Traditionalists are worse than feminists.

An article went up at National Review Online, called Why Stick With Marriage? It’s a pretty run-of-the-mill traditionalist/conservative article hawking marriage and warning women about the dangers of committed relationships. It’s condescending to men and women alike, but it’s not the article I want to talk about, but rather an exchange between a typical traditionalist woman and myself, where I tried to highlight her moral superiority and give her a clue as to why a marriage is so hard to get from a man. It went like this:

Sandra K. Jenner

“If he can get the milk free, he won’t buy the cow.”

Our mothers and grandmothers had much more sense than we do. The phrase “friends with benefits” would probably send grandma into hysterics. “What, girl, are you CRAZY?”

Feminism was supposed to be about empowering women. When you shack up, or sleep around, or both, you lose power to men, that’s how it is.

Amy -> Sandra K Jenner

I absolutely agree! Women are just hurting themselves by having sex outside of marriage! Men have strong sex drives for a reason! If the unmarried woman gives into a man’s sex drive before marriage…He has no reason to commit to a marriage! In my opinion, for men it is about the sex and for women it is about the relationship.

Paul Johnson -> Amy

Wow, what a sexist bigot.

Men are just hurting themselves by marrying women before having sex with them. Women have an insatiable lust for money for a reason! If an unmarried man gives into a woman’s lust for money and power at any point, she has no incentive not to divorce him and take all his stuff.

In my opinion, for women it’s about the money and power, and for men it’s about the potential for a life-time partner to stand by his side.

(I don’t really believe that as such, but I hope it’s illustrative of the kind of objectification and projection you’re doing.)

Amy -> Paul Johnson

Did you read the article? It was about Retreating from marriage to “stable relationships”. In Maggie’s words… ” it doesn’t work because cohabiting women believe they are in stable loving relationships…young women in love are not very good at figuring out whether or not they are in a committed relationship.” To me it is about acquiring a REAL commitment and I believe marriage is the ultimate commitment. Not cohabitation. This is where the challenge lies; in getting the commitment from the man. My point is, that many men won’t commit if they can come home each night to a girl friend and “get the milk for free”. Why would they want to “buy the cow” if they have the benefits of marriage without the actual commitment of marriage. Of course, I’m not saying that all men are shallow and licentious. There are many out there who honestly “want a life-time partner to stand by his side”. Thankfully, my husband of 27 years is one of these kind of guys!

Paul Johnson -> Amy

My reply to you has nothing to do with the article, but with the misandric attitude apparent entirely in your own words.

And this explanation of yours does you no more favors.

What I did is say what you said with a sex reversal hoping it would reflect what you said so you could see it as I saw it. Apparently that didn’t work, so I’m going to parse it for you.

Your original reply to Sandra, you state that if a man has sex before marriage, he has no incentive to get married. This clearly implies that men are not incentivized by anything but sex. Then you go on and infer it directly by saying that “for men it’s about sex,” and “for women it’s about the relationship.” I don’t know how to make it any more apparent than your own words at this point. This implies the corollaries that men aren’t interested in relationships and women aren’t interested in sex, and that women should trade on their vaginas for a relationship. This is why I think wives are nothing more than state-legitimized whores. It also implies that you think your sexuality is more precious than his. So what does that say about your commitment? I suspect you have none and are as hypergamous as anyone.

Enter your reply to me:
Yes, I read the article — and the author is just as bigoted. She thinks women can’t tell if they’re in committed relationship (which, if they’re in love may be true — it’s true for men, too), but she suggests that because of that, she is not in a committed relationship (taking the default position that no man would ever commit to a relationship outside of what is essentially a legal hostage situation for him). But for your part, you agree. If he’s not willing to sign himself into servitude with state-backed force, he can’t be trusted. And now it’s not men but many men. “Men” already means “many men.” You say he can “get the milk for free,” again, implying that the proverbial milk is nothing but the sex. “The benefits of marriage” = “giving into his sexual desire.”

It’s a damn shame that there are many men out there who want a life-time partner to stand by their side, because they’re not getting one.

From your own admissions, I’m able to ascertain that you don’t see men as fully-developed emotional human beings whose sexuality is worth what yours is, and that you do not bring commitment to the marriage — only sex. And you trade your sex for life-time commitment. You do not value his sex and you do not offer commitment of your own.

This objectification of men is what will allow you to cheat on your husband and chuck him to the street (but keeping his assets) when you’re done with him.

Now I want to propose a thought exercise for you. Imagine you are a male. You are fully emotionally developed. Put yourself in that mind-set, and re-read your two comments. If you don’t see what I see, keep reading them until you do. Then go vomit and start crying, and re-think the way you see men and the value of your “milk.”

Now let’s get proverbial again. The milk is never free. You either have to milk that heifer yourself or pay for the milk. It is precisely because of women like you that I say, “Screw the milk, and screw the cow.” I’m not buying either one and I can’t be bothered to do the milking. I’ll just watch a video of someone else drinking the milk and have a glass of water. That’s actually free and saves me a lot of time to spend with people who think of me as a human with intrinsic value.

I later replied to her initial reply to Sandra J. Kenner asking her exactly what the reason men have such strong sex drives is, as I had let that one slide previously but definitely wanted to address it. I suspect the answer is less diagnostic in nature and more pragmatic. I suspect she feels it’s so men can be more easily taken-advantage-of. I think it’s because without it we simply wouldn’t have survived as a species. Maybe we would have done fine until the agricultural revolution, but if this woman is any indication of what women were like back to that point, it would have been the death of us as it would simply not be worth the condescension.

Equality Feminists, Also the Problem

A conversation with an “equality feminist” on twitter reveals they are just as much the problem.

Paul Johnson:
Anyone who subscribes to and perpetuates the myth of evil patriarchy is “the problem.”

Kain Yusanagi:
Which equality feminists don’t follow, for the most part?

Kain Yusanagi:
At least, not that I’ve seen.

Paul Johnson:
Uh, yes, the hell, they do. It’s the single defining characteristic of feminism.

Kain Yusanagi:
No, it’s not. That you think that is worrying. Generalization much? Same issues w/ #GamerGate.

Paul Johnson:
I defy you to find me a single feminist who doesn’t think men have always oppressed women.

Kain Yusanagi:
Hi?

Paul Johnson:
Then you got some ‘splainin’ to do.

Kain Yusanagi:
What do you want explained? Btw I’d have recommended you to my mum, who taught me, but dead now

Paul Johnson:
Why do women earn less than men?

Kain Yusanagi:
Because they choose different jobs and/or more flexible hours for other commitments like family

Paul Johnson:
Why was there a period in which all men in the U.S. had suffrage, but not all women?

Kain Yusanagi:
I’m not a US citizen (Canadian), so I can’t really comment there.

Kain Yusanagi:
I’d guess that you are referring to the period where suffragettes got right to vote w/o service

Kain Yusanagi:
though? If so, I would argue that having no way to gain right to vote was worse. Unbalanced.

Kain Yusanagi:
Was the way they did it fair? No. But that’s also applying modern morals to history. No TY.

Paul Johnson:
Right now women have the right to vote w/o service or S.S.S. registry. Men do not.

Paul Johnson:
Why are there so many more men in offices power than women?

Kain Yusanagi:
That needs to be rectified, then. That is not equality.

Paul Johnson:
I dare you to bring that up at your next feminist meet-up. Make sure your phone is charged.

Kain Yusanagi:
I’d state that men biologically are more tuned towards being competitive and thrive in such.

Kain Yusanagi:
As such, fewer women are interested in such roles. Much like early hunter/gatherer culture.

Paul Johnson:
You seem to have some good answers to these key questions. But that leads to a different set.

Kain Yusanagi:
1) I don’t have a “feminist meeting”. 2) Don’t have a cell either. Landline for me. 🙂

Kain Yusanagi:
3) Most equality feminists I know agree with me on these points.

Kain Yusanagi:
Life without questions would be boring. I enjoy questions leading to more questions. 🙂

Paul Johnson:
Why are the most vocal and powerful feminists so opposed to equality and dissent?

Paul Johnson:
Why do feminists such as yourself allow the corruption of the brand without internal policing?

Kain Yusanagi:
Because radicalism is easy to force into a group. It reinforces us vs them mentalities.

Paul Johnson:
Why do you defend the brand from outside criticism, yet internal criticism is nary to be found

Kain Yusanagi:
Because they saw power that they could take as their own and created an industry of outrage.

Paul Johnson:
Where is all the internal criticism of radical feminists?

Kain Yusanagi:
Because, as with #GamerGate, while I can denounce such bullshit, I can’t force them to stop >>

Kain Yusanagi:
using the label for their own ends. That is the unfortunate thing about freedom of speech.

Kain Yusanagi:
There’s a lot of us in #GamerGate & elsewhere who are very outspoken about it, actually.

Paul Johnson:
If speech is so damn free, why is there no internal criticism of the radicals? Or where is it?

Kain Yusanagi:
But the media focusses where it can get the views for clickbait, not on real facts.

Paul Johnson:
Then WHERE IS THE CRITICISM? THE POLICING?

Kain Yusanagi:
It’s everywhere! It just doesn’t get publicized because it weakens their ability to profit.

“It’s everywhere!” Make a note of this.

Kain Yusanagi:
It’s why we nerds/gamers have been taking shit for decades, disagreeing, and only now risen up.

Paul Johnson:
Then why can’t I find any!? Where are the forums discussing it?

Paul Johnson:
No. That’s one person. Where are the masses? You are the MAJORITY right?

Kain Yusanagi:
Places that get attacked &/or subverted into radfem places, you mean?

Paul Johnson:
No, policing is NOT impossible. AVfM polices heavily.

Kain Yusanagi:
It’s like Atheism+ all over again. Hays Code, Comic Code. Look up Entryism.

Paul Johnson:
No! Where are the forums where “nominal” feminists criticize the “radical” ones?

Kain Yusanagi:
What I stated above happens. Either they get harassed to closure or invaded & ousted.

Paul Johnson:
RoK gets called out. That’s policing. Board moderation is policing.

Paul Johnson:
But WHERE? Why can’t you come up with a single example?

Kain Yusanagi:
Further, you may police in AVfM. What about policing ALL MRAs? Impossible.

Kain Yusanagi:
And that’s what you’re asking for. No more possible than radfems policed out.

Paul Johnson:
But MRAs don’t have a corruption problem. RoK is not an MRA site.

Kain Yusanagi:
Because I stopped going to fem-related boards almost half a decade ago?

Kain Yusanagi:
Because they kept getting overrun or shut down?

Paul Johnson:
How are they getting over-run? Why isn’t AVfM getting over-run?

Kain Yusanagi:
Since every group has some bad eggs. Know of quite a few white supremacists >>

Kain Yusanagi:
who self-identify as MRAs. It’s same deal with feminism.

Paul Johnson:
Where is the community of feminists critical of radicals?

Kain Yusanagi:
Heavily aggressive DDOS, pressured false appeals to server owners, hacking, etc. Blackhatting.

Paul Johnson:
So all these nice feminists don’t have a home now and gave up on trying?

Kain Yusanagi:
Or infiltration under guise of equality fem to get community mod position, then takeover.

Paul Johnson:
Where are they protesting radical feminism in real life? Where’s the boots on the ground?

Kain Yusanagi:
Terribly unfair, IMO.

Paul Johnson:
Surely there must be ONE site that has an _adminstrator_ that is an equity feminist. Right?

Kain Yusanagi:
A lot of them are also keeping their head down and just living, because of radfem-dom climate.

Kain Yusanagi:
Selfish, yes, but no one wants their life ruined. I’m sure you can understand that?

Paul Johnson:
Why can’t feminists infiltrate and subvert AVfM?

Kain Yusanagi:
Possibly? I’m only speaking from my own experience. I can’t claim anyone else’s.

Paul Johnson:
Then we agree that equity feminism does nothing more than lend legitimacy to the radicals.

Kain Yusanagi:
Probably because it makes it easier to have you as a visible target?

Paul Johnson:
Equity feminists can’t engage real activism, and can’t even gather on the internet.

Kain Yusanagi:
They can’t manufacture outrage without a target to blame, after all.

Paul Johnson:
What good does equity feminism do?

Kain Yusanagi:
Note how organization makes it easier, vs. #GamerGate’s guerilla tactics.

Paul Johnson:
And why do you identify with a movement where you’re relegated to impotence?

Kain Yusanagi:
Because I agree with equity feminism’s tenets, as taught to me by my mother.

Kain Yusanagi:
Whether some assholes commit some bullshit doesn’t affect my beliefs.

Kain Yusanagi:
At this point? Try to get equality for men wronged by radfem legislation.

Paul Johnson:
How? By what modus operandus?

Kain Yusanagi:
We aren’t well organized. 😛 So individual methods that vary.

Paul Johnson:
How? What are equity feminists doing?

Paul Johnson:
What are some?

Paul Johnson:
You aren’t “not well-organized,” you’re in complete isolation, and silent!

Kain Yusanagi:
Because whenever we have tried, we get torn apart? Sorta makes it hard.

Kain Yusanagi:
No, you’re not the only one to notice that amusing similarity.

Paul Johnson:
Can you just answer the fucking question and quit deflecting?

Paul Johnson:
What were some of the sites where you tried before they got overrun?

Kain Yusanagi:
Several fora that don’t exist anymore because owners stopped paying for them?

But the feminist criticism of radical feminism is everywhere somehow.

Kain Yusanagi:
If you want names, sorry, but never been good at remembering those.

Paul Johnson:
Such as?

Paul Johnson:
Can you name some people, then? Surely you have some friends with better mems.

Paul Johnson:
I’m sorry, I can’t believe that there were “several fora” and you can’t name 1

Paul Johnson:
Did you ever visit any of these places yourself?

Paul Johnson:
Can you offer ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE that “equity feminists” aren’t complicit?

Kain Yusanagi:
Look, I’ve been patient with your very rude manner, but enough’s enough.

Here we go. Back’s to the wall, true nature revealed.

Kain Yusanagi:
Yes, I have, no, I don’t remember them because I have memory issues.

He has bullshit issues.

Kain Yusanagi:
Now take your attitude and go away, before I block you.

Feigned indignation.

Paul Johnson:
Equity feminism is a myth, and you’ve done nothing but weasel.

Paul Johnson:
And don’t threaten to block me. Just do it.

I’d had enough.

Kain Yusanagi:
Sorry for preferring to give ppl the chance to realize they’re being assholish.

Kain Yusanagi:
Don’t worry though. It’s already done.

Paul Johnson:
I’m really not. I’m just grilling you for a concrete answer.

Paul Johnson:
Surely you can understand my frustration as a non-feminist.

So he starts defending all of feminism because it has good objectives, but admits that it’s completely corrupted in all public media; that he doesn’t know any other equity feminists even online, and doesn’t meet with feminists in person; and that radical feminists have such a grip on cyberspace that there can’t be a forum or chat room anywhere without being coopted or DDoSed. But the main problem is I’m an asshole. #BLOCKED

This is why I can’t stand phony-assed “equity feminists.”

Are you an equity feminist who has answers to me questions? Leave a comment.

Ashli Howell publishes feminist “pub-rel”

Ashli Howell published a piece lovingly called, “The Problem with the Men’s Right Movement” smearing Zen Men (formerly KSU Men), A Voice for Men, the entire men’s human right(s?) movement, and offers a phony olive branch to Sage Gerard. Or the MRM. It’s not really clear which.

But here is a point-by-point refutation of some key pieces of feminist propaganda devices. Her misandry shows directly right up front, but is also evidenced by her lack of intellectual honesty, shown in all the feminist contra-male narrative and strategically placed lies. The quotations are very terse and assume the reader has read the named article in entirety. All quotations are sic.

“(mostly men)“

In case you have two separate standards for deciding whose concerns you care about.

“Barbra Kay, a speaker at the men’s issues conference…”

First off, that “the vast majority…,” is not really one of the talking points of the MRM. You’ll find consistently that it doesn’t matter how prevalent it is, the point is we have a system that enables false accusation with little risk of consequence (and very little risk of consequence to the degree of harm that would be done, were the accusation be believed).

“I first became aware of KSU Men after seeing a few posters…
…it appears to have some valid points.”

But don’t bother repeating them here.

“However, bringing awareness and discussing these issues is not the goal of KSU Men.”

Specious.

“The posters I saw around campus said, ‘Meet KSU’s non-feminist community’. An ad in the KSU Sentinel read that KSU Men is a community where ‘we critique feminism for the damage it has caused due to its inherent hatred of males.'”

This doesn’t mean their goal isn’t discussing issues around boys and men. There is a community, potentially a large one, of non- and anti-feminists who have been underserved for a long time. Sage is filling that void at KSU. Feminism is a problem that needs to be addressed, as it stands in the way of men and boys addressing issues that concern them. One of those videos of Sage’s, which “has some good points,” addresses this directly. You, and this article, are an example of that opposition. All rebuttals are directed toward the author, as dialog.

“There are three main problems that I have. The blame game the men’s rights movement plays…”

Feminists get some.

“…the shock value statements they make…”

Many movements rely on shock value statements in their infancy. This is pure tone-policing. Can you deal with the message?

“…and the incorrect characterization of feminism.”

Characterization of feminism at AVfM and other men’s rights, MGTOW, PUA, and any other ‘red-pill’ site is spot-on, given their perspectives. This is demonstrated endlessly all over the web.

“While researching the men’s rights movement, there was no shortage of feminist vitriol, there was a lot of discussions on the A Voice for Men discussion board about the friend zone, and there was very little about any issue concerning men’s rights.”

You might check your syntax. Are you saying that there is very little in the forum about issues concerning men’s rights, or in the movement at large?

If the former, why are you confining your observations to a forum (not even the commentary on its articles)? If the latter, have you seen the mission statement at A Voice for Men or the March 2013 men’s rights internet statement?

“That’s not to say that it did not exist,”

Just that when it does exist it can be ignored. Because it’s terribly inconvenient to your threat narrative.

“…was always accompanied with blame.”

Feminists are to blame

“It seems to me that the men’s rights movement is not trying to advance any concerns they have, but to degrade and discredit feminists at any opportunity.”

Part of advancing concerns of the MHRM have involve highlighting where feminists degrade men and women and discredit themselves.

“He didn’t bring attention to the issues that A Voice for Men claims to be concerned about, it merely infuriated most sane women…”

It got your attention, didn’t it? “If you don’t agree with us, you’re crazy.”

It’s a single statement. It wasn’t designed to “bring attention to … issues.”

“It also landed A Voice for Men on the Southern Poverty Law Center Misogyny sites list, further detracting from any issues it wants to address.”

Who cares?

“The final problem I have is that the men’s rights movement really misses the mark. They believe that because you are pro-woman, you must be anti-man.”

It certainly does not — that is an empty feminist aspersion onto the MRM. Many MRAs constantly try to disambiguate feminists from women. This is feminist projection; feminists conflate feminists with women, and men with “patriarchy.”

“This equates, in my mind, to the idea that I have to hate gelato because I love ice cream. It’s absurd.”

It is absurd. But it’s your aspersion, and the reasons MRAs argue feminists hate men (and the women who love them) are not because they’re “pro-woman.” If feminists gain women special privileges at the expense of the basic human rights, or complimentary privileges, are they really being as “pro-woman” as they could be?

“In general, feminists support equality for all…”

Equality of what?

“…and prefer movies with a trong female lead over movies like Twilight…”

So what? You can like what you want to like.

“Unlike some prominent figures in the media seem to think…”

Which figures, and what media? Do be specific.

“[Feminists] favor equality.”

Equality of what? And for whom?

“The bottom line is, if there is to be any meaningful discussion about the concerns that groups like KSU Men have, the hate has got to stop.”

Translation: If feminists are to maintain domination of the public discourse, KSU Men has to be stopped.

“When researching some of the issues facing men, I could not see through the blame.”

Your shortcoming.

“And yes, extreme feminists that bathe in the tears of men have some blame here too, but I do not know any feminist that bathes in the tears of men…”

Are you saying you’re a feminist and you’ve never heard of Jessica Valenti? You’ve never heard of the #MaleTears hashtag?

“So, if groups like this want to really to raise awareness about how men commit suicide at four times the rate of women, that male enrollment in college is decreasing, and the plethora of other issues that exist, I’m all for it.”

Then kindly stand out of the way and let the MRM get to business. Maybe even do some reading at AVfM and help.

“But let us discuss those things – not a hateful judgement of feminists.”

Yes. Let’s. And for a change, in a forum not governed by feminist policing.

It’s astonishing how consistently the same predictable tactics and demonstrably false claims are used, but it’s refreshing to see it being called out more brazenly these days.

A modern housewife comments on the MRM

Late last month, I posed a question on Women for Men asking what traditionalism means to them. I got some very simplistic answers with some values I doubt many would have objection with. I was hoping for a more nuanced answer, but one mamaziller did take the time to respond to me on my personal blog here (for some reason). I have moved the response here and addressed it.

The interaction between traditionalists and MRAs intrigues me, as we have a common enemy big enough and strong enough to warrant our cooperation, yet disagreements between us indicating caution in integrating too closely.

After an introductory exchange, her response and my rebuttal is as follows:

MRAism to me seems exactly like feminism. Before knowing a lot about MRAs I supported the idea. I thought they were anti-feminism, so I wanted to support them. But they are not anti-feminism. They are pro-feminism. They just want the male part of feminists goals to be fulfilled. They would be happy with gender equality and want what feminist claim feminism is.. they want “true” gender equality.

“MRAism,” as you put it, is nothing like feminism. We are anti-feminist (generally speaking), so feel free to support us inasmuch as we oppose feminism. To assert that we are pro-feminism is like asserting Islam is pro-Jesus (as savior) — nothing could be further from the truth. Yes, we want the traditional gender-specific obligations of men to be lifted, which is something feminists “neglected” to address, but to say that we just want that is reductionist and unfair to the MRM. We do seek gender equality, but we take it a step further than feminists and define what we mean by equality. We want equal protection under the law, equal representation with public funds, and equal opportunities in our pursuits of happiness, which implies equal autonomy and sovereignty over our lives. I hope you don’t see anything wrong with those things.

Yes our environments have changed drastically, but have we actually changed? In my opinion the answer is no. I do not want strict gender roles any more than the feminists do, but that is where feminism is taking us. When you elevate the role of provider to the extent that people are shamed for being adults who are provided for you do end up with strict gender roles. When you tell people they are children if they are taken care of by another adult that is what you end up with.

Well what do you mean by “changed?” If you mean our base motivators haven’t changed, I might agree with you, but I haven’t examined that very closely myself. However if you think the way we express our motivators hasn’t changed, you certainly haven’t been paying attention to the institution of marriage, sexual strategy, public education, crime, law, the market, or higher education. Yes, feminism, despite their calls to the contrary, are leading us to a very rigidly defined pair of sexual roles: Women as aristocracy, and men as proletariat.

Who is telling people they are children if they are taken care of by another adult?

I think I pretty much live a modern, post-industrial traditional life (and no I am NOT asking that everyone lives like me, but I am asking that society does not shame people who live like me because I think that it is still something useful to society).

I call my life traditional because I am monogamous, I have two children, I take care of the children (child care duties are my domain), and I work in my free time (I have my own business, we live above my shop and I sell a lot online). My husband works and is responsible for us financially (that is his domain). It doesn’t mean that he does not help with child care, just me being responsible for the kids does not mean that I do not help financially. It just means that if I wanted to quit my job in the morning I could just as much as if he so not feeling to take care of the kids I am fine with that.

Would you feel it’s okay for a man to take three women and produce many children with them as a closed family unit? What about two men? What about other exceptions? To my knowledge, nobody in the MRM is shaming anyone who wishes to live a traditional lifestyle, and I defy you to show me where if you disagree.

If a couple wants to have stricter roles where one partner does not help financially or with kids I am fine with that. If a couple does not want any gender roles I am also fine with that. What defines traditionalism to me is the male female relationship where parents work together to raise child and feminism and MRAism both significantly undermine that relationship by bashing the opposite gender and bashing gender roles, and bashing patriarchy.

Your accusation that feminism and “MRAism” bash the opposite gender and gender roles, and patriarchy is completely unfounded and even structurally invalid. Let me explain:

feminsm and “MRAism” aren’t genders and don’t have a sex, so they don’t have opposite genders. There are men and women in both camps. While some feminists don’t overtly bash men (or overtly claim they don’t), the ideology is predicated on a man-bad woman-innocent premise and their “academe” leads to anti-male conclusions. However, I have no idea where you’re coming from when you say “MRAism” bashes women. If it did, I doubt there would be so many female MRAs in the movement. The MRAs I run with have the highest level of respect for women while simultaneously recognizing their biological limits and effects of their different reproductive imperatives.

At the heart of both feminism and MRAism you all seek independence, male female independence and that weakens the male-female or parent relationship to a point where it simply can not last or function. Where I come from in Jamaica, I feel like I have seen this play out in real life. I think what happened is that certain parts of Jamaican society never had a strong traditional foundation and so our environment rather than tradition shaped our cultural norms.

Well sure. Independence is good, right? Independence doesn’t weaken male-female parent relationships. I think you’re thinking of segregation. We do not stand for segregation — feminists do. Steven Covey, in The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People places relational maturity along a spectrum from dependance to interdependence, with independence in the middle. If you oppose independence, you cannot develop or appreciate interdependence which is regarded as the most functional state of relationships, and you’re stuck with dependence. Independence is a hallmark of adulthood.

In that respect our cultural norms fit to a modern environment more so than in more traditional parts of the world. I think because the current environment can handle male female independence that is what happened in certain communities. What you end up with is pretty much fatherless communities. The male-female relationship can not last when the societal norm is to be always single. It is a toxic environment for relationships.

Washing machines and microwave ovens don’t lead to fatherlessness — it leads to spare time for the partner who spends the majority of time doing home chores. Family courts which railroad men out of children’s lives and gives women the “gun” that allows them to effect this end on a whim is what leads to fatherlessness. It is not our societal objective to remain single. MGTOW don’t generally WANT to be single, but we (I am one among them) are simply unwilling to subject ourselves to the level of risk involved in entering into a contract with the state to formalize our partnerships, or overexpose ourselves to the high level of risk of false DV accusations where we have no leverage to protect ourselves legally. I think we agree that today’s society is toxic for relationships, but I think we disagree about why.

Children grow up without fathers and boys lack role models, this makes them more unstable than girls and more likely to end up in gangs etc. They compete a lot for sex because they are never in relationships, they therefore compete a lot for resources. Most men are not happy under this social system.. but the sexes do have their independence. It is a lot more complicated than I have explained here.. but hopefully you understand some more of what I think and I why I do not support what feminists and MRAs seek.

Fathers are role models for girls, too, in that they are self-actualized adults with an emphasis on setting limits and establishing personal boundaries, as well as developing a sense of justice. Girls suffer almost as much as boys do without fathers, though their damage is expressed in different ways. They have a tendency to end up somewhere in the B-type cluster of personality disorders. Boys compete for sex because that is their reproductive imperative, and there’s nothing wrong with that. They also compete for resources because that is one of the biggest factors women look for in men for selection. This is perfectly natural, but I don’t know if it’s ultimately the best for society. I’m not ready to have that discussion.

I agree that most men aren’t happy under this social system, but it is feminists who have created it, and MRAs who seek to correct it. I feel like you have unfairly equated the MRM to feminism on the flimsiest of a premise (which is faulty by equivocation around the terms “patriarchy” and “independence”) and are simply brow-beating MRAs with the misdeeds of feminists.

Evils of Traditionalism

From my perspective, traditionalism was a necessary evil up until the industrial revolution. Feminism was a necessary evil to destroy the cushy lifestyle and gynocentric advantage that traditionalists enjoyed after the industrial revolution. That’s about the only good thing that has come from it. Feminists have gone too far, of course, and have untold amounts of blood on their hands. They are enemy #1 in the realm of human rights and public discourse. But Feminists and traditionalists are cut from the same gynocentric cloth. Where Feminists believe in female victimhood and legal supremacy, it is my contention that traditionalists essentially believe in female moral superiority and “lead-from-the-bottom” social supremacy.

I’m glad to have traditional women fighting alongside MRAs and MGTOW to end the reign of terror by big-F Feminism. We need all the help we can get. But once that goal is achieved and we are standing in the ashes of Feminist machinations, it will be time to turn to them and say, “about that moral superiority…”

So I’m glad we have an enemy in common, and would indeed recognize a non-aggression pact between traditionalists and MRA/MGTOW for the time being. But how similar are we? How intimate is our connection? How long can we stay friends? Once Feminism is destroyed, is it back to the homestead and easy, sheltered, protected-and-provided-for lifestyle for women? Is it back to marriage-as-usual? Is it back to making a mockery of the male emotional matrix and using the protection of “his fragile ego” to cover her own transgressions? MRAs are oft accused of wanting to “turn back the clocks to the ’50s,” but isn’t that what traditionalists want to do?

Traditionalism in the pre-industrial era has had plenty of dark underpinnings (to be fair, from both sexes) that need to be addressed in the post-industrialized world, and especially in the post-service-revolution world. So what would the modern post-industrial, post-service “traditional,” or “trad-prog,” family arrangement looks like? Which traditional values are conserved? Which are dispensed with?

Parents (esp. Fathers) need to examine and scrutinize all educational curricula and material their children are exposed to in school.

The blue-piller is unaware of the reality that surrounds him. Feminists and traditionalists control the discourse. The pick-up artist refutes the feminist and traditional discourse, but in PUA terms, his willy “controls the frame,” not his sovereign mind. He is not fully “red-pill.” He is defined and constrained by his pursuit of sex. A complete red-piller is either a man going his own way, a men’s advocate, or a human rights advocate.

The entry point of the Myth of Feminism into the public discourse is centered around the exploitation of the biological caveat of men that has allowed society to enroll them as producers and protectors, and partly expendable. It seeks to magnify these positions and make them slaves, meat-shields and dispensers-of-violence, and fully disposable.

What are ideas that are constructed of a mixture of observations of objective reality and Feminist Bullshit? It must also be Feminist Bullshit, or if it needs another name, to be treated, as Feminist Bullshit in the way that it is a useless product for discourse, except for the inspection and deconstruction of the Myth of Feminsm.

In Feminism Poisons Women: A Political Statement, Fidelbogen outlined a strategy to form a collective consciousness and internal dialog among non-feminist men and women. He stated that this consciousness would operate completely outside the Myth of Feminism. To that end, I propose that any who are interested should start a project to delineate all Feminist Bullshit in the public discourse. I will provide a definition of Feminist Bullshit here.

Feminst Bullshit: All vocal, written, and graphic rhetorical impulse applied to public discourse, individual interaction, and organizations from feminist advocates.

That is to say, if it is feminist lie, feminist half-lie, or predicated on either of these things, it is Feminist Bullshit. It can be said that the Myth of Feminism is the body of Feminist Bullshit.