Over the past decade, an online movement known as MIGTOW—Men Going Their Own Way—has grown quietly but steadily. MIGTOW is not a formal organization, nor does it have a single ideology. At its core, it represents a growing number of men who have decided to avoid marriage and long-term legal entanglements with the family court system. While often caricatured or dismissed, the movement reflects a broader trend: young men increasingly choosing independence over marriage, not out of hostility toward women, but out of concern over legal and financial risk.

Whether MIGTOW is the cause of declining marriage rates or simply a response to them is debatable. What is not debatable is that marriage among young men is declining sharply. According to U.S. Census and Pew Research data, marriage rates among men under 35 have fallen dramatically over the past 40 years. Large numbers of men now delay marriage into their late 30s—or never marry at all. Regardless of how one views MIGTOW culturally, the end result is clear: young men are not getting married, and the trend is accelerating.

One of the most consistent reasons raised by men who avoid marriage is financial exposure. Divorce statistics consistently show that men, rather than women, are more likely to experience significant asset loss following divorce, including loss of business equity, retirement savings, and ongoing income through child support and alimony. According to a Zipdo 2025 Education Report by Alexander Eser, 97% of alimony recipients are women. Gitnux echos this by stating only 3% are men. Child Support and custody awards by the court are very similar with 85% of Child support payments being made by the father – meaning the courts award custody to the mother 85% of the time.

Another statistic shared commonly within the MIGTOW movement is that even though the median salary for men is $82k vs $58k for women, single divorced women have a significantly higher home ownership rates. Why? Because the courts statistically cripple working men.

Stories of men losing homes, businesses, and long-term financial security have become so common that they are almost cultural clichés—referenced in country music, stand-up comedy, and everyday conversation. While each case differs, the perception among men is unmistakable: marriage for men carries extreme asymmetric financial risk.

Brandon H., a man from Middleton, Idaho, offers a real-world illustration of why these fears persist. Brandon worked long hours for years in the telecommunications industry while building an eBay business out of his garage on nights and weekends. Over more than a decade, that side business grew into a six-figure operation, eventually requiring warehouse space. He then built a 1200 sft shop on his property to hold inventory. It was hard work, but it was paying off. During this time, his wife did not work outside the home and contributed little to the household and nothing to the business’s operation.

As Brandon’s income increased, he provided generously to the family—new vehicles, travel, and lifestyle upgrades. At his wife’s urging, he paid for elective stomach reduction surgery. After her significant weight loss, she decided she needed to “find herself” through adultery. After being questioned about her disappearances she filled divorce, citing personal fulfillment.

In the divorce and custody proceedings in front of the Honorable Danica Comstock of Ada County Magistrate Court, Brandon lost over half of both realized and unrealized business assets. He was ordered to pay child support and spousal support. To comply, he had no choice but to liquidate the business he had spent over a decade building. The enterprise no longer exists. Brandon has stated that if he ever rebuilds financially, he will never marry again.

Stories like Brandon’s are exactly the kind shared within MIGTOW spaces and among young men privately. They function as cautionary tales. Whether every detail is identical from case to case is irrelevant—the pattern is what matters. Young men hear these stories repeatedly and draw conclusions about risk. When a pattern appears consistent, that the courts habitually rule in favor of women, observant men notice and walk the other way.

From a rational standpoint, the question becomes simple: why would anyone enter a contract where one party carries all of the downside risk? Because courts consistently allow outcomes where men lose homes, businesses, savings, and future income, young men increasingly opt out. This is not theoretical. This is reality. Many young men openly say they will not marry specifically because of consistent one sided divorce courts rulings. While this is a national issue, Idaho provides a particularly stark example.

No one enters a contract unless it appears fair and enforceable. A person would not sign a car loan where the bank could repossess the vehicle without notice. No one would enter a business partnership where one partner could dissolve the agreement unilaterally and keep the assets. Contracts require predictability, due process, and balanced enforcement. Marriage is no different—except in how it is adjudicated.

Gary Ogren v. Donna Ogren: Idaho in Practice

The case of Gary Ogren v. Donna Ogren, Ada County Case No. CV01-25-14758, illustrates another dimension of risk. On August 14, 2025, Gary was shocked to discover that $57,186.60 had been transferred from the couple’s joint checking account into an account solely controlled by his wife. When questioned, she offered shifting explanations.

The following day, when she went out for coffee, Ada County Sheriff’s deputies arrived at the home. Gary was removed immediately and given 15 minutes to gather personal belongings. A protective order had been filed under the claim of domestic violence. In one phone call, Gary became homeless.

Seventy-two hours later, Gary appeared before Judge Andrew Ellis for a protective order hearing. Despite no prior domestic-violence calls, no criminal history, no history of domestic violence ever, no neighbor complaints, and Gary’s categorical denial, the court extended the protective order for six months. He is ordered to stay away from his home and can’t get any of his belongings. Gary lives on SSI and remains homeless, surviving out of his car. All of his possessions consist of only what he was able to carry in his arms during that 15 minutes.

After meeting with multiple attorneys, they declined to represent him, explaining that once a protective order is issued, Idaho judges side 99% of the time against the restrained party. Gary has no meaningful legal recourse.

Contracts only function when parties trust enforcement. When enforcement becomes unpredictable, one-sided, or procedurally stacked, rational actors withdraw. That is precisely what is happening with marriage. The recurring themes—loss of assets, long-term support obligations, emergency removal from the home—have become cultural shorthand among men. Trust in the system has collapsed.

Young men are asking a simple question: Why would any rational person enter a contract where everything they own can be reduced to what fits in their arms in fifteen minutes?

For Gen Z women wondering why marriage proposals are rare, the answer is not a lack of affection or commitment. It is the legal environment created over decades. Cowardly judges, combined with weak enforcement standards and ideological prejudices, have transformed marriage into a legally asymmetric arrangement. No sane man, without a prenuptial agreement, would enter into one.

Marriage and the family unit is the foundation of any civilization. We should all be alarmed by its rapid decline and the breakdown of families. If marriage is to survive, it must once again resemble a fair contract—one with due process, balanced risk, and predictable enforcement. Until then, young men will continue to walk away—not out of bitterness, but out of rational self-preservation.