For those unaware, this means Men Going Their Own Way. It is a concept, and group of men, subject to much ridicule. It is easy to see why. They espouse all sorts of unfashionable concepts: individualism, anti-feminism, distrust of marriage and the court system, distrust of women more generally. They are described as losers, men who are unsuccessful with women, and in life more generally. The derogative term ‘incel’ is uttered, with scorn. For a man who has no woman, he is not a man at all, we are taught.
Anyone who has been subject to ridicule understands its power. And for this reason alone, MGTOW should be defended. Ridicule is a useful form of censorship, in that shaming language encourages self-censorship, the most powerful censorship at all. Let us take the term ‘incel’. Involuntary Celibate. It is, of course, a new designation. For me, it is barely two years old (and I ask the reader, how old is it for you?). And new designations are to be immediately distrusted. MGTOW are not incels, in so far as incels exist at all. And a man who, through misfortune, suffers from asymmetrical features, or has problems around IQ, perhaps is socially awkward, this man has never deserved ridicule. However, in truth, utilising the current terminology, MGTOW may be, and are, former Chads. Chad has considerable experience with women, but even poor Chad has his problems. For there is always a Greater Chad, and even the mythical Giga Chad. Chad suffers also, in his own way, we are pleased to observe.
Whilst not a particularly novel observation, it is true that ridicule is an important aspect of indoctrination. And the corporate media remain amongst the most powerful of the indoctrination agents. On any topic you may choose, a wily columnist will utilise ridicule daily, the modern equivalent of the two-minute hate. Currently, MGTOW appears a little niche, a little Fight Club, for the attentions of Serious Journalists. This may change.
So to rational questions, which often result in online ridicule. Should a man marry, when his future wife will be given given special treatment by the courts? Why should a man date, where he knows she will cheat? Why should a man contribute his taxes to the state, if it acts as proxy guardian to unmarried mothers? When a rational question is ridiculed, an important target is within range. And to be sure, the target is not women, nor even feminism; it is indoctrination, and the repetition of a message. A man may eschew feminism as a curiosity, irrelevant to his life. He may choose a partner of similar, conservative views. This man has done nothing wrong, and indeed could be said to have chosen wisely, indicative of wisdom. But according to some, this man is guilty of the great crime of self-reflection, of knowing his own mind, of thinking critically. The man who has chosen the bachelor life is similarly guilty, with the additional charge of leaving the plantation without a permit. Sadly, he will also face the ridicule of our conservative man, for we know brotherhood is hard to come by.
Will critical thought, of any kind, be rewarded under the upcoming (re-branded) Western social credit score? I contend this to be unlikely. I am not MGTOW, nor their representative on Earth. The topic is, I think, ridicule, the brother of rhetoric. With the readers indulgence, a topic worth returning to.
Iain M. Banks:
“I’m very sorry,” the drone said, without a trace of contrition.