TALK:Men Going Their Own Way

{{atopy

| result = Asked and answered. TarnishedPath^talk 22:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

}}

{{edit semi-protected|Men Going Their Own Way|answered=yes}}

"Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW /ˈmɪɡtaʊ/) is an anti-feminist, misogynistic, mostly online community advocating for men to separate themselves from women and society, which they believe has been corrupted by feminism.[2] "

Right at the start of describing of MGTOW is a false information MGTOW is NOT a Misogynystic organization is NOT that men that support MGTOW is misogynystic that is just like the Feminism right?!

please make sure that you input the correct information about this movement BCS this movement is NOT about hating woman! MAKE IT RIGHT! 77.236.208.242 (talk) 09:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• {{not done}}. Read the FAQ at the top of this page. Black Kite (talk) 10:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
• :Petitioner is correct, generalizing all members for the behavior of a few is fallacious and bad faith. 2600:8801:2F80:17:EE0B:62FE:A842:57BC (talk) 03:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
• ::Then your issue is with the reliable sources, not us. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
• :::Those reliable sources however do not dictate the overall tone and language used on Wikipedia as they are a separate entity from Wikipedia. Cheers. 95.98.235.60 (talk) 22:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{old heading|Opinionation}}

This article is opinionated. Calling a group mysoginistic because of your personal views is not only wrong, but also has no place on a platform meant to educate people. Your opinions aren't relevant on this platform. Reddouble (talk) 03:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

:The article characterizes the group as the cited sources do, that is how Wikipedia works. Editor's opinions don't come into it. MrOllie (talk) 03:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

::Well, it's incorrect and should not be included into the article simply because of sources biases. How can I help to change this? (Since I can't edit the article) Reddouble (talk) 03:29, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

:::We describe subjects how reliable sources describe them. Even if that means doing so in a way that might seem biased to those related to the subject. For example, we call homeopathy a pseudoscience whose beliefs are contradictory to all modern sciences. Practitioners of homeopathy likely consider this biased, but that's what reliable sources say about the subject. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

::::Well, how can I preserve the reliability of Wikipedia by correcting a protected mistake? Reddouble (talk) 21:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

:::::Find other reliable sources. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

:::::See the FAQ. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

:::{{tq|Incorrect}}? That's just, like, your opinion, man.

::: It's is also not the same as {{tq|opinionated}}. Correctness is not simply the absence of opinions. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC) {{small|edited 05:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)}}

:Agree. I don’t see how it is “misogynistic” when someone opts to be a hermit? Leave them alone and refrain from slapping labels to demonise them instead. Steven1991 (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, so what about "heteropessimism?" Here is a book that talks about it: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003263883-3/incels-mgtow-heteropessimism-jacob-johanssen

" Incels and MGTOWs are one particularly extreme example of wider developments that Asa Seresin (2019) has named heteropessimism, which are described as “performative disaffiliations with heterosexuality, usually expressed in the form of regret, embarrassment, or hopelessness about straight experience” (ibid). Heteropessimism is a permanent articulation of disappointment with straight culture and heterosexuality while at the same time remaining deeply attached to them. As Seresin has argued, such discourses can be found within anti-/feminist circles and also in the LGBTQI community. Heteropessimism is thus a contemporary defence mechanism that is more widely apparent than in male communities." Simple and accurate definition of the core issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.43.24.110 (talk) 05:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

:Where does the source say MGTOW, or indeed heteropessimism, isn't misogynistic? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

:@38.43.24.110 Calling the MGTOW misogynistic is biased opinion, since the female equivalent is not tagged as Misandrist, so yeah, this description is definitely based on personal opinion of the writer, and making it protected is proving the point that you are against the movement (biased opinion) Takion22 (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::WP:OTHERCONTENT, WP:FALSEBALANCE. See the #FAQ. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I've never done any kind of editing on Wikipedia, so please be as kind as possible as I totally do this the wrong way.

Can this be added as a reliable source?

https://medium.com/@deeperunderstanding/mgtow-or-men-going-their-own-way-what-is-it-and-what-is-their-purpose-c4959aac9be0 JeremySWiki (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

:...No? spintheer (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

The [https://www.newsweek.com/reddit-bans-men-going-their-own-way-forums-violating-hate-speech-rules-1616379 2021 Newsweek story] about r/MGTOW getting banned from Reddit says the manosphere (not MGTOW specifically) has been {{tqqi|concretely associated with acts of domestic terrorism}}, citing a paper by {{sfnlink|text=Ribeiro et al.|Ribeiro|Blackburn|Bradlyn|De Cristofaro|2021|rev=1269444603}} The paper discusses MGTOW in relation to {{tqqi|extreme anti-feminism and misogyny}} but not terrorism per se. The words "terror" and "terrorism" do not appear in [https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ICWSM/article/download/18053/17856/21548 the document] at all. WP:NEWSWEEK post-2013 is of uncertain reliability, and this demonstrates exactly why. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

:The academic source does make several mentions of violence including one reference (in their review of other literature) of extremist violence. This is likely what Newsweek was clicking off of but, you are correct, Newsweek is not reliably recounting the RS here. We should prefer the RS from Ribeiro et al. over Newsweek and leave out the bad science journalism in favour of the better science. Simonm223 (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

::Agreed, thanks for the suggestion. Updated to an academic reference. Truthbetoldwikipedian (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|Men Going Their Own Way|answered=yes}}

Hello, I’d like to request an edit to ensure compliance with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV) and Verifiability guidelines. Currently, some parts of the article describe the MGTOW movement in language that may be perceived as lacking balance. I am proposing the following changes or additions:

---

1. Introduction paragraph — Language adjustment for neutrality

Current text:

"Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) is an anti-feminist, misogynistic, mostly online community..."

Proposed change:

"Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) is a mostly online community of men who advocate for male self-preservation and personal autonomy. While critics have described the movement as anti-feminist or misogynistic, supporters argue it is a response to perceived gender-based legal and societal inequalities."

Justification:

The current description uses labels ("misogynistic") in the opening sentence without attribution. Per WP:NPOV, contentious labels should be attributed and not stated in Wikipedia's voice.

Suggested source for balance:

Uppsala University thesis on MGTOW, exploring diverse perspectives

---

2. Expand section on motivations behind MGTOW

Proposed addition:

"Members cite motivations including concerns about family law, divorce, custody, and perceived societal expectations placed on men. Some seek personal development outside traditional relationships."

Suggested sources:

Debate.org MGTOW survey analysis

Simple English Wikipedia summary of MGTOW views

---

3. Clarify extremist associations as viewpoints of researchers, not universal truths

Current text:

"The movement has been associated with misogyny and right-wing extremism."

Proposed change:

"Some scholars and commentators have associated elements of the MGTOW community with misogyny and right-wing extremism, though the movement itself is diverse, and not all members express such views."

Justification:

This better reflects attribution and avoids implying universal characteristics.

Suggested sources:

Ging, D. (2019). Alphas, betas, and incels: Theorizing the manosphere. Men and Masculinities

---

These changes are intended to ensure the article reflects a balanced, sourced, and encyclopedic tone. Thank you for your consideration. 2409:40D1:2019:CBC9:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{not done}}. Neutrality does not mean WP:FALSEBALANCE. We follow the academic sources on this, we don't whitewash them. - MrOllie (talk) 18:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::But you yourself use same sources, what hypocrisy is this? 2409:40D1:2019:CBC9:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::No, we don't use random undergraduate theses or Simple Wikipedia as sources. PS: Stop pasting AI-generated material all over the place, it is disruptive. - MrOllie (talk) 19:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{ec}}Not done this is a controversial POV shift based on sources that look, from what little you've provided about them, to be wholly deficient. For instance, undergraduate theses are not reliable sources. Nor are surveys from websites like debate.org. Simonm223 (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• :It also appears that just about everything from this IP (articles and talk pages both) is LLM generated. - MrOllie (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::FWIW I did, in fact, find the undergraduate thesis they mentioned so it isn't a ChatGPT hallucination. It is also not a reliable source. Because it isn't a doctoral thesis. Simonm223 (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)