I think there are some analytical methods used here that guided the author to the wrong conclusions and assumptions. One mistake is to equate loner and MGTOW. The problem with this comparison is like comparing a memory chip of a computer with a software program. MGTOW is on a philosophical layer while loner is on the physical layer. While it's true that many MGTOWs may be loners, the two are not the same. a loner is a person who go life solo with minimal relationship interactions. There is no indication that MGTOW is about that. The analytical approach seeked the common denominator of elements of MGTOW that stood out for the author and not for the MGTOW. Hence when you take that common denominator you get, "I want it all my way" while that is not what MGTOW is about for the MGTOW. the various themes may be popular in MGTOW literature, but does not create the common denominator the author derived.
The common denominator is best explained by Dr Helen Smith. It is described as a cost vs benefit analysis modern men who free them from the indoctrination of old traditions and religions do. MGTOW is very progressive by nature. Marriage between men and women is a patriarchal construct and its not radical to think that if you destroy the patriarchy that the mechanisms that was responsible for its necessity will crumble and the construct will crumble with it. Marriage failure is an indication of this transition and that a hybrid model seems to be ineffective. We need to understand that if you change any system there will be gains and losses. Patriarchal societies maintained their status by pairing men and women where the man have the control. Matriarchal societies are clans and social groups living together. Hence we see friends living together, we see marriages falling apart as the patriarchy is destroyed by feminism. To me this is typical and expected that those who just casually and socially live together will get a better deal today. But in the transition phase conservative thinkers hold on to tradition and progressive thinkers look at the new opportunities and threats and organised to optimize to the new environment.
We can turn a rugby feeld slowly into a soccer field, and those who insist to play by the rules of rugby would increasingly get penalties and realise they do not score any points. So the progressive person have on of two choices, learn the rules of soccer or go pick up you ball and go home or get another hobby. Feminism has changed the playing field but its irrational to think that rugby player will now get a liking in soccer or that they will all adapt to the new game. Its expected that some will and some wont and those who wont who recognize the change will make another plan.
If enough has changed in society over time, a sensible person would forget tradition and religion for a moment, and re-calculate the SWOT diagram to determine if it still makes sense or is it in your best interest? is it working for you? how does the benefits and risks compare now? Once you calculate the decrease value women have for men and the increased risks and demands on men and factor it into other progressive concepts propagated by feminism such as "women need a man like a fish needs a bicycle" where this declaration of independence and separatism is deemed progressive. It is typical that a new result will be derived.
It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you raise the price on a product while its reliability decreases and new alternatives are invented that the sales of that product will plummet. MGTOW hashtag seems to create awareness about the social sift and that old traditions must be reevaluated where special focus is placed on the obvious rise in risks men take with marriage and also the decreasing benefit modern women hold for men as womens roles also become obsolete.
Men do not need women to live a good life anymore because women gave up their unique roles and society replaced those roles with machines and services available to every man. Women became disposable in that sense. Feminism took the position that everything women do and meen for men must be stopped because men benefit from women that way. But then created a void and the market place and other innovations then rush to fill the void. washing machines, microwave ovens, porn, video games, home theater, ready made meals, social media, pubs around every corner, more single guys who can bond and maintain social lives with each other. All these came to help fill the void left by feminism who took women out of unique roles they served for men. If you remove those roles only an idiot would think that everything else will not change accordingly.
So MGTOW is more about a re-calculation of the cost/benefit analysis consistent to progressive philosophy.
The independence of women took advantage off this idea for 50 years already. With an ongoing feminist movement shaping the world it is not odd, but typical that men would re-calculate their opportunities, threats, strengths and weaknesses relative and as the results change, so should the decisions and objectives change accordingly. MGTOW is typical and not odd. Infact there are about 1000 times more men living by MGTOW than those you see in the MGTOW community. Its a reactive phenomena transforming into philosophy as men adapt to the new environment in a typical way.