PUA has no position on marriage. It is about game and sexual success with women, period.

[flowerthief00]

If it makes you happy, you could say: MGTOW are "Red Pill" aware (having an understanding of true female nature and state-supported gynocentrism) men who avoid marriage and fathering children as a means of shielding themselves from legal and the financial exploitation from women and gynocentric state institutions. Many MGTOW actively engage in casual romantic relationships with women, others do not. Still others go so far as to relocate abroad to traditional cultures and countries less legally hostile to men.

All right THAT is an exclusive definition. I can now agree that MGTOW does not encompass PUA as a group. Nor Catholic priests, nor missionaries, nor Incels, nor homeless men, nor military men, etc. An individual in one of those groups might still be MGTOW provided he meets the requirement of being Red Pill aware and desiring to shield himself from legal and financial exploitation from women and the state, but as a group they wouldn't be.

I have to note that although we gain power to classify groups we lose some power to classify individuals, since we can't just look at outward behavior any more but have to guess at what's in a man's head.

MGTOW often try to claim famous historical figures or celebrities as their own. i.e. Tesla, Da Vinci, Newton.

Well, Tesla didn't marry because he thought himself unworthy of females and that women were becoming too masculine. Da Vinci might have been gay. As for Newton nobody knows why. In the MGTOW Youtuber Sandman's "God Among MGTOW" series he implies that it might have been because the pleasure of intellectual discovery is greater than the pleasure of sex. None of those reasons are the same as wanting to shield oneself from legal and financial exploitation by women and the state. And even if these famous historical people did make statements suggesting MGTOW reasons for not marrying, it would be difficult to really be sure since a person's publicly stated reasons for their behavior are often different from their private reasons.

So the most prolific and prominent online MGTOW commentator's concept of MGTOW is at odds with our new definition (his series needs to be retitled "God Among Celibates" or something). Your definition is a workable one, but I fear there is likely to still be confusion due to the difference between others' concepts of MGTOW.

The best definition of MGTOW would be men who choose to withdraw from traditional relationships with females to some extent as a response to the feminist persecution of men in such relationships. Of course there are degrees of withdrawal - not getting married vs. not living with a female vs. not having a girlfriend vs. not seeking sex with females vs. minimising all contact with females vs. joining a Trappist monastery.

The "feminist persecution of men" bit could use some rewording. Facing the divorce court and being burdened with alimony when the relationship goes sour is one of the worst things that can happen to someone who got married, and feminism is not primarily to blame for that. It's just people being greedy.

[Cornfed]

The "feminist persecution of men" bit could use some rewording. Facing the divorce court and being burdened with alimony when the relationship goes sour is one of the worst things that can happen to someone who got married, and feminism is not primarily to blame for that. It's just people being greedy.

Eh, how are these things not related to feminism?

[flowerthief00]

Eh, how are these things not related to feminism?

Alimony has been around since before feminism and is a remnant of traditionalist thinking. In the US the Supreme Court has ruled that alimony cannot be awarded on the basis of gender alone, so a woman can be hit with alimony the same as a man can, unlike in the past when it was taken for granted that a woman can't take care of herself so a man should be paying her. That this doesn't happen nearly as often (woman paying the man) is because there are couples still trying to pretend as if traditional marriage is still viable. Traditional marriage's destruction IS something you can blame feminism for. But not alimony.

[Cornfed]

Eh, how are these things not related to feminism?

Alimony has been around since before feminism and is a remnant of traditionalist thinking.

Yeah but it was way different back in the day when it really only applied to rich people, most divorces were initiated by men and females had basically no opportunity to earn a lot of money. So while the bad guys will use any excuse for screwing men it is always selective. They'll enforce an anachronistic view of Common Law to the extent it screws men but where it favors men, f**k Common Law. For example, sure child support existed in Common Law, but by default the children went to the man and it was only if he didn't want them that he had to pay it and even then only the assessed marginal cost of the children. So these seemingly traditionalist things, as they are applied today, really are feminism.

[flowerthief00]

So while the bad guys will use any excuse for screwing men it is always selective.

Because men have the money. By far most income earned nationwide is earned by men. So that's who it makes sense for bad guys to screw, regardless of what they think of feminism.

[Cornfed]

So while the bad guys will use any excuse for screwing men it is always selective.

Because men have the money. By far most income earned nationwide is earned by men. So that's who it makes sense for bad guys to screw, regardless of what they think of feminism.

That is the reason for feminism. The distinction you are making doesn't exist.

[flowerthief00]

Are you saying that the reason for feminism is to screw men out of money?

[Cornfed]

Are you saying that the reason for feminism is to screw men out of money?

Feminism is the idea that females should marry the government allowing them to do whatever they want without consequence and live parasitically off men while giving the men nothing in return.

[flowerthief00]

You should submit that to Merriam-Webster.

[Zambales]

Cornfed should submit it to the Urban Dictionary where the entries can be compiled by anyone.