Shedding a different light on MGTOW

An anthropological exploration of the emic perspective of belonging

to Men Going Their Own Way

Sebastian Gygax

Master’s Thesis, 30 ECTS Credits

Department of Social Anthropology
Spring 2021
Supervisor: Eva-Maria Hardtmann
Abstract

In contrast to how anthropologists usually study groups that we readily sympathize with, this
thesis sets out to create an understanding of one of the most anti-mainstream groups in
Sweden: Men Going Their Own Way. Through combining an engaged fieldwork with
extended interviews, I aim to explore the emic experience of finding, being, and practicing
MGTOW. With the aid of certain theoretical frameworks and concepts concerning feelings of
tension and frustration, processes of discipline and exclusion, and acts of everyday resistance,
my informants’ experiences and accounts are understood and contextualized. In addition to
contributing to a very thin field of academic knowledge production around MGTOW, I hope
to nuance the polemic debate through which “the other” is perceived.

Keywords: the manosphere, MGTOW, masculinity, resistance, minority, the other

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1. Aims and research questions ............................................................................................... 1
1.2. Organization of the thesis .................................................................................................... 2
2. Background.................................................................................................................................. 3
2.1. Previous research ................................................................................................................. 3
2.1.1. Feminist anthropology ..................................................................................................... 3
2.1.2. The Manosphere .............................................................................................................. 4
2.1.3. Studies on MGTOW ........................................................................................................ 5
2.2. Brief introduction of MGTOW ........................................................................................... 8
3. Methodology .............................................................................................................................. 10
3.1. Participant observation ...................................................................................................... 10
3.2. Following and engaging in MGTOW................................................................................ 11
3.3. Interviewing & finding informants .................................................................................... 12
3.4. Reflexivity ......................................................................................................................... 13
4. Theoretical framework ............................................................................................................. 15
4.1. Masculinity in crisis .......................................................................................................... 15
4.2. Michel Foucault and discourse .......................................................................................... 16
4.3. James Scott and resistance................................................................................................. 18
5. Finding MGTOW ...................................................................................................................... 21
5.1. Innate aversion to romantic relationships .......................................................................... 21
5.2. Mental health issues .......................................................................................................... 23
5.3. Enacting the ”modern male role” ...................................................................................... 26
5.3.1. Feelings of disruption .................................................................................................... 27
5.3.2. Enacting the “traditional male role” .............................................................................. 28
5.3.3. Notions of mastery and illumination ............................................................................. 30
5.4. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 32
6. Being MGTOW ......................................................................................................................... 33
6.1. Resisting docility ............................................................................................................... 33
6.2. Anti-male sentiments ......................................................................................................... 37
6.3. The prohibition .................................................................................................................. 38
6.4. Opposition between reason and madness .......................................................................... 41
6.4.1. The centrality of feminism ............................................................................................ 43
6.4.2. Feminism as a truth regime ........................................................................................... 44
6.5. Red pill rage ...................................................................................................................... 45
6.5.1. Misogynist online content ............................................................................................. 47
6.5.2. Vocal minority ............................................................................................................... 48
6.6. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 50
7. Practicing MGTOW.................................................................................................................. 51
 7.1. Expressions of MGTOW ................................................................................................... 51
7.1.1. The golden rule of MGTOW ......................................................................................... 51
7.1.2. Internet platforms as hidden transcripts? ....................................................................... 53
7.2. Practicing MGTOW in everyday situations ...................................................................... 54
7.2.1. Placing the value in oneself ........................................................................................... 54
7.2.2. The practice of MGTOW as resistance ......................................................................... 56
7.2.3. Four levels of MGTOW?............................................................................................... 57
7.2.4. Interaction with society and women .............................................................................. 58
7.2.5. Self-improvement and the act of “giving out free red pills” ......................................... 60
7.3. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 62
8. Concluding comments............................................................................................................... 63
9. References ................................................................................................................................... 65
1. Introduction

It is one thing, I learned quickly, for an anthropologist to offer the natives’ point of view when the
subjects are hidden in the highlands of New Guinea and have little impact on the lives of the assembled
audience. It is quite another to describe the world view of people from the same culture whom some
people in my audiences considered to be ‘the enemy’ (Ginsburg 1989:222)

Having studied anthropology for five years, it struck me that the vast majority of the chosen
literature departs from opinions, ideologies, and worldviews to which there is a generally
positive attitude. But what about the other ones? Since we anthropologists tend to highlight
those groups in society that are on the same side of the political spectrum as ourselves, and
those we readily sympathize with (Pasieka 2017); “how are we to understand movements
which we do not like at all” (Edelman 2001:311)? Knowing more about those we like and less
about those we do not, indeed sounds “intellectually, politically, and socially dangerous”
(Teitelbaum 2019:422). Are we missing something here?

Incorporating anti-feminism, biological determinism, and a general aversion towards romantic

interactions with women into their values, Men Going Their Own Way (henceforth MGTOW)
is certainly one of the most anti-mainstream groups in Sweden. The general tendency to
highlight opinions that support your own, while simultaneously denouncing those opposite,
has not only sparked an academic discourse, but also one in media1, in which scholars and
opinion leaders are expressing concerns about this tendency for both the Swedish society2 and
Western academia3. However, talking to the “wrong minority” has not gone unnoticed4, and
the question of how to manage deviating opinions within academia in a modern liberal
democracy has never been more relevant than it is today.

1.1. Aims and research questions

Although communities such as MGTOW have received increasing scholarly attention in the
last few years, MGTOW is severely understudied. To my knowledge, there are only a handful

1 [Link]
2 [Link]
3 [Link]
4 [Link]

1
of studies that treat MGTOW as their sole focus. The main aim of this thesis is, therefore, to
fill the major knowledge gap concerning MGTOW. Furthermore, as none of the previous
studies apply anthropological methods, our understanding of MGTOW is based on a rather
narrow outside perspective. Although these studies all generate important and fruitful
discussions about the online platforms’ ideology, rhetoric, and structure, something is
missing. What does a MGTOW actually think? Therefore, this study aims to fill the major
knowledge gap concerning MGTOW, and more specifically, contribute with an emic
perspective. With this I hope to nuance the picture of a MGTOW.

Furthermore, previous studies present MGTOW as a coherent international community -

without incorporating any perspectives on local specificities. I am interested in Swedish
MGTOWs and how the wider Swedish society affects their experiences of being MGTOW.

With that said, I also intend to compare my study with others and investigate whether
anthropological methods might yield a different picture than those given by other disciplines.
In light of the previously mentioned discussion surrounding the management of deviant
opinions in contemporary society, I would like to contribute to a broader debate within both
academia and society on how to interact with - and perceive - “the other”.

My research questions can therefore be formulated: Why do people turn to MGTOW? What is
it like being MGTOW? How is MGTOW expressed and practiced in everyday life? With an
analysis of the studies’ empirical data, these questions will be discussed with the aid of
theoretical concepts stemming from the masculinity in crisis-argument, Michel Foucault’s
notion of discourse, and James Scott’s idea about resistance.

1.2. Organization of the thesis

The first chapter of this thesis introduces the main problem of my research, its aims, and its
research questions. The following section provides a short contextual background, an
overview of existing research, and a brief introduction to the MGTOW ideology. This is
followed by an exploration and a discussion of the chosen methods. Afterward, relevant
theoretical frameworks are introduced. Next is a presentation of this thesis’ empirical material
combined with a discussion and analysis, followed by concluding comments.

2
2. Background

2.1. Previous research

2.1.1. Feminist anthropology

Even if equality between men and women is taken for granted in modern anthropological
institutions, this has not always been the case. Up until the mid-twentieth century, discussions
of women in the anthropological literature were often limited to introductory chapters or not
seen as “real” scholarship (Lewin 2006:5). Despite major achievements from female
anthropologists, women were generally marginalized, dismissed and excluded from prominent
aspects of the discipline (McGee and Warms 2012:405). In the 1960’s and 1970’s however,
this situation began to change.

Inspired and shaped by various social improvements such as the women’s liberation
movement and anti-Vietnam War activism, a feminist anthropology finally took shape
(McGee and Warms 2012:405). Through focusing their research on the experiences of
women, feminist scholars aimed to challenge both the disciplinary and the societal
androcentric worldview. Several different theoretical perspectives were used in order to
analyze the seemingly universal inequality between men and women, and Lewin (2006)
describes this period as an establishment of an anthropology of women, aimed at making
women a visible and distinct cultural actor.

The tendency of viewing all women as somewhat similar, with common interests and
experiences, shifted as the anthropology of women morphed into an anthropology of gender
by the 1980’s (Lewin 2006). Critical voices regarding the universal claims of a seemingly all-
white group of scholars resulted in an intersectional approach, where other features such as
race, ethnicity, and religion were incorporated into the analysis of women’s experiences
(McGee and Warms 2012:565).

More relevant to this thesis, however, is how the view on gender evolved. Here, feminist
researchers began to use gender as a set of meanings and relationships related to, but not
equivalent with, biological sex. Instead of seeing sex and gender as interchangeable, or
“women” and “men” as natural and given categories, gender started to be understood as a
social construct, strictly structured by power relations (Lewin 2006:18; McGee and Warms
2012:565). Therefore, in order to realize new possibilities for women, but also for other

3
groups facing inequality, the existing male-biased constructions needed to be
reconceptualized and reinvented (Delanty 2005:124).

As the research was broadened from a relatively narrow focus on women, to an interpretation
of how gender, and other social categories, intersect with notions of power and inequality, the
modern feminist anthropology was established (Lewin 2006:20). Although modern feminist
anthropology includes a vast array of research areas, gender and power still maintain central
concerns of the discipline (Gellner and Stocket 2006). One recent addition to the paradigm is
the study of men and masculinities, in which central concerns are the way male dominance is
sustained, how different types of masculinities are performed and enacted, and to what degree
this affects both men and other groups in society.

Feminist anthropology spurred out of notions of marginalization, exclusion, and dismissal, as

women started reacting towards the prevalent androcentric bias. Now, about 50 years later, it
seems as if the tables have somewhat turned, as more and more men feel that they are victims
of a woman-focused society. A description of the way these men have been studied, how this
relates to feminist anthropology, and how my study relates to these topics will be the focus in
the two next sections.

2.1.2. The Manosphere

Today, Western society has generally accepted the core ideals of gender equality. As these
have improved circumstances for many people, there are those that do not agree with them,
and instead see them as threats. Compromised of various websites, blogs, and online forums,
the Manosphere is an umbrella term for different Internet communities arguing that men are
increasingly exploited and disadvantaged in a gynocentric society. These include Men’s
Rights Activists (MRAs, Pick Up Artists (PUAs), Involuntary Celibates (Incels), and this
thesis’ object of study, Men Going Their Own Way.

Although these communities share strong anti-feminist sentiments, they differ in how they
relate to what they believe is an increasingly feminization of Western culture. Whereas MRA
focus on changing social legislation which they deem as discrimination towards men,
MGTOW generally espouse the abandonment of an increasingly gynocentric society. PUAs
on the other hand, use strategies and techniques in order to maximize their sexual endeavors
with women, and Incels are united by strong feelings of rejection and rage as they blame their

4
state of unwanted celibacy on women’s liberation (Ribeiro et al. 2020). These differences
aside, the Manosphere should be understood as the context in which MGTOW operates.

This strong opposition towards feminism has received increasing scholarly attention during
the past few years. Michael Kimmel (2013) understands these expressions stemming from an
aggrieved entitlement: that one’s “birthrights” as a male are being robbed as power in society
is more equally distributed than before. Another highly influential concept within the study of
the Manosphere is Connell’s (1995; 2005) concept of hegemonic masculinity, explaining how
and why men maintain dominant social roles over women and other groups. More specifically
on the manosphere is Lilly’s (2016) much-elaborated thesis, in which she analyzes how
gender is represented in the online discourse of the manosphere. She points at how all the four
previously mentioned subcommunities use traditional gender norms as a way of disparaging
women. These findings correspond with other studies of the manosphere, such as those
investigating expressions of misogyny within these communities (Jane 2018; Marvin and
Caplan 2018; Farrell et al. 2019, Van Valkenburgh 2018, etc.), and those theorizing different
constructions of masculinity (Ging 2017, Coulling 2019, Cannito et al. 2021, etc.). Although
the main focus of these studies is the Manosphere, MGTOW is often mentioned. What this
collection of literature concludes is as important as it is clear: MGTOW’s various online
platforms carry severely misogynist content, as traditional notions of masculinity reassert
male dominance.

2.1.3. Studies on MGTOW

Despite this recent upheaval in studies concerning the Manosphere, works that have MGTOW
as their main research focus are nearly non-existing. Those studies that do put MGTOW in
sole attention, however, follow the same trails as the aforementioned. Wright et al. (2020)
seek to understand the structure, participation and content of the official MGTOW forum and
how this contributes to the propagation of misogyny. They do so by a quantitative analysis of
the participation on the forum, a content analysis of its comments, and through visits to other
online MGTOW platforms. Wright et al. find that participation on the forum is highly skewed,
as 0.23% of all registered accounts create 50.8% of all the posts. Discussions primarily
centered on women and MGTOW themselves, portraying the former in openly misogynist
ways.

5
In the same vein is the study by Jones et al. (2019). This study suggests a link between the
MGTOW ideology and a harmful masculinity in which women are seen as subordinate and
men as dominant. This connection is being made through analyzing the comments made by
three of the most active MGTOW users on Twitter; users that are understood as key
influencers, holding significant power and influence within the network (ibid.). Furthermore,
the authors note an interesting contradiction between the ideology of MGTOW and its
members’ rhetoric: if MGTOW ideology urges men to stop interacting with women, how
come much of their dialogue centers around women? The argument put forward is that
misogynist harassments function as the only clear way of demonstrating your MGTOW
identity, since the philosophy centers itself around what not to do (i.e. not to have
relationships with women).

Next in line are two master theses, both examining MGTOW platforms online. Hunte (2019)
investigates the conversational themes and the linguistic identity on the MGTOW forum on
Reddit, while theorizing its users’ construction of masculinity. As previous studies, this thesis
shows that topics are mostly centered around women, and that men on this platform enact a
masculinity meant to dominate women and alternative masculinities. In doing this, Hunte
(2019) offers a detailed overview of the forum on Reddit, whilst relating it to wider notions
within the Manosphere. In the second thesis, Aler (2020) analyses and compares the
discussions and themes on Twitter and the official MGTOW forum. Exploring how MGTOW
targets mainstream discourse in online spaces through its misogynist content, the author
argues that MGTOW as a group utilizes Twitter and the official forum in different ways.
Twitter offers an arena in which members can interact with opposing publics and recruit new
members, and the forum is a place where in-group sentiments are strengthened. Although all
these aforementioned studies point to important themes surrounding the discourse, structure,
and rhetoric on MGTOW online platforms, there seems to be something missing.

Incorporating a slightly different approach is Lin (2017). In order to understand how

MGTOW platforms affect members’ identity formation and articulation of views, the author
approaches the community in a similar way as I do. Through following the phenomena by
looking at different platforms such as Facebook, Reddit, and YouTube, Lin (2017) discusses
the misogynist content on these forums, the origins of the community, and the different levels
of being a MGTOW.

More importantly, though, is the fact that she decides to actually interact with these men as a
way of creating empirical data. Being interested in how MGTOW is related to on an
6
individual level, Lin (2017) reaches out to a number of men on Reddit to ask them how they
feel, think, and act in relation to MGTOW. The interesting point is how these responses
suggest a more nuanced and diverse picture of the MGTOW-community than the previous
studies offered. Take, for example, the quote by the users Meanodeano: “When we already
have to hide our identities in order not to be seen as vicious misogynist neckbeards by wide
society, we end up being defined by our more vocal and most shameless members” (Lin
2017:86). As soon as the online surface of MGTOW is being scratched through an interaction
with its members, hidden and interesting aspects are generated, such as a potential connection
between the popular image of MGTOW and its more vocal members. However, as an emic
perspective is neither within Lin’s, nor any of the aforementioned studies’ scope, these
aspects remain disregarded.

Virtually all studies of MGTOW have been conducted either through, or in relation with, a
feminist framework. This has yielded important insights about MGTOW, such as the dangers
in passive online harassments and how a certain understanding of masculinity tends to
dominate other understandings. Therefore, studying MGTOW through a feminist
anthropological lens could be understood as the most relevant, important, and analytically
productive approach. However, after studying my material data, I concluded that this
framework is not the best suited one. Analyzing my empirical data with a feminist
anthropological approach would not only run the risk of neglecting those experiences of
exclusion and resistance that I encountered in the field. It would, potentially, also form the
analysis of MGTOW in the same vein as those studies before me. Therefore, in order to
generate new knowledge about MGTOW, I am not using a feminist anthropological
perspective.

Van Valkenburgh (2019) argues that the academic discourse around the Manosphere assumes
that men who participate in these communities are inherently misogynists, deeming them
pathetic, pathological, and perverse. Whether this assumption is founded on the theoretical
frameworks applied in the given research, preconceived notions about “good” and “bad”, or
the lack of any interaction with these men, I leave for others to speculate. What I do know is
that my material, based on extended and often intimate interactions with these men, created a
completely different understanding. What insights could be generated if asking different
questions to the empirical data, and having a different approach to these men?

As one can tell, none of the studies above is anthropological. The current research focuses on
the ideology, rhetoric, and structure of various online MGTOW platforms, but we have very
7
limited knowledge about MGTOW from the inside. Moreover, we know nothing about how
these men found MGTOW, the experience of being MGTOW, or how they express and
practice MGTOW values. Through an anthropological study aimed at exploring the emic
perspective of being MGTOW, I hope to nuance our understanding of the men who choose to
participate in these communities.

Additionally, previous studies present MGTOW as a coherent international community,

without incorporating any local specific perspectives. I am interested in Swedish MGTOWs,
and how the wider Swedish society affects their experiences of identifying with MGTOW.
Unfortunately, due to the limited size of this thesis, I am not able to incorporate a comparative
perspective between different national branches. Hopefully, future research could add to this
perspective in asking how certain experiences and expressions of MGTOW might be context
dependent.

Before discussing how I approached these men, and how I decided to analyze my empirical
data, I offer a brief introduction to the ideology of MGTOW.

2.2. Brief introduction of MGTOW

Although the ideology of MGTOW will indirectly be discussed in various ways in the
analysis, it is not the central focus of this study. In order to give some background to the
following chapters however, I here present three major concept and ideas that are central to
the community. As I will show in this thesis, what is communicated online does not
necessarily represent the opinions of my interlocutors. Therefore, I have chosen themes that
both correspond with previous research on MGTOW platforms, as well as with my
informants’ ideas. For a more elaborate discussion on the online ideology, see Hunte (2019).

The first central concept within MGTOW is that society is increasingly gynocentric. The
successful institutionalization of feminist ideals in wider society has created a situation in
which women are privileged and rewarded, and men rendered expendable and inherently
dangerous. According to Lin (2017), MGTOW believe that modern women have been
corrupted by feminism into an exaggerated state of entitlement. During my interviews, many
of my informants kept going back to this subject, referring to this process as “brainwashing”.

8
Hunte (2019) notes that also men are blamed for being a part of the conspiracy. Emanuel5,
one of my informants, says that men often choose to follow the behavior that the gynocentric
order encourages, leading them to assume the priority of women.

Emanuel states that gynocentric order creates “dishonest romantic intentions” in men and
women, introducing the second central concept within MGTOW: the biological nature of
gender. Within these communities, masculinity and femininity are seen as the “true essence”
of men and women – stable, innate, and primordial (Lilly 2016:71). The idea is that men and
women tend to gravitate toward two opposite behaviors. These behaviors are perceived as
natural, stemming from biology - rather than from culture. Often during my fieldwork, I heard
that there is a “true male/female nature”. As Jones et al. (2019) and Hunte (2019) notice
however, the accounts of femininity and masculinity are far from neutral. Within MGTOW,
men are often described as competent, logic, and independent, and women are often described
as manipulative, hyperemotional, and dependent.

The third core tenet of the philosophy of MGTOW is the focus on individuality. Often, I was
told that MGTOW is about going your own way, rather than adhering to any rules or
prescriptions. When asking one of my informants what MGTOW encourages, the answer was
simple: “Only go your own way”. The importance of individuality is also noted in other
studies (Jones et al. 2019; Lin 2017; Wright et al. 2020), pointing to the difficulties in
defining both the community and its members.

In conclusion, MGTOW views modern Western society as being indoctrinated by feminism.

The wide-spread institutionalization of feminism has created a gynocentric order, deeming
women inviolable and men disposable. Being surrounded by rules and regulations regarding
how to think and act in accordance with feminist ideals – ideals that override our “natural
behavior” – MGTOW sees no other alternative than to go their own way. What this entails in
a practical sense is rather diversified, pointing to the highly individualistic core of MGTOW.

5
Out of respect for my informants’ privacy, all of their names are fictitious

9
3. Methodology

3.1. Participant observation

Like in any other anthropological research, I intended participant observation as the core
method in my study. Since my focus concerns belonging to MGTOW, this method is highly
appropriate since it can be used as a tool to study and present the perspective of a
distinguished group of social actors (Aull Davies 2008:80). Participant observation can be
especially effective when doing research in your own native community, due to minimal
language barriers and shared cultural knowledge (ibid.). Furthermore, studying distinct social
groups with this method offers the ability to interact with the participants, generating an
understanding of feelings of belonging, networking, sense-making, and knowledge (Salman
and Assied 2009:90).

However, Spradley (1979:50) notes that certain concepts and expressions might get neglected
when applying this method in your own community. As MGTOW platforms are based online,
the majority of its followers have a certain jargon when expressing their feelings and
experiences. During my fieldwork, my partner, who is quite Internet-savvy, kept editing my
messages to potential informants simply because “I didn’t know the appropriate lingo”. On
the same note is Aull Davies (2008:111) in stating that shared social status does not guarantee
mutual understanding: me being a student at Stockholm University was twice met with
despise due to its “Marxism and gender agenda”. As Kozinets (2019:53) clearly highlights,
thinking that spatial proximity leads to a sense of community is rather naïve. Having noticed
these difficulties in the initial phase of my fieldwork when sending out messages in order to
find informants, I had to find a balance between being a student from university, versus being
an interested outsider.

Dewalt and Dewalt (2010:13) describe participant observation as a way of collecting data in a
naturalistic setting of the people being studied. Studying MGTOW, which is predominantly
active online rather than offline, what does “naturalistic setting” mean? Although being useful
for my research in a more abstract sense, the application of participant observation turned
problematic as there was no physical field. As a way of trying to solve the problem of
participating in something that existed online, I started following MGTOW, as well as
becoming engaged with MGTOW.

10
3.2. Following and engaging in MGTOW

When researching Russian street demonstrations via social media, Gray (2016) argues that she
did not conduct traditional research on her object of study; instead, she followed it. Using
Twitter as a springboard, she found herself having multiple platforms running simultaneously
on multiple devices. Through the snowball effect, she then managed to find relevant sites and
connect with interesting personalities. This resonates with the concept of follow the metaphor
(Marcus 1995), a way of construing the field wherever it takes you.

To generate empirical data, I also made use of the concept of engagement (Kozinets 2019),
through which one becomes involved in an activity or a field. Accordingly, observing online
communication and interactions as they unfold provides a deeper understanding of the content
of the community (ibid.:246). This concept allows the researcher to place him/herself in a
spectrum of intellectual, social, and emotional involvement – and this is exactly what I did.

As a way of following, and engaging in MGTOW, I became a member of the five biggest
MGTOW-related groups on Facebook and the MGTOW-forum on Reddit. I also registered an
account on Twitter and observed several threads in which MGTOW was discussed and
became member of three different Swedish forums which had mentioned MGTOW.
Furthermore, I spent an extended amount of time on YouTube-channels, watched
documentaries and various explanatory videos concerning the philosophy behind MGTOW.
All in all, my field was in front of my computer, as I emerged myself into the world of
MGTOW.

However, as MGTOW should not be understood as an autonomous and independent Internet

phenomenon, but rather in close connection to the society of which it is a part, my fieldwork
expanded. Seeing how nearly all my acquaintances got an upset look or made a ridiculing
comment about the topic of my study, I realized that my field was not only restricted to the
digital sphere; it also contained my own surroundings. If these were the reactions of merely
studying MGTOW, what would the reaction be if identifying with MGTOW? Through using
insights generated from the digital fieldwork, together with my own observations and
experiences, I gathered empirical data into what it might be like affiliating with MGTOW.

11
3.3. Interviewing & finding informants

Although the combination of the aforementioned methods was helpful in generating a general
overview of MGTOW, my real interest was located in the more personal and individual
aspects of identifying with the community. Therefore, as a way of generating more relevant
empirical data, I conducted interviews.

Since being anti-feminist in Sweden is rather stigmatized, I realized that gaining trust would
be one of the key challenges during the fieldwork. When becoming a member on MGTOW
groups on Facebook, I had to answer a few security questions, just to assure the group that I
had good intentions. Many times, I had to reassure informants that they would be anonymous
in the study. The ethnographic interview, in which the researcher slowly introduces new sets
of elements which corresponds to the aims of the study and ideally seen as a friendly
conversation (Spradley 1975), was therefore of relevance here. This type of conversation
resonates with what Aull Davies (2008:105) refers to as non-structured interviews, vis-à-vis
semi-structured interviews, and structured interviews.

In addition to non-structured interviews with my informants, I made use of semi-structured

interviews. In these, some topics or elements are formulated in advance which naturally steers
the conversation into a desired way (Aull Davies 2008:106). Since I was interested in making
sense of my informants’ realities on their own terms, rather than through preconceived
notions, semi-structured interviews were suiting as they are fairly open-ended and not
restricted to any preconceived notions of the researcher (ibid.). The fact that a combination of
these two interviews enables a relation beyond the interview itself (ibid.) was also of high
value in my study.

I interacted with approximately 70 people online on the previously mentioned Internet

platforms. I always introduced myself as a researcher and started the conversation slowly with
non-structured questions, just to warm things up. If the person was interested in talking about
MGTOW, I asked for a more formal interview. In the end, I got five informants through
Facebook and six through Twitter. Additional informants were found through other platforms,
such as Reddit and private blogs. In total I had nine full length interviews, two of which were
follow-up interviews. Half of these took place at bars, restaurants and cafes, and the rest were
conducted through Skype. I also had extended chats with eight different people, which both
contained structured questions and a more day-to-day conversation. Furthermore, I used what
I had been observing on the aforementioned internet platforms to contextualize what my

12
informants described in the interviews, which I believe gave my informants a reassurance that
I was being seriously interested.

3.4. Reflexivity

Before the fieldwork, I was slightly concerned about how the fact that I have a male partner
could affect the relation between my informants and me – a worry that fellow university
peers, friends, and literature on MGTOW also confirmed. I even wondered if I should remain
anonymous. In hindsight, however, this concern might reveal more about the prejudice and
stigma members of MGTOW experience rather than of the worldview of the participants. This
a topic that will be elaborated on later in the thesis.

Being a man definitely aided me in the research process. Otherwise, I would not have been
approved as a member of any MGTOW-group on Facebook, and I do believe that it facilitated
the first interaction between my informants and me. Since a common ground within the
community is biological determinism, this shared quality made them lower their guard and
possibly see me as a potential comrade.

A difficulty I experienced was the way knowledge is created withing the MGTOW-sphere.
The general message is being spread through certain channels and blogs, but also through
personal stories and experiences from men that are posted on these websites. When hearing
almost outrageous stories, I found myself thinking “How do I know you’re not lying?” or
“Can you back that statement with statistics?”. I then came to think of the actual purpose of
my anthropological field work - was it a pursuit to understand my informants’ worldview, or
was it an evaluation of it according to certain facts and figures?

In the beginning of my fieldwork, I found myself agitated and emotionally disturbed by what
I saw on various MGTOW channels. Here, I tried to apply Razsa and Kurnik’s (2012)
discussions on becoming. The almost overtly reflexive attitude to the worldview of their
informants lead them into existential insights which temporarily forced themselves to reject
their own worldview and go to their informants’. They call this as being epistemic humble
about “the other”, rather than understanding him/her through metanarratives or preconceived
notions of justice, “good” and “bad”, or oppression.

Out of approximately 70 interactions (messages, comments, threads) and various platforms, I

managed to get in contact with 16 men in total. These were all living in Sweden, with the

13
majority of them being born in Sweden. Since I was interested in the experience of being
MGTOW in Sweden, the ethnicity of my informants was irrelevant, as long as they had been
living in Sweden for a few years. Furthermore, my informants were quite heterogenous in
terms of prior education, age, and interests.

14
4. Theoretical framework

Here, I provide an overview of theoretical frameworks and concepts used in this study. I begin
with an overview of the masculinity in crisis-argument, which is followed by Foucault’s ideas
on discourse and Scott’s concept about resistance. How these relate to each other is
elaborated further on in the analysis.

4.1. Masculinity in crisis

Being interested in how my informants found MGTOW, I noticed fairly quickly that many of
them had experienced some kind of disruption, or inner turmoil, before finding the
community. Some of these negative feelings were related to psychological issues, while
others were connected to their romantic interactions with women. In order to understand these
feelings of disruption, I am seeing them through the lens of Masculinity in crisis.

Discussions about a masculinity in crisis are widespread and somewhat fragmented. However,
they all center around how wider social and economic changes in Western society have
shifted the meaning of masculinity, and what it means to be a man, as traditional values of
society and civil life have been challenged during the last decades (Morgan 2006:112).
Groups previously excluded from the society all demanded a reevaluation of their position in
society, as changes in the labor market, family life, and the positions of women confronted the
patriarchal family (Castell 1997). The argument is that these transformations all together have
disrupted conventional notions of masculinity, thus prompting a contemporary ‘crisis of
masculinity’.

More specifically, the main argument is that the origin of these feelings of crisis is due to the
conflict and contradictory nature of the existing male roles. Accordingly, men are confronted
by opposing demands and expectations in their socialization and in adult life, creating a
number of pressures and tensions. Michael Kimmel (2010) argues in the same lines: as young
men today find themselves in a society that obstructs their ability of becoming traditional
breadwinners, and simultaneously encourages emotional responsiveness and vulnerability,
many experience confusion, anxiety and stress.

The relation between these two roles is highlighted in the literature on the male sex role
identity, forming the foundation of the masculinity in crisis argument (Lemon 1992).
Accordingly, in order to acquire a secure identity as a man, prevalent norms and expectations
surrounding masculinity need to be fulfilled. However, the problem is that there seems to be

15
two different male roles: the “traditional” male role, and the “modern” male role (Pleck
1976). The traditional archetype is built on oppressive and outdated notions of men as “self-
made” (Kimmel 2002): independent, unemotional, and successful, whereas modern ideals of
manliness instead encourage vulnerability, interpersonal skills, and emotional intimacy (Pleck
1976). Although rendered obsolete, different imaginations, stereotypes, and popular images
withhold the traditional requirements of manhood, creating a symbolic straitjacket for men.
As a result, increasing number of men face difficulties in their everyday life as they try to
push beyond traditional concepts of masculinity (Lemon 1995). Not only does the traditional
concept of masculinity constrain male behavior – it also seriously damages men as it forces
them to live up to an impossible oppressive masculine image of always being strong, silent,
unemotional, and athletic (Pleck and Sawyer 1974:173,17).

This theoretical framework highlights the difference between a “traditional” and a “modern
male role”, something that I will make use of in understanding some of my informants’
accounts of their feelings of disruption. Interestingly enough, viewing my ethnographic
material through this dichotomic lens offered another picture than what this literature
proclaims. I will show how my informants’ feelings of crisis were generated out of a
fulfillment of the “modern male role”, rather than out of the conflicting and contradictory
nature of the” traditional” and the “modern male role”.

4.2. Michel Foucault and discourse

For many years, the term ‘discourse’ has been widely used within social science as an
analytical component. Although applied extensively, Jorgensen and Phillips (2002) state that
the concept has become vague and lacks a fixed meaning. However, the underlying meaning
of the word is the idea that language is structured by different patterns that form people’s
utterances when they engage in different domains of social life. For example, when people
engage in a ‘medical discourse’, the division between “healthy” and “sick” clearly structures
the engagement. The authors continue in offering a preliminary definition of a discourse as “a
particular way of talking about and understanding the world” (ibid.:1). As there evidently are
multiple aspects of the world, there exists numerous amounts of discourses. Although this
definition of a discourse works as an introduction to the matter, it lacks certain aspects which
are important to this chapter. Therefore, I turn to the Foucauldian concept of discourse.

16
Foucault’s interest in discourse is connected to knowledge. For him, discourse is a social
system that produces and forms knowledge. Discourse is that process which makes
information about a certain domain accessible and attainable. What there is to know about
‘health’ is readily available in the ‘health discourse’. Not only does it present available
information, but it also forms and creates knowledge through a collective acceptance and
understanding of the discourse as “true”, or as factual. It is in this sense that discourse is
constitutive of knowledge, as it enables different ways of knowing (Edwards 2008:22).
Furthermore, a Foucauldian discourse has productive force, generating meaning and action
through influencing how ideas are put into practice. It builds representations and shapes
action, making different ways of knowing the world and of acting in it possible (ibid.).

However, the importance of Foucault lies in his connection between discourse and power:

In a society such as ours, but basically in any society, there are manifold relations of power which
permeate, characterize and constitute the social body, and these relations of power cannot themselves be
established, consolidated nor implemented without the production, accumulation, circulation and
functioning of a discourse (Foucault 1980:93)

Here, Foucault makes it clear that the function of discourse in society is not to neutrally
present a body of information to its receivers. Instead, discourse is strongly linked to the
exercise of power, as it serves to ensure the reproduction of the social system through creating
a conceptual terrain in which knowledge is formed and produced (Hook 2001:42). As
discourse structures ‘practices that systematically form the objects of which they speak’,
Foucault (1979:49) shows how the production of social positioning and subjectivity within a
social order is closely connected to the prevalent power dynamics.

Moreover, discourse has a constraining effect. In order to eliminate and disqualify other
meanings and interpretations which could undermine the meaning and power of the
predominant discourse, Foucault (1981:53) notes that: “In every society, the production of
discourse is at once controlled, selected, organized and redistributed by a certain number of
procedures”. As Foucault investigates in Discipline and Punish (1995), the aim of these
different procedures is to normalize and homogenize the bodies and subjectivities of those it
dominates. By pre-determining the constitution of knowledge and of action, a discourse
creates a reality to which subjects are restricted to. That which does not conform to the
articulated “truth”, that which is outside of discourse, is rendered deviant and abnormal.

17
Furthermore, the effect of these procedures is to make it impossible to think outside of them
(Hook 2001).

Foucault (1981) discusses the myriad ways through which discourse exercises its discipline
and regulatory force on its objects. In order to better understand the emic experience of being
MGTOW, I am relating my informants’ experiences with two mechanisms by which a
discourse invalidates and disqualifies alternative meanings: the prohibition of speech, and the
opposition between reason and madness. It should be noted here that I am not investigating
whether there is a discourse or not. Moreover, not only does the Foucauldian framework
enable me to highlight notions of social exclusion and internal deviance, but it also introduces
an opposition towards dominant norms. This is the focus of the following section.

4.3. James Scott and resistance

In order to understand my informants’ way of exercising the philosophy of MGTOW, I am

using James Scott’s ideas about resistance. In Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of
Resistance (1985), he puts forth critique against what usually counts as “real” resistance in
social science. He states that the knowledge production surrounding oppositional acts has
been centered around large-scale, protests movements, which pose a visible threat to the
dominant ideology within a society. Scott (ibid.:xv) argues that most subordinate groups
throughout history have rarely been afforded the luxury of open and organized activity due to
the circumstances within which they find themselves. In other words, to openly oppose the
status quo has been too dangerous, and the resistance has thus remained invisible. Therefore,
in order to cover a different kind of resistance; one that is not as dramatic and confrontational
as riots and demonstrations, Scott turns to what he calls “the everyday forms of resistance”
(Scott 1989:33).

As Scott bases his research on the class struggle between the rich and the poor in a rural
Malaysian village, the forms of resistance he has in mind often mirror that specific context.
He focuses on how peasant societies respond to the domination of the rich, with a focus on
unobservable acts of rebellion and cultural resistance. He finds all sorts of small actions, such
as theft, poaching, smuggling, desertion, false compliance, in these rural and factory settings
(ibid.:xvi). Although sometimes being context-specific, the focal point in these small acts of

18
resistance is how they avoid outright defiance by being quiet, disguised, and anonymous. As
they are more ordinary, indirect actions of opposition, they often exist under the radar of the
dominant group.

Scott (1985) argues that these forms of resistance reflect the conditions and constrains under
which they are generated. He shows how an open, collective defiance would seriously
threaten the livelihood of the peasant population. In other words, “everyday forms of
resistance” is well suited to groups or people in society who run the risk of facing social
sanctions if venting their disapproval publicly. This is an important point in Scott’s work, as it
connects the type of resistance available to the subordinates to the context in which they find
themselves.

Closely linked to the idea of resistance is Scott’s notion of “transcripts” (public and hidden).
As a way to describe the open interaction between the rich and the poor, Scott uses the term
public transcript (Scott 1990:2). The public transcript is a conventional pattern of speech and
behavior that the dominated hides behind in order to avoid conflict and social sanctions. Like
a performance, the public transcript is shaped to appeal to the expectations of the powerful:
the necessary lines may be spoken, and the necessary gestures may be made (ibid. 4).
However, the public performance, or that which Scott calls “onstage” behavior, does not tell
the whole story.

As subordinate groups produce a certain public transcript in the presence of the dominant,
Scott names the discourse that takes place “offstage” as hidden transcript (ibid.:4). It consists
of those speeches, gestures, and practices that contradict what appears “onstage”. Created for
a different audience than the wide public, the hidden transcript can reveal what subordinates
actually think through “off-stage conversations”, far away from the eyes and ears of those
dominating (Scott 1989:59).

Now, as anyone clearly notices, there are some major differences between the rural context in
Malaysia and the context in which my informants are located. I would like to make it clear
when using this theory that I am not equating my informants experience with the peasants’ in
Malaysia. I do not see my informants as a weak group in society, being subordinated to a
dominant group. Neither do I claim that they lack any productive means of opposing the
current status quo, or that they run the same risk as the Malaysian peasants in openly
confronting it. However, as I show in Being MGTOW, the experiences of openly identifying
with MGTOW are highly connected to notions of exclusion, social stigma, and imputation.

19
Therefore, seeing my informants accounts of how the enactment MGTOW-values is done
next to Scott’s ideas about resistance do not only generate an understanding of the practice of
MGTOW as resistance, but also connects it to Foucault.

Scott clearly describes this opposition as a peasant struggle against class relations in his book.
However, he also states that “everyday forms of resistance are, it should be clear, not a
peasant monopoly” (Scott 1989:52), but a strategi deployed to “thwarting the claims of an
[…] opponent who dominates the public exercise of power”(ibid.). Who is this opponent in
the context of my study? I am not understanding the opponent of MGTOW as any specific
person within the Swedish society holding remarkable power, like the peasants in the rural
society in Malaysia see the local elite. Instead, what they resist are those dominant and
established norms they believe are being imposed on them by a force that is similar to that
which Foucault calls a regime of truth.

20
5. Finding MGTOW

In this chapter, I explore different paths to MGTOW. Why do people turn to MGTOW? Here,
I am taking part of several different men’s own stories of how they were introduced to the
community, and how they later on came to identify with it. The main finding is that all these
stories demonstrate, although not always explicitely, feelings of disruption and tension. These
feelings are then related to three different theoretical discussions that all broaden our
knowledge of why people decide to adhere to MGTOW.

5.1. Innate aversion to romantic relationships

On the first day of fieldwork, I make myself a big cup of coffee and open the Internet browser
on my computer. Getting in contact with men identifying with MGTOW is a bit of a
challenge, but after having gained access to several Facebook groups, I start sending out
messages to potential informants. The first to answer is Danny, an outspoken middle-aged
Irish man who has been in Sweden for the past 16 years. We agree on a Skype-interview, in
which I am greeted with a thick Irish accent and a cheerful mood. After having discussed his
future plans of becoming a full-time day trader, I ask Danny how he found MGTOW. He says
that the idea of bachelorhood has always intrigued him. Accordingly, Danny has always had
sort of inner aversion to romantic relationships: already before having heard of MGTOW, he
was interested in bachelorhood. At several times during the interview, Danny explains his
interest in MGTOW as a sort of natural and innate preference that he was born with. Danny
takes pride in his decision about being single and repeats the words “relationships are not for
me” without any emotional attachment.

This sort of natural and innate interest in MGTOW is something also Simon enhances in his
account of finding MGTOW. Simon is an anonymous man living in the northern parts of
Sweden, who I find on Reddit. He tells me, through an extended chat, that he is a natural born
MGTOW without any interest in women except sexual urges and with a permanent reluctance
to women. Therefore, when he first found out about the community a few years ago through
the Internet, it felt like a natural step for him to take.

The above descriptions of Danny and Simon finding MGTOW bear notions of a “natural” and
“organic” process, as if it was bound to happen no matter what. However, the more I talk to
them, the more I sense feelings of frustration and tension. Over Skype, Danny describes with
21
a disappointed tone in detail all his previous failed relationships, that nothing ever worked
out, and the difficulties they generated for him. Simon says that he has not always gone his
own way, and uses past tense when he describes women, as if a specific event or situation
made him change his perspective. Using a rather hostile and upset tone in his messages, he
states that: “They [women] were all so full of shit; so fake, all of them”.

Danny and Simon’s accounts of finding MGTOW can be related to Lofland and Stark’s
(1965) classic sociological theory of how people come to leave a conventional worldview for
a more obscure and deviant one. Despite being a relatively old theory, it is still being applied
in modern research (see Toseland 2019) and is, in some cases, of relevance in my study.
Although the theory is based on a study of how people convert to a small religious movement
in the U.S., the authors argue that its terms are comprehensive enough to account for a
conversion to deviant perspectives in general. Instead of giving the theory a prominent place
in my study, I simply aim at relating parts of my informants’ accounts to it as a way of
creating a few insights regarding the process of adhering to a deviant worldview.

The somewhat hidden feelings of frustration in Danny and Simon’s stories of finding
MGTOW could be related to the first condition in the conversion theory, in which potential
converts experience a strong discrepancy between the current circumstances and an ideal
state, generating feelings of tension and frustration (ibid.:864). Danny is clearly disappointed
in his previous relationships, leaving him disheartened and frustrated. Simon, on the other
hand, seems to have been severely hurt or wronged in the past, leading him to acquire a
general negative perception about women.

The second aspect of Danny and Simon’s accounts are related to the second stage in Lofland
and Stark’s (1965) conversion model: the type of problem-solving perspective the individual
chooses to apply. Through applying MGTOW principles in a way that suited them – pointing
to the highly individualistic aspect of MGTOW - they chose to “put the problem out of mind”
(ibid.:868). For Danny, MGTOW is simply bachelorhood, thus eliminating potential future
tension as he, through MGTOW, rejects romantic involvements with women. Although
Simon has a more radical understanding of MGTOW, adhering to its principles in his own
way is also a way of protecting himself from re-experiencing the previously felt tension.

By taking this path, we see how Danny and Simon turned to MGTOW as a way of protecting
themselves from re-experiencing previously felt tensions regarding female interactions.

22
Another way of finding MGTOW can be seen in the next path, as Leonardo and Khan
struggled with a collection of more intense disruptions.

5.2. Mental health issues

Leonardo, originally from Brazil, is a thirty-five-year-old man whom I find on the Swedish
MGTOW site on Facebook. After having introduced myself and the research topic on
Messenger, I ask him for a physical meeting. When we meet at a bar in central Stockholm, the
air is filled with timidity and insecurity. Our two interviews are intimate and personal as he
shares emotional stories from his past, and Leonardo comes across as vulnerable, speaking
with a lowered voice without meeting my eyes. When describing his way of finding
MGTOW, there is a lot of agony and frustration to his words. I understand that Leonardo has
experienced much of that discrepancy between an ideal world and the current world he finds
himself in, which characterizes the first condition in Lofland and Stark’s (1965) model.
Although Leonardo and I never explicitly talk about romantic relationships the two times we
meet, he conveys a sense of resignation in terms of women. While looking down, he says he
rarely talks to people and that he does not think he is attractive. People usually say that he is
shy, and he notices that “some men seem to be really lucky with women”.

Comparing himself to other heterosexual men is not the only factor behind Leonardo’s
tension. He tells me that moving from Brazil to Sweden was a real culture shock: people
behaved differently and were not as socially inclusive as in Brazil. In that same period, he
also lost his job, which evidently had its economic consequences. His prior emotions of
frustration and tension only increased as he unsuccessfully went for advice to his
surroundings: “All I heard was that everything was my fault, that everyone was blaming me.
They said: why are you always so negative and pessimistic?”. Furthermore, in the end of our
second interview, Leonardo mentions that his upbringing was problematic, and that he doubts
himself a lot. Naturally then, the loss of employment and lack of partner and friends in the
new foreign culture, were Leonardo’s own fault in his eyes. As feelings of frustration,
loneliness and devaluation culminated, Leonardo went into a depression.

The depression created an emotional need for Leonardo to find a new explanatory framework
through which his current life situation could be seen. During this period, he spent a lot of
time on the Internet trying to find a narrative that did not blame him. It was in this period that

23
he found MGTOW. When I ask him to describe his reactions when first reading about
MGTOW, he says with an excited tone:

Usually what you hear is that the fault is ours [men’s], and that we should improve ourselves. Then I saw
MGTOW. They started saying that women also, they should too. They too have responsibility! They need
to improve too!

He says that the MGTOW community provided him with emotional support and a sense of
belonging in displaying similar stories from other men. As the quote above shows, MGTOW
also offered Leonardo feelings of relief and liberation since it lifted the heavy burden of being
entirely and exclusively accountable for all his previous shortcomings. Leonardo says that he
spent a significant amount of time researching the community, and interacting with its
members, before becoming a devoted MGTOW.

Danny and Simon found a relatively easy way out of their difficulties through finding
MGTOW early on. As Leonardo’s choice of problem-solving method, namely looking for
guidance in his surroundings, was not as successful, he consequently went through the third
condition of Lofland and Stark’s (1965) theory of conversion: a seekership (ibid.). As
Leonardo was desperately trying to find a new explanatory narrative online concerning his life
situation, he “search[ed] for some satisfactory system of […] meaning to interpret and
resolve his discontent” (ibid.:868).

The depression that Leonardo went through resembles the fourth condition of the conversion
theory. Here, all the previous tensions and deprivations accumulate into a situation which the
individual perceive as a “turning point” (Lofland and Stark 1965:870) in their lives. As all
attempts of solving the tension seem to fail, the individual realizes that new involvements or
actions need to be taken.

In order to fully adhere to a deviant perspective, Lofland and Stark (1965) argue that the
individual needs to develop an affective bond with the given community. Leonardo did not
create any explicit bond with any MGTOW individual, but instead saw the community as a
whole providing him with well-needed emotional support. As Leonardo did more and more
research on MGTOW, he also fulfilled the theory’s last condition, which is based on an
intensive interaction between the given community and the individual.

Another informant I found through Facebook was Saif, a 28-year-old man from Australia who
moved to Sweden five years ago to take a master’s degree in tourism. When we meet at a café
in Stockholm, Saif is wearing a Strength-Camp wristband: a community helping people

24
becoming stronger mental and physical versions of themselves. Seeing the wristband and
experiencing a general air of frustration and injustice that characterize Saif’s stories, I get a
feeling of defeat.

Saif’s story of finding MGTOW involves the same characteristics as Leonardo’s. Where the
latter dealt with numerous deprivations, Saif’s tension was centered around prior romantic
experiences. When he tells me about his previous sexual relations, he sighs and says he has
been heartbroken many times. With shame in his voice, he explains: “I would always look for
women, do my best but always be a fool, be a clown… Just to get their attention. This never
turned out well”.

Like Leonardo, Saif’s turning point coincided with mental health issues. Going through
another breakup generated a depression for Saif, as he would repeat negative stories about
himself in his mind. Experiencing a general lack of empathy in his surroundings, these stories
revolved around him being lonely, and that no one would ever love him due to how he
approached women. He realized that something needed to be done and went online in order to
find answers, where he discovered MGTOW. The most compelling aspect of MGTOW was
that instead of looking for women all the time, they would work on themselves.

For Leonardo, MGTOW offered liberation as it shifted focus from himself, onto women: he
was not the only one responsible for his current life situation. Saif, on the other hand, found
liberation in MGTOW through the opposite, as it shifted focus from women, onto himself.
Another important aspect was the emotional support and empathy that he found in the online
community. Saif describes his first reaction of MGTOW:

I always felt I was the only one doing this stuff to women and making a fool out of myself, and then it
turns out with MGTOW ‘Oh God, it’s not just me – it’s a bunch of people’

After these affective bonds had been created, an interest was sparked, and after Saif spent an
increasing amount of time researching MGTOW, he decided to adhere to the community and
its philosophy.

In this path to MGTOW, mental health issues play an important part. MGTOW as a
community offered both Leonardo and Saif well-needed feelings of liberation, empathy, and a
sense of belonging. In the next trajectory, the initial feelings of disruption and tension
functioning as a gateway to MGTOW did not come from depression or loneliness. Instead,
they were generated by the enactment of a specific male behavior.

25
5.3. Enacting the ”modern male role”

Before discussing this path to MGTOW, I offer a short introduction of its main characters:
Emanuel, Hugo, and Kenneth. The two former form a curious and intellectual part of my
informants, as they constantly refer to scientific theories when discussing their ideas. They
speak with charisma and authority, read a lot, and are politically engaged. Emanuel is a busy
family father and the co-founder of a Swedish self-help site for men, and Hugo is in his
thirties and aims at soon finalizing a philosophical blog. I had one interview with Emanuel on
Skype. Hugo turned out to be one of my key informants, as two 2,5-hour long interviews were
combined with several extended conversations on Messenger. There is also Kenneth, a
middle-aged man whom I talked to on Messenger. Instead of relating his ideas to broader
concepts and narratives, Kenneth kept his answers very short and brief.

When I ask Emanuel, Hugo, and Kenneth how they found MGTOW, they all start their stories
by recounting how they approached women in romantic relationships. Emanuel tells me that
in his twenties, he was a typical “nice guy”: always trying to accommodate the needs and
expectations of his girlfriend. Whenever he was interested in a girl, he would try to connect
emotionally with them before actually making a move. When in a relationship, he would
usually follow some general principles he thought would guarantee a successful relationship:
try to always agree with, and acknowledge, your girlfriend, and try to open up about your own
problems and issues as much as possible.

Kenneth also mentions that he was practicing an attitude in relation to women that he had
been taught since childhood. According to it, men should be sensitive and emotional, offering
women empathic support, and a shoulder to cry on. As he tried to communicate this, Kenneth
would always put the sole attention on the woman he was dating, trying to fulfill all her needs.
On the same note is Hugo, recounting a relationship ten years ago in which he “tried to do
everything right”. In his mind, this incorporated being honest and open about his problems,
and to show his girlfriend a lot of affection and sympathy.

Emanuel, Hugo, and Kenneth’s own words used to describe their behavior resembles Pleck’s
(1976) definition of the “modern male role”. In this role, the focus is on sensitivity, being
attuned to others’ feelings, and having compassionate relationships with people in your
surroundings. In romantic heterosexual relationships, emotional vulnerability and tenderness
is expected. The modern male expresses his feelings completely and dares to be weak in front
of both women and men. When in a relationship, he expects that the woman can soothe his

26
wounds and provide with mental support whenever he is facing difficulties, and he is
encouraged to show patience, understanding and gentleness in his communication (Pleck and
Sawyer 1974:173-174). Emanuel, Hugo, and Kenneth’s previous conduct in relation to
romantic relationships can therefore be seen as an enactment of the “modern male role”.

The main argument behind the masculinity in crisis concept holds that men are experiencing
difficulties to live up to new contemporary expectations of what constitutes masculinity.
Kimmel (2010) argues that media images and same-sex peer groups often set unrealistic and
outdated standards of manhood, creating a “misframed masculinity” that works as a
straitjacket for men. The consequence of this is that men find themselves in an identity crisis,
as they experience conflicting and contradictory demands made of them (Lemon 1992).
Although Emanuel, Hugo, and Kenneth mention that they were aware of a more conventional
understanding of male behavior, such as being dominant or suppressing feelings, this was
perceived as obsolete and archaic. The identity crisis that this framework proposes seems to
have been non-existent for my informants, as the “modern male role” was perceived as self-
evident and natural, rather than being in competition with more traditional ideals.

Therefore, what started as the first disruption in Emanuel, Hugo and Kenneth’s lives were not
difficulties of fulfilling the needs and expectations of the “modern male role”. Instead, as the
following accounts will demonstrate, it was the actual fulfillment of the “modern male role”
that generated feelings of tension and frustration.

5.3.1. Feelings of disruption

When Emanuel’s first long-term girlfriend said that he was being too nice before breaking up
with him, he could not really comprehend it. He says that as a young Swedish man, this
sentence was almost absurd – “how can a guy be too nice to his girlfriend?!”. After a few
years, he started noticing a pattern in all his failed relationships: he was constantly showing a
vulnerable and affectionate side of himself. Accordingly, he was trying his best to live up to
what he believed would guarantee a good relationship. Realizing how these prescriptions
seem to fail him in making him a “too nice partner”, Emanuel became confused and
frustrated.

Hugo and Kenneth’s accounts demonstrate the same pattern. Surprisingly for Hugo, “doing
everything right” did not lead to any success in his relationship. In fact, it only deteriorated it,

27
to the point of him and his girlfriend having to break up. Since Hugo had been intensively in
love with this girl, the break-up caused him a broken heart and a depression. During the next
couple of years, he also decided to live in celibacy because of this. Although not as dramatic,
Kenneth also describes how the fulfillment of modern ideals only caused him a broken heart
and bitter frustration:

Women often say they want a sensitive guy who always offers a shoulder to cry on… I did everything
they told me to, but they would always go to the guy who did the exact opposite

The aforementioned accounts shed light on what initiated the first feelings of tension,
frustration and stress in Emanuel, Hugo and Kenneth. What sparked this process was not
contradictory demands made at them, or difficulties in fulfilling contemporary expectations
due to unrealistic and outdated notions of manhood, which the MIC-framework suggests. In
their eyes, it was the actual enactment of the “modern male role” that caused them misery.
After having realized that their prior behavior only led to heartache, they all started
researching alternative perceptions of manhood, which led them to start practicing a different
approach. What this approach consists of, and how it correlates to the “traditional male role”,
will be the focus of the next chapter.

5.3.2. Enacting the “traditional male role”

Emanuel’s realization surrounding the pattern of his previous failed relationships put him in a
disorientated state. To clear his mind, he went on a trip to Italy, during which he spent a lot of
time wondering what masculinity actually was. By chance, Emanuel came in contact with an
information community that helped heterosexual men becoming more successful in the dating
sphere through applying a certain mindset to sexual dynamics. However, as this approach was
radically different than his usual, he remained highly skeptical of it, calling it “fake bullshit”.
Although doing more and more research about this new approach, Emanuel doubted it a long
time and never put it to practice. Then he tells me about this one date.

Throughout the first half of the evening, Emanuel was his usual self towards the woman he
was dating, applying the type of behavior he had learnt was appropriate: showing a kind,
affectionate and devoted side of himself. However, with time, the woman became
increasingly uninterested, causing Emanuel to intensify his kindness, affection, and devotion
since this was, in his eyes, how to succeed with women. As the date only deteriorated and the

28
woman became more interested in her phone than in Emanuel, he suddenly remembered some
of the guidelines in the new approach: be less emotional and soft, and more assertive and
outspoken. Emanuel decided to change his attitude and tried telling the woman in a forceful
tone: “Put away your phone or I’ll leave”. Before discussing what happened next, a
comparison will be made between this new behavior, and that of the “traditional male role”.

Within the “traditional male role”, four major themes can be identified. In the first one, there
is a tendency to discourage qualities and characteristics that are stereotypically associated
with women, such as feelings of tenderness and emotionality (Pleck 1976; Brannon 1976).
Emanuel’s shift in attitude towards the woman on the date suggests a harsher stance than
before – a stance that also Hugo and Kenneth demonstrate in their stories. The two latter say
that they nowadays act according to a more “manly” mindset. Accordingly, this entails being
assertive, independent, and rational.

Hugo went through a similar process as Emanuel, as he stumbled upon new information
regarding masculine behavior in romantic interactions after having been heartbroken and
depressed. Similar to the latter, he was highly skeptical towards this information in the
beginning, as it completely opposed his previous approach. Although being doubtful, Hugo
practiced the advised techniques in bars and cafes during a long period of time.

The second theme of the “traditional male role” revolves around success, status, and
competence (Brannon 1976). Many of the techniques Hugo tried seemed to communicate
status. One of these was to link two different groups of people at a bar that did not know each
other, through a sort of social engineering. Accordingly, this would demonstrate social
competence and achievement, important tenets in the “traditional male role” (Pleck 1976).
Kenneth, who also left his old patterns of behavior when he realized they did not generate any
success, also states the importance of clothes as a way of communicating status and
accomplishment.

Several times during our interviews, Emanuel, Hugo and Kenneth say that they nowadays
restrain from showing affectionate feelings towards women, and instead try to remain rational
and calm. The “traditional male” suppresses affect and vulnerability, and remains calm and
reliable, without any emotional outbursts (Pleck 1976; Brannon 1976). Hugo says that both
him and the woman he is dating are better off with him being more independent and neutral
about things, and Kenneth says that he aims at controlling his feelings and staying neutral
towards women.

29
Furthermore, characteristics of the fourth theme of the “traditional male role” include
adventure and daring, and a willingness to take risks even when reason and fear suggest
otherwise (ibid.). Hugo says that many of the methods he was trying put an emphasis on not
adhering to feelings of hesitation and doubt, or the fear of being rejected. Accordingly, in
order to succeed in the methods, one must reject certain natural impulses that generate
insecurity. Kenneth agrees with this and says that breaking old patterns of behavior could be
frightening and uncomfortable but is vital if one is to accomplish success in dating. Although
Brannon (1976) argues that an important aspect of the fourth theme is an aura of aggression
and violence, this was an aspect that I did not manage to find in my material.

The above accounts suggest that the new behavior Emanuel, Hugo and Kenneth enacted can
be understood as that of the “traditional male”. In it, neutrality, independency, and courage
forms fundamental guidelines behind behavior, as vulnerability, emotionality, and insecurity
are rejected. And with it, social status and accomplishment are conveyed through a certain
conduct and attitude. Changing their behavior from one that resembled the “modern male
role” into one more in line with a “traditional male role” was an important step for Emanuel,
Kenneth, and Hugo, in their path to MGTOW. Now, what did this shift in attitude and
conduct actually result in? This takes us back to Emanuel’s date.

5.3.3. Notions of mastery and illumination

It was as if the sentence “Put away your phone or I’ll leave” bore some magic quality to it.
The woman left her phone in her pocket, became interested in Emanuel again, and they went
happily home together. After this successful experience, he tried applying the same approach
to new dates, and, to his astonishment, it worked really well. Emanuel says shamefully: “It’s
not something I’m proud of, but I tried it a lot of times and it worked tremendously well…”.
On the same note is Hugo, who tells me that this new approach, through the techniques he
practiced, was incredibly successful, and that they worked almost every single time. Later on,
he even became a dating coach for heterosexual men who experienced difficulties in dating.
Kenneth also experienced the same progress in dating as soon as he left his old pattern of
behavior and started applying the new approach. Nowadays, he perceives himself as an expert
in dating and romantic interactions.

30
Being fascinated by the success of this new approach, Emanuel and Hugo started doing
research on why the advice seemed to work so efficiently. They both ended up in a world of
evolutionary and social psychology, studying different texts about the biological differences
between men and women. In our interviews, they continuously refer to different scientific
theories that seem to explain the rate of success through presenting a biological preference for
certain behavior. Emanuel and Hugo’s accounts correspond with studies of MGTOW (Hunte
2019; Jones et al. 2019) which show that there is a wide interest in evolutionary and social
psychology within the community, often presenting the ideology as scientifically rational. As
I aim to understand my informants’ worldview on their own terms and according to them,
rather than judging it as based on either “true” or “false” statements, I refrain from
speculating the inaccuracy of these claims, as other researchers do (Wright et al. 2020; Ging
2017; Van Valkenburgh 2018, etc.).

Emanuel and Hugo’s accounts can be related to Toseland’s (2019) study about the British
“Truth Movement”. The “Truth Movement” is a loose assemblage of people arguing that the
world is being conspired by a hidden and malign elite, and that widely accepted narratives
concerning health, society, and science are constructed in order to serve the people in the
upper echelons of society. As Toseland (2019) investigates how some of the members came to
identify themselves with the movement, he describes one of these as an “intellectual” waking
up narrative. In this trajectory, the process starts with personal research, through which a new
behavior and a different orientation to the self and others are enacted (ibid.:98). Here, the aim
is to re-educate the self, and leave previous understandings behind. As Emanuel and Hugo
spent an increasingly amount of time researching explanations behind the success of the new
approach, they slowly but steadily abandoned the “modern male role” behavior.

Furthermore, the emotional tone within the “intellectual” waking up narrative is best
characterized as one of illumination and enlightenment (Toseland 2019:96). After having
realized the failures of practicing the “modern male role”, and after having experienced the
success of practicing “the traditional male role”, strong notions of enlightenment and mastery
occurs. Kenneth says that the success led him into realizing “what women actually want”; a
realization also Emanuel formulates in saying: “When you apply these general principles onto
the sexual dynamic between men and women, you realize ‘Holy shit – it works! Men and
women actually want this!’”. As the insights led Emanuel, Kenneth, and Hugo into having
more successful dating experiences, a true sense of mastery was generated. Not long after
these realizations, they all found MGTOW through researching more in regard to biological

31
differences between the sexes, and the discrepancies between the “traditional” and the
“modern male role”.

Pleck and Sawyer (1974) see the “traditional male role” as working as a symbolic straitjacket
for men, forcing them to fulfill an oppressive masculine image of being unemotional,
successful, and assertive. Not only are these ideals constraining for men - but they also limit
their ability to be human since they hinder men from fully expressing intimate feelings (ibid.).
Although the accounts of Emanuel, Kenneth, and Hugo not necessarily lead to any
conclusions or generalizations, they do tell a different story.

5.4. Conclusion

This chapter explored different paths to MGTOW. All of these were initiated by feelings of
disruption and tension, feelings created by different reasons and through different actions.
Why people turn to MGTOW could therefore be concluded as stemming from experiencing
frustration and tension in one way or another. Seeing how we now possess information
surrounding the experience of finding MGTOW, what is it like being MGTOW?

32
6. Being MGTOW

In this chapter, I discuss a central part of my research: what is it like being MGTOW? I am
demonstrating that being MGTOW is fashioned by an opposition towards dominant and
established norms, a perception about a prevalent anti-male sentiment within Swedish society,
feelings of social exclusion and misrepresentation, and an intense focus on feminism. This is
done through applying a Foucauldian framework that highlights how the docile body is
constructed, and how a discourse disqualifies alternative meanings. Moreover, through emic
accounts, I discuss and nuance a phenomenon that seems to be of fundamental importance to
the MGTOW experience, namely the Red pill rage.

6.1. Resisting docility

The realizations surrounding the difference between practicing the “modern male role” and
the “traditional male role” do not only produce notions of mastery and illumination, but also
produce strong emotions of deception and of misguidance. When Kenneth says: “what women
really want”, he points at the discrepancy between the previously applied approach to
heterosexual dating and the newly acquainted one, in terms of results. For Kenneth, Hugo,
and Emanuel, this was surprising as they were applying the “right approach” which they have
been “taught from a young age”. For them, the “modern male role” is the norm.

The notion of the “modern male role” being the norm within society is prevalent among my
informants. Emanuel says that in Sweden, gender roles are blurred because of the
government’s special understanding of male and female:

Here, men are supposed to be like women, and women are supposed to be like men. Men should focus on
the family, be emotional intelligent and caregiving, and women should focus on their career, be assertive
and independent

Joakim, another intellectual and politically engaged man I get in contact with through Twitter,
argues in the same lines. During our meeting at a restaurant in Stockholm, he argues that
Sweden tries to overcome and conquer certain natural aspects of human behavior through
policies and legislation, a process that has developed into a widespread critique of traditional
masculine traits.

33
Another man who identifies himself as MGTOW is Jari, whom I find posting political content
related to MGTOW on Twitter. In our online interview, he states that this ambition already
starts at pre-school, where there is an explicit critique towards traditional understandings of
both male and female. He mentions how terms such as “boys” and “girls” are discouraged in
these educational spaces, and points at the debate generated after the Minister of Education in
2018 argued that these words promote a division based on sex, which counteract a gender-
neutral school6. Instead of seeing more neutral terms such as “children” or “pupils” as
generating a more inclusive environment, Jari sees propositions like these as an establishment
of rules by which everyone needs to abide. Although Jari is provoked by the ways in which
these “rules” challenge the biological importance of sex, I sense in our conversation that the
real frustration lies in how these propositions are seen as being imposed on people, as they
alter, what he argues, the natural course of things.

According to Anton, a young man from Stockholm who I found on Twitter, this way of
creating a norm of being critical of traditional understanding of male and female is also highly
present within higher education. In a long message, he expresses his concerns about how
these ideas are put forth as natural and given within social science, as they are present “in all
literature lists”. Anton sends me a link to the Swedish Research Council7 which states that in
order to get funded on most research projects, a critical gender perspective needs to be at least
considered and thought upon in the application. He continues and says that through this,
people are taught into thinking a certain way. Anton, as Jari, argues that this way of thinking
is being imposed on people, as a way to make us conform to certain ideals and behaviors.

Furthermore, the experience of there being a correct and desired way of relating to notions of
male and female is not only related to the educational system. Emanuel’s experience is that
media constantly communicates what the correct and desired way of behaving is, in
portraying the ideal man as being attuned to his feelings and wanting to take care of the
household. I notice that this topic creates quite a lot of emotions in my informants, as
Emanuel says with frustration: “It’s as if there is one way of behaving as a man!”. In addition
is Roger, a middle-aged man from southern Sweden whom I have two extended Skype-
interviews with. When he is not taking care of the animals on his farm, he either paints for
upcoming art exhibitions, or uploads videos on his YouTube-channel, which has over 40.000
followers. In our first interview, Roger gets noticeably irritated when he tells me about two

6
[Link]
7
[Link]

34
friends who indirectly lost money due to the current parental leave system. The father, who
earned the most, had to take out his 90 days of parental leave – even though they both wanted
the mother to stay at home with the children, and the father to be at work. In Roger’s eyes, the
father and mother, as the leaders of the family, had absolutely no say in how they dealt with
these 90 days: it was not up to them to define the role of the father in the parenthood. Instead,
it was the government, through legislation, that defined what constitutes a father. Roger feels
a sense of hopelessness in face of what he describes as an all-encompassing push for complete
compliance and ends with: “All this mess is about streamlining people into a certain form of
desired behavior”.

After hearing many similar stories like these from other informants, I get the impression that
all of them feel as if they are trapped in a multifaceted system, in which rules and regulations
form standards of behavior of how to act and think, as a man. Emic descriptions such as those
above further points to a connection between this standard of behavior and that of the
“modern male role”. In other words, there is a pervading experience in my informants of
being surrounded by various societal institutions, which all attempt to form them into a
behavior which resembles that of the “modern male role”. Not only do they share the notion
of being trapped in a system, but they also collectively reject this behavior, aiming at finding
their own way of being.

As a way of highlighting how the MGTOW experience is fashioned by an opposition towards

dominant and established norms, I see these experiences through a Foucauldian lens.

In Discipline and Punishment (1995), Foucault sets out to analyze the history of the modern
penal system. Before the 18th century, punishment was ceremonial and a public spectacle,
aimed at reestablishing the authority of the King among the people who stood as witnesses to
it. During the 18th century, this began to change, as state officials wanted power to operate
more efficiently – rather than disciplining its citizens through punitive acts directed at the
body, the state began to discipline its members at a distance with a much ‘higher’ aim.
Through a ‘political investment of the body’ (Foucault 1995:25), the citizen became an
independent agent through which the interests of the state were expressed. To be a good
citizen was connected to utility and submission: “the body becomes a useful force only if it is
both a productive body and a subjected body” (ibid.:26).

In order for the citizen to become a useful body, they had to be disciplined. Discipline is a
form of power exercised on bodies, involving a set of techniques, such as surveillance,

35
penalty, and examination, that are applied by institutions. One of these institutions is the
prison. Foucault (ibid.:236) argues that the prison is the disciplinary institution in its
perfection, as it manages to supervise, correct, and control behavior simultaneously. Another
disciplinary instrument is the school, wherein individuals are constantly compared and
surveilled through examinations. Whenever the desired knowledge or behavior is expressed,
the student is rewarded. Whenever the undesirable knowledge or behavior is expressed, the
student is punished. The school also forms an effective establishment of coercion, as it
produces a standardized knowledge which every individual needs to adjust to, and express
(ibid.:184). Rather than acting in isolation, the prison and the school are linked to other
institutions, “which all tend […] to exercise a power of normalization” (ibid.:308), creating an
impressive disciplinary system. In conclusion, the aim of this discipline is to produce what
Foucault (ibid.:136) calls a “docile body”: a body that enacts the appropriate and desired
behavior.

Seeing my informants’ accounts through this framework generates an understanding of the

MGTOW experience as one based on a critique of norms. Roger’s frustration regarding being
in a system that “streamlines people into a certain behavior”, and Anton’s thoughts on how
one specific type of thinking is “being imposed on people” point to the Foucauldian idea of
how numerous social institutions tend to exercise a power of normalization, in which the aim
is to produce a “docile body” that enacts the desired behavior. As Roger, Anton, and others
reject this desired behavior, they reject what is currently the norm. The critique and the
rejection of the “modern male role” can therefore be understood as a way of resisting docility:
a way of resisting conventional and established norms of behaving, acting, and thinking.

Foucault exemplifies the “docile body” with the soldier in the late 18th century: “the soldier
has become something that can be made; out of a formless clay, an inapt body, the machine
required can be constructed” (ibid.:135). Resisting docility; the decision of not agreeing to be
‘constructed’, resembles Foucault’s understanding of resistance. In order for an individual to
break free from the disciplinary subjection from the state, they need to withdraw his or her
consent of being ‘constructed’ in that specific way (Lorenzini 2016:72). By rejecting the
“modern male role”, a decision has been taken to detach themselves from the form of
subjectivity that the disciplinary techniques aim to impose on them. To resist docility should
therefore be seen as a big part of the MGTOW experience.

However, as the following chapters will show, openly opposing the form of behavior, acting,
and thinking that is considered to be the norm is not as easy as it may sound. Through another
36
disciplinary force, namely discourse, these alternative ways of being and acting are presented
as unacceptable and unreasonable. This leads me to the next chapter in which I will relate my
informants’ perception of a pervasive anti-male sentiment in Swedish society, with Foucault’s
notion of discourse.

6.2. Anti-male sentiments

In one way or another during my fieldwork, all of my of interlocutors mention that they
perceive widespread anti-male sentiments in the Swedish society. Immediately when we start
talking on Twitter, Anton says that the last few years, he has noted an increasing amount of
animosity towards men in general. In his eyes, media constantly portrays men as inherently
violent, malicious, and power-seeking, and academia presents the majority of men as
constituted by a “toxic personality”. Jari argues that men are always seen as the root to all
evil, and Danny says in an irritated voice: “Society is so anti-male. We get fucking hammered
day in day out!”. In our Skype-interview, the tone gets agitated when Emanuel says:

Only the last months you can find at least 60 texts in different newspapers that state that Swedish men are
inadequate, failed, not enough equalitarian, not enough intelligent, not enough compassionate… Swedish
men are constantly criticized in media, movies, academia…! (…) Swedish men get it - ‘we’re not
needed!’. This is what society tells us: you are superfluous, take too much space, and are too loud

The perceived anti-male sentiment often produces frustration and anger in my informants, as
Danny and Emanuel’s accounts demonstrate. A more personal impact is showed by Roger,
who, in our intimate interview on Skype, opens up regarding his way of understanding the
way men are talked about:

If you are constantly told that there is something wrong with you and that you need to change, it almost
becomes like an oppression: what you are is not good enough. To be good enough, you will have to
change. (…) I don’t think that’s healthy at all… I think it creates seriously bad emotions…

Now, as I showed Finding MGTOW, my informants do not view all “versions” of masculinity
as being under attack. The perception is that there is one correct and desired way of behaving
and acting as a man, which is that of the “modern male role”. As I mention in An introduction
to MGTOW, both MGTOW as a community and my interlocutors lean towards an essentialist
view of male and female behavior, which corresponds to that of the “traditional male role”.
Therefore, the communication of the “modern male role” functions in their eyes also as an
37
anti-male sentiment, in opposing, rejecting, and transforming the ‘true nature’ of men. As a
result, the general impression within my informants is that there are widespread anti-male
sentiments not only in media and popular culture, but also within different social institutions.

To better understand the emic experience of being MGTOW, I am relating my informants’

perception of a widespread anti-male sentiment with Foucault’s idea about discourse. A
discourse in his sense is an assemblage of systematic and coherent expressions, accounts, and
concepts within a particular domain (Mills 2004), a description that fits well with Anton and
Emanuel’s impression of the media coverage of men. In noting how these sentiments also
seem to exist within the educational system, my informants point to the constitutive force of a
discourse in creating and structuring knowledge. To Foucault, knowledge is not just a mere
reflection of reality, but instead constructed by discourses (Jorgensen and Phillips 2002). The
institutional settings are here important since Foucault views them as authorizing any given
discourse (Edwards 2008). Several times during my fieldwork, I am told that the perceived
anti-male sentiments were initiated within academia, and later on accepted and seen as “true”
by the wider public. Now, my aim is not to investigate if there is an anti-male sentiment
discourse in Swedish society, but rather to relate my informants’ experiences to this
discussion in order to better understand them.

What this section demonstrated is that a major tenet within the MGTOW experience is a
perception of wide anti-male sentiments. A connection was also made between the perceived
anti-male sentiments and the feelings of being trapped in a system where the “modern male
role” is presented as the only way of enacting male behavior. These experiences were then
related to Foucault’s concept of discourse. Following the decision to relate the perceived anti-
male sentiments to the notion of discourse, the next two chapters will view the experience of
being MGTOW through two mechanisms by which a discourse invalidates and disqualifies
alternative readings and interpretations. The first is the prohibition.

6.3. The prohibition

After having told me what he finds the most intriguing with the philosophy of MGTOW, I ask
Leonardo what his favorite MGTOW-channels are on YouTube. He brings his phone up and
starts typing in text in the search function of You-Tube. Whilst doing this, he mutters: “Oh,
what did that channel change their name to…”. I ask him what he means by this, and he says

38
that there are plenty of MGTOW-channels online, but since they often get deleted, many of
them change the name to something else. Leonardo elaborates and says that as soon as the
word MGTOW comes up, the video will be flagged as disturbing, misogynistic, or sexists, no
matter the content. Accordingly, MGTOW is on the wrong side of things, as if it is banned
from public discourse. Leonardo speculates that this might be because MGTOW often
“reveals the true nature” of men and women.

The notion of there being a sort of ban about central topics within MGTOW, is a recurrent
theme whenever I talk to my informants regarding their experience of identifying with the
community. As Hugo tells me about “the gynocentric reality” of contemporary society, he
says that he is frustrated about the fact that this aspect is never up for debate. He continues
stating that to talk about these things in public is like paining a target upon your back. In our
Skype-interview, Roger tells me in an astonished and irritated voice that there are some topics
you just have to avoid in society. One of these is how boys and girls behave differently
according to their biological differences: “It is as if our society won’t accept that there are
biological differences. Since they cannot and must not exist, it is forbidden to discuss or
highlight”. These experiences, together with Leonardo’s statements of MGTOW being
banned from public discourse, can be related to Foucault’s discussion about the prohibition.

In order to eliminate and disqualify other meanings and interpretations which could
undermine the meaning and power of the predominant discourse, Foucault (1981:53) notes
that: “In every society, the production of discourse is at once controlled, selected, organized
and redistributed by a certain number of procedures”. To clarify: in order for the perceived
anti-male sentiments to have its desired function, other understandings that might pose a
threat to its meaning must be disregarded. The first of these procedures is the system of
exclusion, of which “the prohibition” is a part. The prohibition is described as such:

We know quite well that we do not have the right to say everything, that we cannot speak of just anything
in any circumstances whatever, and that not everyone has the right to speak of anything whatever
(Foucault 1981:53)

Leonardo and Roger’s statement regarding MGTOW “revealing the true nature” of men and
women by presenting biological differences between the sexes should be understood through
the widespread belief within the community that there is a “true essence” of men and women8.
More importantly, concepts like these could be seen as posing a threat to the perceived anti-

8
See Introduction of MGTOW ideology

39
male sentiments, as they oppose the idea of male behavior as something constructed or
formed. Just as the prevalent norms of male behavior pose a threat to undermine my
informants “true male nature”, so do the topics concerning biological explanations behind
male behavior to the empirically perceived discourse containing the anti-male sentiments.
Therefore, any topic surrounding MGTOW is perceived as prohibited.

When Leonardo elaborates on his experiences of being MGTOW, he points to how this
prohibition seems to have personally affected him. “I keep my opinions about MGTOW really
private. I don’t even browse it at work. These things you must keep to yourself, I always
avoid topics related to MGTOW”. As it turns out as nearly all of my informants avoid central
topics and arguments related to its philosophy, the constraining effects of discourse are
highlighted. The pressure to conform to the prohibition, through silencing some of their
interests, seems to form a big part of the experience of being a MGTOW.

Furthermore, the notion of a ban does not only have a constraining effect in regulating that
which cannot be said. Leonardo ends the discussion with “You could say that I am living a
double life between MGTOW and my normal life, where I behave differently”; a quote that
shows how the pressure from the prohibition not only silences and restricts the MGTOW
experience, but also how it forms a certain behavior. Through “living a double life”, Leonardo
has enacted a behavior that works in accordance with the prohibition. The prohibition can thus
be understood as a productive force, forming its objects into a certain way of behavior, which
highlights the way discourse “shapes action, making different ways of knowing the world and
of acting within it possible” (Edwards 2008:34).

However, discourse is not something that exists in and of itself. Rather, a discourse can be
seen as a set of “practices that systematically form the objects of which they speak” (Foucault
1972:49). In other words, a discourse is simultaneously constituted by rules, of which the
prohibition is a part, those practices they generate, and that which is presented as knowledge.
As Mills (2004) notes, discourse is a process, or a social system, which produces something
certain effects.

In this section, I discussed my informants’ experience of a ban surrounding certain topics

around MGTOW as one of these effects, namely the prohibition. The perceived prohibition
impacts the experience of being MGTOW in creating a constraining pressure to conform into
silence, and, for some, to live a “double life”. The next chapter will juxtapose my

40
interlocutors accounts with another effect of discourse: the opposition between reason and
madness.

6.4. Opposition between reason and madness

The secondary rule within the exclusionary system which eliminates and disqualifies other
meanings and interpretations that could undermine the power of the predominant discourse is
the opposition between reason and madness (Foucault 1981). The point of this rule is to make
it impossible to think outside of it. To be outside of it is, “by definition, to be mad, to be
beyond comprehension and therefore reason.” (Hook 2001:42). In other words, that which
does not conform to the prevalent discourse, which I relate to the perceived anti-male
sentiments, is rendered deviant, abnormal, or mad.

Discussing the term madness in relation to Foucault demands a short introduction to his
thoughts on the matter. In Madness and Civilization (1988), Foucault analyses the relationship
between madness and society through the concept of social exclusion (Peters and Besley:
2014). Relevant here is how this relationship is constituted by a various set of techniques,
such as banishment and confinement, aimed at creating a dichotomic understanding
separating reason from unreason, sane from the unsane, and us from them. The main function
of these “formulas of exclusion” (Foucault 1988:7) was to exclude “abnormal” people that in
one way or another posed a threat to the stability of society.

What happens if you break the “prohibition”? You are rendered deviant, mad, and unsane.
Although many of my informants agree to the notion of living a double life, I asked all of
them what happened if they started talking about MGTOW, or topics related to the
philosophy, to their friends or out in public. Kenneth says that those few times he has said
anything about MGTOW, the reaction has always been a special one. He says that people
always get a certain look on their face, as if he was being ridiculous and out of his mind.
Hugo, among others, has also noticed the way people treat him whenever he voices opinions,
and Anton argues that whenever he has engaged in a discussion surrounding any MGTOW-
related topics, he has been deemed bizarre and peculiar.

Furthermore, the way in which the experience of identifying with MGTOW relates to the
division between madness and reason can be seen in the rejection of the madman’s speech.
When I ask Anton to elaborate on these discussions, he states that it is rarely the actual

41
content of the discussion that triggers labels such as “insane” or “mad” to be uttered. Here, an
interesting relationship occurs between the label of the madman and the grounds on which the
label is being constructed on. Foucault (ibid.) notes that “It was through his words that his
madness was recognized: they were the place where the division between reason and madness
was exercised, but they were never recorded or listened to“. Anton sees the labelling of him
being a madman as initiated by his words, but not by the meaning of them. Here, his words
are vital as it is through them his madness is recognized. However, since they are not being
listened to, they do not have the same currency as others.

The way words of mad men define their madness, yet simultaneously “are considered null and
void, having neither truth nor importance” (ibid.:53) can also be seen in how Simon describes
his experience of speaking out about his affiliation to MGTOW:

When MGTOWs actually do confirm their status as an MGTOW into the open, most people just tell us:
‘So, you are gay?’, ‘Who hurt you?’ and so on. Nobody is really worthy of even knowing that you are a
MGTOW since all you get are shitty replies back, making fun of you, ignoring everything you could had
said, because they didn’t listen to a word you said in the first place

During my fieldwork, I managed to get a glimpse of this arbitrary meaning of the madman’s
speech through my own eyes, as being both rejected but also functioning as a signpost to their
“madness”. Interestingly, it seemed as if everything centered around one word: “feminism”.
When explaining that my object of study is critical to feminism, this was either ridiculed as
being irrational or absurd, or met with emotions of anger – even if that was all that was said.
A professor at my university mocked the idea in front of the class with a derogatory “Oh, the
evils of feminism!”, generating laughter and agreeing nods. When I mentioned my research to
my physiotherapist, she smiled and, with a condescending voice, said “Oh, so you’re hanging
out with Trump supporters?”. Small talks with colleagues and acquaintances often escalated
into outbursts like “How can you even talk to them?!”, or “I’m sure they’re all pathetic!”.
These observations do not only point to how the madman’s speech is arbitrary. More
importantly, it seemed as if the act of being against feminism spurred a strong reaction
everywhere in itself, creating a radical all-encompassing understanding of my informants.

In order to clarify my argument, a short repetition might come useful. I related the perceived
anti-male sentiments to Foucault’s notion of a discourse. Consequently, my informants’
experience of a ban, as well as that of being labelled mad, were related to the prohibition and
the opposition between reason and madness, which, in Foucault’s theory, function as
mechanisms through which the discourse is protected and secured. Now, how can feminism

42
through this theoretical framework be understood? Where does it fit in the experience of
being MGTOW? Before exploring that matter, I will demonstrate the centrality of feminism
through a few more ethnographic examples.

6.4.1. The centrality of feminism

As my fieldwork progressed, I noticed that there was a connection between my informants’

experiences of being seen as deviant and odd, and feminism. As Simon ends his above quote
with “Also, the herd mentality spread the word fast around the groups, making you the
target.”, he points at the ways the labelling of madmen refers to a social exclusionary practice
which aims at drawing a border between “us” and “them” (Raffsnoe et al. 2016:104). After
about an hour at the café, Saif opens up and starts telling me his experiences of being the
“target” in his university class:

Some of the girls [in class] somehow found out that I was against feminism so they would not invite
me… It was so unfair. They were not sharing notes, not communicating… They didn’t even want me in
the group, they wanted to kick me out. I did my own part, but it still wasn’t enough for them. … If I was
supporting feminism, they would not have done that… And it hurt me a lot. Just because I have my own
little… you know… ideals of not supporting feminism like you do, you just exclude me from the group
and kick me out

The division between the sane and the mad not only has the function of rejecting the speech of
the madman, or socially excluding him. As Raffsnoe et al. (ibid.:113) state, the social
confinement of “the other” also aims at correcting his behavior through an internalization of
his own deficiency and the insufficient nature of his existence. This, accordingly, creates a
self-censuring and self-controlling behavior (ibid.:114). Saif states that he actually started
wondering if there was anything wrong with him during this period, as he had such a hard
time at university. As he rhetorically asks the question “I wonder how things would have
turned out if I was a feminist?”, he carefully remarks how the exclusionary practice of
madmen could “install a self-moderating consciousness of guilt, which could lead them back
on track” (ibid.). Here, Saif makes a connection between being a supporter of feminism as a
way to undo the label of “the other”: as a way to lead him back on track. In his eyes, to be
sane is to be a feminist. To be unsane is not to be a feminist.

43
6.4.2. Feminism as a truth regime

A connection between feminism and the first mechanism through which discourse eliminates
potential threats – the prohibition - is being explicitely made several times by my informants.
Leonardo, Hugo, and Roger connect the ban of MGTOW on YouTube, the idea about the
gynocentric society, and the biological differences between the sexes as challenging to
feminist currents in society. For example, Roger’s comments about the biological differences
between boys and girls were made after having told me that toy stores are being accused of
being “evil” when putting traditional boy toys in a separated section, away from traditional
girl toys. Accordingly, the idea that behavior is biologically inherent, rather than socially
constructed, would seriously undermine the feminist project of creating different gender
norms through teaching girls to play with boy toys and vice versa. Thus, in their eyes, the
prohibition of this topic does not only function to secure the anti-male sentiments, which I
relate to the notion of discourse, but also as a way to “protect” feminism from criticism.

A connection between feminism and the second mechanism through which discourse
eliminates potential threats - the opposition between reason and madness - is also being made
by my interlocutors. I show my informants The Guardian’s9 illustration of the typical
MGTOW: an angry and lonely man, sitting in front of his computer in the dark. Leonardo
says that the media always depict MGTOW in a sensational and very negative way as a way
to rule out all of its content as incomprehensible and absurd. Joakim extends this argument
further by stating that the angry picture of MGTOW corresponds to the way society, through
media, ultimately aims at conserving the feminist ideology, rather than to portray the
community “as it is”. When Hugo speculates about the picture, he says:

I see this as a misrepresentation. It goes outside the feminist narrative and then people react with anger
and hostility, which in turn, make them into saying that we are the ones who are angry and hostile. It
becomes like a defense mechanism for society: we are the ones who are sick!

Also here is the perception that the opposition between reason and madness functions not only
to secure the anti-male sentiments, which I relate to the notion of discourse, but to “protect”
feminism. To Foucault, the logic produced by a discourse relates to a much broader structure
of knowledge, something he calls a regime of truth (Foucault 1977:13). A regime of truth is
never constant, but always temporal, generating its legitimacy through certain discourses

9
[Link]
movement-that-is-now-mainstream

44
found in scientific and social institutions, such as universities, media, and schools (Lorenzini
2015:2). Earlier in this text, I asked where feminism can be localized in Foucault’s
framework, and in the MGTOW experience. Seeing my informants’ experiences and accounts
through this theoretical angle, feminism can be understood as that broader structure of
knowledge which the anti-male sentiments correspond to. As a result of this, the experience of
being MGTOW is highly connected to feminism, as feminism is perceived as that force which
has a similar power in society to the Foucauldian truth regime.

In the last section, I related my informants’ experiences of being labelled “angry” to

Foucault’s discussion on the production of discourse. The centrality of feminism was
highlighted, and I also showed, on the basis of my informants’ experiences and accounts, how
feminism can, through this theoretical context, be understood as a regime of truth. In the next
part, Red pill rage, I discuss a phenomenon that seems to be fundamental to the MGTOW
experience, and furthermore show another possible understanding behind the emic experience
of being labelled mad or angry.

6.5. Red pill rage

During my two months fieldwork, I get the impression that many MGTOWs are in fact angry
and enraged. The majority of the post in the different Facebook groups communicate betrayal,
rage, and disappointment, as men from all around the world share personal stories. On
Twitter, the tone is often agitated and upset whenever comments from MGTOWs are posted,
and on YouTube, the mood in the uploaded videos bear notions of resentfulness and
bitterness. Then one day I stumble upon the concept of Red pill rage.

The term “red pill” relates to a scene in the movie Matrix, where the main character must
choose between a blue pill or a red pill. Taking the blue pill means continuing living in the
delusion of the mainstream narrative, blissfully ignoring the hidden secrets of the world.
Taking the red pill means being exposed to the awful realities of life, ultimately revealing a
previously concealed truth. The previously concealed truth in MGTOW’s case is the belief
that society has become gynocentric because of the successful institutionalization of
feminism. Thus, being MGTOW is closely connected to digesting the red pill.

Digesting the red pill is understood as something that exposes you to the truth, rather than
revealing it. In discussing the process of adhering to a philosophy based on alternative

45
knowledge, Toseland (2019:96) notes that the dominant understandings of the self and the
world must be challenged in order to re-educate the self. Moreover, Van Valkenburgh (2018)
shows how this re-education is filled with notions of deception and of misguidance as the act
of taking the red pill shows how “everything you were taught, everything you were led to
believe is a lie” (ibid.:87).

Therefore, taking the red pill generates intense feelings of rage and resentment. Emanuel
states that the anger most men feel after having taken the red pill depends on the realizations
of having wasted their lives on trying to live up to false ideas (i.e. enacting the “modern male
role”). Hugo clarifies and says that the Red pill rage is a stage in which men feel betrayed,
misguided, and fooled by the official narrative concerning men and women: they have been
trying to do the “right” thing without knowing how things really work. Furthermore, The Red
pill rage seems to be a very common phase, being mentioned every now and then on the
various MGTOW-platforms on social media.

Leonardo is the first person I talk to about this rage. After the initial feelings of liberation, he
says that he reacted with anger and resentment when he realized he had been living a lie.
When I ask him about the process of digesting the philosophy of MGTOW at a pub, a feeling
of heaviness enters the conversation as Leonardo takes a deep breath before answering:

When you find out about these things, there is rage and anger. You find out that it is not about you, that
everything is not your fault. You really feel like society is screwed up and that the world owes you
something. (…) I think it is natural to be angry when having lived a lie

Moreover, the rage and hate within the MGTOW community has also been noted outside it. In
analyzing the content of comments on MGTOW platforms online, Ribeiro et al. (2020)
conclude that MGTOW forums are one of the most hateful forums within the manosphere. On
the same note is Lin (2017:93) who views MGTOW spaces online as filled with anger and
aggression. International media has also picked up on this notion, depicting MGTOW as an
enraged man 10.

However, the Red pill rage seems to be slightly overestimated when I mention it to other
informants. Danny, Simon, and Joakim describe their reactions when starting to digest the
philosophy of MGTOW as rather emotionless and distant, as the process centered on an
acknowledgement of their previous experiences, rather than of an exposure of a hidden truth.

3
[Link]
movement-that-is-now-mainstream

46
Others, like Kenneth and Joakim, describe the initial process of research as something
exciting and fascinating. When I ask about the first phase of reading about MGTOW, neither
one of them mention any rage or bitterness in their accounts. Although the Red pill rage is a
common phenomenon that all of my informants have heard about, it seems as it is rare to
actually go through one.

6.5.1. Misogynist online content

In the content online, I notice that there is a lot of focus on what women do. The MGTOW
platforms I am engaging with put a lot of emphasis on describing women in a remarkably
pejorative manner. Words such as manipulative, selfish, and entitled are often used to
describe women who are understood as adhering to feminist ideals. The tendency of
highlighting what they perceive is negative female behavior is present on the Facebook-
groups I am member on, and on the Reddit forum. If glancing at MGTOW through these
platforms, one slowly but steadily start realizing why the word “misogynist” is a common
word to describe the content of the philosophy.

The misogynist side of MGTOWs content online has been rightfully noted by a range of
scholars. Lin (2017) argues that MGTOW consistently display cynicism and resentment
towards women across its different platforms, a view Farrell et al. (2019) agree with in
showing that the MGTOW-forum on Reddit displays severe notions of hostility and
aggression towards women. Through a quantitative analysis of the content on the official
MGTOW forum, Wright et al. (2020) found that the most commonly discussed topic was
women. The majority of these comments, 61%, portrayed women in misogynist ways (ibid.).
In the same vein is Jones et al (2019), showing that posts on Twitter from MGTOW users
often include harassments aimed towards women. Thus, it seems as if identifying with
MGTOW is clearly related to bearing misogynist views.

However, when I confront Hugo about the misogynist content, he hints at another explanation
behind the overload of female focus online. In his opinion, there is an initial phase of
frustration when finding MGTOW, which triggers you to mentally repeat and experience
hurtful patterns of behavior and observations. This initial phase that Hugo is mentioning could
be translated into the Red pill rage, as Leonardo tells me that during his period of anger and

47
resentment, he used to visit different MGTOW platforms on an everyday basis as a way to
channel his rage towards society and women.

6.5.2. Vocal minority

When I ask Leonardo about the common idea of MGTOW as being angry and misogynist, he
claims in an irritable fashion that this picture applies to all the keyboard activists who
endlessly argue for why their opinions are the correct ones. After having said this, he notes
with a bit of shame in his voice “Maybe I had this phase too, during my red pill rage…”.
Here, a connection between the label of MGTOW as madman, the misogynist content of
MGTOW platforms online, and the Red pill rage is made. Thus Leonardo, engaged with and
created online content when he was feeling the absolute worst during his temporary Red pill
rage.

Furthermore, the practice of consuming, and creating, online content, does not seem to be that
common when I ask other informants: only one seems to post on a regular basis on MGTOW
platforms. The idea about a vocal minority producing online content is interestingly enough
being supported by Wrights et al. (2020). They note that although the MGTOW forum seems
to be very popular, judging by the number of posts, the participation in it is highly skewed:
0.23% of all the registered accounts produced more than half of the content.

Although produced by a vocal minority, the misogynist aspect of the online content is
something that should be condemned. Jones et al. (2020) note that the misogyny produced by
the MGTOW forum contributes to a normalization of these beliefs, reinforcing harmful
gendered views within society. By relating the discussion to Arendt’s (1963) phrase ‘banality
of evil’, they highlight how everyday acts of gendered violence contribute to a misogynistic
culture in which women are dehumanized and severely insulted. Several times during my
fieldwork, I had to shut down whatever platform I was using, as the words “whores”, “sluts”,
or “skanks” made me feel very uncomfortable.

As time passed, I realized that not only is the online content created out of a rare and
temporary phase, it is also frowned upon. Leonardo says he grew tired of consuming the
hateful content within the Reddit and Facebook groups because of the childish and misogynist
tone, and that he no longer visits them. Saif says that he does not appreciate the hostility
towards women, and Roger gets notably irritated when I bring up the subject: “There are

48
many assholes online. The misogynist part of MGTOW is absolutely pathetic – it doesn’t
represent anything of my own views.”.

Therefore, the misogynist sentiments on MGTOW platforms online does not necessarily
relate to the experience of being a MGTOW. What about the practice of creating online
content? Danny has strong emotions about this. “They just upload videos ranting about
women all day. Why?! A MGTOW shouldn’t be sitting on the forum all day, that’s not going
your own way. That’s sitting on Reddit”. Hugo, among others, gets a tiresome facial
expression when this topic comes up and says that commenting on women online as a
MGTOW is a phase that should pass, as it off-centers the attention. Thus, it seems as there is a
heavy internal critique towards not only the misogynist aspects of online content, but also the
act of creating online content.

The internal critique within MGTOW can be understood through the process Toseland
(2019:126) describes as a second awakening. In his study, he shows that “waking up”
narratives within the Truth Movement often involve a sort of double awakening, through
which a separation is made between the first and the second awakening.

There’s two types of awakening. There’s the first awakening these people will have, where they realize
the world of politics, finance, and government, and media, is all bollocks. It’s full of propaganda. That’s
the first one. The second one is when they realize the truth movement is full of shit as well. And then they
realize that the only solution is to take the stuff from it that works from them, and live a good life, with
that knowledge (Sheridan in Toseland 2019:127)

Here, the second awakening regards the realization of MGTOW also being “full of shit”, as
the misogynist content created by “keyboard activists” on forums clearly upsets my
informants. Through the former mentioned statements by Roger, Danny, and Hugo, being
MGTOW is related to having experienced the second awakening, leaving the online content
behind.

It is therefore highly unfortunate that Jones et al. (2020) equate the content produced by the
vocal minority, which could be seen as those not having experienced the second awakening,
with the core ideology and beliefs of MGTOW. The conclusion is that MGTOW as a group is
dangerous as these ‘super posters’ normalize subtle online harassment towards women (ibid.
15). Since these active users “help to set the tone and topic of the debates”, they hold
“significant power and influence within the network” (ibid.:6). My findings surrounding the
internal critique of both the misogynist content, and the process of producing it, can be
understood as showing the opposite: the vocal minority does not have significant power and
49
influence within MGTOW. Instead, the practices of these ‘super posters’ are rather looked
down upon, as they are considered still being within a certain phase of Red pill rage, focusing
on female behavior.

6.6. Conclusion

In this chapter, I discussed several different experiences of being MGTOW. I argue that one
experience can be understood as resisting docility: a way of resisting dominant and
established norms. Furthermore, the experiences of perceived anti-male sentiments were
related to Foucault’s discussions on discourse. As a result, the experiences of my informants
were related to the two mechanisms by which a discourse invalidates and disqualifies
alternative meanings: the prohibition, and the opposition between reason and madness. On the
basis of my informants’ accounts and experiences, and through this framework, I argue that
feminism can be seen as a truth regime. Furthermore, I explored and nuanced both the emic
understanding of the Red pill rage, and the etic understanding of MGTOW as a misogynist
man in front of his computer. Now, how do my informants resist the perceived truth regime
they find themselves in? That is the topic for the next chapter.

50
7. Practicing MGTOW

In this chapter, I explore how MGTOW is expressed and practiced in everyday life. Here, I
build on both previous studies of MGTOW, and those findings I present in Being MGTOW. I
show how the expression is formed by a common rule of never publicly revealing your
affiliation with the community and offer several interpretations of this rule. Instead of
understanding the internet expression as a reflection of a “true” MGTOW practice, I am
guided by emic accounts of how the value is placed in the self, rather than in their
surroundings. These accounts are discussed and analyzed through Scott’s notion of resistance,
but also related to other research. Through this, I am nuancing the picture of a MGTOW, as
well as highlighting my argument that the practice of MGTOW should be seen as an act of
resistance.

7.1. Expressions of MGTOW

7.1.1. The golden rule of MGTOW

Halfway into our chat session on Reddit, I ask Simon what types of actions and practices that
define a MGTOW. The reply is quick and short: “Well first of all, the golden rule for every
MGTOW is ‘Never speak about MGTOW IRL’. Ergo, most MGTOW keep it a secret from
everyone else, and behave just like anyone”. He tells me that whenever there is a situation in
which feminism is brought up, he nods in agreement as a way to protect himself from
potential backlashes. On the same note is Danny, who says that a general advice within the
community is never to reveal the MGTOW-part of you, as “no sane man would do this”.
Here, I am also reminded of Leonardo’s description of keeping these ideas in private,
ultimately leading him to living a “double life” between MGTOW and his normal life. The
aversion of unveiling their affinity with the community in public proves to be a common
theme among my informants in how they express MGTOW.

“The golden rule” within MGTOW should be understood in relation to what has been shown
in Being MGTOW. As a way to avoid those exclusionary practices being discussed in the
previous chapter, the rule works as an effective strategy in creating an alternative version of
my informants. The focal point in the strategic practice of it is how it produces a behavior that
conceals their MGTOW-identity, and instead offers a type of performance which Scott (1985;

51
1990) conceptualizes as the public transcript. Accordingly, as a way to avoid conflicts and
social sanctions in the presence of authority, the subaltern11 hides behind a typical conduct
that conforms to prevailing norms of behavior. When Simon nods in agreement as a way to
protect himself, he enacts “a performance of deference and consent” (Scott 1990:3), a
performance that is “more or less credible […], speaking the lines and making the gestures he
knows are expected of him” (ibid.:4). Therefore, “the golden rule” of how MGTOW is
expressed can be related to creating a public transcript.

Simi and Futrell’s (2009) study of how members of one of the most radical, deviant, and
stigmatized movements – the U.S. white power movement – manage the interactional tension
they face in everyday settings offers a different understanding. As embracing an Aryan
identity contrast sharply with contemporary integrationist attitudes and multicultural ethics,
the members of the movement constantly run the risk of facing public scorn and indignation.
In order to reduce the chance for unwanted disputes, they often cover their identity to “get
along” with others (ibid.:90), like those within MGTOW. However, instead of seeing this
concealment as part of the public transcript, in which the practitioners abide to conventional
expectations and desires, Simi and Futrell (2009:91) understand it as a type of veiled, identity-
based everyday resistance. As their “calculated conformity” (Scott 1985) to mainstream
beliefs centers on the power to resist other’s labels of who they are and should be, and
functions as a way to secure a continued, risk-free membership without conflicts, the
concealment of their activist identity is instead seen as a form of resistance. Through this idea,
“the golden rule” enables Simon, Leonardo, and my other informants to sustain themselves as
MGTOW safely.

To complicate things even more, I offer another lens through which the concealment of the
MGTOW identity can be understood. When I ask Danny if he would like to tell his friends
about MGTOW, he replies that there is no need for him to do that, or to “write MGTOW on a
toilet door”. This is because everyone makes up their own mind and do their own thing. In the
same vein is Kenneth who explains that after all he does not care if another man is MGTOW
or not, and that finding MGTOW should come out of an individual’s own interest and path,
instead of those of others. The importance and preachment of individuality within MGTOW
has also been noted by Wright et al. (2019) and Lin (2017), as autonomy, independence, self-
government, and self-rule are core principles among their informants. When Hugo says “[…]

11
I am not seeing MGTOW as a subaltern per se. See discussion under Theoretical frameworks

52
since MGTOW is about me and not anyone else, why would I want to share my identity with
the whole world?”, he connects the focus of individuality to a non-interest in revealing that he
himself is a MGTOW.

Whether the concealment of identifying with MGTOW is part of a public transcript, an act of
everyday resistance, or only the result of the importance of individuality, it either way forms a
big part of how MGTOW is expressed “onstage”. Moreover, according to Scott, in order to
recover more than just the public performance, it is necessary to “move backstage, where the
mask can be lifted” (Scott 1985:287). Therefore, in order to get the full expression of
MGTOW, we must look elsewhere.

7.1.2. Internet platforms as hidden transcripts?

Being produced for a different audience and under different circumstances of constraint, Scott
(1985, 1989, 1990) names the discourse that takes place “offstage” as hidden transcript. Here,
subordinates can talk among themselves without the restraining presence of the dominant,
something Scott (1989:59) exemplifies with a neighborhood quartier in which only members
of the subaltern live. Here, in the backstage of village life, gossip, character assassination, and
rude nicknames all form part of the hidden transcript (Scott 1985: xvii).

What Scott describes as “the backstage of village life” could be seen as the various Internet
platforms on which MGTOW is based. Instead of publicly expressing their animosity towards
the current social state of affairs, MGTOWs articulate their dissent on various online
platforms. Here, an anonymous critique behind the back of the dominant can safely and
openly be expressed, often resulting in disrespectful insults. To name the misogynist character
of the hidden transcript as creating “rude nicknames” is, as I have mentioned previously in
this study, an understatement.

Moreover, Scott (1989:59) argues that instead of only looking at the “on-stage” behavior,
these “off-stage conversations” provide a fuller picture of the subaltern’s defiance, since the
hidden transcript offer insights into what the subordinate actually thinks. However, to see the
online content on these platforms as a hidden transcript, through which members finally find
the comfort to express their inner opinions, creates a skewed understanding of members of
MGTOW. One example of this is Jones et al.’s (2019) argument that there is only one clear
way for members to demonstrate their MGTOW-identity: by producing misogynist

53
harassments. As I showed in Misogynist online content however, the production of online
harassments is not only widely condemned within MGTOW, but also a practice that only a
vocal minority adheres to. Furthermore, according to the study, MGTOW members use
homophobic harassments as a way to enforce heterosexuality as the “only acceptable form of
masculine sexuality” (ibid.:14). Before meeting with my informants, I thought I had to hide
the fact that I have a male partner. Now, after having interacted with them, I realize that that
fear was far from realistic.

The tendency of equating the online content with the inner values of a MGTOW is
unfortunately a common academic practice, creating a picture of men within these spaces as
inherently misogynist and pathetic (Van Valkenburg 2019). Here, one of Scott’s (1985, 1990)
main arguments comes to mind. As the public transcript typically provides convincing
evidence for the reproduction of dominant values, a misleading picture of the subordinate
group will prevail, often to the benefit of the current ruling class. These discussions fit neatly
in the Foucauldian notion of how a truth regime, through discourse, aim at eliminating
alternative meanings which could undermine the power and legitimacy of the current structure
of knowledge, deeming some members of society as mad.

So, how does one tackle these issues of authenticity in relation to the knowledge production
of “the subaltern”, or of “the other”? Scott (1985, 1990) argues that we need to get a
privileged peek backstage in order to move beyond the public transcript. As I have shown
however, a peek on what could be understood as the backstage, namely the Internet platforms,
is not enough either as it generates a misleading picture of MGTOW. Being a true
anthropologist, Scott (1985:284) urges the researcher to actually interact with the people
studied between four eyes, something I see as a real privilege in studying alternative
worldviews. Therefore, next in line is an extended ethnographic part which is founded upon
my informants’ own words about how they practice the MGTOW-philosophy.

7.2. Practicing MGTOW in everyday situations

7.2.1. Placing the value in oneself

For Leonardo and Saif, who both found MGTOW in a period of depression and loneliness,
MGTOW is utilized and understood through notions of self-empowerment and guidance.
Leonardo says that through MGTOW, he went away from the fatalistic loop of thinking “no

54
woman will ever love me”, into realizing that self-improvement is more important than other
people’s opinion about him. Nowadays, his personal ambition is finding happiness and
satisfaction independently of external factors, such as women. On a similar note is Saif, who,
while lowering his voice in our intimate meeting at a café, says that MGTOW provides him
with a mental shield whenever he feels he is the only one in the world. He appreciates the
support given within the community when someone goes through a hard time, and that the
core philosophy has led him to work on himself. When I ask him how he utilizes insights that
MGTOW has offered him, he replies:

Well, now I see myself in a different light. Whenever I am down, I use a bit of that shield, or little bit of
that armor I have built up. I now value myself as a person, and MGTOW certainly deserve some credit of
that

Saif and Leonardo’s accounts are connected to valuing oneself. Nearly all of my informants
state that they now, through MGTOW, place their value in themselves, or that they “play by
their own rules”. For Joakim and Daniel, a man identifying himself as MGTOW who I talk to
on Twitter, this translates into not abiding by any terms and conditions but their own, and for
Hugo, the placement of value in himself means following his own principles and convictions
with integrity and a strong belief. In a similar vein are Danny and Anton, who try to put
themselves first and always aim at looking out for their own well-being.

For many of my informants, practicing MGTOW functions as a way to neutralize many of the
negative feelings generated by the perceived anti-male sentiments, which I demonstrated in
the previous chapter was a big part of the MGTOW experience. During our extended
conversation on Messenger, Kenneth says that through MGTOW, he managed to find that
confidence and comfort in being a man that somehow got lost during the past years. This way
of exercising MGTOW values also corresponds to the way Roger and Danny in a way restores
a broken confidence of being a man. They tell me that whenever they read overtly negative
accounts of masculinity in their everyday life, Roger and Danny think of those positive
aspects of masculinity that MGTOW often highlights. Roger says:

In situations where masculinity is devaluated and frowned upon – which happens quite often – I definitely
have MGTOW in the back of my mind: the fact that masculinity is something positive, and that it actually
does contribute to this civilization!

On the same note is Danny:

Whenever I hear or read something like ‘Oh, all men are pigs, all men need to change, all men are
aggressive, all men are disgusting, I usually think of MGTOW – we, men, are actually fucking great!

55
7.2.2. The practice of MGTOW as resistance

Now, why should this be seen as resistance? As has been noted elsewhere, gynocentrism is
one of the most important tenets within the MGTOW ideology. In their eyes, there is a
systematic gynocentric bias against men in modern society, in which feminist ideals
encourage the value on women, rather than on men. As the poor peasants in Malaysia gather
around arguments about the damaging social and economic consequences of capitalism (Scott
1985), my informants gather around arguments about the negative consequences of
gynocentrism which they perceive as prevailing in todays’ Swedish society. When my
informants then place the value in themselves, they refuse to accept, and therefore resist, that
dominant systematic bias within which they find themselves in. To unite behind “a particular
version of the facts, behind a particular set of claims, behind a particular worldview”
(ibid.:236) in order to reject the dominant ideology is an opposition Scott names symbolic
resistance.

The way Roger and Danny practice MGTOW mentally whenever men or masculinity are
being described with pejorative labels can also be connected to how the poor in Scott’s
ethnography reject the categories the elite attempts to impose upon them. Scott (1985) shows
how the poor villagers indirectly reject and oppose labels such as lazy, unreliable, and
dishonest through creating a different discourse when these descriptions come up. In this way,
the villagers decisively reject the elite’s attempt to relegate them to a permanently inferior
status (ibid.). Roger and Danny’s accounts of how they immediately enact a different
understanding of men and masculinity whenever they come across degrading descriptions do
bear resemblance. Through a mental exercise of MGTOW-values, which works as a way to
resist pejorative labels of themselves, they “refus[e] to accept the definition of the situation as
seen from above and the refusal to condone their own social […] marginalization” (ibid.:240).
This, according to Scott, is a key part of “everyday resistance”.

In conclusion, practicing the MGTOW philosophy mentally in everyday situations is done in

different ways. For some, it restores a broken self-image due to previous hardships in life,
providing with hope and assurance. For the majority though, it functions as a mental shield
towards the perceived anti-male sentiments in society. Binding them together is the practice
of putting an emphasis on yourself as a man, which in their eyes stand in sharp contrast to the
feminist society in which the value is placed on women. It is here that the practice of
MGTOW should be understood as a resistance towards what they experience as the dominant

56
broader structure of knowledge, that which Foucault calls regime of truth. Through placing
the value in themselves, rather than in women, an everyday resistance to established and
mainstream norms, have been enacted. Furthermore, through placing the value in themselves,
they go their own way, in their own way. Now, what do this entail in a more practical sense?

7.2.3. Four levels of MGTOW?

According to many online platforms, there are four levels of practicing the MGTOW-
philosophy. The first level includes men who have started realizing the gynocentric aspect of
governmental policies and jurisdiction, but who argue that the benefits of long-term
relationships with women are bigger than the disadvantages. The second level consists of men
who are interested in short-term interactions with women, but abstains from marriage, long-
term relationships, and cohabitation. In the third level, men do not believe in dating at all, and
limits the contact with women as much as possible. The final level of being a MGTOW is to
completely step out of society. As the state, with all its feminist social institutions, is seen as
gynocentric, the only place for a true MGTOW is in solitude. As a result, a true MGTOW
hunts and provides for himself, far away from any civilization. These levels or steps were
often mentioned throughout my online fieldwork, especially the last one, often being
understood as the epitome of a MGTOW. Academic research has also noted a prevalent
preference regarding how to enact a “true” MGTOW identity (Lin 2017; Hunte 2019; Ribeiro
et al. 2020, etc.).

However, my informants’ reaction to these different levels of being a MGTOW tell a different
story. In our Skype-conversation, Danny scoffs at me when I mention these steps you should
take in order to become a true MGTOW, because they take away the individual aspect. “If
you put it down into steps, some people will say ‘Oh no, I’m not a MGTOW’ just because
they can’t follow all steps. Or they act only according to these steps’”. Leonardo says that
there are no steps to be taken, nor any rules surrounding the practice of MGTOW. When I ask
Jari if MGTOW encourages any practical actions, he replies: “What MGTOW ‘encourages’ is
an odd question. It is not a monolith. They do what they want and chose what they want.
Life’s too short to guide other people”. As Danny, he ends his statement through saying that it
is about finding your own way.

57
Although a discrepancy between the sort of official narrative of exercising MGTOW and how
members actually practice it has been noted elsewhere (Wright et al. 2020; Lin 2017), it has
been left untheorized and unexplained. Through an anthropological study from the inside,
answers to these questions can start to unfold. The statements from my informants above
point to that process of second awakening which is mentioned in the chapter Red pill rage.
Instead of uncritically accepting the ideas and concepts which various MGTOW platforms
advocate for, a big part of my informants’ MGTOW-experience is to become critical of them.
The reluctancy of adhering to rules regarding desired manners of conduct, either if they refer
to a specific type of male behavior or becoming a “true MGTOW”, therefore has strong
effects on how my informants understand and make use of the values communicated.
Furthermore, this adds to the argument about the importance of individuality within the
MGTOW philosophy, which gets expressed in its practice. Having nuanced the picture of
what a “true” MGTOW does, what is actually the core practice of MGTOW?

7.2.4. Interaction with society and women

The first I ask about these matters is Simon. In our conversation on Reddit, his tone is
pessimistic and harsh. He is not interested in a longer interview, and after a few days of
chatting, he states abruptly that the conversation is over. Simon says that he believes
relationships with women are inherently destructive, and that all men should give up the idea
of having one. These statements should be understood through the notion of how society is
seen as gynocentric, ultimately producing a world in which men are exploited to the benefit of
women. He describes both women and men in his surroundings, those who fully adhere to the
state sanctioned male and female roles, as “being full of this, so fake – all of them”. Just
before ending our conversation, he states his goal in life:

When I have polished my survival skills enough, I am moving out of the grids of society. I am leaving it
all behind in the future and I hope that nobody will ever see me again

Although not as radical, Danny also lives on his own. He constantly reduces the dramatical
aspect of MGTOW, as he sees it only as another word for bachelorhood. For him, it does not
matter how you interact with society, as long as you live a single man’s lifestyle - in your own
way. Towards the end of our interview, Danny gets upset when telling me about an incident at
work where he had received a warning from his manager after having complemented a
woman’s looks. He says that in these situations, women’s words are like law because of all

58
the feminist policies and legislations. Therefore, since “workplace is a very dangerous place
for a man”, Danny generally stays away from women at his company, and strictly avoids
situations where he is left alone with a woman due to a fear of being wrongly accused of
anything. The workplace is to Danny what society in general is for Simon: a context where
feminist ideals are seen as encouraging a gynocentric order, in which women are prioritized
over men. Thus, it leaves them no alternative than to keep minimum contact with these zones,
and in relation to these places, to go their own way.

When I set out my fieldwork, I thought that everyone I would meet would be like Simon or
Danny – not wanting to have anything to do with women, or even fulfill the popular image of
a MGTOW as a hateful, misogynist man. However, all of my informants except for Simon
and Danny still have an interest in romantic relationships with women and see themselves
having a heterosexual partner in the future. The focal point here is not whether or not they
want to pursue a romantic relationship, or which “level” of MGTOW they are in, but how
they relate to a potential partner. My informants do want a romantic relationship, but with
other guidelines than what the, in their eyes, gynocentric and feminist society encourages.
Instead of prioritizing the needs of their potential partner, they now prioritize the needs of
themselves. Thus, practicing MGTOW in relation to women is strongly linked to how
MGTOW is exercised mentally: as a way to symbolically resist (Scott 1985:236) the dominant
ideology within which they find themselves in.

The act of prioritizing oneself, rather than the woman, can also be seen as an everyday form
of resistance, as they both are intended to mitigate or deny the claims made by the dominant
social order (ibid.:32). Now, there might be a big difference between the poaching, theft, and
smuggling through which the poor peasants in Malaysia oppose the local ruling elite, and my
informants’ way of opposing the gynocentric order simply by thinking a bit differently.
However, Scott (1989) argues that everyday forms of resistance can be expressed in countless
different ways since the resistance is always context specific. What gives them their unity is
that these acts of cultural opposition are quiet, disguised, and seemingly invisible, and under
the radar of the dominant society (Scott:1989:37). Therefore, privately and silently
prioritizing yourself in meeting women can be understood as an everyday resistance.

Joakim expresses this resistance in:

Instead of following the female list of requirements that has become the norm today, I look at what I want
out of a relationship. Sure, that reduces the number of possible partners, but it has to be on my terms these
days

59
Daniel, Hugo, and Kenneth all point to how they nowadays focus on their own conditions and
demands when meeting women, rather than abiding to the women’s which they did in the
past. Leonardo and Anton say that they are more or less indifferent to women and treat them
just like anyone else instead of putting them on a pedestal. The latter says: “I’m just not
idealizing women anymore. I’m just not giving them the attention that they seek, and that
everyone is telling them that they deserve”. Instead of uttering this out loud, or explaining
their priorities, this always happens unobserved, nodding to the key characteristics of
everyday resistance: a concealment of the act itself (ibid.:54).

Another way of exercising MGTOW, in relation to women, is being aware of, and reacting to,
different warning signs in female behavior. These signs are fundamental, as they are as seen
as foretelling situations in which the potential relationship is built on how well the woman’s,
and hers only, needs are fulfilled. Some of these are acts when women try to form men into a
certain behavior or when women act “overtly entitled”, something Saif argues is in line with
what the feminist society encourages. The important part here is that my informants, like Saif,
see these types of different behavior as normal and promoted by the feminist society. Through
being aware of them, and reacting to them, a hidden and indirect resistance to the dominant
ideology has been made.

7.2.5. Self-improvement and the act of “giving out free red pills”

Practicing MGTOW is not only about women. As other studies of MGTOW have shown
(Jones et al. 2019, Hunte 2019, Wright et al. 2020, etc.), a big part of the discussion online
centers around self-improvement and finding hobbies. This is something I noticed occurs
offline as well, as many of my informants mentioned that they have taken up several interests,
hobbies, and activities since they started identifying with MGTOW. Danny has, since finding
MGTOW, finally picked up on his interest in day trading, and spends all of his time outside of
work in front of his three computer screens. Kenneth says that he, through MGTOW, learnt
the importance of becoming better at something, and that he now assesses more control of his
physical form and of his financial situation. Other forms of mentioned hobbies were video
games, biking, and starting a blog. Hunte (2019:67) argues that these hobbies work as a
means for men to focus on themselves as opposed to pursuing relationships with women, an
argument that my findings do not support. Instead, I argue that the search for hobbies is a
natural result of the core exercise of MGTOW – to place value in yourself – and, as has been

60
shown previously, that it does not exclude romantic relationship with women. Although not
being a textbook example, also this part of practicing MGTOW could be seen as a form of
resistance.

One act of resistance that is more obvious is the practice of what Simon describes as “giving
out free red pills”. After having explained how he never reveals his affiliations to MGTOW,
he says: “However, it’s okay to give out free red pills here and there so people can start
judging for themselves about the current fucked up state of modern society”. Instead of
explicitely and directly expressing MGTOW-values, giving out free red pills is a way of
conveying them behind a protecting veil of ambiguity. I am told that one way of doing this is
to use sarcasm: to blame all the ills of society strictly on men, or to claim that all women, no
matter what, should be praised, and that all men, no matter what, are power seeking pigs.
Using a high level of sarcasm, these comments aim at making the receiver aware of the
absurdity of them, and through that develop a more critical stance towards feminism.

On a similar note is Kenneth, who says that he sometimes presents small pieces of dispersed
and cryptic information surrounding MGTOW to men in his surroundings, as a way to “plant
MGTOW-seeds” in them. He adds that since he does not want to reveal his MGTOW-
identity, but still feels an urge of expressing his values, it is important that the message is
neither too obvious, nor too vague. The point of these “free red pills” is to communicate
MGTOW-values, while simultaneously hiding behind ambiguity, sarcasm, and uncertainty.
As a way to avoid potential backlashes, the receivers of these messages are meant to put the
pieces together themselves, rather than by Kenneth or Simon.

The practice of “giving out free red pills” can be understood as an everyday form of resistance
through its ambiguous and cloudy character. Scott (1989:55) argues that many forms of
everyday resistance are intended to have a double meaning so that they cannot be treated as a
direct, open challenge to the prevailing dominant social order. He shows how many of the
folktales of peasant culture oppose the ruling class through disguised forms of aggression,
such as ridiculing or indirect threats. However, as they are veiled, they do not offer the
authorities a clear-cut occasion for retaliation (ibid.). Through the usage of sarcasm and
ambiguity, Simon and Kenneth can safely enact a form of resistance towards feminism
without facing the public scorn an open opposition would result in.

Furthermore, Simi and Futrell’s (2019) discussions about how Aryans express their activist
identity can be fruitful here. In order to adjust their commitment to white power beliefs with

61
the efforts to avoid extreme everyday stigma, Aryans devise different techniques to
accomplish a balance between who they are and how they portray themselves. As Simon and
Kenneth, they constantly guard their expressions, while exploiting the limited opportunities to
minimally display their deviant opinions (ibid.:102). The authors call this a strategic search
for expressive balance (ibid.). Kenneth’s thoughts about the “neither obvious, nor vague”
content of his cryptic messages fits neatly in this context.

One of the techniques the Aryans apply in their search for expressive balance is a passive
display of movement symbols, such as tattoos and clothing (ibid.:104). The authors show that
the display of these symbols is not actually directed to their surroundings, as a means of
recruiting members or instilling fear, but rather directed towards themselves. The passive
display is in fact seen as an honorable and personal way of challenging normative
conventions. With it, a sense of self-esteem and authenticity is reinforced as it is seen as a
way of persisting ideological opposition, while simultaneously attending to other’s resentment
of them (ibid.). When I ask Roger to elaborate about the practice of planting MGTOW-seeds
in others, he says that it is not really about persuading anyone into MGTOW, an answer that
draws upon the highly individualistic aspect of MGTOW. Rather, he says: “I guess it’s also
for myself in a way… It feels good to know that I’m not buying the whole mainstream
narrative”. The practice of giving out free red pills can thus also be understood as a way of
internally resisting the dominant social order, thus pointing to my argument about why it
should be seen as a resistance.

7.3. Conclusion

In this chapter, I demonstrated and discussed various expressions and practices of MGTOW
among my informants. “The golden rule of MGTOW” forms the public expression as it aims
at preventing a reproduction of previous experiences of social exclusion, which Being
MGTOW showed is a big part of the MGTOW experience. Building upon my findings in the
previous chapter, I argue that the internet expression of MGTOW should not be taken as
representative of the whole community. Rather, through emic accounts, I demonstrated how
much of my informants’ practices centered on a placement of value in oneself. Throughout
the chapter, I argue that these should be seen as acts of resistance since these acts, in their
eyes, oppose those dominant and established norms they feel are being imposed on them.

62
8. Concluding comments

This thesis’ main aim was to contribute to a rather thin body of knowledge concerning
MGTOW. Seeing how all previous research on the community investigates the online content
of MGTOW platforms, I wanted to nuance our knowledge about the community and the
various men composing it, by presenting an emic perspective. My intent was not only to
explore the emic perspective, but also to present the experience of being MGTOW in Sweden.
This was done by conducting a ten-week-long anthropological fieldwork composed of a
thorough engagement with the community and multiple extended interviews with men
identifying as MGTOWs. Another aim was to investigate whether an approach like this,
namely from the “inside”, would generate different empirical material than one from the
“outside”.

In Finding MGTOW, I presented and discussed why my informants turned to MGTOW.

Whether these paths stemmed out of a seemingly innate and natural aversion to women,
mental health issues, or an enactment of a specific male behavior, it was concluded that
turning to MGTOW correlates highly with feelings of disruption, tension, and frustration.
Different theoretical frameworks and concepts aided me in exploring the background and
development of these feelings.

The subsequent chapter, Being MGTOW, demonstrated how the experience of identifying
with MGTOW is fashioned by an opposition towards dominant and established norms, a
perception about anti-male sentiment in Swedish society, feelings of exclusion and
misrepresentation, and an intense focus on feminism. These experiences were related to a
Foucauldian framework which enabled me to highlight notions of social exclusion, internal
deviancy, and resistance within my informants.

The last chapter, Practicing MGTOW, discussed various expressions and practices of
MGTOW values. Here, I demonstrated that these are connected to my findings in the previous
chapters: the “golden rule of MGTOW” aims to prevent previously felt exclusion and that the
online content should not be taken as representative of my informants. Instead, with the aid of
Scott’s ideas about resistance, I argue that the practices of MGTOW can be understood as acts
of resistance since these acts, in their eyes, oppose those dominant and established norms they
feel are being imposed on them.

63
My study contributes to current literature on MGTOW and the manosphere strongly on the
basis of its methodology. By applying different methods than those of previous research,
aimed at generating an emic perspective, new empirical findings have been presented which
nuance and broaden our previous understanding of a MGTOW as a misogynist, homophobic,
and pathological man. Instead of forming our understanding of “the other” through observing
and analyzing certain online practices from a distance, I have shown that an actual interaction
with them can yield a completely different picture. Therefore, I urge future researchers on the
topic to do the same.

With this thesis, I also wanted to contribute to broader discussions within anthropology and
society about understanding and perceiving “the other”. How might anthropological ethics
and methods expand and nuance our knowledge about them? A first step for us
anthropologists is to actually research them. In researching “the other” and people on the
margins, we anthropologists tend to focus on those groups that we sympathize with (Pasieka
2017). Edelman (2001) points to this severe flaw within the discipline in asking how
knowledge is supposed to be generated about those groups that we do not like. Only seeking
out to those arguments and ideas that confirm and accept your own is simultaneously a topic
beyond this thesis and a central one to it.

The study of social groups can help anthropology confront central prejudices, contradictions,
and blind spots (Osterweil 2014). Pasieka (2017; 2019) calls for a more profound
anthropological contribution to the public debates by rethinking the meaning of empathy. On
a similar note, Teitelbaum (2019) harshly criticizes the traditional anthropological quest for
morally bound knowledge production, in which preconceived notions of “good” and “bad”
prevails. What I have tried to accomplish in my study is to move away from such dichotomies
by actually interacting with MGTOWs, temporarily perceiving them through their own eyes.
After seeing my inner beliefs being thoroughly challenged, what started as a journey of
emotional frustration ended in a grounded notion of humbleness towards “the other”. I hope
that this thesis has been able to, at least to some extent, shake conventional truth claims by
relating the emic perspective of MGTOW to broader discussions on discipline, exclusion, and
truth regimes. Anthropology has a special force in looking above and beyond naturalized
paradigms – let us not do the reverse and strengthen them.

64
9. References

Aull Davies, C. (2008). Reflexive Ethnography: A Guide to Researching Selves and Others.
Abingdon: Routledge

Aler, E. (2020). “All Women Are Like That”. Uppsala University, Sweden. Master’s Thesis

Arendt, H. (1963) Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. New York:
Viking Press

Brannon, R. (1976). “The Male Sex Role” in Brannon, R. and Davids, R (eds.) The Forty-
Nine Percent Majority, pp. 1-40. Reading: Addison-Wesley

Cannito, M.; Crowhurst, I.; Camoletto, R. F.; Mercuri, E. and Quaglia, V. (2021). “Doing
Masculinities Online: Defining and Studying The Manosphere” in International Journal of
Gender Studies. Vol. 10, Nr. 19, pp. I-xxxiv

Castells, M. (1997). The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture (vol. II): The Power
of Identity. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers

Connel, R. (1995). Masculinities. Berkley: University of California Press

Connel, R. and Messerschmidt, J. (2005). “Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the Concept”,

in Gender and Society, Vol. 19, Issue 6, pp. 829-859

Coulling, R. (2019). Of Vice and Men: An Ethnographic Content Analysis of the Manosphere.
Carleton University. Ottawa, Ontario. Thesis.

Delanty, G. (2005). Social Science, 2nd edition. New York: Open University Press

Dewalt, B. and Dewalt, K. (2010). Participant Observation: A Guide for Fieldworkers.

Plymouth: AltaMira Press

Edelman, M. (2001). “Social Movements: Changing Paradigms and Forms of Politics” in

Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 30, pp. 285-317

Edwards, R. (2008). “Actively Seeking Subjects?” in Fejes, A. and Nicoll, K (eds.) Foucault
and Lifelong Learning, pp. 21-34. Milton Park: Routledge

65
Farrell, T.; Fernandez, M; Novotny, J and Alani, H. (2019). Exploring Misogyny across the
Manosphere in Reddit. In WebSci ’19 Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Web
Science, pp. 87–96.

Foucault, M. (1972). The Archeology of Knowledge. New York: Pantheon. First published
1969

Foucault, M. (1977). “The Political Function of the Intellectual” in Radical Philosophy, Vol
17, pp. 12-14

Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-1977.

New York: Vintage Books

Foucault, M. (1981). “The Order of Discourse” in Young, R. (eds.) Untying the Text: A Post-
Structuralist Reader, pp. 51-78. Milton Park: Routledge & Kegan Paul

Foucault, M. (1988). Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason.
New York: Vintage Books. First published 1961

Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Random
House. First published 1975

Gellner, P. and Stockett, M. (2006). Feminist Anthropology: Past Present and Future.
University of Pennsylvania Press.

Ging, D. (2017). “Alphas, Betas, and Incels: Theorizing the Masculinities of the
Manosphere.” in Men and Masculinities Vol. 22, Issue 4, pp. 638-657

Ginsburg, F. (1989). Contested Lives. Los Angeles: University of California Press

Gray, P. (2016). “Memory, Body, and the Online Researcher: Following Russian Street
Demonstration via Social Media” In American Ethnologist, Vol. 31, pp. 500-510

Hook, D. (2001). “The Disorders of Discourse”, in Theoria: A Journal of Social and Political
Theory, Nr. 97, pp. 41-68

Hunte, Z. (2019). “Female Nature, Cucks, and Simps’: Understanding Men Going Their Own
Way as Part of the Manosphere” Uppsala University, Sweden. Master’s thesis
66
Jane, E. A. (2018). “Gendered Cyberhate as Workplace Harassment and Economic
Vandalism.” in Feminist Media Studies, Vol. 18, pp. 575–591.

Jones, C.; Trott, V. and Wright, S. (2020). “Sluts and soyboys: MGTOW and the Production
of Misogynistic Online Harassment” in New Media & Society, Vol. 22, pp. 1903–1921

Jorgensen, M. and Phillips L. (2002). Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. London:
Sage Publications

Kimmel, M. 2002. “The Birth of the Self-Made Man” in Adams, R. and Savran, D. (eds.) The
Masculinity Studies Reader, pp. 135–152. London: Blackwell

Kimmel, M. (2013). Angry White Men: American Masculinity at the End of an Era. Nation
Books.

Kozinets, R (2019). Netnography: The Essential Guide to Qualitative Social Media Research.
London: Sage Publications

Lemon, J. (1992). “The Crisis of Masculinity and the Renegotiation of Power” In

Communication, pp. 16-30

Lewin, E. (2006). Feminist Anthropology: A Reader. Malden: Blackwell Publishing

Lilly, M. (2016). ‘The World is Not a Safe Place for Men’: The Representational Politics of
the Manosphere.” University of Ottawa. Ottawa, Ontario. Thesis.

Lin, J. L. (2017). “Antifeminism Online. MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way).” In
Frömming, U., Köhn, S. and Fox. S. Digital Environments. Ethnographic Perspectives across
Global Online and Offline Spaces, pp. 77-96. Bielefeld

Lofland, J. and Stark, R. (1965). “Becoming a World-Saver: A Theory of Conversion to a

Deviant Perspective” in American Sociological Review, Vol. 30, Nr. 6, pp. 862-875

Lorenzini, D. (2016) “Foucault, Regimes of Truth and the Making of the Subject” in
Cremonesi, L.; Irrera, O.; Lorenzini, D. and Tazzioli, M. (eds.) Foucault and the Making of
Subjects, pp. 63-77. London: Rowman & Littlefield

67
Lorenzini, D. (2015). “What is a ‘Regime of Truth’?” in Le Foucaldien. DOI:
10.16995/lefou.2

Marcus, G. (1995). “Ethnography in/of the World System: The Emergence of Multi-Sited
Ethnography,” in Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 24, pp. 95-117

Marwick, A. E. and R. Caplan (2018). “Drinking Male Tears: Language, the Manosphere, and
Networked Harassment.” In Feminist Media Studies Vol. 18, pp. 543–559

Mazzarella, W. (2019). “The Anthropology of Populism: Beyond the Liberal Settlement” in

Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 48, pp. 45-60

McGee, J. and Warms, R. (2012). Anthropological Theory: An Introductory History, 5th

Edition. Mountain View, California University Press

Morgan, D. (2006). “Masculinity In Crisis” In Davis, M.; Evans, M. and Lorber, M (eds.)
Handbook of Gender and Women’s Studies. London: Sage Publications

Mills, S. (2004). Discourse. London: Routledge

Osterweil, M. (2014). “Social Movements”. In Nonini, D. (ed.) A Companion to Urban

Anthropology, pp. 470-486. Hoboken: Wiley

Pasieka, A. (2017). “Taking far-right claims seriously and literally: anthropology and the
study of right-wing radicalism” in Slavic Review, Vol 76, Nr. 1, pp. 19-29.

Pasieka, A. (2019). “Anthropology of the Far Right: What If We Like the ‘Unlikeable
Others’?” Anthropology Today, Vol 35, Nr.1, pp. 3-6

Peters, M. and Besley, T. (2014). “Social Exclusion/Inclusion” in Open Review of

Educational Research, Vol. 1, pp. 99-115

Pleck. J. (1976). “The Male Sex Role: Definitions, Problems, and Sources of Change” in
Journal of Social Issues Vol. 32, Nr. 3, pp. 155-164

Pleck, J. and Sawyer, J. (1974). Men and Masculinity. Englewood: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Rabinow, P. (eds.) (1984). The Foucault Reader. New York: Pantheon

68
Raffsnoe, S., Guduman-Hoyer, M. and Thaning, M. (2016). Michel Foucault: A Research
Companion. London: Palgrave

Ribeiro, M; Blackburn, J; Bradlyn, B; De Cristofaro, E; Stringhini, G; Long, S; Greenberg, S

and Zannettou, S. (2020). “The Evolution of the Manosphere Across the Web”
arXiv:2001.07600 [cs] (2020).

Salman, T. and Assies, W. (2009). “Anthropology and the Study of Social Movements.” In:
Klandermans B., Roggeband C (eds) Handbook of Social Movements Across Disciplines, pp.
205-265. Springer, Boston.

Scott, J. (1985). Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Resistance. New Haven: Yale
University Press

Scott, J. (1989). “Everyday Forms of Resistance” in The Copenhagen Journal of Asian

Studies, Vol. 4, pp. 33-62

Scott, J. (1990). Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts. New Haven:
Yale University Press

Simi, P, and Futrell, R. (2009). “Negotiating White Power Activist Stigma” in Social
Problems, Vol. 56, pp. 89-110

Spradley, J. (1979). The Ethnographic Interview. New York: Holt.

Teitelbaum, B. (2019). “Collaborating with the Radical Right: Scholar-Informant Solidarity

and the Case for an Immoral Anthropology” in Current Anthropology, Vol. 60, Issue 3, pp.
414-435

Toseland, N. (2019). Truth, “Conspiracy Theorists”, and Theories: An Ethnographic Study of

“Truth-Seeking” in Contemporary Britain. Thesis. Durham University.
[Link]

Van Valkenburgh, S. (2018). "Digesting the Red Pill: Masculinity and Neoliberalism in the
Manosphere" in Men and Masculinities Vol. 24 pp. 84–103

69
Van Valkenburgh, S. (2019). “‘She Thinks of Him as a Machine”: On the Entanglements of
Neoliberal Ideology and Misogynist Cybercrime” in Social Media + Society, July-September,
pp. 1-12

Wright, S.; Trott, V. and Jones, C. (2020) “’The pussy ain’t worth it, bro’: assessing the
discourse and structure of MGTOW” in Information, Communication & Society Vol. 23, pp.
908-925

70