Author: Luigi Logan (aka Fidelbogen)
In
recent
times,
a
cultural
schism
has
appeared
between
two
prominent
lobes
of
the
non-feminist
revolution:
on
the
one
side
the
Men
Going
Their
Own
Way
sector,
and
on
the
other,
the
sector
loosely
grouped
around
A
Voice
for
Men.
The
tension
between
these
sectors
has
grown
steadily
for
two
or
three
years,
but
seems
to
have
escalated
sharply
in
the
past
several
months.
I
don’t
want
to
say
either
too
much
or
too
little,
but
I’d
like
to
be
as
impartial
as
I
can
while
hopefully
adding
something
original.
Yes,
many
of
the
ideas
sketched
here
will
be
uniquely
my
own,
but
hey…why
not?
The
bone
of
contention
seems
to
be
a
fear,
within
the
MGTOW
sector,
that
the
AVfM
sector
is
yielding
to
something
called
“traditionalism”.
So
to
break
this
down
further:
what
is
traditionalism?
I
will
base
my
talk
on
what
people
appear
to
mean
by
that
word.
Firstly:
many
in
the
MGTOW
sector
have
a
settled
conviction
that
married
men
cannot
belong
to
what
they
consider
their
“movement”.
So
stubborn
is
their
conviction,
that
to
question
it
borders
on
heresy.
Despite
this,
the
leading
lights
of
the
AVfM
sector
do
make
bold
to
be
heretical,
contending
that
married
men
can
indeed
partake
of
MGTOW.
Secondly:
many
in
the
MGTOW
sector
have
voiced
unease
at
a
percieved
traditionalism
in
certain
members
of
the
AVfM
sector.
In
their
view,
this
foreshadows
a
return
to
old-school
gynocentric
marriage
along
with
old-fangled
sex
roles
—
and
that
is
a
prospect
which
repels
them.
The
foregoing
has
spotlighted
the
exact
“traditionalism”
which
MGTOW
sectarians
believe
is
creeping
into
the
AVfM
community.
It
is
what
they
generally
mean
when
they
toss
that
word
around.
That
said,
why
should
MGTOW
sectarians
even
give
a
toot
if
AVfM
happens
to
turn
“traditional”?
Because
AVfM
still
purports
to
have
an
interest
in
and
obligation
to
the
greater
MGTOW
enterprise,
and
so
long
as
it
does,
the
question
of
who
“owns”
MGTOW
will
remain
unsettled.
In
other
words,
the
question
of
MGTOW
identity
will
remain
unsettled.
(“Identity”
in
this
case
equates
to
ownership).
The
MGTOW
sectarians
see
MGTOW
as
a
social
refuge.
They
fear
that
if
they
admit
married
men
to
their
fellowship,
a
camel’s
nose
effect
will
drive
them
out
of
their
own
tent.
That
is
why
control
of
MGTOW
identity
(ownership)
is
important
to
them:
to
keep
the
gynocentric
traditionalist
camel
out
of
their
tent.
There
you
have
it:
the
two
sides
are
battling
for
the
MGTOW
identity
like
two
parties
contesting
for
a
wishbone.
I
am
aware,
however,
that
AVfM
never
wished
for
such
a
battle
–
it
just
came
to
them.
So
has
it
occurred
to
anybody
that
nobody
really
owns
the
MGTOW
identity
at
all,
and
never
will?
Come
to
that,
has
it
occurred
to
anybody
to
wonder
if
there
even
IS
a
MGTOW
identity?
I
leave
those
questions
open,
but
I’ll
get
back
to
them
later.
For
now,
I
pose
a
singular
query:
“What
is
MGTOW?”
—
and
until
we
have
sorted
that
one
out,
we
needn’t
hope
to
sort
out
the
tangled
mess
we’ve
talked
about
so
far.
All
right,
so
what
is
MGTOW?
MGTOW
is
an
acronym
that
stands
for
“men
going
their
own
way”.
That
phrase
evokes
men
walking
down
a
road
they
have
freely
chosen
—
literally,
“their
own
way”.
In
the
context
of
history,
MGTOW
signifies
the
objective
political
reality
where
men,
as
a
class,
currently
find
themselves.
Under
the
system
of
feminist
innovation
which
now
predominates,
men
are
second-class
citizens.
Moreover,
this
reality
is
not
static:
it
promises
to
get
worse
when
feminist
innovation
develops
further.
I
say
all
of
this
with
the
understanding
that
my
target
audience
already
knows
why
men
are
second-class
citizens.
They
have
covered
that
ground
as
thoroughly
as
I
have,
so
I
needn’t
waste
time
explaining
it
to
them.
Returning
to
our
theme:
under
such
conditions,
the
system
of
social
obligation
which
formerly
bound
men
either
to
women
or
to
society
as
a
whole,
is
voided
of
moral
authority.
Hence
it
may,
at
individual
discretion,
be
nullifed.
Briefly
then,
MGTOW
signifies
the
death
of
the
social
contract
and
the
liberation
of
all
males
into
a
system
of
individual
agency
where
they
may
form
ad
hoc
social
contracts
as
they
see
fit.
Such
is
the
objective
reality
of
history
—
one
might
wish
it
otherwise,
but
that
is
how
things
are.
Note
however,
that
MGTOW
signifies
merely
freedom,
leaving
open
the
question
of
what
should
be
done
with
it.
Accordingly,
we
use
“MGTOW”
in
a
political
or
world-historic
way,
and
would
stipulate
that
the
realm
of
personal
relations
does
not
fall
within
its
purview.
That
is
to
say,
there
is
no
MGTOW
manual
to
specify
how
any
man
should
govern
that
aspect
of
his
life.
So
MGTOW
is
rooted
in
the
political,
not
the
personal
—
although
it
certainly
has
implications
for
the
personal.
In
itself,
MGTOW
is
not
a
clique,
club,
cult,
coterie
or
tribe
of
any
sort
—
and
nothing
in
the
present
statement
should
be
taken
to
imply
this.
So
it
is
incorrect
to
attach
the
indefinite
article
and
speak
of
the
individual
as
“a”
MGTOW,
since
that
implies
club
membership.
Similarly,
MGTOW
is
not
a
personal
identity
dog-tag
—
so
again,
to
call
yourself
“a”
MGTOW,
is
not
a
very
MGTOW
move
at
all.
The
phrase
“a
MGTOW”
is
a
flawed
grammatical
construction
because
“MGTOW”
is
an
abstract
noun,
and
no
man
is
identical
with
an
abstract
noun.
You
could,
of
course,
style
yourself
more
verbosely
as
a
man
“who
goes
his
own
way”,
but
that
is
rather
a
natural
descriptor
than
an
appellative
tag.
Also,
nobody,
and
no
group,
has
any
patent
on
such
a
phrase.
In
the
end,
MGTOW
is
no
more
than
1.)
a
principle
or
force
of
history,
and
2.)
a
high-altitude
situation
map
of
the
male
condition.
What
we
have
sketched
here
is
the
MGTOW
core
minimum.
Anything
less
would
insufficiently
describe
MGTOW,
and
anything
more
would
be
bells
and
whistles.
So
I
turn
again
to
the
question
of
MGTOW
identity
or
ownership.
Now
that
we
have
inventoried
what
makes
MGTOW
fundamentally
MGTOW,
we
may
interrogate
this
more
to
the
purpose.
Since
MGTOW
is
a
demographic
phenomenon,
nobody
owns
it.
It
simply
“is”.
So
ultimately,
the
MGTOW
principle
itself
“goes
its
own
way”.
It
springs
from
the
reality
of
history,
and
you
either
tap
into
it
or
you
don’t.
It
is
like
an
ocean
wave
that
beckons
you
to
“hang
ten”
and
be
powerfully
carried
along,
but
it
does
not
belong
to
you.
It
paradoxically
serves
but
will
not
be
commanded,
and
you
cannot
understand
it
otherwise.
So
you
are
free
to
form
all
the
MGTOW
clubs
you
wish,
with
membership
rules
as
you
see
fit.
But
keep
in
mind
that
“MGTOW”
doesn’t
belong
to
your
club
alone.
You
are
not,
in
or
of
yourselves,
“MGTOW”.
You
are
not
identical
with
that
abstract
noun.
You
are
simply
a
group
of
people
surfing
on
the
wave
of
history,
organized
around
the
MGTOW
principle
in
a
manner
that
suits
you.
And
that
is
fine.
That
is
good.
That
is
your
right.
But
never
forget
that
the
MGTOW
principle
is
something
far
bigger
than
you,
and
bigger
than
all
of
us.
Even
so,
I
think
there
is
an
over-arching
philosophical
mandate
to
all
of
this,
and
I
have
tried
to
catch
a
glimmer
of
it
here.
I
should
add
that
I
roundly
applaud
the
marriage
strike
both
as
a
strategy
for
male
survival
and
as
a
political
leveraging
tool
to
extort
proper
treatment
of
the
male
population.
So,
fear
not:
you
can
swear
off
marriage
and
all
relations
with
women,
and
you
will
have
my
blessing
every
step
of
the
way.
I
mean,
hey,
admit
it.
That’s
the
main
thing
you’re
really
worried
about,
right?
However,
the
point
where
I
go
my
own
way
is
the
idea
that
the
marriage
strike
makes
the
principal
focus
for
MGTOW-related
thought,
rhetoric
or
action.
No,
I
see
the
marriage
strike
as
merely
a
subplot,
or
rather,
one
of
many
projects
that
could
manifest
the
MGTOW
principle
as
a
force
in
history.
Here’s
a
related
point
that
I
don’t
want
to
omit:
male
solidarity
should
be
grounded
in
the
political
and
world-historic
side
of
things.
It
should
NOT
be
centered
on
personal
frustrations
about
women
and
relationships.
The
latter,
if
voiced
within
earshot
of
the
general
public,
sets
you
up
to
be
the
butt
of
mockery.
What’s
more,
it
sounds
like
a
form
of
gynocentrism
.
.
doesn’t
it?
Very
well.
So
.
.
.
if
a
married
man
would
express
SOLIDARITY
with
MGTOW,
who’s
to
tell
him
that
he
mustn’t
do
that?
Furthermore,
if
by
personal
genius
or
luck-of-the-draw
he
finds
the
perfect
mate
and
succeeds
wildly
at
self-realization
despite
her
presence,
then
is
he
not
well
and
truly
“going
his
own
way”?
Can
you
plausibly
argue
otherwise?
Certainly
such
a
man
has
found
his
own
path.
So
how
if
he
literally
calls
himself
“a
MGTOW”,
and
starts
a
“MGTOW”
website,
and
a
“MGTOW”
publishing
company,
and
paints
a
giant
MGTOW
logo
on
his
house
—
what
of
that?
Would
you
send
the
One
True
MGTOW
Posse
to
burn
that
pretender
down?
I
think
not.
So
who
are
you
to
tell
this
man
he
doesn’t
pertain
to
“MGTOW”?
On
what
authority
do
you
speak?
Yours,
apparently.
But
what
about
his?
You
reckon
he
gives
one
cold
spit
about
your
presumed
authority,
and
what
you
think?
And
why
should
he?
In
the
end,
all
that
matters
is
that
a
man
can
make
the
MGTOW
principle
work
for
him
in
his
own
life
according
to
his
innovative
genius.
After
all,
a
man
going
his
own
way
goes
his
OWN
way,
does
he
not?
And
does
such
a
man
make
social
arrangements
with
other
men,
for
the
sake
of
mutual
benefit?
You
bet
he
does!
In
fact,
oddly
enough,
even
men
who
only
wish
to
be
left
alone,
can
“stick
together”.
But
none
of
that
in
itself
is
MGTOW.
It
is
only
a
manifestation
of
MGTOW
—
a
way
of
harnessing
the
MGTOW
principle
and
putting
it
to
work.
So
I
renounce
the
indefinite
article.
I
am
not
“a”
MGTOW,
nor
do
I
belong
to
any
club
bearing
that
name.
I
am
simply
a
respecter
of
the
MGTOW
principle
as
a
force
in
history.
To
summarize:
“MGTOW”
is
not
an
identity,
but
merely
a
fact.
Meanwhile,
the
MGTOW
sectarians
are
facing
a
boundary
crisis.
They
are
worried
about
their
little
tent,
while
forgetting
that
MGTOW
is
a
big
tent.
Their
fears
are
groundless,
for
they
can
always
pitch
any
little
tent
they
want
to
pitch,
and
decide
who
gets
in
or
who
doesn’t.
But
they
must
understand
that
there
is
plenty
of
MGTOW
to
go
around,
and
that
for
heaven’s
sake,
nobody
wants
to
steal
their
piece
of
the
action!
So,
hey
maaaan!
Like…don’t
bogart
that
MGTOW,
man!
Pass
it
around!
Original Story on AVFM
These stories are from AVoiceForMen.com.
(Changing the cultural narrative)