Talk:Men Going Their Own Way

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)

i dont think a thinktank like splc is a reliable source. this is the same organization that has a hatemap that put every Charlie Kirk campus stop on its map. putting that org as a reliable source is laughable and more comparable to citing an opinion piece ~2025-32886-93 (talk) 06:40, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

The SPLC is used as a citation for this article exactly three times, and in all three places, its opinion is attributed in the text (i.e. "The Southern Poverty Law Center says that..."). It is not used as a citation for any statements or assertions in Wikivoice in this article. Nice try, though. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:01, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Incorrect is not the same as opinionated. Correctness is not simply the absence of opinions. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC) edited 19:07, 17 February 2026 (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)

It's a better description; it's not necessary for wikipedia articles to enter with "proof" of non-misogyny. This is moving the goalposts. Averykins (talk) 00:07, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Incorrect. The argument was to remove the reliably sourced description "misogynistic". Just because a particular source avoids a term you don't like doesn't mean it's better than other sources that do use it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:50, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

it is NOT reliably sourced. Both Lin & Górska (cite note 2) mention MGTOW is not generally mysoginistic. And most other sources don't even mention MGTOW. Frankbel (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Both say MGTOW is not generally misogynistic? The opposite is true, as Writ Keeper pointed out below. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:39, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

In fact the Johanssen (2023) chapter linked above says that both MGTOW and incels are highly misogynistic and clear representations of toxic masculinity. There is no contradiction with the wider developments discussed above. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:57, 6 June 2025 (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 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)

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)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change: "Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW /ˈmɪɡtaʊ/) is an anti-feminist, misogynistic, mostly online community that espouses male separatism from what they see as a Sophist2b (talk) 23:53, 12 September 2025 (UTC)gynocentric society that has been corrupted by feminism.[2]".

To: "Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW /ˈmɪɡtaʊ/) is an anti-feminist, mostly online community that espouses male separatism from what they see as a gynocentric society that has been corrupted by feminism.[2]"

^[1] Sophist2b (talk) 23:53, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

 Not done. The existing sentence is based on peer-reviewed, academic sourcing. We cannot swap that out for a definition from the self published website of an advocacy group. - MrOllie (talk) 00:03, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Comment:. It's definitely misogynistic, but they aren't a separatist group. I'm not surprised the sources say it is, but that's wrong. It's that they want separate spheres/traditional roles, at least that's what it was 10 years ago and newer members seem to get it wrong. To put it in the lede seems like undue emphasis on a miscommunication. --Somegenerichandle (talk) 12:19, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

It's going to take more than a random Wikipedia user saying dozens of published, reliable sources are wrong for us to change what's in the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:00, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

The terms "anti-feminist" and "misogynistic" are opinions, not facts. They - and many other places in this entry - blatantly violate the foundational NPOV principle. The terms themselves are not neutral just on their faces.

It's not a matter 9f "right" or "wrong", it's a matter of advancing a certain preferred ideology by the prolific use of highly emotionally charged words instead of neutral statements.

You can cite any source you want, but the fact remains that those are massively biased ideological terms. And simply citing sources proves nothing if the sources themselves are massively biased themselves. Publication by itself means nothing. It's like attempting to prove the bible is right by citing christian philosophers, or trying to defend Donald Trump by citing Fox News. There are plenty of highly biased academic journals.

"Reliable" is also absolutely a matter of opinion. The author of three loaded, ideologically biased terms seems to think that bias and ideology can be excused by citing biased sources. Hiw can something be said to be "anti-feminist" when there aren't ten peoplei. Tgepkanrt who can even agree on what the word "feminist" means? It's like saying something is "anti-god".

It's going to take a lot more than a wikipedia user cutung routrafeously biased siurces to prove that this article does not violate the NPOV princople in an incrediblly blatant and obvious way. They are as far from neutrral as it gets. Thus entry solely needs to be cleared if uts ifpdeologycal biased abd stick to neutral, factual statements. Finsternis (talk) 13:34, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

We have a concrete definition of reliability, in WP:RS. We even have a definition of bias and how it works in WP:BIASED. But the core problem with your argument is that you're basically saying "anyone who says X is biased and therefore unusable"; this is part of the reason why BIASED says what it does, because that is circular logic that could be used to make articles say anything you want them to say. Anti-feminism and misogyny are major fields of academic study; the sourcing requirement to refer to a movement as misogynistic in nature is obviously high, but it is met here. The argument that we could never refer to any movement as misogynistic in nature (or that any source that does so is axiomatically unusable, which is circular reasoning to reach the same result) violates WP:V because you are saying that we cannot accurately reflect the sources, if they say specific things you disagree with. --Aquillion (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

There aren't ten people [...] who can even agree on what the word 'feminist' means^{[citation needed]} —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't need a citation for something impossible to prove without actually interviewing every self-identified feminist in existence. If you think I'm wrong, then find me ten published definitions that agree completely. The word feminist" is about as ill-defined as "religiougiius" or "spiritual" - i.e,, definedtat at Therefore, the term "anti-feminist" is equally useless. all. Finsternis (talk) 14:01, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

That's not how any of this works. Wikipedia works on reliable sources, not your arbitrary threshold of "skepticism". Reliable sources describe MGTOW as misogynist and anti-feminist, and if you have a problem with that, you're going to need similarly-reliable sources that describe it as *not* misogynist or anti-feminist, not some pettifoggery about how you feel about those terms. also, while everyone--most certainly including myself--is susceptible to typos or spelling errors, all of the issues in your post are starting to make it a bit hard to interpret what you actually mean. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:39, 12 February 2026 (UTC)