I just did a Google News search for “MGTOW” (keyword) articles appearing in the last week, and was startled to see that there are eleven of them… but only two them are in English. The rest are in an assortment of other languages, not a few of which I don’t even recognize, but none apparently predominating.
Some of this is no doubt explained by the press in the United States being obsessed with the upcoming elections, but US presidential elections are world news, and the United States is not the only country speaking English. The elections alone would not seem to explain why approximately 95% of the world’s current news about MGTOW is in other languages.
We seem to be oscillating between the English-language news ridiculing and ignoring MGTOW, while at the same time my sense of it is that more and more men have at least heard of it, somehow. Apparently other cultures feel less threatened by the phenomenon, or perhaps their news media is just less in lock-step in dealing with it.
– Robert the Wombat
The femanist controlled MSM most definitely knows about MGTOW and it scares the bejesus out of them. They don’t report on it often because if MGTOW goes mainstream (and it soon will) their gravy train grinds to a halt. What they do report is nothing more than attacks motivated by fear.
My prediction is that the first televised mention of MGTOW will be by Fox News in a “man up” style attack or CNN doing a report on an epidemic of masturbation type of attack. Either way, when they attack us over the airways we will then be on the verge of going mainstream. I can’t wait for it!
Thanks for your comments.
It’s come very close to that already. I don’t think FOX has ever addressed MGTOW under that name, but they have addressed related issues a few times, notably in the interview of Dr. Helen Smith, Phd. about her book Men on Strike.
Tucker Carlson (I think it was) has responded defensively and even angrily more than once to the issue of men not wanting to get married. He makes it clear that in his value system his identity and male identity in general is all about “taking responsibility” for others, that all men, by his definition, need to “man up” and “take responsibility” for a woman and children to fulfill their proper roles and destinies.
Maybe it’s my own anti-authoritarian bias, but that sounds more like the identity of a domineering bully.
Maybe that was an appropriate attitude 100 or 200 years ago (and maybe not), but it completely ignores the realities that we’re faced with today. A significant and increasing percentage of women don’t want any man to take “responsibility” for them (can’t blame them for that, I wouldn’t either) and either don’t need it because they are self-sufficient (admirable) or, often, because they have somehow defined “independence” as complete dependence on government (Other People’s Tax Money, OPTM).
On the other hand there are a great many women, especially younger women, who want men to TRY to fill traditional roles because they really only value men as a means of support. They have a man-shaped role open in their lives, and so long as their very specific requirements are met they don’t care much which man meets them. He’ll be tolerated until they get bored or annoyed and then he’ll be transformed into government-supplied or government-enforced income without the hassle of his presence.
In workplace conversations with women (back before even breathing a word on these subjects would get you fired and/or sued), I found women to be startlingly frank about this when questioned closely and actually listened to. Often, if you listened closely to her words, a woman who was upset about a breakup was really just upset about all her elaborate plans being set back. It really had nothing to do with a particular guy at all. She wasn’t going to miss him, she just hated going back to “square one”.
In conversations about how long they’d stick by a boyfriend or husband who lost his job the blunt answer was generally days or maybe weeks, not months or years. If that happened then he no longer filled her role for him, so she had no further use for him as an individual and was not the least apologetic about it.
As I’ve said elsewhere, much of MGTOW can actually be interpreted as men just going along with feminism. Women insist they don’t need us? Fine. Women want to be treated as equals, not objects of desire or affection, someone to be cherished or protected? No problem, done. MGTOW was largely created in response to the vast majority of women tacitly letting feminism speak for them as to what it is that they want.
The result that they might NOT have anticipated is that it is not just liberating for women, it is, finally, at long last, a liberation for men as well. Just don’t expect to be able to just undo that later if you don’t like how it turns out.
Men were stuck between the “rock” of their traditional obligations and “a hard place” of the values of modern women who don’t really seem to really respect, desire or even much like them for a generation or two, mostly by social inertia. Once released, even if they have to be forced accept their new freedom like fearful animals who have never been out of their cages, I can’t see them ever voluntarily going back to that situation again.
Ironically, the closest I’ve seen to understanding the MGTOW position on FOX, by far, was Andrea Tantaros.
– Robert the Wombat