By Stephen L. Hall
This was originally intended as a three part series, but in the name of completion I think it is beneficial to have a fourth part of this series. Before getting into the heart of the matter, perhaps I ought to explain MGTOW for those unfamiliar with the term. MGTOW stands for Men Going Their Own Way.
While it is essentially a modern societal and internet phenomena as a reaction to the increasingly matriarchal society pushed by the feminists and beta males of the leftists, understand that such a reactionary influence exists in every culture rebelling against the dominant societal norms and mores.
As much as matriarchy and patriarchy is a system of gender favoritism by the culture and the state for women and men respectively, traditional western society values men and women as equal but different in a familial unit. There remains the alternative to consider men and women being equal and virtually identical.
While that sounds nice on the surface, what does that imply for a society in general and more importantly in the long term. Of particular interest is the nature of the family structure where men and women are interchangeable.
In an effort to make everything in society not merely equal but equivalent, the courts took the traditional duties of men and women of support and service, and decided that both husbands and wives had mutual duties of service and support to and from each other. Sounds incredibly egalitarian, and obviously stupid.
If the man has not only his traditional duties of support but also is added the traditional duty of service, that is to say the laundry, dishes, cooking, et cetera, are also his responsibility in a family, then how is that any different from being single? Without a division of labor and clear lines of authority, then you basically have a roommate only now with children.
For the woman, (if the courts in America actually meant their rhetoric literally instead of the thinly veiled female favoritism that it is in reality), actually would be interpreted to mean that she has a duty to support her family, to earn enough money to provide food, clothing, and shelter, to mow the lawn, fix the car and the toaster, and that she is as responsible as he to get up and investigate when a noise is heard at night.
These respective duties should appear in equality in divorce proceedings if it were not a sham, and has upon occasion, to mean that a woman who earns more than a man would be liable to pay alimony. Statistically speaking, one would expect that half of the time in a divorce the father would get custody, and you would hear frequently about deadbeat mothers who don’t pay their child support..
Back to the point of a society built around gender equivalence and what it would mean for the family and the culture. The divorce scenario shows the truth that there is really nothing to be gained by either man or woman from a divorce, and really none from being married in the first place. Essentially, such a society would effectively make man and wife to be not much more than roommates, friends with benefits, as the saying goes.
The family structure would be effectively temporary as long as it is convenient for both people. This is the theory behind no-fault divorces, that people may come and go from their relationships as they please. Essentially, there would be temporary marriage, if at all.
The real question for couples in such a society is, why bother actually having kids at all? Children become just another autonomous entity, more work than any reward. Upon separation it would become a coin toss as to who got the children. Children would be a permanent attachment to essentially temporary relationships, so why bother?
Women have traditionally appealed to men in western culture berating men as being “afraid of commitment” to goad them into settling down from bachelorhood when a man did not want to marry. As women gain power in an increasingly matriarchal society, that goading rings hollow, because men do not see any purpose to marriage. Why commit to something if the other person can walk away with everything.
Certain men, and in ever increasing numbers with the rise of feminism, forego permanent attachments, refute and refuse the traditional roles imposed upon them by society. They refuse to be husbands and fathers because they do not see any benefit in those institutions for them. The more society favors women, the more correct they actually are in their assessments.
I imagine that women in a patriarchal society would be inclined along the same lines, becoming spinsters rather than bachelors, but eschewing the confines of traditional roles to “go their own way.”
There is an old saying, “be careful what you ask for, you may just get it.” Feminism asked to be treated just like men, MGTOW is exactly that treatment of women as if they were men.
Why buy flowers for a woman, or buy her dinner, or pay for a date? Does she not earn her own money and should pay her own way?
Why take time out of your day or time you’d spend watching the game with your buddies, if she is really just no different than one of the guys?
Why not spend your time playing video games and watching television? Why not spend your money on yourself, on a nice car, or whatever you want? Why invest in a house with multiple bedrooms when you don’t plan on getting married or having kids? You only need one bedroom, and an apartment is easier to maintain.
In short, why bother to play the old roles of men when women are no longer playing the old roles of women? Modern feminists complain that it is difficult to find real men, what they really mean is men who will assume traditional roles while they pursue matriarchal empowerment roles. That was entirely based upon unrealistic expectations.
There is a certain point where everyone being identical in society really means that society itself breaks down, because there is no point in society if everyone is the same. If you are the same as me, then why do I even need you? A society where everyone is the same is simply pointless, each person would be just as well off to “go their own way.”
If everyone goes their own way, then there is nothing bringing them together. It turns out that too much equivalence really separates people, like magnates, like people repel. I do not believe that “equal but separate” was really what women were hoping to achieve when they subscribed to the feminist philosophies.
If there is any doubt for those who are not familiar with the term, I urge you to simply go to youtube.com and type in the search term “mgtow” and see the videos which appear, it will certainly surprise those unfamiliar with the term.
At least in out pure equivalence, we can all be equally miserable apart. Actually, that is not true either. Men are, generally speaking, less social creatures than women. MGTOW is the natural reaction to a feminism which pretends “equality” while really pushing matriarchy. It is an insistence to hold the culture to its own rhetoric.
MGTOW is as it states, individuals alone; interacting but still essentially alone. It becomes a non-social society. The MGTOW life is a solo dance, for everyone.
