Talk:Men Going Their Own Way
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Men Going Their Own Way article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 3 months ![]() |
![]() | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Men Going Their Own Way. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Men Going Their Own Way at the Reference desk. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
Q1: Why is MGTOW called anti-feminist and misogynist?
A1: Many published, reliable sources such as scholarly journals and books describe MGTOW as anti-feminist and/or misogynist,[1][2][3][4] and no reliable sources contradicting these descriptors have been found. Q2: Why is MGTOW linked to white supremacy and the alt-right?
Q3: But what if the sources are biased?
A3: Reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. If you have reliable sources that express contrary points of view or refute any statements in this article, please feel free to discuss them here. If you are unsure if a source is reliable, you can check to see if it is listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Sources or search the archives of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to see if its reliability has been discussed in the past. Q4: How do I get something changed on this page?
A4: First, review the talk page and its archives to see if your concerns have been raised before. Collect at least one, but preferably several, independent, reliable sources that directly support the changes you want to make. (Personal experience with the MGTOW community doesn't count.) Then start a discussion on the talk page to obtain consensus for your changes. Finally, make a specific edit request, clearly indicating your proposed changes and the sources that support it.
|
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2024
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"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)
- Then your issue is with the reliable sources, not us. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:22, 6 June 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)
Misogynistic? (2)
[edit]- Thread retitled from
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)
- Well, how can I preserve the reliability of Wikipedia by correcting a protected mistake? Reddouble (talk) 21:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Incorrect
? That's just, like, your opinion, man.- It's is also not the same as
opinionated
. Correctness is not simply the absence of opinions. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC) edited 05:47, 1 October 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, 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)
- 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)
5 October 2024
[edit]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)
Newsweek, domestic terrorism
[edit]The 2021 Newsweek story about r/MGTOW getting banned from Reddit says the manosphere (not MGTOW specifically) has been concretely associated with acts of domestic terrorism
, citing a paper by Ribeiro et al. The paper discusses MGTOW in relation to extreme anti-feminism and misogyny
but not terrorism per se. The words "terror" and "terrorism" do not appear in 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)
Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2025
[edit]![]() |
This discussion containing LLM-generated text from an AI chatbot or other tool has been collapsed.
All editors are expected to express their views in their own words. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus. | ||
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |||
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)
|
"Men Gone Their Own Way" listed at Redirects for discussion
[edit]
The redirect Men Gone Their Own Way has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 23 § Men Gone Their Own Way until a consensus is reached. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- B-Class Alternative views articles
- Low-importance Alternative views articles
- WikiProject Alternative views articles
- B-Class AfC articles
- AfC submissions by date/26 December 2015
- Accepted AfC submissions
- B-Class Feminism articles
- Low-importance Feminism articles
- WikiProject Feminism articles
- B-Class Men's Issues articles
- Low-importance Men's Issues articles
- WikiProject Men's Issues articles
- B-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
- Low-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
- WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles