antifeminism chartbusting memes men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misogyny

You’ll have to figure out this MGTOW chart for yourself, because it’s giving me a headache

Um what

By David Futrelle

Here’s another Facebook find for you all; you’ll probably have to expand the image to read it, and even though I made the image bigger and sharpened it there are still bits that are blurry because god forbid one of these doofuses post a meme that’s actually readable.

What is it with these guys and completely baffling charts, anyway? Hey, chart-making misogynist dudes: The fact that you can put words in boxes and draw arrows between them DOESN’T MEAN THAT YOU SHOULD.

Anyway, dear readers, if any of you can explain this chart in more-or-less comprehensible English, please do.

Or you can just watch this clip from the all-dog remake of Twister.

47 replies on “You’ll have to figure out this MGTOW chart for yourself, because it’s giving me a headache”

Overall it’s about womanhood and the thought women have. The diamond is the safe space where women can have the evil thoughts, beliefs, and behaviors they have that lead to riding the cock carousel and alpha-fucks-beta-bucks-enabling behavior. Outside the diamond is the unsafe space where they can’t have those things.

Where’s the box for tacos? Every flow chart should have tacos.

A lot of good band names in this chart like: “Narcissistic Supply”
Also, I don’t know if the creator knows this but “Because I’m worth it” is one of the slogans for L’oreal Paris. I know it can be hard to tell for MGTOWs but beauty products ads do not = feminism.

Outside the diamond is the unsafe space where they can’t have those things.

So why don’t MGTOW just go live there?

Wish me luck, Mammotheers; I shall attempt to comprehend the incomprehensible and write it out more-or-less coherently (at least as coherently as can be expected of MGTOW nonsense.) Be forewarned: this will be very long.

Let us start at the node labelled “Gynocentrism”, for it has no arrows pointing at it. It is a safe assumption that if an arrow points from node A to node B, it means that A caused B. Now, the arrows are labelled with the causal factors that made B result from A.

I begin to translate. The background image is clear enough; it is the MGTOW logo. Now, Gynocentrism entails a “pussy pass” and “narcissistic supply”. The former leads to Egocentrism, and the latter leads to Narcissism. Egocentrism entails “relativistic hedonism”, which is a concatenation of buzzwords used by the Religious Right, and this leads to Narcissism. A blue-pilled mangina such as myself might suppose that Egocentrism and Narcissism are more-or-less synonymous, but the Red Pill knows better. Anyway, Narcissism entails exploitation, which leads to Feminism (God knows how) and more Gynocentrism. It’s a vicious cycle, see?

Egocentrism entails “morality of constraints”, whatever that is; this leads to Solipsism somehow. It would probably be clearer if “morality of constraints” had a definition. Perhaps they mean authoritarian morality? But how would that lead to Solipsism, at any rate?

Solipsism entails “infantile solipsism”, which leads to Narcissism, which leads to Feminism (see above). Solipsism leads directly to Feminism, via belief. This only makes sense if you recall that the MGTOWs think that feminism is belief in the superiority of womankind.

Insecurities (fear, shame, doubt) lead to egocentrism, narcissism, and solipsism. This is a liberty taken with the grammar of the chart, because fear, shame, and doubt do not entail insecurities; they are insecurities.

Feminism has no arrows leading from it, so it appears to have no consequences. This may be understood as feminism being the end-state of humanity, which would be an apocalyptic dystopia. So much for the arrows.

A ring connects Gynocentrism and Feminism. There are several statements on the ring, as keys on a key-ring. Let us start again at Gynocentrism. There are several statements, which may be interpreted as what people affected by Egocentrism, Gynocentrism, and Narcissism say. They are colour-coded so that you know which statement is caused by which attitude. Here is a clever sort of shibboleth: the statements in the bottom half of the statement-ring are coloured a shade of blue which no node has. We all know that Real Men™ can only distinguish a very few colours, but women and soyboys can distinguish hundreds. This causes women and soyboys to reject the chart as incoherent, but Real Men™ know that they connect to Egocentrism and Gynocentrism. Realizing this makes the Real Man™ reading the chart feel clever, and it lifts up his spirits in a gynocentric world. It may even induce him to become MGTOW.

We move now to the top half of the chart: the red statements which connect to Solipsism, and the green statements which connect to Narcissism. Note the transition of statements: “They worship me” “Because I’m worth it.” You would be forgiven for thinking that the statements on the statement-ring represent a natural flow of thought when read counterclockwise, but we have on the authority of the preëminent philosopher Carl of Swindon that feminism is a mental illness, so it is meant to be incoherent. This is betokened by the directions in which the statements are to be read being variable. From Feminism to Egocentrism (the red statements) read counterclockwise; read from Egocentrism to Gynocentrism in either
direction; from Feminism to Gynocentrism via Narcissism read clockwise.

Finally, the two boxes, unconnected to anything, an orange one labelled “Safe Space”, and a grey one labelled “Unsafe Space”. Here is a multiple-meaning. The obvious one: within the cozy, stunting ring of Feminism &c. is the safe space, and without is the “unsafe space” of the Real World™, where men hunted the mammoth to feed ungrateful women.

Being a race-baiting soyboy mangina &c., I can also read the colours of the two boxes as skin colours. The orange one is the Orange One, or Donald Trump. He shall invade every safe space and restore to it Logic™ and Rationality™, but this thanklessly: and so we reënter the chart. The other box can be read as white, representing the white man, who succeeded in the unsafe space, (on a Level Playing-Field™, it could be said,) on his merits, and not due to Reverse-Racist Affirmative Action™. This is clearly meant to Trigger™ pusillanimous women and soyboys, because only they read it in such a way.

Any questions?

If I may request, please post more twister dog videos, and fewer, whatever the fuck that first thing was.

Thank you.

It looks a bit like the Kabbalah Tree of Life if it were made up of stupidity, misogyny, and stupid misogyny.

@Laughter at Bigots

I think you put more thought into deciphering that mess than the MGTOW did while making it.

There is one arrow that does point to gynocentrism; the “exploitation” arrows are both aimed at that and Feminism. No idea what that means. I guess that narcissism exploits gynocentrism and feminism to meet its own ends? Interpreting it as exploitation leading women to join feminism is way too sympathetic towards women to be a MGTOW meme.

Anyway, dear readers, if any of you can explain this chart in more-or-less comprehensible English, please do.

I can do it, and what’s more, I can do it with a single word:


what do I win?

Looks like someone cargo-culted the Duluth Wheel. These guys sure have a serious hate-on for it.

“Relativistic Hedonism” sounds scary, but in the unlikely event that you get up to that sort of speed, you’ll have other things to worry about, such as particles of the interstellar medium slamming into the front of your craft with huge energy. This is what is meant by “unsafe space”.

I think the idea of the MGTOW logo is that most people go straight ahead, but miggies are supposed to take the fork which heads off to the right (eventually, the far right). In the diagram, you’re motoring along until you reach fear, shame, and doubt. Seeing the shining city of feminism ahead, you veer off, taking the road to infantile solipsism and exploitation, since that’s more your kind of thing.

All-dog remake of Twister? And here I was hoping for bunch of dogs playing Twister with their paws. Way to hype me for nothing… that’s a bloody false advertising

I find this chart very useful. Not because it makes actual sense or follows any logical process of thought, I could ever figure out, but because it’s a handy sum up of all the idiocy that floats around the heads of MGTOW/Incels (and nowhere else).
Seriously, whenever I read what those people think goes around women’s heads, I’m impressed that they managed to make drunken barroom talk into a lifestyle.

The best part about this is that you just know the guy who created it was so proud. He was like, “I’ve done it! They all laughed, but I’ve done it! I have developed the Unified Theory of Bitches!”

I like how the MGTOW path of Infantile Solipsism leads directly to Exploitation. Sounds about right. I’ve never seen a group so susceptible to lifestyle hucksters and grifters as alt-right manospherians. It’s ironic, given how much they brag about being coldly rational.

If I were less ethical, I’d figure out a way to get in on the Jordan Peterson/Heather Heyling game of packaging up misogynists’ insecurities and selling them back to them. However, I’m a feminist and bound by “Morality of Constraints”. I just want them to go their own way already.

I can’t make heads or tails of what that chart is trying to say. It literally makes no sense.

It means what all the other incomprehensible menzer memes mean:

“Girls are icky!! Why don’t they like me??”

Yeah, we done this one before! All these awful memes start blurring together.

The inside is pretty boring, because none of the terms are well defined. MGTOW assholes use “gynocentrism” and “feminism” interchangeably, and I challenge one of them to differentiate clearly between egocentrism and narcissism. Frankly, they’re just trying to use big words to claim women are selfish! Selfish selfish selfish!

The only interesting node here is the insecurity node, it suggests that the only meaningful mechanism there is for maintaining these selfish states is insecurity – fear, doubt, shame. That’s fascinating for two reasons. First one’s straightforward – they apparently acknowledge that women have a reason to be fearful in modern society, and also acknowledge very normal human impulses of self-doubt and shame. This chart suggests that these impulses express as selfish behaviour, which … well, that’s stupid. That’s just dumb. Self-doubt and shame don’t create more confidence, they create less.

Which leads to the second interesting thing about this node. There are many ways for those selfish behaviours to emerge. Why did the MGTOW who made this thing select insecurities like these when there are so many other good reasons behind it? Given the stream-of-thought halo around the outside (which I’ll get to) I think the most straightforward conclusion here is because they came to the author first first, and after a little consideration they seemed most likely. In other words, they were most cognitively available to the author at the time.

I don’t like using the word projection, but that’s exactly what that cognitive availability bias is.

Once you recognize that the author is talking about themselves in that node and projecting outwards from there, it starts to make more sense. I’m not going to suggest that the author is solipsistic or narcissistic, but the chart suggests that the author has a personal complaint about something related to women, and it’s related to their insecurities. Unable to handle the guilt, shame and fear they feel, they project these negative traits onto women, finding comfort in the thought that it is the selfishness of women that has caused their insecurity.

That’s all just my unprofessional opinion though.

Anyways, the halo on the outside is frankly more interesting than the garblemess inside of it. You’re supposed to start at the bottom and read upwards along one path or another, depending on whether you – you sneaky womz – are either primarily narcissistic or egocentric. So, y’know, have fun differentiating the two in this mess.

What’s sort of interesting in there is that the blue set of the right hand track is entirely negative, fearful evaluations of society. Almost like the author understands the pressure on women or something, and acknowledges the pressure-cooker of social forces women have to endure from before they can even speak. This apparently leads to narcissism?

These tracks only really work if you take them as a stream-of-consciousness set of justifications from the imaginary evil womz. What’s more, the author suggests that women are incredibly vapid and infantile form the very get-go. The thought “They judge me” and “they watch me” form the very basis and justification for this entire transition they say women go on to becoming narcissists, but the entire framework of being watched and judged is thrown out not two steps later with “they worship me”. As if the author believes women are infants with no concept-permanence. Like, dood, brains don’t work that way.

These tracks are fine, but they’re also just-so justifications for the inner beliefs. Like, women could start at a framework belief of “they watch me, they judge me” and go in a thousand directions other than “they worship me”. Like, try, “they hate me” or “they use me.” I think you’ll find those to be much more prevalent beliefs than “they worship me”, ya wanksplat author. It’s the ad hoc fallacy at every step, in which every statement is designed to lead to the desired outcome.

I’m sure the author felt turbo rational scrawling this cipher, but it’s a huge mess. Like, I’ve made actual semantic maps of beliefs that look like the outer halo, but you can’t put them in a ring because they’re a big spidery network, and they have some sort of weighting mechanism between the nodes. Could these statements live inside of an actual semantic map? Sure – though three quarters of them would be merged for saying the same thing, and there’d be a whole lot more nodes in the network that correlate to more normal patterns of thought movement.

Anyways that is my ramble! I hope that you liked it.

Hey, there’s a Guardian story of the protest I attended earlier today:

This was the largest of the several planned protests critical of the visiting presidents’ agendas. Estimated attendance was about 1500, plus hundreds of tourists taking photos in hot sunny weather. That was just enough crowd to feel like a mass protest in a medium-sized city that’s half-deserted because of peak summer holiday season.

The emphasis of this protest was on human rights awareness, while individual people protested variously pretty much everything about Trump and/or Putin. Speakers included American and Ukrainian activists.

A couple events have been planned in the spirit of honoring this “diplomatic achievement” or somesuch. Earlier today, an estimated 50-70 people gathered to welcome Trump, who will land here this evening. Putin will only make a day visit tomorrow.

@Katerine the adequate


Dogs saving small children and the whole of civilisation from the tornado apocalypse for the win.

Stupid ass flowchart style memes from alt righters, MGTOW’s or incels for the fuck-right-off-and-when-you’ve-got-there-fuck-off-some-more-and-when-you’ve-got-there-don’t-come-back.

(subtitled: please, do, go your own way, before one of us dies from old age)

Some notes for the Guardian piece:

Meanwhile the country’s largest newspaper has put up English- and Russian-language street ads saying: “Mr President, welcome to the land of free press.”

This is a series of billboard ads for the newspaper (Helsingin Sanomat, or HS) itself. Each ad points out (in HS quotes) some recently reported press freedom issue in either US or Russia, often mentioning the relevant president by name. They all have that abovementioned tagline, and the whole ad is respectively in either English or Russian. Finnish audiences will get the idea.

The Finns are proud of hosting some of the cold war’s most historic summits. But many in the country will tell you: don’t call Helsinki “neutral ground”.

Many here recall the forced Soviet-era neutrality, a policy called Finlandisation, as a dark period in the country’s history.

Finland has established its western credentials in the years since the fall of the Soviet Union, with EU membership and an enhanced partnership with Nato.

“Finns don’t view themselves as being neutral between east and west,” said Mika Aaltola of the Finnish Institute of International Affairs. “Since the end of the cold war, the policy has been that Finland is part of the west. We have built a society that is very solid and unified, world class in terms of many rankings, as a way of getting out of the geographical bind we found ourselves in.”

Russia still maintains some strong ties with Finland. Putin has met regularly with the country’s last two prime ministers, and a close associate, Boris Rotenberg, holds Finnish citizenship and business interests in the country. Russia is also the source of important energy projects in the region, including a nuclear power plant and gas pipeline.

Both Finland and (reportedly) Singapore have been described in international media as “neutral hosts”, which isn’t literally true in either case – just close enough for the purpose of hosting summits. Naturally, many Finnish commentators have worried that it might be taken too literally, for the detriment of Finland’s image.

Now, some speakers in this protest conflated-possibly deliberately-this geopolitical non-neutrality with popular non-complacency towards the human rights problems with US and Russian regimes. It was a motivational trick referring to a well known media talking point.


“Relativistic Hedonism” sounds scary, but in the unlikely event that you get up to that sort of speed, you’ll have other things to worry about, such as particles of the interstellar medium slamming into the front of your craft with huge energy. This is what is meant by “unsafe space”.


I think the idea of the MGTOW logo is that most people go straight ahead, but miggies are supposed to take the fork which heads off to the right (eventually, the far right). In the diagram, you’re motoring along until you reach fear, shame, and doubt. Seeing the shining city of feminism ahead, you veer off, taking the road to infantile solipsism and exploitation, since that’s more your kind of thing.


These charts with all the boxes and the circles and arrows … it’s the graphic design equivalent of a conspiracy theory. All these details shoved in there to paper over the gaps. All these details to overwhelm the first-time viewer and to prop up the true believers.

It’s about as solid as a house of cards.

The Tweeter has landed.

(I’m watching footage from Helsinki airport.)

Does Helsinki have any Trump baby blimps? I think they ought to follow him around now.

My chart would be simpler:

A graphic way of saying women are

Also, I would do it in watercolors.

(OK I know that’s weird I guess but sorry I like playing with watercolors)

(Also I’m not trying to sound vapid and denigrate the commenters who so skillfully deconstructed the MGTOW vapidity because that was amazing)

Moggie: Nope. I did see one sign encouraging Trump to challenge Obama’s record of holding breath underwater for 20 minutes.

A visual aid for all the absurd mental gymnastics they perform, that’s what it is.

The words “cargo cult” come to mind.

Some Migtoe has seen charts and associates them with sciency stemmy big businessy seriousy man stuff.

But has no idea how they work.

In the immortal words of Felix Unger:

“I don’t have the time to unravel your logic.”

Wow, I’ve never seen projection in graphical form before, but it manages to do it.

@Surplus to Requirements – Yeah, I remember! I joked about high school geometry. But the “Marshmallow Stacey” thread was much more mathematical.

I looked up Graham’s Number, thinking, “OK, part of the finite set, maybe I can understand this,” and I sort of can, because someone wrote an article on it.

@Arctic Ape – Thanks for the link. I was looking at The Guardian’s coverage of the meeting – “seem[s] more about optics than substance” sums up their view. Or, in a North American idiom, “they did shit-all” (the all at the end of shit-all emphasizes its nothingness, because English is weird).

Oh yeah, and since Finland was the place for two other historic US-Russia summits, I guess it’s a chance for both Trump and Putin to pretend at being legitimate leaders.

Commentators say Putin at least is leeching legitimacy for himself, though I doubt the choice of Finland as venue has anything to do with that.

A historical track record certainly helped Finland to get this hosting gig, as it shows basic institutional competence. General view here is that this is a great general PR win for Finland and the city of Helsinki in particular. For small countries, not all publicity is good publicity but good publicity is really important.

How are you supposed to interpret a chart in which every box points to every other box?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.