Men Going Their Own Way

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

MGTOW logo as shown in episode “Men at War” of the BBC series Reggie Yates’ Extreme UK[1]

Men Going Their Own Way (more commonly abbreviated MGTOW, pronounced (/ˈmɪɡt/)) is an online community[2] supported by websites and social media presences.[3] The community is part of what is more broadly termed the manosphere.[4]

According to columnist Martin Daubney, members of the MGTOW community believe that legal and romantic entanglements with women fail a cost–benefit analysis and risk–benefit analysis.[5] Jeremy Nicholson writing for Psychology Today similarly described MGTOW as men frustrated with the lack of incentives to date who choose to opt out of dating and focus on taking care of themselves.[6]Kay Hymowitz has stated that some self-identified MGTOW express bitterness because they see women as hypergamous and manipulative.[7]Business Insider reporter Dylan Love wrote a “fully-realized MGTOW (there are levels to it) is someone who shuns all relationships with women, short-term, long-term, romantic, and otherwise. He eventually shuns society as a whole.”[8] MGTOW use the word “gynocentric” to describe conditions that favor women to the detriment of men, and are opposed to such circumstances.[9]

According to Roselina Salemi, writing for La Repubblica, the Japanese concept of herbivore men is a subset of MGTOW.[10] Mack Lamoureux writing in Vice sees herbivore men as a consequence of Japanese socioeconomic conditions and MGTOW as an ideological choice.[3] In a DELFI article MGTOW are described as a protest against feminist laws in the West whereas herbivore men are a response to traditional gender roles in Japan, such as those of salarymen.[11]

See also[edit]









‘Feminists hate men’: Meet Mike Buchanan, the leader of Britain’s new Justice for Men and Boys party

The a former Conservative party consultant said that men and boys are ‘absolutely excluded’ from British society


Mike Buchanan, leader of Justice for Men and Boys, told The Independent that feminists “hate men” and accused women of thinking they’re “divine creatures”.

Buchanan quit the Tory party in 2009, after David Cameron announced support for all-women parliamentary candidate shortlists and has applied himself to promoting anti-feminism, and has written three books on the topic. As well as saying that feminism is “vile”, Buchanan and his party also believe that “fatherhood is being systematically removed from society” which means “taxpayers are subsidising sperm banks for single women and lesbians”.

Party leader Mike Buchanan, a former Conservative party consultant who started his party in 2013, told The Independent: “If you look at it from a gynocentric perspective, [you say] that all our concern must be for women and girls, to the absolute exclusion of men and boys, they can go home – literally if they want to – [we’re] pointing out that women are not these divine creatures.”

Justice for Men and Boys will be running for three seats in the May General Election – one in Shadow Minister for Women & Equalities Minister Gloria De Piero’s seat.

Talking about what inspired him to start the party, Buchanan said: “The state is anti-male; the policy direction is insane. I thought: ‘What in God’s name do you do in a democracy with this?’ Well, you form a party. We reduced it down to 20 points to form our manifesto.”

When asked about the manifesto’s emotional tone, Buchanan said: “It is emotional and it damn well should be. The idea that men are emotional automatons who can just take any amount of crap, well men do take a lot of crap but we aren’t emotionless.

“Had I been denied access to my children after my first divorce, I wouldn’t be speaking to you today, I’ve absolutely no doubt about that. Anyone who’s worked with fathers denied access to their children will know a number who’ve committed suicide.”

Speaking passionately on the subject of fathers’ rights, Buchanan said: “Men are stripped out of their families and become walking wallets because that suits the state. It’s a very well documented feminist objective of 40 years to destroy the nuclear family. You only need to go back to Germaine Greer’s book [The Female Eunuch, 1970] and women like Harriet Harman and Patricia Hewitt have been doing it ever since,” he said. “Oh, God they hate men.”


Buchanan believes Harriet Harman, deputy leader of the Labour Party, hates men

Buchanan believes that men are perceived as having no value beyond financial. “We have no worth beyond our value to others,” he said, “whereas women are born with worth, they grow up knowing they’re valuable. Women don’t get this, that men just have no worth as human beings except in how they support women and children.”

Buchanan added: “99.7 per cent of refuge places go to battered women, when there are as many battered women as battered men.”

Sandra Horley, chief executive of national domestic violence charity Refuge, told The Independent that abuse of either gender should not be tolerated, although asserted that victims are still predominantly women.

Despite the party’s belief that men are at an unfair disadvantage, Justice for Men and Boys has a “fair” female following. “It’s not a huge number,” Buchanan said, “but a fair number of our supporters are women… they all have a personal reason to support us.”

The Independent originally reported that Buchanan’s two ex-wives supported him. We’d like to clarify that Buchanan’s two children support him in his political endeavours, as he is not in touch with his wives.

Here are a selection of points from JFMAB’s General Election Manifesto:


Children have effectively been removed from the nurturing bosom of the family and, funded by taxpayers’ money, placed under common social care and control in what amounts to state-sponsored institutional child care. Children’s social values are now being shaped by politically correct broader society rather than by their biological parents.


We also take issue with governments continuing to spend large amounts of taxpayers’ money ‘encouraging’girls and young women into STEMM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics and medicine) subjects and careers. These subjects were historically the routes to careers for many young men, yet the government is spending £30 million ‘encouraging’ women into engineering careers, although women have for decades expressed little interest in engineering as a career choice.


The state’s policy direction of driving women into paid employment (partly through a tax regime which discourages stay-at-home motherhood) takes no heed of women’s wishes (or otherwise) to enter employment, nor the inevitable impacts on men and children… It should be obvious to the reader that the flipside of ‘advancing the careers of women’ must be ‘holding back the careers of men’.

Domestic violence

When IPV [Intimate Partner Violence] is one-way, the perpetrator is more likely to be a woman than a man. Only 4% of female perpetrators report ‘self-defence’ as a motivation.

Women are as physically aggressive as men towards intimate partners, or more aggressive.

When IPV-related suicides are added to IPV-related murders, men are more likely than women to die as a consequence of IPV.


Under the current law in England and Wales, when a drunken woman has sex, and later regrets the encounter, she’s deemed not to have been in a position to give consent, so she can claim to have been raped. A man in the same situation typically wouldn’t see the encounter in that way – even if he was drunk, and the woman sober.

Mental health

Many of the state’s policy directions contribute to the persistently high male suicide rate, including:

– denying fathers reasonable access to their children following family breakdowns

– weakening the institutions of marriage and the nuclear family

– lack of support for male victims of intimate partner violence (IPV)

Criminal Justice System

The justice system in general is institutionally biased against men, and is the direct cause of a scandalous ‘gender justice gap’.






Date of publication: 28 December 2014 2


The human rights of men and boys in the United Kingdom have been increasingly assaulted by the state’s actions and inactions for over 30 years, as they have across much of the developed world. J4MB is the only political party in the English-speaking world campaigning for the human rights of men and boys, including the right of all children to enjoy good access to both parents following family breakdowns, and the restoration of fatherhood and strong families.

The British state has become ever more hostile towards men and boys, although it’s largely funded by men, through income tax receipts. Of all the income tax collected by the state, men collectively pay 72%, women 28%.1 In 2011/12 British men paid £68 billion more income tax than women, yet the state disadvantages men and boys in many areas, usually to advantage women and girls.


There are no areas in which the state disadvantages women and girls.

A state which is hostile towards half its citizens also affects women who are mothers of boys, or who are men’s partners, relatives, colleagues, friends or acquaintances. In the case of abortion, foetal alcohol syndrome, and fatherlessness, girls (including those yet unborn) are also assaulted by the actions and inactions of the state. The result is both inevitable and predictable – an ever more dysfunctional society, with increasing alienation of the sexes.

In this manifesto we provide details of the state’s disadvantaging of men and boys in 20 areas, and we make proposals in each of them. The areas are presented in a broadly chronological order:

Abortion Homelessness

Foetal alcohol syndrome Suicide

Genital mutilation Criminal justice system

Fatherlessness, restoring strong families Paternity fraud

Education Anonymity for suspected sexual offenders

Employment Divorce

Access to children after family breakdowns Health

Domestic violence Political representation

Sexual abuse State interference in company director appointments

Armed Forces veterans’ mental health issues Expectation of retirement years

The social engineering programmes which seek equality of gender outcomes are having an increasingly damaging impact on British society, and the Conservative-led coalition is no less keen on driving those programmes than the preceding Labour administrations. We have a vision of Britain as a nation that doesn’t disadvantage half its citizens. A society in which men and women are equals in opportunity but able to make their own choices in life, without state intervention to advantage one sex over the other.

It’s said that under the ‘first past the post’ system, votes for parties other than the major parties are wasted, but voting is the only mechanism democracy affords citizens to seriously challenge politicians who embrace the all-pervading anti-male ideology which has dictated the state’s policy directions for over 30 years. 3

The major parties are institutionally committed to advantaging women and girls at the expense of men and boys, regardless of the consequences, as we recognized after engaging in parliamentary inquiries which demonstrated that the government simply doesn’t respond to rational arguments against anti-male policy directions. The only choice for citizens concerned about the state’s assaults on the human rights of men and boys is to vote – and to vote for J4MB.

In the short to medium term, our challenge is to improve public understanding about the state’s assaults on the human rights of men and boys. We do that in various ways, including the use of social media. Our television and radio appearances may be found on our YouTube channel.1



Our longer term strategy, however, is to develop our party to the point that we can field many candidates in general elections, in marginal constituencies, where the major parties are vulnerable. Politicians will then have no choice but to take heed of the voices we represent, engage with us, and seek to appease them by modifying their parties’ policies, and their direction of travel.

At the 2015 general election we’ll be fielding three candidates in adjacent constituencies near Nottingham where, in 2010, MPs were elected with very slim majorities:

– I’ll be standing in Ashfield, where Gloria De Piero retained the seat for Labour with 192 more votes than a Liberal Democrat candidate. She’s the Shadow Minister for Women & Equalities.

– Ian Young, formerly a victim of domestic violence, will be standing against a Conservative, Mark Spencer, in Sherwood. Ian lives in the constituency, in Hucknall.

– Ray Barry, leader of the campaign group Real Fathers for Justice, will be standing against another Conservative, Anna Soubry, in Broxtowe.

I should like to take this opportunity to thank all the men and women who have supported J4MB since its launch in February 2013, including those who have contributed to this manifesto. We’ve gone to considerable lengths to ensure that all the information we present is factually correct. If you should find any mistakes, or you believe any of the content to be misleading, please draw this to our attention.

If you feel able to support J4MB in any way, please contact us. I invite you to make a donation, which will support our campaigning.2 Nobody associated with J4MB has ever drawn any personal income from donations, and we don’t expect that to change in the foreseeable future, if ever.

Thank you for your support, and for seeking justice for men and boys (and the women who love them).

Mike Buchanan

Party Leader

Telephone: 07967 026163





Twitter: @mikebuchanan11 4

Table of Contents

To move directly to a section, place your cursor over the section title, then click your mouse button.

You can access the materials referenced in the Footnotes, where there’s a URL link, in the same manner.

ABORTION …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 5

FOETAL ALCOHOL SYNDROME ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 7

GENITAL MUTILATION …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 9


EDUCATION ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 15

EMPLOYMENT ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 18


DOMESTIC VIOLENCE …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 26

SEXUAL ABUSE …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 31


HOMELESSNESS …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 40

SUICIDE ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 46

THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 49

PATERNITY FRAUD …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 52


DIVORCE ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 57

HEALTH ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 61

POLITICAL REPRESENTATION ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 66


EXPECTATION OF RETIREMENT YEARS ……………………………………………………………………………………. 70


RECOMMENDED BOOKS, BLOGS, WEBSITES ……………………………………………………………………………. 75

ABOUT MIKE BUCHANAN ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 78 5



Elective abortions are permissible in Britain up to 24 weeks after conception, yet medical teams are fighting to save the lives of foetuses of around that age, and increasingly they are succeeding. Conversely, there are medical teams at work in the same hospitals killing foetuses of the same age, prior to extracting their dead bodies from their mothers’ wombs. We find this morally indefensible.

There comes a point at which the basic right to life of an unborn child overrides the right of a woman over her body. One person’s rights end where another person’s rights begin. In an age when contraception has long been readily available and highly reliable, women should be held morally accountable for the children they conceive. J4MB believes there’s a point in pregnancy when society – and the law – needs to recognize the right of the unborn child to life.

When the Abortion Act (1967) was passed, the British public was assured it wouldn’t lead to ‘abortion on demand’. That assurance has proved hollow. Effectively, abortion on demand has been freely available in the UK for almost half a century. It’s estimated that by the time of the 2015 general election, approximately 8.2 million elective abortions will have been performed under the terms of the Abortion Act (1967) – more than the current combined populations of Scotland and Wales, or London. There’s a growing awareness that 97% of the abortions carried out in England, Wales, and Scotland, are carried out on grounds which may be illegal. The Abortion Act (1967) permits elective abortions to be performed on numerous grounds, when authorized by two medical practitioners. One of the grounds is to reduce the risk of injury to the mental health of women.

In 2012, in England and Wales, 185,122 abortions were carried out.1 180,117 of them (97%) were carried out under grounds ‘C’ of the Abortion Act, ‘the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman (section 1(1)(a))’.



However, of those 180,117 abortions, 180,008 (99.94%) were carried out on the grounds of reducing the risk of injury to the women’s mental health, while only 109 (0.06%) were carried out on the grounds of reducing the risk of injury to the women’s physical health.

There’s no evidence to support the thesis that abortion reduces the risk to mental health of women with an unwanted pregnancy, and clinical trials to investigate the matter would, of course, be highly unethical. There is, however, some evidence to suggest that abortion itself increases the risk to mental health, so medical practitioners who authorize abortions on mental health risk grounds are doing so in the knowledge that there’s no body of research to support their authorizations.

In December 2011 The National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health published a 252-page report for the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, ‘Induced Abortion and Mental Health: a systematic review of the mental health outcomes of induced abortion, including their prevalence and associated factors’.2

Among the key findings of the report (p.8) was, ‘The rate of mental health problems for women with an unwanted pregnancy were the same whether they had an abortion or gave birth’. 6

In April 2013 the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry published a report, ‘Does abortion reduce the mental health risks of unwanted or unplanned pregnancy? A re-appraisal of the evidence’.1 The full conclusion of the report:


There is no available evidence to suggest that abortion has therapeutic effects in reducing the mental health risks of unwanted or unintended pregnancy. There is suggestive evidence that abortion may be associated with small to moderate increases in risks of anxiety, alcohol misuse, illicit drug use, and suicidal behaviour.


1. The Abortion Act (1967) should be amended to limit women’s right to have an abortion on the grounds of reducing the risk of injury to their mental health to a maximum of 13 weeks after conception. At this stage the gender of the embryo is unclear, so this would result in the end of gender-specific abortions, the incidence of which in the UK is a matter of some dispute.

2. The Abortion Act (1967) should remain unchanged with respect to women’s rights to have abortions carried out on the grounds of reducing the risk of injury to their physical health.

3. It should be a criminal offence for a British woman to have an abortion outside the UK more than 13 weeks after conception, on grounds other than reducing the risk of injury to her physical health.




The start of the Wikipedia entry on foetal alcohol syndrome:1




Fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) or foetal alcohol syndrome is a pattern of physical and mental defects that can develop in a fetus in association with high levels of alcohol consumption during pregnancy. Alcohol crosses the placental barrier and can stunt fetal growth or weight, create distinctive facial stigmata, damage neurons and brain structures, which can result in intellectual disability and other psychological or behavioral problems, and also cause other physical damage. The main effect of FAS is permanent central nervous system damage, especially to the brain. [Our emphasis.] Developing brain cells and structures can be malformed or have development interrupted by prenatal alcohol exposure; this can create an array of primary cognitive and functional disabilities (including poor memory, attention deficits, impulsive behavior, and poor cause-effect reasoning) as well as secondary disabilities (for example, predispositions to mental health problems and drug addiction). Alcohol exposure presents a risk of fetal brain damage at any point during a pregnancy, since brain development is ongoing throughout pregnancy.

As of 1987, fetal alcohol exposure was the leading known cause of intellectual disability in the Western world. [Our emphasis.] In the United States and Europe, the FAS prevalence rate is estimated to be between 0.2–2 in every 1000 live births. FAS should not be confused with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders (FASD), a condition which describes a continuum of permanent birth defects caused by maternal consumption of alcohol during pregnancy, which includes FAS, as well as other disorders, and which affects about 1% of live births in the US (i.e., about 10 cases per 1000 live births). The lifetime medical and social costs of FAS are estimated to be as high as US$800,000 per child born with the disorder. [Our emphasis.] Surveys found that in the United States, 10–15% of pregnant women report having recently drunk alcohol, and up to 30% drink alcohol at some point during pregnancy. The current recommendation of the Surgeon General of the United States, the British Department of Health and the Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council is to drink no alcohol at all during pregnancy. [Our emphasis.]

In 2014, a test case was brought by lawyers on behalf of a six-year-old girl. Three Court of Appeal judges were told that the 17-year-old mother was drinking ‘an enormous amount’ while pregnant, including a half-bottle of vodka and eight cans of strong lager a day. However, the judges ruled the girl was not entitled to criminal injuries compensation from her mother. From a newspaper article:2

The appeal judges unanimously ruled: ‘The central reason is that we have held that a mother who is pregnant and who drinks to excess despite knowledge of the potential harmful consequence to the child of doing so is not guilty of a criminal offence under our law if her child is subsequently born damaged as a result.’

If the appeal had succeeded it could have paved the way for pregnant women’s behaviour to be criminalised, according to the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (Bpas) and Birthrights. Lawyers for the child say that view was ‘misplaced speculation’.

Ann Furedi, chief executive of the Bpas, and Rebecca Schiller, co-chair of Birthrights, welcomed the court’s unanimous decision, saying: ‘This is an extremely important ruling for women everywhere. The UK’s highest courts have recognised that women must be able to make their own decisions about their pregnancies.’ [Our emphasis.]

In a later section in this manifesto, on the criminal justice system, we explore the issue of women often not being held accountable for their actions and inactions. If men were treated as leniently as women by the criminal justice system, five in every six men in British prisons wouldn’t be there.3 We can be sure that a 8

man who poisoned a foetus, leading to lifelong mental and physical damage, would serve a lengthy prison sentence – and rightly so.

The potentially damaging impact of alcohol consumption during pregnancy has long been known. At a time when women are asserting their rights to a greater involvement in society, and assuming more responsibility for social outcomes, we believe it is reasonable to hold women accountable not only for the physical health of their children – both unborn and born – but for the future mental health of the nation as a whole. J4MB rejects the notion that a woman can make unilateral decisions about her body when she is pregnant. The rights of a woman to self-determination must end where the rights of the unborn child begin.

In our view, drinking alcohol during pregnancy at a level that might lead to FAS amounts to inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH) on the unborn child. The Crown Prosecution Service issues guidelines for sentencing people convicted of this very serious crime against the person.1



The government should introduce legislation to prosecute women who have given birth to babies with FAS with inflicting GBH, and if found guilty, give them custodial sentences in line with CPS guidance, 9 – 16 years. 9



The law in the UK forbids all forms of female genital mutilation – FGM – including those which have less impact on females, than male genital mutilation – MGM – has on males. FGM is justifiably regarded as a human rights issue, and the law makes no accommodation for religious or cultural considerations.

Male genital mutilation – MGM – is a human rights issue too, but boys are not accorded the same rights to protection as girls. It is right to be concerned about girl’s rights not to have their genitals mutilated, and it is right to be concerned about boys’ rights not to have their genitals mutilated. If genital mutilation is illegal for girls, why shouldn’t it be illegal for boys? Everyone in a modern society should be accorded the same rights irrespective of gender.

With adults, it’s a different matter. It’s right that adults should be able to make decisions about their own bodies. Adults are in a position to give informed consent to surgical procedures, but babies and children aren’t in such a position.

In the vast majority of cases, genital mutilation is performed solely for cultural or religious reasons. This applies to boys as well as girls. Both MGM and FGM frequently lead to complications, however – sometimes resulting in death, from bleeding. Furthermore, it’s now widely accepted in medical circles that MGM doesn’t have the health benefits (for males or their partners) which were at one time widely claimed, and the practice is increasingly being opposed by people in religious traditions which have long required or recommended it.1








MGM can lead to numerous physical problems.2 MGM results in a considerable reduction in the sensitivity of the penis, reducing circumcised men’s pleasure during sex3,4 just as some forms of FGM reduce sexual pleasure in women. MGM can also lead to mental health problems, when men become resentful and angry at the assaults carried out on them when they were babies or children.

Quite apart from potential adverse physical and mental health consequences, a number of authorities are strongly opposed to MGM on ethical grounds. Brian D Earp, Research Fellow at the University of Oxford, Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, recently published, ‘Female genital mutilation (FGM) and male circumcision: Should there be a separate ethical discourse?’5 Glen Poole leads the organization ‘Helping Men’6 and runs the blog, ‘Ending Unnecessary Male Circumcision in the UK’,7 which expands this debate.


1. We call for the practice of MGM on individuals under the age of 18 to be made illegal other than on grounds of medical need.

2. All MGM operations should be registered, the reason(s) for them being performed recorded, and the related information passed to the Department of Health for publication.



3. Until MGM is made illegal, it should only be performed after the application of local anaesthetic. Only medical practitioners should be permitted to perform the operation, and only in registered medical premises.

4. Taking males under the age of 18 abroad to have MGM performed should be a criminal offence.

5. Men may choose voluntarily to have MGM performed on themselves any time after their 18th birthday.




For centuries, probably millennia, the family has been the basic building block of society. Traditionally, a man would marry and set up a new family unit, with him as the protector of his wife and their children, and take on sole responsible both morally and legally for their welfare.

The family was stable because it was for life. As Sir James Wilde (better known to posterity as Lord Penzance) put it in 1866, ‘Marriage, as understood in Christendom, may … be defined as the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others’.1 This concept is embodied in the traditional wedding service of the Church of England along with the statement that the purpose of marriage is for the procreation of children.

1 Hyde v Hyde and Woodmansee (1866) LR 1 P&D 130, 133

2 ‘The Family Way: A New Approach to Policy Making’, by Anna Coote, Harriet Harman, Patricia Hewitt. Feminist Review No. 41 (Summer, 1992), pp. 136-138 Published by: Palgrave Macmillan Journals Article Stable

3 UK All Divorces 1858-2011. United Kingdom Office for National Statistics

4 Statistical Bulletin ONS: Divorces in England and Wales. 2011. 2011 is the latest year for which we currently have data on this area.

5 UK Fact Proven Divorces: Men –vs- Women 1898-2011. United Kingdom Office for National Statistics


7 Reported in the Daily Telegraph, 24 November 2014. Provisional figures for 2011 suggest the mean age for women to marry had risen to 33.8 years. Marriages in England and Wales (Provisional), 2011, United Kingdom Office for National Statistics

No longer is this the case. In only forty years or so, the entire institution of the family, underpinned by a lifelong commitment to marriage, has been overturned. This was driven by feminist politicians such as Harriet Harman and Patricia Hewitt, who said in a report in 1992, ‘It cannot be assumed that men are bound to be an asset to family life, or that the presence of fathers in families is necessarily a means to social cohesion’.2

Today, a father as head of a family – a leader, provider, and protector – is fast becoming an anachronism. In fact, fatherhood is being systematically removed from society by governments of all political hues who espouse the Harman/Hewitt political doctrine, through the family courts in their decisions about child access after divorce, and through the widespread development of single parenting, usually single motherhood.

There has been a social shift away from marriage in the last 40 years. Divorce is at an all-time high, having increased by 800% since 19603 and almost half of all children now see their parents break up by the time they are 15. 45% of all marriages end in divorce4 and the current median duration of marriages is 11.5 years. Furthermore, women are the principal agents in ending their marriages – at more than three times the rate men are.5

Today, most couple arrangements amount to an uncommitted union of two equal but legally uncommitted partners, with an even worse prognosis than marriage of lasting until the children grow to adulthood. Fatherhood is deemed unnecessary by the state, so taxpayers are subsidizing sperm banks for single women and lesbians.6

The role of the mother has changed. Once the bearer and nurturer of young children until their emerging viability as teens, women now combine their child-bearing role with paid employment. This is leading to women marrying much later – in 2011, at 33,7 or not at all, choosing instead to become single mothers. 12

At the lower end of the social scale, women are choosing what has become known as ‘bureaugamy’– marriage to the state. They are having children with no intention of being married, and seeking the support of the state as the surrogate father. Given that men collectively pay 72% of the income tax collected in the UK, women are effectively replacing men as partners, with men as taxpayers.1


2 Sir Paul Coleridge, retired senior judge of the Family Courts Division, speaking at the launch of UK Marriage Week at the House of Commons on 6th February 2012, referred to 3.8 million children caught up in the family justice system, out of a total of around 12 million children under 17 in Britain at that time.

3 Lacey, R., Bartley, M., Pikhart, H., Stafford, M., Cable, N. and Coleman, L. (2012) “Parental separation and adult psychological distress: Evidence for the ‘reduced effect’ hypothesis?” Longitudinal and Life Course Studies, 3(3), pp. 359-368.

4 file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/Independent_inquiry_CSE_in_Rotherham.pdf ‘Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham 1997-2013’. Alexis Jay OBE. Section 8.2. Page 69

Children have effectively been removed from the nurturing bosom of the family and, funded by taxpayers’ money, placed under common social care and control in what amounts to state-sponsored institutional child care. Children’s social values are now being shaped by politically correct broader society rather than by their biological parents.

A third of UK children are (or have been) caught up in the family justice system in Britain,2 their care and upbringing often parcelled out between warring ex-spouses. Large numbers of them live with single parents – almost invariably their mothers, in de-facto matriarchies with little or no male influence and input into their lives.

Even greater numbers live in ‘blended families’: thrust unwillingly into a jumble of step-parents, half-brothers and half-sisters and assorted non-blood relatives and permanently deprived of their natural kin, and of their right to the patriarchal protection and inheritance of their biological fathers.

Findings from a recent study3 suggest that children who experience parental separation are more likely to report psychological distress when they reach their 30s than those who grow up in an intact family. Furthermore, the findings indicate that this association does not diminish over time across generations.

British society is now in turmoil, and the evidence is before us. The most recent scandal of child abuse in Rotherham shows us the effect of the absence of fathers from children’s lives. The victims were almost exclusively white girls who were in the care of the local authority. According to the official report on the scandal, many of them were labelled by the police and others as ‘undesirables’ and not worthy of police protection.4 From the report’s Executive Summary:

No one knows the true scale of child sexual exploitation (CSE) in Rotherham over the years. Our conservative estimate is that approximately 1,400 children were sexually exploited over the full Inquiry period, from 1997 to 2013.

In just over a third of cases, children affected by sexual exploitation were previously known to services because of child protection and neglect. It is hard to describe the appalling nature of the abuse that child victims suffered. They were raped by multiple perpetrators, trafficked to other towns and cities in the north of England, abducted, beaten, and intimidated. There were examples of children who had been doused in petrol and threatened with being set alight, threatened with guns, made to witness brutally violent rapes and threatened they would be next if they told anyone. Girls as young as 11 were raped by large numbers of male perpetrators. 13

The girls were clearly players in the phenomenon, many of them ‘swapping sex for food, cigarettes and affection’. Herbert Purdy wrote a powerful piece about the role fatherlessness played in the Rotherham scandal.1


2 O’Neil. R (2002), ‘Experiments in Living: the fatherless family’. CIVITAS – The Institute for the Study of Civil Society.


These girls were targeted by predatory men because there was nobody to protect them – even from themselves. They were in care, therefore by definition they had no family, especially a family with a father at its head, able to exercise authority under a generally understood rule of father’s authority, indeed an expectation that he had a right and a duty to protect them. Being in care might mean children are cared for, but it does not mean they are being cared about. The state cannot protect such children, only families with fathers can.

If anyone is in any doubt about this, they need only read the findings of Civitas (The Institute for the Study of Civil Society) whose report, ‘Experiments in living: the fatherless family’2 tells a sorry tale. Some headline facts from the report present a depressing litany of serious social problems, all of which are visible in society today:

– Lone mothers are poorer

– Non-resident biological fathers are at risk of losing contact with their children altogether

– Children living without their biological fathers are more likely to live in poverty and deprivation

Teenagers living without their biological fathers:

– Are more likely to experience problems with sexual health

– Are more likely to offend

– Are more likely to smoke

– Are more likely to drink alcohol

– Are more likely to take drugs

– Are more likely to play truant from school

– Are more likely to leave school at 16

Young adults who grow up not living with their biological fathers:

– Are less likely to attain qualifications

– Are more likely to experience unemployment

– Are more likely to have low incomes

– Are more likely be on income support

– Are more likely to offend and go to jail

– Are more likely to suffer from long term emotional and psychological problems

– Are more likely to have children outside marriage or outside any partnership

Girls who live in households without their biological fathers are at a further disadvantage. The start of a Time magazine article, published in 2010:3

Kids getting older younger – KGOY, as it’s known – is not just a cultural phenomenon. Girls are literally hitting puberty at a younger age, and alarming the health community, since early onset puberty is often associated with a higher incidence of breast cancer and of behavioral problems. Now a new study has 14

suggested that fathers may have a hand in how their daughters mature. Researchers from University of California, Berkeley, have discovered that girls who live in homes without a biological father physically mature sooner than those who live with their biological father.


We call for measures to rebuild strong families and restore fatherhood. It is our view that people need to re-covenant with marriage in our society and embrace again the principles of monogamy, parenting and fidelity. However, that means society needs to re-covenant with the people over what marriage really means.

1. The government needs to restore the tax advantages that married people used to enjoy. The sum of a couple’s married person’s tax allowances (MPTAs) should exceed the sum of the two individual tax allowances, and it should be made available in full to the breadwinning spouse for couples whose children are under secondary school age, should couples decide to take advantage of it, so as to encourage stay-at-home parenting. The cost of this to the state would be minimal when compared to the cost of subsidizing nursery school places for young children with working mothers. The signal it would send about the need for a stable home in which young children can be nurtured to become fully rounded adults, based on a committed marriage as a legal and ethical covenant for life, would be significant.

2. The government must abolish the disincentive to men to marry, namely the institutional punishment of men in divorce – along with the punishment of their children under the current system. We cover these areas in the sections on ‘Divorce’ and ‘Access to children after family breakdowns’.

3. The state should not be encouraging fatherless families, so it should stop subsidizing sperm banks for single women and lesbians.




The state education system has become ever more dominated by female teachers over many years. Between 1970 and 2010 the proportion of female primary and nursery school teachers rose from 77.4% to 87.4%. Over the same period, the proportion of female secondary school teachers rose from 45.4% to 62.3%.1







The state education system is run with the objective of advantaging girls over boys from their earliest years. In an interesting analysis, William Collins wrote of teachers’ pro-female bias starting to create a ‘gender education gap’ in 1987/88, when ‘O’ levels were replaced by GCSEs.2 The gap appeared for the first time that year concurrently with the introduction of continuous assessment by teachers. Predictably, the gap has led to women now taking the majority of university places (57% in 2012/13).

The long-term trend for there to be less physical activity in schools is known to have a negative impact on boys’ academic performance, contributing to the gap. A larger problem is the sexism of female teachers, which contributes even more. A study conducted by researchers at the London School of Economics found that boys have realised female teachers award lower grades to boys than to girls, they’re demotivated by this, and don’t work as hard.3 Girls don’t exhibit the same demotivation with male teachers.

The growing influence of feminists in education is a disturbing but predictable development, following the feminization of the teaching profession. Karen Woodall wrote an article on the matter, ‘Brainwashing Boys: Feminist Doctrine for the Early Years’, following a speech given by Yvette Cooper, Shadow Home Secretary.4

In July 2013 the Daily Mail published an article, ‘One in four boys is labelled as having special educational needs as state schools rake in funds’.5 The article starts with this:

Almost a quarter of boys in state schools are classed as having special educational needs, official figures reveal.

Nearly a fifth of all pupils are considered to have problems including learning difficulties, speech and language needs or a form of autism, the data shows, with twice as many boys as girls affected.

However, the results were met with incredulity by some education experts yesterday. Two years ago a damning Ofsted report said 450,000 children had been labelled SEN to cover up poor teaching. Schools can also claim extra funds if pupils are classed as having certain types of educational needs. And it is taken into account when assessing exam results – thus boosting a school’s standing in league tables.

Chris McGovern, of the Campaign for Real Education, who has been a headteacher in the state and private sectors, said: ‘It’s become an industry that has grown over the past 20 years at a rate that is impossible to believe. In my view, a lot of it is to do with children not getting good teaching. One of the criteria for classifying children as SEN is they can’t read when they get to seven or eight. That is often because of the way they have been taught. It also attracts extra funding, so it is a way of boosting a school’s budget.’

Campaign for Real Education6 (CRE) was formed in 1987 to press for higher standards and more parental choice in state education. In 2006 CRE published a remarkable article by Irina Tyk, then as now 16

headmistress of Holland House, an independent preparatory school for boys and girls between the ages of four and eleven. It was entitled, ‘Is education improving? If not, why not?’1 An extract:



The day education was placed firmly on the political agenda and drawn into the framework of politics, it lost a certain freedom. It now has to deliver society’s expectations and fulfil society’s needs rather than concern itself with training the mind and equipping children with tools of language and the necessary framework which will allow them to develop freedom of thought and an intellectual dimension. There used to be a firm belief in intellectual freedom, hard-won over the centuries. The school room was not expected to deliver according to the prescribed views of an establishment wedded to politics and power. Objective standards were respected and education did not, on the whole, follow anyone or anything blindly.

This is no longer the case. I would like to outline below those negative features that impede real progress and prevent good practice in schools from flourishing despite all that is said to the contrary. In brief, they may be listed as follows:

1. The feel-good factor

2. The belief that all forms of struggle are wrong

3. Judgment and criticism, unless it is positive, is bad for children

4. The ‘psychologising’ of education

5. The idea that ‘to try’ is the moral equivalent of ‘to succeed’

6. Education is of practical significance only; employability is its goal

7. Competition is bad

8. No one fails and no one is responsible for their own success or failure

CRE is not affiliated to any political party and is funded entirely by voluntary donations. It recently published an ‘education manifesto’ for the 2015 general election,2 here reproduced in full:

The UK is falling behind many other industrialised nations in terms of basic literacy and numeracy levels. According to the OECD our 16 to 24 year-olds are actually less competent in the 3Rs than the older generation of 55 to 65 year-olds. In the matter of education, successive governments have failed our young people. The Campaign for Real Education believes that the time has come for meaningful change. Our manifesto is addressed to all political parties. It proposes change in six key areas.

1. The Curriculum

Diversity and choice within the curriculum and between curricula will enhance the prospects of our education system meeting the needs of the 21st century. It will, also, ensure that the best emerges.

a. The current National Curriculum is a ‘one size fits all’ model based on age-related ‘key stages’. We propose a more flexible structure that will allow pupils to progress between ‘key stages’ in accordance with their ability, regardless of their age.

b. There should be more flexibility within the curriculum for children at secondary level to follow either a vocational or an academic pathway.

c. The non-compulsory status of the National Curriculum for academies, free schools and independent schools should be extended to all schools.

2. National Assessment

a. National tests at 7 and 11 should be simplified and take up less time to administer.

b. GCSE currently exercises what is, in effect, a monopoly at 16+ and its credibility has been undermined by grade inflation. It should be abolished and replaced by a dual-exam system leading to either vocational or to academic qualifications.

c. In order to prevent grade inflation public examinations at 16+ and 18+ should be ‘norm referenced’. This will mean that a specific percentage of candidates will attain each grade. The top 10% of candidates will be awarded an A-Grade, the next 20% a B Grade and so on.

3. Parental choice of school

Local communities, based on the jurisdiction areas of current local authorities, should determine, as far as is practical, the types of school that they wish to have within their locality. This should include, but not be confined to, comprehensive schools. Where a community wishes to have grammar schools, these 17

should be set up alongside high quality vocational schools. Bi-lateral schools, incorporating both academic and vocational sections should, also, be made an option.

4. Early Years and Infants

As resources allow, the spending priority for the education budget should be with younger children where it is likely to have the greatest impact and to make the greatest long-term difference.

5. Teacher Training and Ofsted

At the heart of the UK’s failure to match the best performing education systems around the world are our teacher trainers and Ofsted inspectors. For too long they have been promoting and enforcing failed teaching methodologies on our schools. A ‘root and branch’ reform is needed of the rules and regulations under which they operate. We must ensure that trainee teachers can experience, and be encouraged to use, a variety of teaching methods, including traditional ‘whole class’ teaching that is used widely in the high performing schools of the Asia-Pacific region.

6. Higher Education

Too many young people are being encouraged to undertake university degrees courses that lead to disillusion, high personal debt and to unemployment or under-employment. Post-school vocational training and apprenticeships should be greatly expanded and should build on post-14 vocational courses at school. Polytechnics should be restored to meet the demand for vocational courses.

We support the CRE manifesto in full, but would go further. We believe there’s a pressing need for boys-only schools with all-male teaching staffs. We were persuaded by the analysis in an article by Herbert Purdy, ‘The case for all-male education’.1





We also take issue with governments continuing to spend large amounts of taxpayers’ money ‘encouraging’ girls and young women into STEMM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics and medicine) subjects and careers. These subjects were historically the routes to careers for many young men, yet the government is spending £30 million ‘encouraging’ women into engineering careers,2 although women have for decades expressed little interest in engineering as a career choice. At Brunel University, women undertaking MSc courses in engineering receive sponsorships worth £22,750 denied to their male colleagues.3

Male unemployment has been higher than female unemployment for many years, yet the government is increasing male unemployment by depriving young men of careers in STEMM subjects. Suicide is the leading cause of death of men under 50 years of age, and unemployment is known to be a major risk factor for men. 26% of men between the ages of 20 and 34 who die have committed suicide, compared to 13% of women in the same age band.4


1. The government should terminate programmes and withdraw guidelines designed to create ‘desired’ gender outcomes, e.g. to increase the proportion of girls and young women studying STEMM subjects. Boys and girls, and in turn young men and women, should be free to choose whatever subjects they wish to study, without being subjected to politically-motivated influences or tempted with politically-motivated incentives.

2. The CRE election manifesto should be implemented in full, and the option of all-boy schools with all-male teaching staffs introduced for those communities that want them.




In September 2014 the ONS reported the following statistics on male and female employment, illustrating the persistence of the historical pattern of more men than women working full-time, and more women than men working part-time:1


2 Full-time employment Part-time employment
Men 14,240,000 2,130,000
Women 8,130,000 6,100,000
Total 22,370,000 8,230,000



This Group of Anti-Feminist Men Is Banishing Women from Their Lives

September 25, 2015

A MGTOW protester in Edmonton, Alberta. Screenshot via YouTube

All over the world, straight men are making the conscious decision not to be involved with women.

This isn’t a decision in any sort of metaphorical sense. These men are literally cutting women out of their lives, completely. It’s not a spiritual choice—like becoming ordained as a Catholic priest—nor is it a socioeconomic problem, like Japan’s herbivore men. It is more of an ideological celibacy, one that crosses both national borders and religious divides. And the basic reason is the slow crawl toward gender equality.

They are called Men Going Their Own Way (or MGTOW, pronounced “mig-tow”) and they have a serious problem with feminism. To them, the feminist movement has all but ruined our society, and it just doesn’t make sense to participate in the dating game because women have been, in their eyes, programmed to ruin a man’s life. Around every corner they seem to see one-dimensional women who are just out to take their well-earned money and stick them with kids who aren’t theirs.

Also false rape accusations: They are fucking terrified of those gosh-darn prevalent false rape accusations.

At first glance, it’s easy to lump MGTOW in with typical Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs) who also believe that female oppression is a myth and that it’s actually males who are oppressed—but that’s not the case. The two groups differ significantly in how they make sure those tricky, tricky women don’t pull any of their devious tactics. While MRAs are out to fix the problem through action and activism, members of MGTOW hold self-preservation above all else, and because of this the majority of the community seems to have decided to bow out.

They’ve had enough, and they’re taking their balls and going home.

I first came across this story while reporting on Edmonton, Alberta’s Slut Walk earlier this year. There was a young-ish Canadian man protesting the event in a superhero/cheerleader costume, the initials MGTOW emblazoned across his chest. He held signs that said “Women are programmed to ruin men’s lives” and “Feminism is a refuge for woman’s [sic] sexual failure.”

He didn’t seem angry. If I were to play armchair psychologist, I thought he just looked sad.

A major rule with Men Going Their Own Way is that no women are allowed in the community—something that differs from MRAs. The group also has a penchant for anti-Big Government rhetoric, but, in all honesty, that isn’t the most surprising thing in the world. Also, one can’t simply proclaim to be a MGTOW. There are stages. In fact, numerous MGTOWs have proposed that members of the community can track their growth with something called “The Four Levels of MGTOW.”

  • Level 0 – Situational Awareness: the member has “taken the red pill” and embraces the idea that gender equality is a lie and propaganda.
  • Level 1 – Rejection of Long-Term Relationships: the man rejects long-term relationships but will still partake in short-term relationships and sexual encounters.
  • Level 2 – Rejection of Short-Term Relationships: the member won’t participate in hook-ups or any form of short-term or sexual relationships.
  • Level 3 – Economic Disengagement: a member at this stage refuses to earn more money than is necessary for sustaining life. He views the government as tyrannical and is trying to actively drain money from the bureaucrats.
  • Level 4 – Societal Disengagement: this is as far as a mainstream MGTOW can go. Here the man refuses to interact with society.

Few members will ever reach level four, and the majority seem to float somewhere between the second and third level. But even if they don’t go full-out, most members will see themselves cut off from most “unneeded” contact with women, and in extreme cases, even alienate themselves from their friends and family.

Photo via Facebook group MGTOW – Men Going Their Own Way

“All my friends are MGTOW, I bond with no other, the smell of cunt on a man’s breath is sickening! Their [sic] unable to sustain a logical mind when their thoughts are all wrapped up in pussy,” wrote MG-ɹǝʍo┴, a regular on

A large portion of MGTOWs will not in any way participate in long- or short-term relationships. They preach using their lives for “productive pursuits” (work, I guess?) and get companionship from brotherhood. There’s a problem, though: your sexual drive isn’t something you can just turn off. A libido just can’t be satisfied, no matter how hard you try woodworking and hanging with your bros.

So how do MGTOWs get their rocks off? There are numerous tactics discussed on the forum, their largest stomping ground. Some men try to remedy this by attempting one night stands, others rely solely on masturbation, and some routinely visit sex workers. The old adage “You don’t pay for the sex, you pay them to leave” is a rather popular (and gross) sentiment on the forums.

“For me, it’s escorts or play the dating game,” one user wrote. ” I’m not wasting my time with the dating game and I’m not interested in a life of celibacy right now.”

Celibacy, which they refer to as Men Going Monk, is another option discussed routinely on the forum especially among the devout going their own way. For the extremely religious, being MGTOW causes a little bit of a conundrum. You can’t have sex out of marriage, but you have also vowed not to get married, so you’re essentially up virgin’s creek without a paddle. Going monk isn’t just for the religious—some men have also talked themselves into celibacy because they can’t have sex without love but can never love a woman.

“Myself, I hate getting associated with women in any form, be it relationships or sex, moreover i [sic] can’t have sex with a girl that i don’t love,” wrote forum user rorick. “I’m kind of old school here, or may be that is how i was born. Therefore for me to have sex i need to love her, so to love a girl i should throw away all my logical thinking and turn myself into a mangina, which i never wanted to be, hence i stayed virgin.”

Do yourself a favor and try not to think about it too hard.

Photo via Facebook group MGTOW – Men Going Their Own Way

Again, like Men’s Rights Activists, some followers made their way to the MGTOW community out of completely spiteful reasons, but others have found themselves in the group after tough situations. Some have lost their kids in a custody battle and others have had their lives shredded by divorce proceedings. Some of these men credit the brotherhood they find within MGTOW as the catalyst that stopped them from ending their lives.

But most of it is pretty out there. Many MRAs and MGTOW have taken to calling themselves “red pillers.” It comes from the scene in The Matrix in which Morpheus offers Neo a red pill and a blue one. “You take the red pill—you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes,” Morpheus tells the Chosen One. In what they deem a broken system they are Neo, messiah complex (possibly) aside, and in their minds they are the only ones who see the world clearly. Everyone but themselves and their brethren are blinded by the “feminist agenda” and are a “goddamn blue pill” or, my personal favorite, a “mangina.”

Once you move past the basic anti-feminist/blue pill rhetoric, any major similarities between MRAs and MGTOW come to an end. Their actions differ hugely. While the MRA’s victim complex parlays itself into a loud and screechy anger, a MGTOW’s anger is quiet and seething. While talking to a founder of, he said that while MRAs try to “fight fire with fire,” MGTOW prefer to “fight it with water.”

“Gay rights is a movement, feminism is a movement, men’s rights activism is a movement,” Oz, a founder of, explained to VICE (on behalf of himself and the website, not the movement as a whole).

“Those things thrive and their success depends on collecting an army of people and them all agreeing on a common goal, and they have parades or whatever it is to unite. This is nothing like this,” he said.

“It’s really important that we make that distinction.”

There is also a distinction between the way groups in the “manosphere,” a term for the overarching community, treat their comrades in arms in regard to their success and failures with women. One MGTOW forum user, Megachris%, wrote of the difference between and other sites when he was deciding where to spend his time and where the blame falls:

“While both sites were telling me it’s because it’s [sic] merely because she’s not interested in me, THIS page was telling me it’s because women are deceptive and will lie to get out of anything just because that’s their nature,” he wrote. “You guys were honest and to the point, and ‘lovingly’ blunt (which I appreciate, by the way). The other site instead focused on telling me ‘it’s because you’re ugly.'”

He went on to write, “This site is more ‘it’s not you, it’s women that are the problem. You do whatever YOU want to do to better yourself. Disregard those wenches.'”

MRAs haven’t taken kindly to MGTOW culling their members with this kind of talk, so there exists an animosity between the two. But there’s also yet another men’s group that views them as a second-class movement: pick-up artists. The “hyper-masculine” culture of pick-up artists just doesn’t mesh with men who have decided to no longer pursue women. An article on Return of Kings, a PUA website, calls MGTOW “The creeping cult of male loserdom” and goes on to disparage the community.

“As it exists now, MGTOW has become a lonely hearts’ club for the refuse of the male species,” wrote Matt Forney, the article’s author. “Not only are most Virgins Going Their Own Way personally repellent losers, their ‘philosophy’ is completely wrongheaded.”

The “manosphere” snake is starting to eat itself.

The MGTOW community’s history is murky, but it was most likely birthed in the mid to early 2000s by two men who go by the online aliases of Solaris and Ragnar. A little over a decade ago a MGTOW manifesto was drafted.

This original manifesto stands in stark contrast to the definition that is currently offered by It begins with the declaration, “The goal is to instill [sic] masculinity in men, femininity in women, and work toward limited government!” before adding that in order for men to be masculine, women must first lose their masculine traits. It then goes on to say, “Women have other qualities is [sic] not interesting to men because we don’t need them! Femininity will be the price women pay for enjoying masculinity in men.”

Since that time, the movement has exploded in westernized English-speaking countries such as the US, Canada, Australia, and the UK. According to, the epicenter of men going their own way is Toronto because the center of the Canadian universe “is the worst city in the world if you are a man.” The community has quietly flown under the radar of the public for some time now, only being publicized by right wing publication Breitbart, who deemed the movement the “Sexodous,” and Info Wars, a website run by conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. (Both articles had a significant anti-feminist lean.)

However, MGTOW isn’t the revolutionary movement many of its followers hold it up to be, nor is it even a new concept. Throughout the ages, similar movements have popped up as pushback any time feminism managed a win. Communities similar to MGTOW and MRAs were around during the suffragist movement, when women began entering the workforce, and so on. In the 80s and 90s, the mythopoetic men’s movement developed as a response to the second wave of feminism.

The cycle is a reactionary one.

Dr. Tristan Bridges is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at the College of Brockport and works with the scholarly journal Men, Masculinities, and Methodologies. Bridges’s work deals in depth with gender issues specifically focused on masculinity. I asked him to explain MGTOW and the history of similar movements from a scholar’s position.

“When we look at the historical record that’s what it shows: Men start to get pissed off and want to talk about masculinity and change masculinity right after there has been some sort of transformation in femininity,” Bridges said. “When these kinds of things come up, I think historians would say something significant has happened with respect to gender inequality that men are feeling their position of privilege as challenged and this is a cultural reaction that takes place after that happens.”

There are numerous factors at play here and another major one possibly driving the movement is “gender vertigo.” This is a concept put forward by Barbara Risman that deals with gender expectations and ties into the sense that we don’t really know what it means to be masculine anymore.

But it’s hard to listen to any concerns—valid or otherwise—coming from the “manosphere” when these groups employ such disrespectful and, at times, hateful rhetoric.

I don’t know what it means to be masculine either, but I am pretty sure it doesn’t involve five levels of excommunicating women from their lives.

Follow Mack Lamoureux on Twitter.