Author: Peter Wright
This
article
was
originally
published
in
2014.
–
Eds.
*
*
*
In
this
piece
I’ll
be
looking
at
the
opposite
of
MGTOW,
at
what
MGTOW
isn’t,
in
order
to
throw
MGTOW
into
sharp
relief
against
impostors.
Naturally,
this
is
my
own
take,
one
of
numerous
that
abound
on
the
Internet
and
one
that
comes
with
no
special
authority
and
no
assumption
that
I
speak
for
others.
By
now
many
are
familiar
with
the
concept
of
male
self-determination
as
a
basic
working
definition
for
MGTOW.
Self-determination
is
the
practice
whereby
a
man
makes
choices
and
decisions
based
on
his
own
preferences
and
interests,
monitors
and
regulates
his
own
actions,
and
is
generally
self-directing.
Simple
enough.
That
leads
to
a
consideration
of
the
opposite
of
male
self-determination,
i.e., determination
of
self
by
other (DOSBO).
Determination
of
self
by
other
limits
the
definition
of
MGTOW
and
in
one
stroke
negates
the
claim
that
MGTOW
can
mean
anything
a
person
wants
it
to
mean.
By
applying
the
DOSBO
rule,
no
person
can
qualify
as
a
MGHOW
if
he
hands
over
a
significant
amount
of
his
sovereignty
to
another
entity.
Here
are
some
examples
illustrating
DOSBO
in
action.
Example
1:
Pro-feminist
men
On
the
face
of
it,
we
might
assume
pro-feminist
men
are
self-determined
for
having
made
a
choice
to
be
led
by
the
spirit
and
letter
of
feminism.
It
hardly
needs
saying
that
this
amounts
to
a
false
assumption.
The
only
self-determined
decision
such
men
make
is
an
initial
one
to
give
up
self-determination
altogether
in
favor
of
determination
of
self
by
other—which
is,
of
course,
the
antithesis
of
self-determination
and
thereby
disqualifies
MGTOW
status
for
such
men
according
to
the
DOSBO
yardstick.
Example
2:
Married
men
This
example
is
a
bit
trickier
because
it
raises
the
question
of
whether
the
DOSBO
factor
is actual or
merely potential for
a
particular
married
man.
The
question
to
ask
about
such
a
man
is
this:
Is
he
entering
the
marriage
to
willfully
participate
in
a
gynocentric
charade?
Sadly,
the
vast
majority
of
men
are
doing
precisely
that,
which
indicates
that
the
DOSBO
factor
is actual—such
a
man
cannot
qualify
as
MGTOW
under
this
definition
because
he
is
ceding
his
self-determination
to
the
will
of
women
and
the
state.
Alternatively,
if
a
man
undertakes
to
symbolize
his
love
through
the
ritual
of
marriage
while
at
the
same
time
assuming
he’s
rejecting
the
gynocentric
aspect
imposed
by
the
state,
can
that
man
call
himself
a
MGHOW
while
the
DOSBO
factor
looms
in potential due
to
his
wife’s
latent
legal
power?
Is
this
man,
rare
as
he
may
be,
a
MGHOW?
This
is
where
I
stop
short
of
saying
he
absolutely
cannot
be—although
I
would
certainly
call
him
foolhardy
if
he
entered
a
marriage
while
knowing
the
enormous
risks
involved.
He
is actually
a
MGHOW
in
behavior
because
he
is
temporarily
“doing
his
own
thing”
with
his
wife’s
momentary
blessing,
but
he
is
potentially a
man
whose
life
can
be
determined
by
his
wife
and
the
government
if
she
so
chooses.
While
I
look
at
what
is
actual
instead
of
what
is
potential,
I’m
forced
to
conclude
that
he
retains
some
semblance
of
a
MGHOW.
Example
3:
Traditionalists
Like
marriage, traditionalism needs
defining
because
not
all
traditionalism
is
the
same—it
is
not
all
gynocentric.
Traditionalism
is
a
big
basket
of
historical
practices
that
may
or
may
not
be
limiting
of
male
self-determination.
To
simply
say
“All
tradition
is
bad
for
men”
is
a
blunt
instrument
that
begs
debunking.
A
better
approach
might
be
to
ask,
Which
aspects
of
traditionalism
are
limiting
to
male
freedoms?
“Traditional
gender
roles”
is
a
more
precise
name
for
the
problem,
although
it
too
suffers
from
lack
of
discrimination.
Is
it some traditional
gender
roles, most traditional
gender
roles,
or all traditional
gender
roles
that
are
bad?
Was
it
bad
for
men
to
have
the
freedom
to
enjoy
male-only
fraternal
organizations
such
as
the
Elks,
Masons,
Golden
Fleece,
and
others,1 or
was
it
oppressive
for
men
to
have
male-only
drinking
saloons,
pool
halls,
or
sporting
clubs?
These
too
were
the
result
of
traditional
gender
divisions.
To
use
a
more
controversial
example,
was
it
limiting
of
male
self-determination
for
a
woman
to
stay
home
during
the
first
two
years
after
giving
birth
(not
beyond!)
to
breast-feed
while
the
husband
worked?
Or
to
take
this
further,
is
it
limiting
for
a
couple
of
today
to
employ
the
same
traditional
role
division,
but reversed,
whereby
the
father
stays
at
home
and
bottle-feeds
a
baby
while
the
woman
works
full-time?
Are
not
some
aspects
of
role-division
benign?
While
I
leave
the
answer
to
these
questions
open,
I’m
going
to
suggest
that
a
much
more
precise
term
than
either
“traditionalism”
or
“traditional
gender
roles”
would
be traditional
gynocentrism.
Gynocentrism
is
the
main
perpetrator
in
limiting
male
freedom,
and
for
that
reason
it
is
more
precise
to
finger
the
gynocentric
thread
of
traditionalism.
Moving
beyond
subjectivism
As
a
limiting
principle,
DOSBO
delivers
MGTOW
from
the
meaninglessness
of
subjectivism,
delivers
it
from
the
claim
that
MGTOW
has
no
inherent
meaning,
or
that
it
can
mean
whatever
the
hell
a
person
wants
it
to
mean.
It
gives
a
precise
meaning
with
real
meta
ideological
commitments.
Whether
or
not
DOSBO
proves
of
wider
value
is
not
important,
but
it
will
hopefully
stimulate
discussion
about
what
precisely
are
the
things
that
all
MGTOW
hold
in
common.
Notes
[1] Edward
Ward, The
Secret
History
of
Clubs,
published
1709.
[This
is
one
of
hundreds
of
titles
detailing
traditional
male
clubs,
guilds,
and
fraternities.
The
examples
given
show
that
the
clubs
were
riotous
places
of
laughter,
male
bonding,
drinking,
inventing
and
collaborating
on
various
projects,
and
above
all
were
places
to
enjoy
a
little
self-chosen
freedom.
Married
and
bachelor
men
alike
participated,
and
in
the
majority
of
clubs
no
women
were
allowed
to
set
foot].
Feature
image
by James
Cridland
Original Story on AVFM
These stories are from AVoiceForMen.com.
(Changing the cultural narrative)