Barbarossaaaa has a post introducing the trad-fem. He focuses on the entitlement mentality that both radfems and trad-fems share, and that sits coiled like a worm at the center of all their claims and pronouncements and demands.
A trad-fem is a woman who opposes feminism because it disrespects men doing their duty by women. This trad-fem expects men to do their duty by women, by the way. Because after all that’s what makes a man a real man. And feminists are mean because the disrespect these men. (That’s not the real reason feminists are mean though, the real reason is that men are starting to question this arrangement themselves, and feminists are giving them cover and terminology, however ironic that is.) And as Typhonblue pointed out somewhere else it can hardly be any coincidence all these trad-fems are coming out of the woodwork just at this particular juncture.
This article is for all those MRAs who fantasize about going back to some mythical Golden Age, some kind of good old days when everything was just wonderful for men. Bullshit – these trad-fems were what men back in the bad old days all faced – women who thought a man’s value was in his usefulness to women and who had no qualms about gender policing man to hard labor and death while they stayed comfortably at home.
This is why MHRM is anti-traditionalist.
Radfems and trad-fems appear 180 degrees out on their views of everything, and feminists in general insist that they are the true crusaders against the old order, but that claim crumbles under scrutiny.
If you look at all their core assumptions they are traditionalist. Every feminist trope requires that you accept female hypoagency and male hyperagncy as fact – the rape and DV narratives all assume female innocence regardless of actual conduct – hypoagency – and male guilt, regardless of who is actually aggressing whom. That is the macho white knight heart of “patriarchy”.
Core feminism is basically indistinguishable from tradcon patriarchy once you peel off the mask of modernism.
And this extends beyond core assumptions to actual working relations. If you look at the history of feminist advocacy and activism, the one constant is reliance on the power of the patriarchal state. The suffrage movement didn’t resort to armed violence – and this was an era of extensive violence between workers and capitalists – because they did not have to. They asked for the vote and they got it. The same goes for entry into the wage economy or the corporate world, or for equal access to universities – they asked and access was granted, and in a very short time, in one or two generations, against basically no real resistance. Pushing against an open door.
Actual working relations – commenter Tamen has found an apposite example in this statement from Michigan NOW. Michigan NOW is so opposed to father’s and children’s basic human rights in their opposition to equal parenting that they are partnering with Focus on the Family on this. Dalrock regularly comments on the anti-male nature of a lot what churches advocate in the area of family life and here you have a clear example.
Despite white feminists’ protestations of broad-church concern for all oppressed people, they are really not all that different from their suffragette forebears who were solidly white supremacist in their rhetoric and justifications for extending the vote to themselves. The parallels between feminist rhetoric and policy positions about rape and that of the KKK are obvious – disdain for due process, centering rape as the ultimate crime (beyond murder of suspected rapists even) and definitions of rape that privilege women as fragile victims, and never, ever as perpetrators.
This point has been made over and over and it needs to be made over and over until it starts to sink in.
- The Woman Card - May 2, 2016
- Frat boy bachelorettes and the invasion of gay bars - April 15, 2016
- “Not my kid….” - February 22, 2016
By steadily removing due process from the crime of rape they are turning the state into a de facto lynch mob.
Somebody, Theodore Roosevelt I think it was, was inveighing against the campaign of terrorism under Jim Crow at the time, warning that if they can do it to a black man to day, the day would come when they would do it to a white man. He was prophetic.
Tradfem: “Men should serve women in all the old traditional ways while we stay home and raise kids. They should definitely work to support and provide for us.”
Radfem: “Men should serve women in whatever ways we need as we explore all the opportunities life has to offer. They should definitely work to support and provide for us, whatever we wind up doing.”
As a man, it’s pretty easy to spot what these two ‘opposed’ movements have in common.
“As a man, it’s pretty easy to spot what these two ‘opposed’ movements have in common.”
And they think they are slick. After all, we’re 1) just stupid men who can’t see through anything and who are so transparent and easy to understand and manipulate and 2) it’s our highest calling.
Here is one example where they (NOW) are mentioning how they are joined by Family Forum (a right-wing, “traditional family values” group) in the opposition against presumed joint physical custody laws: http://www.now.org/nnt/03-97/father.html
Nice catch, Tamen. That will come in very handy.
That’s not strictly true. Those women broke their fair share of windows and set a lot of fires, although they were not met with the same level of brutal retaliation that peaceful male union activists got and any perceived mistreatment was met with public outrage. UK feminists have a particularly violent history starting from early on: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/suffragettes.htm http://brontehoroine.wordpress.com/2011/08/26/women%E2%80%99s-suffrage-the-shut-mouth-and-forced-ingestion/ They resorted to vandalism to a lesser degree stateside at times as well, although I can’t find any links now (last I read about it was about 10 years ago, about some suffrage protests in a neighborhood where I had lived).
Quite literally, actually. The Suffrage movement actually had a reputation for being traditionalist. Many of them had the goal of enforcing male roles via the law and generally out-moralizing everyone else. Many were Teetotalers in favor of Prohibition.
Then you had the Red Stockings in the 60’s-70’s. What did they say, that gay men were the ultimate misogynists for shirking their obligations to women?
Thank you for this formulation of stuff that was on my mind for quite some time now. Silly enough, I got the epiphany after reading a particularly pathetic strip of Sinfest, where the main antagonist seethes with thoughts of control, ownership, oppression and all the other upper class food for though – the show star, currently undergoing her feminist enlightenment, actually sees those thoughts and concludes “Patriarchy is strong with this one”.
I think I’ll repeat what I have written on HetPat – advent of the misandriac, pankhurstian feminism was a godsend for the upper castes, even if they did not fully realize it at the time. It’s small wonder they’re so generous to the demands of the feminists – by now I suspect their actions are the greatest safeguard against any actual threats to the class system and unrestricted accumulation of power.
P.S. Sorry for focussing so much on a single statement from a text otherwise mostly concerned with something else.
Uriele, I’m not catching your reference; you must be responding to something else. In any case, “focusing on a single statement” is otherwise known as “close reading” and it is appreciated if it contributes. So thanks.
I agree with pretty much everything you say, but the MHRM is not, and should not be, anti-traditionalism. If certain people want to behave this way, we should respect their choice, so long as they don’t try to force their belief system on others. (I understand many do.)
I agree that trad and fem are basically the same thing, and neither is a path to functional relations between the genders, but there is no way I’m going to mandate people renounce traditionalism to be a part of this movement. There are some very solid traditionalists who are smart anti-feminists and support men’s rights. (Suzanne Venker comes to mind) They don’t force their worldview on us, so I’m not going to apply a litmus test to them.
“but there is no way I’m going to mandate people renounce traditionalism to be a part of this movement.”
Mandating anything is off the table. If you have to legislate that 2+2=4 in a movement, then that movement has a deeper problem that legislating isn’t going to solve. I don’t have alot of truck with confessional statements of belief or lists of articles of faith.
“There are some very solid traditionalists who are smart anti-feminists and support men’s rights.”
You can be traditionalist and anti-feminist, but only supeficially. Ultimately traditionalists and feminists are working off the same page of basic assumptions about gender.
Unless you are some other kind of traditionalist. There are lots of traditions out there and some of themn have nothing to do with hyperagency-hypoagency. Those are fine; hyperagency-hypoagency is where the problem is.
Traditionalism and enforcing behavior onto others are inseparable from one another, as the OP outlined. People who merely behave a certain way via their own choice are not traditionalists. For example, someone who thinks prostitution should be legal doesn’t necessarily use their services. Same for abortions. Or dodging the draft. Or shunning marriage.
Traditionalists, on the other hand, prescribe behaviors onto everyone else irrespective of whatever hypocritical things they do themselves in secret. From Ted Nugent soiling his pants to get out of the draft to every Catholic mother who ever shuttled her daughter to an abortion clinic and to all of the priests and politicians who stand against prostitution or same-sex relationships but yet partake in one or both in airport bathrooms and elsewhere – those are traditionalists.
@Gingko, I’ve got a comment in moderation on this thread since yesterday… could you get it out? Thanks 🙂
Got it. Thanks. And thanks for the comment.
Traditionalism and Feminism are two corners of a three-way ideological triangle with Gender Egalitarians at the third: http://www.the1585.com/collapsibletriangle.htm while the article is a bit old from another blog, it succinctly shows how if you pursuit your own ideology far enough, the other two points ‘collapse’ into one the same way two landmarks appear closer together the farther away you are from them.
I am in almost complete agree Ginko. I have been saying this for a couple of years. But there is one major difference in Rads and Trads. You might even say that it is represented by the capital “T” as in Treatment. Both believe that men should be of service. The difference is in the way they treat that service. Rads believe that any man who doesn’t serve is useless and would better off dead. They are looking for group service to a government that in turn supports the group Rad. Trads are looking for that one, individual “Mr. Right” who is willing to serve the individual Trad. They simply reject those who aren’t willing to serve, but will latch onto (marry) Mr. Right and won’t allow him to leave her service even if they decide they no longer need him in person (divorce).
Trads are looking for that one, individual “Mr. Right” who is willing to serve the individual Trad.”
And wind up dead at an earlier age than the Trad. Is still the same instrumentalization. I notice you don’t mention the Trad actually valuing the man as a human being who has needs worthy of respect and fulfilment. It’s still the same objectifying, sociopathic shit.
I remember when Sinfest did humor instead of feminism…. it’s been awhile in Internet terms.
@Copyleft, agreed. I think it’s been about 10 years, in calendar terms. His stuff was pretty good back then…
Uriele and Copyleft:
Why do you still read Sinfest? For that matter, why does anyone still read Sinfest? It wasn’t that good even when it made actual jokes, and it hasn’t tried to be anything other than miserable in years. Seriously, there are better personal equivalents of the Two Minutes Hate.
“There are some very solid traditionalists who are smart anti-feminists and support men’s rights. (Suzanne Venker comes to mind)”
Suzanne Venker’s actual positions are exactly the same as Hanna Rosin, the only difference is that she talks about men in more positive terms. Doing so isn’t enough to make you a supporter of men’s rights if you support things that harm men.
[…] And furthermore, now there is a conflict between MRAs and anti-feminist, traditionalist women. Traditionalist women want men to be protector and providers. MRAs don’t want to be providers, they are basement dwellers. And MRAs don’t want to be protector either : They think that all rape accusations are false and Paul Elam said : “Should I be called to sit on a jury for a rape trial, I vow publicly to vote not guilty, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the charges are true.”. They want to legalize rape. […]
Ginkgo: I meant writing a whole comment entirely for a single statement in the post: the dependency of feminists on ‘patriarchal’ system to implement their policies into legal systems. The whole thing is extremely ridiculous, since you get young urgent feminists writing stuff like https://medium.com/about-work/405b2d12d213 , that is hijacking the idea of class war as theirs own while being natural and priceless allies to those we’re supposed to consider their enemies.
HidingFromTheDinosaurs: I don’t. For quite some time I don’t. Some of my friends, however, do – with great interest it seems – and sometimes link it up. The strip with ‘patriarchy is strong with this one’ was one of such links. My replacement for Two Minutes Hate is going to Hyde Park for tits and robins or to Regent’s and grinning evilly when a juvenile walking tent is trying to drown in the lake.
@HidingFromtheDinosaurs, I used to like the atheistic bent of it. There weren’t a lot of atheist comics ten years ago.
Have PUAs really become that utterly desperately out of touch (re: No More Mr Nice Guy)?
Sinfest started off with characters trying desperately to look cool and be successful even though they were all massively insecure… very easy for any audience to identify with. It was sarcastic and cynical, but with a sweet and sentimental core; Slick and Monique were both posers with good (but hidden) hearts who regularly got screwed up by society’s expectations and their own egos. What’s not to like?
It also had a wicked irreverence toward many trends and topics, but religion in particular, which appealed to me. I still remember their take on Britney Spears’ latest CD: “When it comes to music, this girl has great tits!” Such a line would be sadly unthinkable in the new feminist-approved Sinfest.
Plus, I liked the PG-rated Percy & Pooch weeks for simple fun.
“If you look at all their core assumptions (feminists) they are traditionalist”
The twist of course is that feminists like trade-con women think women should still be provided for, but they move the responsibility from the woman needing to join w/a man to society as a whole (either by welfare or forced payment from a man foolish enough to create children w/her).
They both believe in the provisioning of women & female entitlement, they only differ on the source.
[…] Ein Artikel, der in eine ähnliche Kerbe haut, wie der hier bereits besprochene, vergleicht “Tradionelle Frauen” (Tradfems) mit Feministinnen: […]
Anti-misogyny is misogyny. Big Brother. My fave.
Truthful nacho, welcome.
Pretty much. This is how they keep you on eggshells around them, you can never tell when you are being misogynist, and misogyny is of course Teh Heinous, so you’re just fucked. It comes straight out of the BPD handbook.