WTF is a MGTOW? A Glossary

On this blog, MRA does not stand for Magnetic Resonance Angiography

NOTE: This page is in desperate need of revision and expansion. In the meantime, I suggest you use Rationalwiki’s Manosphere Glossary.

For newcomers to this blog, here’s a handy guide to some of the strange acronyms and lingo you’ll encounter here and in the “manosphere” in general. (For a definition of that term, see below.) I will update this entry periodically as needed.

First, the acronyms you’ll see most often here:

MRA: Men’s Rights Activist
MRM: Men’s Rights Movement

MGTOW: Men Going Their Own Way MGHOW: Man Going His Own Way.

Ok, so what do those terms mean?

MRM: The Men’s Rights Movement: A loosely defined, but largely retrograde, collection of activists and internet talkers who fight for what they see as “men’s rights.” Unlike the original Men’s Movement, which was inspired by and heavily influenced by feminism, the self-described Men’s Rights Movement is largely a reactionary movement; with few exceptions, Men’s Rights Activists (or MRAs) are pretty rabidly antifeminist, and many are frankly and sometimes proudly misogynistic. Those who oppose the MRM are generally not against men’s rights per se; they are opposed to those who’ve turned those two words into a synonym for some pretty backwards notions.

MGTOW: Men Going Their Own Way: As the name suggests, MGTOW is a lot like lesbian separatism, but for straight dudes. MGTOW often talk vaguely about seeking “independence” from western and/or consumer culture, and a few MGTOW try to live that sort of zen existence. But most of those who embrace the term have a deep hostility towards and/or profound distrust of feminists and women in general. Many MGTOW refuse to date “western women” and some try to avoid women altogether.  I think the Man Going His Own Way acronym MGHOW adds another layer of confusion to an already awkward acronym, so I use MGTOWer instead.

Some other terms and acronyms you’ll run across here:

Anglosphere: Countries in which English is the primary language, or, more narrowly, those countries that used to be British colonies. They are full of evil Western Women (see below).

Incel: Involuntarily Celibate. A term, and identity, adopted by some dateless guys (as well as some women, but it’s the men we’ll focus on here). While there is nothing shameful about being dateless, or a virgin, or having a really long dry spell sexually — most of us have been there at some point — the term “involuntarily celibate” seems to suggest that the world owes incels sex, and that women who turn down incel men for dates or sex are somehow oppressing them. For those (male, straight) incels who are genuinely socially awkward or phobic, this can be a self-defeating stance that can lead to bitterness towards women. And often does.

Mangina: Derogatory term used by MRAs, MGTOW, etc. to describe guys who disagree with them — e.g., me. You can figure out the various connotations of this term yourself.

The Manosphere: The loose collection of blogs, message boards, and other sites run by and/or read by MRAs, MGTOW, and assorted friendly Pick-up Artists. The primary source of material for this blog.

NAWALT: Not All Women Are Like That. Dudes in the manosphere make so many ridiculous and untrue generalizations about women that they’ve come up with their own little acronym to describe the most common reaction to their nonsense: “not all women are like that.” Remarkably, many seem to think that making a reference to NAWALT is actually some sort of clever rebuttal of their critics.

PUA: Pick-up Artist. PUAs are obsessed with mastering what they see as the ultimate set of techniques and attitudes — known as “Game” — that will enable them to quickly seduce almost any woman they want. There is a vast literature on “game” online, though PUA (insofar as it is not complete bullshit) is at its essence simply a male version of the age-old ploy of “playing hard to get.”

Western Women: Also known as WW. Evil harpies, at least according to many in the manosphere. Contrasted with “foreign women,” a term that (in the manosphere, at least) sometimes refers to all women outside the Anglosphere, but often refers to a subset of these women from poor and/or Eastern countries, mostly Asian, who are regarded as more pliable and thus more desirable to haters of “Ameriskanks” and other WW.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

2.8K Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
cloudiah
11 years ago

Read the Time article.

Ah, yes, that is my favorite peer-reviewed journal too. 😀

hellkell
hellkell
11 years ago

I initially read that as “beer-reviewed.” It’s a long day.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
11 years ago

Now now, our friend Praeorian would never beer-review anything. Such an act would be a sin against God, tradition, and whatever other shit it is that he cares about.

hellkell
hellkell
11 years ago

Do we care what he cares about? I’m thinking no.

katz
11 years ago

Okay, Praetorian, your turn now. I’ll post some photos and you tell me what ‘nads these individuals were born with, since it’s so inherently obvious. No Googling!

#1

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

#7

#8

#9

#10

katz
11 years ago

Dammit, my gender-identification quiz got caught in moderation. I’ll mirror it on my blog in the meantime.

Fibinachi
11 years ago

Removing shame does not empower unless you somehow equate empowerment with one’s devolving to a primitive level with no constraints. The intelligent person would consider this going WAY backwards instead of anywhere near forward.

… Empowerment is removing constraints. An intelligent person would know this.

cloudiah
11 years ago

hellkell, I’m sending you a beer. What kind would you like, you shameless hussy? 😀

hellkell
hellkell
11 years ago

I would shamelessly love a nice IPA right now. Thanks!

cloudiah
11 years ago

You animal! Be sure to cross your legs while drinking it.

hellkell
hellkell
11 years ago

I will drink it in a dainty and lady-like fashion.

cloudiah
11 years ago

@katz, #6 is borked.

katz
11 years ago

…It is? It looks fine where I am. What’s wrong with it?

katz
11 years ago

Shoot, I see the problem. Is it fixed now?

Shiraz
Shiraz
11 years ago

“Shiraz its simply called Cultural Marxism. It is but one point in it. It desires to destroy the fabric of the family, religion (because it involves shame) and culture as a whole. No necessity in posting links. Simply research Cultural Marxism.”

But no matter…you’re into the patriarchy, the kind certain Republicans love to bits. Like former Presidential candidate, Mike Huckabee, who said, “The most important form of government is father, mother and children.” So Natalie Portman is ruining everything because she had a baby out of wedlock, instead of deciding that her child should be legally owned by the baby daddy through the sacredness of marriage.

Shadow
Shadow
11 years ago

I don’t want to support low lives having children out of wedlock because they live in a culture that never taught them the value in crossing their legs.

You know, single parenthood can be reduced just as easily by dudes keeping their dicks in their pants, yet somehow this rarely seems to be the proposed solution.

@katz & Howard

Am I the only one that finds it weird that his picture for man is Jon Favreau and his picture for woman is some random stock photo? I actually did the searches for man and woman, and the image he used for woman shows up at the top of the searches, but Favreau is nowhere to be found. Curiouser and curiouser

Shadow
Shadow
11 years ago

And I just realised how old is this convo is. Whoops :$

Argenti Aertheri
11 years ago

Shadow — no no no, the thread necromancer is on the FAQ this time! XD

Ally S
11 years ago

I don’t want to support low lives having children out of wedlock because they live in a culture that never taught them the value in crossing their legs.

“Crossing their legs?” FFS. I’m so sick of conservatives bringing up such a creepy amount of detail whenever they express their disapproval of cis women having control over their wombs.

sarahlizhousespouse
11 years ago

“Just human nature from a socio-biological perspective”
You contradicted yourself there, slick. If it’s human nature then it would be just the biological perspective. Sorry. Better luck next time.

“Pregnancy out of wedlock (pre-feminism years) was at extremely low levels.”
According to Godbeer… nope. Unless 1 in 5 marriages preceded by sexual intercourse AND impregnation is low in your book. “In England in the late 16th and early 17th centuries, 20% of all brides were pregnant at the time of the wedding.”
Richard Godbeer, Sexual Revolution in Early America (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 2002)

Oh, and as for your bathtub mildew problem let me suggest that you either use an exhaust fan, wipe out your tub with a terry cloth rag or check your drain pipe. It’s probably the drain pipe. You know… full of a filthy woman’s hair.

Ta ta!

Shadow
Shadow
11 years ago

@Argenti

Yep, just realised. It all blurred into a FAQarry WTFerry (cos I still find it hilariously unbelievable how many trolls gravitate to these two threads). Then again, Guit was so eyebleedingly dull that I couldn’t muster the effort to reply to his lil “neener neener” rants

Dvärghundspossen
11 years ago

I don’t want to support low lives having children out of wedlock because they live in a culture that never taught them the value in crossing their legs.

Some feminist – unfortunately I don’t remember who now – once said that if aliens came to Earth and read conservative books and articles, they’d end up believing that humans with wombs got pregnant by some kind of pollen. Like, microscopic pollen particles that just float around in the atmosphere, and if your vagina opens up too much while you’re merely walking about minding your own business, some pollen might float in there and make you pregnant. And therefore, in order to avoid unwanted pregnancies, it’s really important to keep your legs close together at all times.

pineapplecookies
pineapplecookies
11 years ago

Has someone really just post a 1992 Times article as evidence of the differences between men and women?

John
John
11 years ago

So, if a woman says she does not need a man in her life, she is seen as a strong independent woman. If a man says he does not need a woman in his life, he is seen as someone who has a deep hostility towards and/or profound distrust of women.

How convenient and how logical…………….

1 46 47 48 49 50 114
2.8K
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x