Talk:Men Going Their Own Way

Misogynistic? (2)

Thread retitled from Opinionation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Collapse disruption and editors suckered into talking to a robot. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2025 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Third try. 2 of the 4 sources on top of this page clearly shed doubt on the misogyny part. The other 2 are offline books. So why put that opinion in an encyclopedia portrayed as truth? Even the sources mentioned are 50/50 at best. Frankbel (talk) 00:35, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

The article contains more than 4 sources, so it is unclear what you're talking about. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with citing 'offline books'. MrOllie (talk) 00:41, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

The 4 mentioned on top of this page linked to mysogyny. I can only read the online sources at this moment, and as said, both of them shed doubt on the mysoginistic part. So unless the 2 offline sources have really hard evidence MGTOW is not just anti last-wave feminism, but is also mysoginistic, I feel the latter should be scrapped. Or at least heavely nuanced. Frankbel (talk) 01:03, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

The 4 underneath, from Johanssen Jacob on, are hardly credible sources. Just opinions by a few that want to make $ on a trend. Authority bias Frankbel (talk) 01:13, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Those are sources someone has added for possible expansion of the article, they are not the ones that currently support the article. You need to look at what is actually cited in the article. And at any rate, Wikipedia follows what the cited reliable sources say. Just labeling them 'opinions' will not lead to a change in the article. MrOllie (talk) 01:13, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

If they aren't credible sources, then they don't shed doubt on anything. Besides what MrOllie said about these not being the actual sources cited in the article, this complaint seems to be based on only two of the four proposed references in the {{Refideas}} template having the word misogyny in their titles. Just...no. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:22, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

True. They don't shed doubt. They only make the position of "MGTOW is Misogynistic" an even bigger farce. The 'en' version is the 'only' Wiki that made that claim.

After reading the sources I'm about to start a new 'Talk' subcategory below. MGTOW is more than focussing on women or feminism. Doesn't matter what a small minority on Reddit or 4Chan make it look to be. There is even a link made to terrorism? Sure it wasn't Heavy Metal in reverse or GTA that pushed him? Frankbel (talk) 19:47, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason to start a second thread on the same topic. Simonm223 (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Normally not. But the title will/would be 'Split it up'. Maybe MGTOW is (seen as) mysoginistic in the US, but I know it isn't in most of Europe. For instance here in Belgium many MGTOW'ers have different reasons than in the US. Main reason will be more scepticism towards the EU. Since we don't have to pay 50% after divorce on everything (even witout a 'contract').

Recent research in The Netherlands showed 50% of people between 18 and 30 want to move abroad. Main reason is high housing cost. Then why would you date? Frankbel (talk) 20:20, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

If reliable sources were say something like 'In the US it is a misogynist movement but in Belgium it isn't', we would of course cover it, but I am aware of no such sourcing.

WP:OR about people wanting to move abroad is of course completely off topic here. MrOllie (talk) 20:27, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

It's not off-topic. Because MGTOW is and was more than 'not dating, getting married or having children'. 60% of Reddit posts were about that, but even the sources mention it was "a small minority of vocal men coping with loosing everything". So the so called reliable sources never took the efford to look further than 1 or 2 dubious websites. Frankbel (talk) 20:52, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussing specific, actionable changes to the article based on reliable sourcing. It is not a place for discussing the topic in general or a place to relate your perception of reddit posts to other statistics. See WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOR, as well as the notices at the top of this page. This area is under contentious topics procedures, so keep the talk page on topic. MrOllie (talk) 20:56, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I was reading this earlier and wanted to reiterate about WP:NOTFORUM. (Dawg walking got in the way).

@Frankbel, this is also original research, see WP:NOR. You need to provide reliable references for what you want to improve in the article.

As for the Europe, British press have covered the manosphere in general and MGTOW extensively over the years. , (Poland), , TV show and so on. Knitsey (talk) 21:29, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Also, this might be of interest. Knitsey (talk) 21:36, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

While British media like The Guardian, GQ, and BBC have published critical takes on MGTOW, these are editorial or feature pieces, not neutral or academic analyses. Per WP:LABEL, controversial descriptors like “misogynistic” require attribution. These articles can be used to cite criticism, but not to justify presenting “misogynistic” in Wikipedia’s voice. Academic sources like Lin (2017) and even Górska et al. (2022), both mentioned in the article, demonstrate that the label is ideologically contested, not universal. Frankbel (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

My comment was to refute you assertion that Maybe MGTOW is (seen as) mysoginistic in the US, but I know it isn't in most of Europe. Those were just a few examples of how MGTOW is viewed. Knitsey (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

True. MGTOW calls last waves of feminism toxic and slaps back. That is mysoginistic and we'll add it to the articles lead. Feminist separatism? Let's add misandry in the 'See also' section.

These articles may reflect general social sentiment (and mine), but it cannot support encyclopedic classification of MGTOW, especially not in the lead sentence. Reliable academic or journalistic sources directly analyzing MGTOW must be used instead.

You use Górska et al, a source also used to accept the labem mysoginist in the article lead, a feminist theoretical paper, not a neutral sociological or anthropological study. :

● It applies a non-standard definition of misogyny (from Kate Manne), which includes any behavior that challenges feminist orthodoxy; in Manne’s framework, even men’s refusal to participate in traditional heterosexual relationships — if perceived as rejecting “moral goods” like admiration or emotional labor from women — qualifies as misogynistic. This

exposes the circular reasoning behind their labeling: If men disengage entirely, that too becomes misogyny.

● The authors selectively frame male independence as hostile, while similar female actions are routinely called “empowering”; for example, when MGTOW men reject romantic relationships and pursue self-empowerment, the authors interpret this as evidence of misogynistic intent, whereas analogous behavior by women—such as choosing to remain single or prioritize personal goals—is typically celebrated in both media and academic discourse as liberation or feminist agency.

● Their own language (“entitlement to moral goods”) is highly ideological, not descriptive. The phrase “entitlement to moral goods” (borrowed from feminist theory) pathologizes male emotional needs—such as wanting affection or respect—as inherently oppressive, while portraying equivalent female expectations in relationships as legitimate. It exposes asymmetric moral framing.

● The paper claims that MGTOW discourse is framed around an “us vs. them” mentality, while feminist discourse emphasizes “we” language and collective identity. However, this interpretation is deeply reductive and selectively applied. The presence of adversarial framing in MGTOW discourse is treated as evidence of toxic separatism, yet feminist rhetoric that positions women in opposition to systemic patriarchy or 'men' broadly is framed positively as solidarity or consciousness-raising. The authors fail to consider that both movements construct identity through opposition—MGTOW against perceived gynocentrism, and feminism against patriarchy—yet only one is pathologized for doing so. Frankbel (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

That's all very interesting analysis, I'm sure, but it's your original research, so it's useless for Wikipedia. Get it peer-reviewed and published in a decent scholarly publication, and then we can even begin to talk. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:40, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

"Science is facing a “replication crisis” in which many experimental findings cannot be replicated and are likely to be false." Publication bias and the canonization of false facts - Nissen et al (2017)

Per WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH, we must not selectively highlight framing from ideologically aligned sources to editorialize movements we dislike, especially in lead sections.

EVEN the sources in cite note 2 shed doubt on generalising MGTOW as being mysigonistic. Finding those sources was not my original research.

And most of the other sources don't even mention MGTOW, but focus on 'the manosphere', alt-right or others. Frankbel (talk) 17:03, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

The sources do not shed doubt on that. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:34, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, you mean the Lin source that says: Across platforms, MGTOWs consistently display pent up emotion, cynicism and resentment towards women? Or the Gorska source that says: MGTOW does not simply voice a separatist approach towards women but promotes violence against women and feminism? What about either of those sources makes you think the "misogynistic" label is contested? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:33, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry was responding above. Large responce about the Górska source.

About the Lin source :

"MGTOWs frame their disavowal of women and marriage as a rational, protective response to a hostile environment.” (p. 6)

“The lack of hierarchy and clear goals within the movement leads to much internal debate and variation in ideology.” (multiple sections)

“MGTOWs are defined by the most shameless members of their group and disliked by most others. I see us as a fringe minority, but I’m afraid they will define us.” (p. 7)

“The MGTOW community is loosely organized and individualistic, without formal leadership, membership, or platform.” (p. 9)

Shall we add to the lead on the page about the USA that it's a country of obese, murdering warmongers while we're at it? Frankbel (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

BTW : i don't need an academic paper to see that many feminists "display pent up emotion, cynicism and resentment towards men". Shall we add misandry to the feminism page? Since many men fight the patriarchy Frankbel (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

What source are you quoting? I can't find any of those lines in the Lin source. Regardless, most of those are irrelevant to the question "Is MGTOW misogynist". A group doesn't need formal leadership or membership to be misogynist. The only one of these "quotes" that could even be considered passingly germane is the one about "defined by the most shameless members" one, but given the use of a first-person pronoun, this is presumably a quote from a MGTOW member, not a conclusion drawn by the author of whatever paper you're quoting. Mandy Rice-Davies applies. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:34, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Wait, your saying Johanssen is "just an opinion"? He's a scholar and researcher whose books are widely cited... You can't just dismiss sources as opinions without explaining why. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Like many others, I'm not seeing any compelling shift in the sources on this matter, and I support the status quo. We don't discount academic sources because they're "feminist". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:45, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm searching for them. Hard to find (and much to read) since approx 80–95% of genderstudies students are leaning to the political left and 70–90% of sociology students. (Langbert et al 2016, Pew Research 2021 & Inbar & Lammers 2012).

"Numerous biases have been described in the literature, raising concerns for the reliability and integrity of the scientific enterprise. Furthermore, multiple independent studies suggested that this ratio is increasing." [https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1618569114?utm_source=chatgpt.com Meta-assessment of bias in science - Fanelli et al (2017) Frankbel (talk) 18:28, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

utm_source=chatgpt.com never fills me with confidence in somebody's research skills - please just use Google Scholar or Wikipedia Library or, like, an actual library because those sources don't hallucinate fake studies. Furthermore "social science is just biased" is a non-starter argument on Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

5 October 2024

I've never done any kind of editing on Wikipedia, so please be as kind as possible as I totally do this the wrong way. Can this be added as a reliable source? https://medium.com/@deeperunderstanding/mgtow-or-men-going-their-own-way-what-is-it-and-what-is-their-purpose-c4959aac9be0 JeremySWiki (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Newsweek, domestic terrorism

The 2021 Newsweek story about r/MGTOW getting banned from Reddit says the manosphere (not MGTOW specifically) has been concretely associated with acts of domestic terrorism, citing a paper by Ribeiro et al. The paper discusses MGTOW in relation to extreme anti-feminism and misogyny but not terrorism per se. The words "terror" and "terrorism" do not appear in the document at all. WP:NEWSWEEK post-2013 is of uncertain reliability, and this demonstrates exactly why. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2025

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

---

1. Introduction paragraph — Language adjustment for neutrality

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

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

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

Suggested source for balance:

Uppsala University thesis on MGTOW, exploring diverse perspectives

---

2. Expand section on motivations behind MGTOW

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

Suggested sources:

Debate.org MGTOW survey analysis

Simple English Wikipedia summary of MGTOW views

---

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

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

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

Justification: This better reflects attribution and avoids implying universal characteristics.

Suggested sources:

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

---

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

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

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

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

• (edit conflict)Not done this is a controversial POV shift based on sources that look, from what little you've provided about them, to be wholly deficient. For instance, undergraduate theses are not reliable sources. Nor are surveys from websites like debate.org. Simonm223 (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

  It also appears that just about everything from this IP (articles and talk pages both) is LLM generated. - MrOllie (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

  FWIW I did, in fact, find the undergraduate thesis they mentioned so it isn't a ChatGPT hallucination. It is also not a reliable source. Because it isn't a doctoral thesis. Simonm223 (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

"Men Gone Their Own Way" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Men Gone Their Own Way has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 23 § Men Gone Their Own Way until a consensus is reached. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2025

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

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

Sophist2b (talk) 23:53, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References