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?
Antigynocentrism 
“Once Feminism is destroyed, is it back to the homestead and easy, sheltered, protected-and-provided-for lifestyle for women? ”
Well. If life returns to THAT status-quo, it’s a sign that feminism has not been truly destroyed.
The situtation you are talking about is at least two thirds of what makes feminism. . . feminism.
I see feminism as a plant with a widespread root system that extends through ALL of the cultural – political soil. And yes, gynocentrism is the connecting factor which binds it all together.
This. . plant. . breaks surface conspicuously in the soil of the political left, and that is why feminism is deemed “left-wing” by most people. Yes, MOST people – left, right or what-have-you.
But again as always, gynocentrism is the binding factor.
And something peculiar: MOST people, left and right alike, like to scoff at the idea that feminism is anything OTHER than “left-wing”.
So it seems there is a general collusion to deny the culturally universal nature of feminism.
I would say that the task is, to attack that way of thinking, and expose it.
Very thoughtful article.
“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.”
Traditional women do help us weaken the vanguard of gynocentrism. Unfortunately, today’s progressive feminists are tomorrow’s traditionalists playing a game of leapfrog in the name of gynocentrism.
Wow. You commented two years ago and I’m just now seeing this for the first time. Thanks for your comment! I’d be interested in knowing how traditional women help with the gynocentrism problem.