So it’s another day ending in “y” and our old MRA sparring buddy Dean Esmay has gotten himself worked up about something again. This time, he’s pig-biting mad at “paranoid … YouTube MGTOW Sectarians” who have had the audacity to tell him, a married man, that real MGTOWs can’t get married.
Given that MGTOW stands for “Men Going Their Own Way,” and that the main thing these guys want to get away from is women, you might wonder why anyone calling himself a MGTOW would get married to one of those awful lady things.
But it turns out that some self-described MGTOWs “go their own way” by marching to the chapel to get married to the women they are afraid will ruin their lives.
And this has caused a rift in the MGTOW movement, such as it is, with a small number of “married MGTOWs” like Esmay facing off against those in the MGTOW world who think that men should totally separate from women … except if they want to date them, or live with them, but definitely not marry them!
Blimey, this “going your own way” thing is trickier than I thought!
Now Esmay has decided to throw himself into the thick of it by posting a rambling, furious 4100-word screed on A Voice for Men accusing those who think MGTOWs shouldn’t get married of spreading an “indefensible false allegation leveled at innocent men” that “just might get you imprisoned or killed.” (Emphasis in original.)
Yes, that’s right. Esmay thinks that those who disagree with him on just who can call themselves MGTOWs … ARE GOING TO GET SOMEONE KILLED.
Let’s try to unpack his, er, logic, shall we?
Esmay starts off by offering his own take on the little rift that has formed between the handful of self-described MGTOWs, like him, who have aligned themselves with A Voice for Men, and pretty much everyone else who calls themselves MGTOWs. As Esmay sees it, these other MGTOWs are indulging in
a conspiracy theory that goes like this: scheming MRAs somehow discovered that “men’s rights” was going down in popularity but “Men Going Their Own Way” was growing, so Paul Elam suddenly decided he cared about MGTOW and got busy writing about it, but in an attempt to make it more mainstream and palatable, Paul Elam tried to tell MGTOW they can be married. But thankfully, alert and vigilant True MGTOW On YouTube exposed the dastardly plot and now all know the truth: Marriage and MGTOW never! Can’t be done! Un-possible! Only that lying monster Paul Elam and his cult followers say different!
As someone who’s been watching all this on the outside for several years now, this doesn’t seem like a conspiracy theory in the slightest. If you set aside some of its hyperbole, it seems like a fairly accurate description of what has gone down. You may recall, for example, the outcry amongst MGTOWs when Elam and his pal Peter Wright self-published their own little guide on the subject this past March.
But to Esmay it’s all a pack of lies. Correction: a pack of WOMANISH lies.
To be blunt, all that is an incredibly womanish lie; it’s dense, multilayered, and carefully crafted so that every reasonable discussion of it can be torpedoed by changing the subject, shifting the goalposts, and other Rationalization Hamster moves. Those who defend this lie, this indefensible false allegation leveled at innocent men, are also guilty of marginalizing the work of other Men Going Their Own Way who are certainly not named Paul Elam, and some of whom can’t even stand Paul Elam.
Did I say “womanish?” I meant “girlish.”
I honestly suspect that most of those promulgating this conspiracy narrative are the products of single mother homes, because they’re such girlish brats so much of the time, and their narrative is such pathetic gossipy schoolgirl drama and backstabby lies.
As Esmay sees it, no furshlugginer YouTube MGTOWs are going to tell him and his pals what MGTOW is or isn’t! Instead, he’s going to tell them:
The goal of movement MGTOW was to help individual men find themselves and find what they wanted, and help that individual man craft the best way to get it—for himself, in his own way.
Really? That’s what MGTOW is all about? By this expansive definition, I’m a MGTOW, and so are my cats. (Well, they would be, if they were dudes.)
But never mind, because Esmay is working towards his crescendo. Take it away, Mr. Married MGTOW:
This idea—that a married man may not be MGTOW—is a lie. It is an abusive lie that is sometimes harmful to the men who hear and believe it.
Apparently, any time anyone expresses an opinion contrary to his own it is not only a “lie” but is actually a form of abuse.
It is also spitting straight into the face of those who first founded the Men Going Their Own Way movement on the internet, some of whom remain active to this day. It is a betrayal of MGTOW. It is a subversion and hijacking of it. It is a redefinition, and a toxic one. And it should not be allowed to stand.
Dean then turns his invective-o-meter up to 11:
Why should it not be allowed to stand? Why should we not just accept that the popular YouTube set have helped MGTOW “evolve” to its current state? First because the original MGTOW have yet to leave the stage. Second, because the YouTube Sectarians are misleading people, including themselves in some cases. And their advice is dangerous.
Yes dangerous. Not to society, but to themselves and their followers. They’re a bunch of damned fools who are going to get themselves or their friends killed. And yes, I do mean that literally.
I would repeat that last bit about people getting killed, and put it in bold. But I don’t need to, since Esmay has already done so himself:
Repeat: if you say that there is no benefit to marriage to men, you are a dangerously ill-informed fool who is likely to get yourself or others killed.
Repeat again: the man who tells you that there is no benefit or protection to the marriage license just might get you imprisoned or killed.
It’s rare to see an MRA actually acknowledge that there are certain benefits to marriage; they’re much more likely to be railing against it at the top of their lungs.
But how the hell could suggesting that “MGTOWs can’t be married” possibly lead to anyone getting “imprisoned or killed?” Esmay explains that even though
marriage is generally a bad deal for men, cohabiting with a woman without a marriage license frequently, and indisputably, reduces your rights and renders you more vulnerable than if you got the state-approved piece of paper.
Esmay tells the story of a friend of his who committed suicide after being denied access to the children he’d had with a woman he’d been living with.
It’s a sad story, to be sure, but how exactly Esmay figures that his friend’s suicide is somehow the responsibility of “YouTube MGTOW Sectarians” railing against the idea of married MGTOWs and not, for example, the result of MRAs railing against marriage in general, I could not tell you.
Esmay thinks that “if you are telling men there is never any benefit to a marriage license, you are lying to those men and may get those men killed with your lie.”
But the fact is that MRAs and others in their general vicinity make exactly this argument all the time. Consider, for example, the thrice-divorced Men’s Rights blogger who, several years ago, wrote an angry post titled “Gay Marriage? How About NO Marriage!”
Modern marriage, in case these Einsteins haven’t noticed, has all the sanctity of a ten dollar hooker. Matrimony has devolved into just another throwaway institution in a throwaway culture … an institution that is currently the most prolific source of oppressive discrimination against them? …
What remains of marriage is not salvageable. It’s water that can’t be decontaminated; a cripple that can’t be healed. And the best thing to do is to put it out of its misery and start the whole shebang over from scratch. …
MRA’s should do the decent thing with marriage and pull the plug.
And who wrote that? A blogger by the name of Paul Elam, on a little blogspot blog that he later turned into the A Voice for Men that we know and loathe today. (And he was proud enough of this post that he reposted it on the new and allegedly improved AVFM.)
Dean, I hate to tell you this, but your former boss at AVFM seems to be one of the “abusive,” potential death-causing “MGTOW sectarians” you’ve just devoted more than 4000 words to railing against.
MGTOW-guy: Go back and read my earlier reply (with Rick).
That’s how we all feel about MGTOW if you leave out the raging asshole bits.
Personally, I think unattached people would do well to live semi-communally (as in, not necessarily in a commune – unless, hey, that’s what they want – but in shared living spaces). This would allow them to either save huuuge amounts of money or work less / engage in more fulfilling activities more, or both.
I mean, imagine it, man: You could be in a group of men who are GENUINELY going their own way. They work when they want or need to, all either saving money for adventures, future pursuits, investment, or just the latest toy that they want or using their free time to engage in vigorous study, self-improvement, meditation…whatever their hearts desire.
You all work to live your ideal lives, to become your ideal selves by going your own fucking way.
That would be admirable.
If you could step away from hating women, could step away from deriding men who don’t fit your ideal, could stop spewing venom, you could become beacons…
…if you could make your life really, truly about you rather than about what you think others have done or might do to you…shit, that’d be something beautiful and worthy.
It’s times like these where I almost have to remind myself that I am, in fact, a man, and people like NoMorePC are talking about people like me when they go off on how “men” are this, that, and the other. “Men” might as well be “Martians” for how familiar their supposed actions are to me and my personal life.
As requested – The more brief version of my previous post:
People hate MGTOW because, in a gynocentric society, women are given priority in all things. Because of our heavily gynocentric system, women walking away from their traditional roles is equated with empowerment, while men walking away from their traditional roles is equated with misogyny. Likewise, women speaking of their freedom from the slavery of marriage is considered empowerment, while men freeing themselves from women’s destructive power is considered misogyny.
Much of media and religion is setup to brainwash men into gynocentric robots that can’t be happy unless they’ve been validated by women. MGTOW is a direct threat to this power over men; hence MGTOW will be hated by most women and a sizable portion of men.
The MGTOW mindset reverses the gynocentric brainwashing of men and introduces men to a lifestyle not dependent on female validation, freeing men from the all to frequent life destruction that accompanies giving women power over their lives – particularly through the most gynocentric of institutions – marriage.
@NoMorePc
http://38.media.tumblr.com/06ba0cb4a6193ab59e7dd3373567bbc2/tumblr_inline_nfu4fgNJqU1rk40vs.gif
Surely though the need for external validation, whether from women or men, is something you grow out of?
That’s the whole rationale behind Maslow’s Pyramid.
Hey NoMorePC. I’m not a MGTOW in the slightest, I’m a feminist (or ally, whatever you want to call it).
I’m 25 and unmarried. I live alone in a rented apartment, doing a job I enjoy. I have female friends that I hang out with (and talk to online), and some day I want to have kids, but I’m not in a rush. I’m pretty content with my life, though of course I’m still trying to work some things out. Hey, I’m young.
What aspects this are due to ‘gynocentric brainwashing?’ What aspects of my life are the result of me being dependent on female validation? Or am I living a relatively MGTOW-approved lifestyle (although I doubt it, since I actually do want to get married some day).
I just want to figure out exactly what power this gynocentric world has over me, and where I’ve gone so wrong that I see MGTOWs as self-proclaimed refugees of an imaginary dystopia, hating women for having a power that doesn’t exist and lashing out at them as a result.
@Alan:
Eh, to be fair, external validation is something everyone needs to some extent. Everyone wants to know that their thoughts and feelings make sense to others, which is why something like gaslighting is so effective and terrible.
@ Kirby
That’s certainly not the case for everyone. In my circle of intimate friends we might bounce ideas of each other but ultimately we have to be true to ourselves.
If you make choices based on what other people think then you just end up all in some lowest common denominator group think rather than living by your own beliefs.
My friends and I can have radically different viewpoints but we know that doesn’t mean we can’t be friends.
If someone had a view that was beyond the pale then we’d have to stop being friends. Going down the validation route is how people end up adopting unpleasant positions just to fit in. History shows us the dangers of that.
@Alan:
Yeah, there is such a thing as a dependence on validation from others, but at the other extreme is social isolation.
I might be using “validation” in a different sense; it’s not about having other people say “I agree,” it’s about other people saying “that makes sense.” It’s not about thinking in lockstep with others, but rather the feeling that you have something valid to say and to contribute.
Reading things over again, it looks like NoMorePC was using the word to mean “approved of” as well, so maybe my comment was out of place. Oh well.
Nothing says going your own way from women like going to a feminist site and leaving thundering herds of teal deer.
@NoMorePc I think you have failed to grasp everyone is trying to tell you so I will make it simple.
We are not calling saying that your movement is misogynistic because they want to talk about separating yourself from your ‘traditional’ role.
We call you misogynistic when you express ideas displaying your clear hatred/dislike of females. It is really that simple. If all you did was isolate yourself from females and stay unmarried we would just call you a ‘bachelor’. That term existed way before MGTOW came along.
When you start stating that you do what you do because of a ‘nefarious female agenda that actively seeks to harm males for personal gain’ – and the restatement of this in various ways – that we are then correct in labeling you as misogynistic.
For example, if a woman chooses to remain single because she wants to focus on her career = empowerment.
If she then decides to seek out a public forum and start voicing the opinion that all men are trying to oppress her, that men and their institutions are actively seeking ways to harm her and destroy her, and all of this is happening for explicit purposes, then guess out? We would call her a misandrist (and yes, feminists know how to use that term too, just that we do it more appropriately).
The catch is whenever MGTOWs talk about females and their male supporters there is a clear tone of derision and hatred in everything you say. I may not be speaking for everyone here, but personally speaking I don’t hate or despise your movement in the slightest. At worst I simply violently disagree with your worldview and ideas since your movement has provided a very poorly supported case that is made up of bigoted assertions with no real world evidence.
Even in your comments on this board so far you have only served to reinforce this interpretation. You have not refuted other points that people have brought up with citations – other than waving the ‘conspiracy’ or ‘cherry-picked’ flag. You have not supported your own claims in any credible sense. You have made clearly deriding statements like:
“When I say male, I’m not talking about the white knights that support gynocentric agendas no matter how badly those agendas hurt men. I don’t consider those men, but rather people who have been brainwashed by media and religion to support gynocentrism no matter the harm to men.”
With no claim to support it other than your own opinion. You have literally ‘othered’ a group of people out of your sex even though you really can’t (our sex is not defined by another person – clearly that is a problem you can grasp).
I doubt feminists dislike your ideas because it ‘shakes the system’. I’m pretty sure they dislike it because it colors the world in an unrealistic fantasy, harms the individuals who believe it and in turn go out to harm others (not you necessarily), generates unwarranted hatred/dislike of a specific group (females) and adds no real benefit to society.
And trust me, what you are doing is not helping us by paying less taxes. That is just… bizarre. You do realize that just because you pay lower taxes does not mean the government will slash the ‘unnecessary’ government programs. You can do that better by, guess what? Getting involved in politics! Which by your own words, seem to be something the MGTOW movement does not want to participate in since it is so ‘gynocentric’.
Please come back with a more intelligent discussion and then we can have a real conversation.
Seconding this. If you could stop begging the question, that would be helpful as well. Perhaps you could begin by demonstrating that your premises are in fact true?
I wouldn’t call her a misandrist. I might call her a jackass or a drama llama (depending on whether she actually was being persecuted), but “misandrist” is a nonsense word because there’s no systemic bias against dudes. A person who’s strongly biased against men may be a big jerkface, but they’re also a fluke.
I’m glad you ignored everything else I’ve said solely to repeat your point. [/sarcasm]
@NoMorePc
Well, you’re using the term ‘white knight’ incorrectly, but that’s besides the point. You wanna know something?
I use to be brainwashed by the media.
I use to buy into the idea that ‘masculinity’ is something that can be taken from you. That men have these metaphorical “man cards” that could be revoked if that man did something ‘unmanly’. I use to push myself to do all sorts of dangerous irresponsible things because I thought it would make me more manly (and thus more desirable). I’ve had peers think less of me because I hadn’t had sex at the age of 21.
This is called toxic masculinity.
This is the very force that hurts men in our society and you just contributed to it right here:
You see, based on your posts, I would consider you immature, inconsiderate, perpetually annoying to be around, obnoxiously stubborn*, and VERY sexist. But I would NEVER consider you “not a man” and I would NEVER tell you to “man up” because unlike you, I do not buy into this culture that says that masculinity is something that can be revoked.
You complain about an institution hurting men. Yet you are contributing to that VERY institution because you believe that masculinity is something that can be taken from you. And the sad thing is? Hopefully someday you’ll realize that toxic masculinity is the very reason you Went Your Own Way in the first place.
*seriously, do you not fucking see the sheer number of commenters telling you that THEY SUPPORT your decision to Go Your Own Way?
@katz Hmm, I agree that my example may not be strong enough to qualify an individual as a misandrist. It will also depend on the context of her situation and the beliefs that underlie her reasoning.
I also second the fact that there is misogyny is widely institutionalized creating multiple levels of discrimination on a mind-boggling number of topics, ideas and behaviors. Misandry definitely is no comparable counterpart to misogyny in this sense – there is no overarching systemic discrimination against males. The word misandry has also been used in a very nonsensical and flippant manner especially by anti-feminists.
However, I disagree with you on the idea that the word “misandrist” is a nonsense word because I believe it is possible to label individuals with it if there is clear evidence of their personal hatred/prejudice of men in general. If we drop the word altogether declaring it as non-existent or non-applicable, this will actually support the anti-feminist narrative that we practice an unfair bias when it comes to sexual discrimination.
A simple example of an individual I would label as “misandrist” is Valerie Solanas, who wrote the infamous SCUM Manifesto – which is really a gigantic work of crap. The ideas expressed inside however clearly demonstrate her utter despise and hatred for males and she would be glad if we could be removed from the human race. It is chillingly similar to stuff that you can read off of anti-feminist or misogynistic sites.
“If she then decides to seek out a public forum and start voicing the opinion that all men are trying to oppress her, that men and their institutions are actively seeking ways to harm her and destroy her, and all of this is happening for explicit purposes, then guess out? We would call her a misandrist (and yes, feminists know how to use that term too, just that we do it more appropriately).”
That’s a joke, right? You can’t be serious. If you are serious, it just solidifies my points ad infinitum. No one could possibly be that dense. The women’s movement was based on the destruction of the patriarchy, the sexual liberation of women and the freeing of women from the slavery of marriage. Women invented demonizing gender.
BTW – the debate over the Safe Campus Act is going down. Thoughts? Cause you know – I don’t want my right to unceremoniously rape various women on campus blocked.
@ Kirby
I must confess that I’m not even sure about the ‘that makes sense’ example. Again I find it too limiting.
Obviously sometimes friends may understand an idea or point. That’s probably the most common scenario even if we disagree. But as Orwell put it ‘sanity is not statistical’.
You have to be true to thine own self even if it’s just you who thinks like that.
If you’re relying on the validation of others then you’re not you, you’re just someone else’s puppet.
@NoMorePc Oh boy, you are a live one. As far as I can tell, we are both serious here. You have also just clearly demonstrated your ignorance about feminism in that one statement:
“The women’s movement was based on the destruction of the patriarchy, the sexual liberation of women and the freeing of women from the slavery of marriage.”
It is not my duty, or the duty of feminists on this website to educate you on this. Please do more research into the movement before making such statements. Once you come back with an actual good understanding of the women’s movement will I be able to take your criticism of it more seriously.
You also came surprisingly close to a revelation when you said this:
“That’s a joke, right? You can’t be serious. If you are serious, it just solidifies my points ad infinitum. No one could possibly be that dense.”
My example is outlandish and I would be the first to say it. But there is also a reason why I wrote it as such. I think you do get it, but if not just say so and I will spell it out for you.
In my honest opinion, I do not think that you really want to rape various women. Your attempt at humor falls flat.
And we did it without being able to vote!
Reallyfriendly: I’d like to talk more about the word “misandry” but I think I’ll wait until we’re done playing whackamole.
“In my honest opinion, I do not think that you really want to rape various women. Your attempt at humor falls flat.”
The best part of feminism is the ease with which you can toy with men’s brainwashing to provide and protect while simultaneously encouraging a sense of guilt. In this way, one can simultaneously attack men’s biological drives and psychological well being with both positive and negative psychological feedback.
Sugar britches – my sense of humor is 100% A-OK. The fact that you disapprove makes me that much more certain. Rape jokes are my fav:
A sensitive man, an insensitive man and Michael Jackson are on a cruise ship. The ship hits an iceberg and starts to sink. The sensitive man says, “Children first!” The insensitive man says “Fuck the children!” Michael Jackson says , “I don’t think we have time for that.”
A man is hauling a woman through the dark woods on a stormy night. There’s ear splitting thunder, lightening striking trees and a deluge of rain pouring down upon them. The woman, shivering and quaking says , “I’m so scared! Please don’t do this!” – To which the man replies , “You’re scared? I have to walk back alone.”
I did a poll of several women to see if they found rape jokes funny. They said no, but I knew they meant yes.
I decided to have a legal name change from NoMorePc to help. I wanted women to be able to scream my name while I’m raping them.
The problem with rape jokes is that they sound so “forced”.
Really? I think he does. Otherwise he wouldn’t have said it apropos of jack shit.
Change that to “I think he has already.”