We live in a time characterized by what can almost be described as a gender war that has broken out of the Marxist cultural struggle and postmodernist confusion about gender roles. The MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) movement is strongly linked to this social development and has emerged in recent decades as a kind of reactionary counterpoint to the feminist movement.
Advocating that men should “go their own way” – away from romantic relationships and societal expectations – MGTOW is in many ways a complex mirror image of feminism and a form of protest movement against a society where more and more men feel marginalized, discriminated against and outright unwanted.
MGTOW has its roots in so-called men’s rights groups and anti-feminist forums from the early 2000s, where criticism grew against family law systems, the #MeToo movement and what is generally referred to as “toxic feminism”. Central to this is a perception that society is increasingly demonizing men and masculinity in general, which is linked to the feminist analysis of “patriarchy” as a main cause of structural oppression.
Supporters of the movement point out that men are currently being punished for historical and collective sins, and that this has created a culture where men’s voices and needs are trivialized. In response, they advocate “opting out” – living in voluntary celibacy, avoiding marriage and sometimes even avoiding social relationships with women altogether.
The movement’s ideas have since spread from internet forums into popular culture via YouTube channels and social media. Key “vanguard” figures known by names such as Barbarossaa, Sandman and Turd Flinging Monkey have popularized MGTOW’s message by mixing humour, provocation and analysis of social issues. The rhetoric overlaps to some extent with other social critique movements, for example with metaphors such as the “red pill” – a reference to the movie The Matrix that symbolizes the awakening to what is perceived as a hard truth about a sick society, in MGTOW’s case with particular reference to the impact of feminism and the role of women in modern society.
Definition of MGTOW pic.twitter.com/wBMgFEHxHw
— CONCERNED MGTOW (@ConcernedMGTOW) February 16, 2025
The four stages: a path to total separation
MGTOW often describes its philosophy as a progression through four stages, with each stage involving deeper and deeper separation from society and from women:
1. Situational awareness
This initial stage is described as men beginning to question their relationships with women and also with society at large. This is described as being associated with a perception of being exploited, often with reference to marriages and legal systems that they consider to be unequal. Men at this stage still believe in the value of marriage but at the same time have started to “realize” that they are being manipulated by women.
2. Rejection of long-term relationships
In the second stage, men reject long-term relationships, cohabitation and marriage. They see these institutions as traps that limit their freedom and expose them to great financial and emotional risks. However, short-term relationships and sexual encounters are still accepted because they do not involve the same degree of commitment.
3. Rejection of short-term relationships
In the third stage, as MGTOW adherents often see it, men reduce their interactions with women to a minimum. They avoid not only romantic relationships but also friendly or even professional relationships with women. This stage is characterized by a strong suspicion and a belief that women, regardless of the context, pose a threat to their freedom and well-being.
4. “Going Ghost”
The final stage, called “going ghost”, involves a complete separation from modern society. Men in this stage try to minimize their involvement in “everyday society” and often resign from their jobs. They strive to live as individually as possible, often by moving to remote locations or living as anonymously as they can.
Marriage becomes a “legal threat”
MGTOW is often highlighted by its members as a counterweight to what they see as a one-sided feminist narrative in mainstream social debate. Feminist theory often highlights “patriarchy” as a systemic cause of all sorts of injustices – from gender-based violence to pay gaps and power imbalances – an analysis that MGTOW supporters dismiss as inaccurate and misogynistic.
“Feminism has gone from fighting for gender equality to scapegoating men for all of society’s problems”, writes one anonymous MGTOW member in a forum. Other supporters say the movement offers “brotherhood” and male “solidarity” – something that is perceived to be in short supply in modern society.
“One of the primary reasons why MGTOW is good for men is that it provides a way for them to maintain their independence and freedom. In today’s society, men are often expected to provide for their partners, both financially and emotionally. This can be a significant source of stress and anxiety for many men, leading to feelings of resentment and frustration. By choosing to go their own way, men can focus on their own needs and desires, rather than trying to meet the expectations of others”, argues one supporter.
Critics of the movement, such as Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson, argue, among other things, that despite pointing to real problems, such as men’s loneliness or unfair custody disputes, it fails to offer constructive solutions. Instead of addressing issues that need to be resolved or promoting understanding and cooperation between the sexes, the movement romanticizes a life of suspicion, isolation and gender-based segregation.
Viewing women as a collective enemy or a “legal threat” (a common MGTOW term for marriage) naturally risks reinforcing polarization rather than healing it. Others note that withdrawing from the community is an act of powerlessness rather than empowerment and self-determination, and that many of the members seem to be mostly resentful and have difficulty processing wrongs they have suffered in previous relationships.
Who benefits from the split?
Jordan Peterson has drawn attention to the MGTOW movement on several occasions, commenting that he understands some of the factors behind its origins, but has also noted the destructive impact it has, particularly on younger men.
A central question regarding the criticism of MGTOW is also who actually benefits from this division, since neither men nor women actually benefit from seeing each other as enemies or competitors. Creating an “us versus them” mentality undermines the conditions for healthy relationships and cooperation, while those who instead want to divide the people benefit – whether it is oligarchs and politically driven actors or algorithm-driven social media that benefit from the conflict.
There is an understandable notion that creating lasting relationships and families has never been as difficult as it is today, not only because society is based on both parties preferably having some kind of career, which in practice of course makes family formation more difficult – but also because the view of what a relationship actually means has changed radically. The liberal view of relationships has been highlighted in the public debate as something that can promote “freedom”, individualism and self-fulfillment – but at the societal level, it is also apparently a strong contributing factor to the fact that half of all marriages today end in divorce, that Swedes are the loneliest people in the world – and to an alarmingly low birth rate. Who would dare to start a family with someone if both men and women feel that they can be replaced or exploited at any time for almost any reason? Who really dares to invest when everything feels so uncertain?
Breaking up a relationship as soon as any form of dissatisfaction or conflict arises is often seen as as reasonable a solution as throwing away a malfunctioning product. What is the point of trying to repair something when you can just get a new one?
This ultra-individualistic reality is also something that is often discussed in MGTOW circles, in both positive and negative terms. While many members feel scared, betrayed and deceived by women who have rejected them, they themselves often emphasize the importance of being “free” and “independent” and focusing on themselves rather than on anyone else.
As Peterson also points out, MGTOW is in many ways an unfortunate symptom of a time of great, and in some cases legitimate, discontent or fear among many men – in many cases outright despair. However, the movement’s response – to collectively reject women and turn its back on society – is to throw the baby out with the bathwater, inevitably consigning men to a damaging existence of isolation and growing resentment.
Critics of both extreme misogynist men’s movements and anti-male feminist ideologies note that the solution is not to run away from each other or to live in various shades of destructive enmity. The solution is for both men and women to take responsibility for seeking a better understanding of our natural differences and in this way respect and affirm them, focusing on building healthy relationships and complementing each other in small and large ways.
Social engineering, including destructive ideology, can disrupt the natural state of normality that both the individual and society thrive on. Historical evidence suggests that togetherness has been the established norm among the peoples of Europe since prehistoric times, and that it is itself the foundation of Western civilization as we know it.
Perhaps we can simply allow ourselves to assume that nature and providence have created us in two sexes for good reason.
