The Married Man question of MGTOW?

In a recent article at A Voice for Men, the author discusses the varying definitions of MGTOW and whether any borderlines should be drawn. While I agree with much of he's saying philosophically, I believe that when it comes to the issue of "Married Men", this is one border-line that must be maintained, for several reasons.

Note: I am not one of the "elders" of MGTOW and so this is simply my own personal response. Some (if not all) of these points will already have been made by others and so I am just adding my weight to the question.

Although there is a persistent danger in restricting MGTOW, particularly what "outlook" one should have or what actions one must take to "prove" their bona fides as a true MGTOW--there is a reason why the "marriage" issue is more than just a "sub-plot" as the author puts it.

1. The current dispensation (or age). Up until the last 100 years or so, most marriages operated under the Pater familias principle, and in that system, it was perfectly possible for for married men to be MGTOW in a broader sense. e.g. the Freemasons, the Mafia and other male societies operated with ease. Women (wives) knew their place more or less. Given that we all partake in an age (whether we wish it or not), even the most traditional wives are influenced by the perception of what a marriage/relationship should (or could) be like. {see my previous post for an interesting thought experiment}

2. Furthermore, all officially sanctioned unions place men in a compromised position and a compromised man cannot be MGTOW. This is not an attack on married men's ethics, morals, commitment, masculinity etc... this is simply a consideration of the Law of the Land... MGTOW is the path to free yourself from some of these laws (and in doing so, help future laws and conditions become fairer to Men).

3. MGTOW is a situational choice; not a mindset or philosophy.  It enables the Male to become the apex-operator or apex-predator if he wishes to be so.  This is a level of power that can't be shared by one with certain responsibilities. A married man does have certain ethical responsibilities and so it would unfair to blurr these lines. To use a mafia analogy, a married man can be an associate but not a "made man".

4. A man freed from the sacred union of marriage (or serious relationships) has now appropriated a socially ostracized designation. In past ages, the Priesthood was a good compromise in that it protected the male from this stigmatization... today there is no freedom, no respite, no refuge. Your friends, your family and strangers alike will consider you deficient. In short: THIS A SERIOUS BURDEN (A CROSS IF YOU WILL) THAT MUST BE SHARED.

5.  Traditionalism does not equal Marriage. Traditionalism references an authentic way of life and community, but all through history, there have been men (for a variety of reasons) who chose not to marry. Again, we could look at the Priesthoods, or the Knights Templar for an example. I myself am a traditionalist and would happily welcome a more traditional society... but since MGTOW is largely the reaction to a non-traditionalist society, a happily married man in MGTOW makes little rational sense.

-------

In conclusion, these are some basic considerations put forward why a "line" may need to be drawn.  It is also not an attack on marriage--as I suspect many MGTOWs may one day envision themselves getting married. It is simply a necessity to maintain the power (or potential power) that is held by the MGTOW practitioner-- which is unfortunately diluted and compromised by extending the "label" to married men.

If that line is not drawn... then it is debatable whether MGTOW even exists.