HOW DO MGTOW AND MASCULISM RELATE?

HOW DO MGTOW AND MASCULISM RELATE?

This flyer gives my thoughts on how I think the two men’s lib movements MGTOW and Masculism relate. How are they the same, and how do they differ? How can the one use the ideas and strategies of the other to mutual benefit?

MGTOWs tend to be rather apolitical. They feel it is a waste of time and energy to try to influence the gender politicians to menfair the gender laws (e.g. make the divorce laws menfair, bring in the Parer (paternity rejection right) etc.) because they think the gender politicians will not listen to men’s issues, because they know that there are more women voters who will vote them out if they oppose (fluffie) women’s interests, particularly regarding divorce.

In the current fluffie feminist dominated divorce courts, fluffie women benefit enormously from the routine financial massacring of men. Fluffies can keep their children, they get their ex-husband’s house to raise them in, she gets child support payments from him, even though he barely gets to see them, and if she is a real fluffie, she may get life-long alimony, so that she can continue to parasite off his money after the divorce, often for life, the way she did before the divorce.

Fluffie women love this deal and do not want to change it. If the gender laws were made menfair, then divorced women would have to become FIPs (financially independent persons) and take responsibility for their own lives, a prospect that scares the shit out of fluffies, who have relied on men all their lives to pay for them. They were lazy in high school, choosing to study fluffie crap majors (i.e. not math, not the sciences) so they studied fluffie crap at college and then in their 30s were unable to afford a middle class house on their own salary, so they looked around for a manslave to pay for one for her.

In other words, a fluffie has been a lazy parasite all her life, and the current fluffie feminist dominated divorce court system is very nice to her. When she gets bored with her husband, and doesn’t want him around the house any more, she can get the government to force her ex-husband to continue to pay for her so she can quite happily continue in her fluffie parasitic role, via the divorce courts. One married man in four in the US suffers this fate, this massive injustice against men, this outrage.

MGTOWs see the government so gynocentrized that they feel that trying to push it to pass menfair gender laws is a complete waste of time, and look down on the MRAs (the US term for men’s rights activists) as unrealistic fools, wasting their time and energy. Many MRAs have changed their minds about the MRA movement and joined the MGTOWs whose strategy is simply the “man strike” i.e. just drop out of the traditional male role of being a manslave to a woman, by refusing to marry, refusing to have kids, and spending their money on themselves.

With millions of men becoming MGTOWs (in practice, if not in ideological commitment) alternative life styles for men are being developed. One of the most popular (maybe not by name, but often in practice) is twaytweffing, i.e. 2A2F = two apartments, two FIPs, i.e. a FIP man and a FIP woman each with their own apartment have a relationship. This way, the man gets the regular sex he needs, and some female companionship. When the relationship goes sour, as nearly all do, he quietly walks back to his apartment, cost free. No divorce, because no marriage, no child support, because no kids, no house loss or alimony, because the woman is a FIP. The big plus of twaytweffing for a man is that it forces the woman to remain nice to him, otherwise he can so easily walk out of it, and the woman knows this, so she keeps her true female hypergamous, sexploitative, nagging nature suppressed, through fear of losing her man.

Millions of men (70% of young men under 35 in the US and Japan) are going MGTOW/Herbivore (as the movement is known in Japan, i.e. grass eaters, in contrast with carnivores, i.e. traditional manslaves who are hungry to get into a woman’s vagina and are willing to pay for women to be able to do just that.)

Many MGTOWs focus on themselves and develop their own interests. Many study hard, work hard, live frugally, save and invest hard, then retire early in life, often migrating to a much cheaper country where the cost of living is much less, and do what they love for the second half of their lives. Such men are called ARCers (after retirement careerers).

Now most of the MGTOW ideas above, are also held by the masculists (i.e. men’s libbers) whose main aims are to liberate men from manslavery to women (an aim shared with the MGTOWs), to force the gender politicians to menfair the gender laws, so that men get gender justice, and ultimately, to stop whole populations from being wiped out.

So how do MGTOW and masculism differ? In my view, masculism is a superset of MGTOW, i.e. MGTOW is a subset of masculism. As a masculist, I can see that MGTOW strategies can be used very effectively by masculists to FORCE several changes. One is to force women to become FIPs or they don’t get a man. The mass migration of men away from the traditional role of being manslaves for women gives the masculist movement real bite to persuade women, that if they don’t become FIPs, they will rot on the shelf to extinction, which is one of the major political goals of the masculists. “Be FIP or be manless!” “No calculus, no baby!”

Thus to masculists strategists, masculist theorists, MGTOW is a useful tool towards masculist goals.

Masculists can also force the gender politicians to menfair the gender laws, by threatening to wipe out whole populations if the genocidally criminal gender politicians don’t give men gender justice. The MGTOW strategy of walking away from paternity, is a very powerful lever to push the gender politicians to do what men want.

In the limit, if the gender politicians remain deaf to the MGTOW/masculist movements’ demands, then they will risk being assassinated by increasingly desperate people, i.e. by men who want gender justice, and by women who want men to give them babies.

Soon, the MGTOW/masculist message will be well known to everyone. (The BBC recently did a radio program on MGTOW for the masses, the millions, the ball has started rolling.) Women will soon learn that the major reason men refuse to give them babies is due to the toxic nature of the fluffie feminist dominated divorce courts and the gynocentric selfishness of the gender politicians, who care only for their short term benefit, and to hell with men and the longer term effects of the population crash.

So soon, the gender politicians will come under tremendous moral pressure to menfair the gender laws, just as fluffies will increasingly disappear, and be shunned by both men and women as immoral, parasitic, manslaving vermin.

So masculism is a more far sighted strategy than the more narrow minded view of MGTOWs, who simply passively walk about from marriage and paternity. Masculists see the bigger picture and use MGTOW as one of its many tactics, together with the power of labels, shaming fluffies to shift their parasitic arses, scaring fluffie crappers to FIPup by studying math and the sciences at high school to become FIPs as adults and hence pull their financial weight.

Of course, MGTOW and masculism have a lot in common. We are both men’s libbers. We care about men and are active in making men in their millions conscious of the toxicity of their traditional manslave role to women, especially in regard to the fluffie feminist dominated divorce courts. We both want to see the gender laws made menfair, but the MGTOWs don’t fight for that explicitly, whereas the masculists do by using the force of their ideas. “Hey! Gender politician! If you don’t menfair the gender laws, we masculists/MGTOWs will wipe out whole populations until you do, by continuing to refuse paternity. As the population seriously starts to crash, you will risk assassination, as desperate people take desperate measures to stop it. So be fair to men, or die!”

What impact are masculist ideas having on MGTOW? It’s a bit soon to tell. I don’t know whether I’m being egotistically delusional or not, but I have the impression, since I’ve been putting up MGTOW/masculist comments on a near daily basis on Sandman’s site for a year now (and more recently on TFM’s site) that the tone of the general comments is getting more radicalized, more political, angrier, and I keep hearing my(?) ideas being repeated in later comments. So I hope I’m radicalizing MGTOWs with masculist ideas, giving MGTOWs intellectual tools to fight fluffies, fluffie feminists, fluffie crappers, with.

On the other hand, as a masculist, I have been influenced by MGTOW ideas on the psychology of women, especially ideas such as the red pill (i.e. women don’t love men, they love men’s exploitability, a trait that evolved in them over millions of years) and the nature of female hypergamy (i.e. women always on the lookout for a more sexploitable man, also evolved, and making perfect Darwinian sense), the reluctance of women to take responsibility for their own lives, etc. These MGTOW ideas have enrichened my masculist politically oriented thinking, so I hope the reverse is also true. We MGTOWs and masculists can mutually benefit from an exchange of ideas.

There is power in the sheer force of ideas. There is also tremendous power in labels. “Oh, that woman’s a real fluffie. That’s the kiss of death for her in ever getting a man to say hello to her. She’s doomed.”

Cheers,

Prof. Dr. Hugo de Garis

profhugodegaris@yahoo.com

https://profhugodegaris.wordpress.com

=============