White knight

Traditional women and their white knights

Traditional marriage may have formed the foundation of modern civilization, but it turned men into white knights. Many of us want something better. Is there a way we can work with the traditional women who have lately come out to oppose the feminist hate mongers without compromising the values of the Men’s Rights Movement?

Marriage is important 

2012 Olympia, Wash. - Someday, I hope to get married. No, really. But the woman has to be special. First, she has to be intelligent. I find it hard enough to relate to most men. Sports, video games and other empty distractions bore me. It’s even more challenging, however, to relate to most women. Fashions, tattoos, talk shows grubbing around in the rubble of relationships, they’re worse than sports. At least football teams have pretty cheerleaders.

Second, I do not want a “wife.” When I get married–if I ever get married–I will borrow a phrase from one of my favorite authors, L.E. Modesitt, Jr. and refer to her as my “consort.” The term connotes the kind of relationship we will have: equal but complementary. Marriage, after all, should not be a competition, but a gift.

To me, the ideal mate is someone who you actually want to talk with. Every now and then my attitude about that has come out at inopportune times. Once years ago, a girlfriend and I were knocking boots. Physically I was into it, but contrary to the sexist stereotype men can and do multitask quite well, so I started to talk with her about…something.

She did not respond well.

Which leads to my next must-have: a great sense of humor. I have known many women who, by their actions say to men, “Women have a superior sense of humor, now try to amuse me while I cut you down for being inferior.” I have no time for them. My sense of humor ranges from the very goofy to the very dry, and I prefer the company women who can keep up. And if I have to work to keep up with her, all the better.

Fitness and vibrant good health are also important. But no gym rats. Fitness is like brushing your teeth. People who have sonic toothbrushes seem to spend hours brushing their teeth. That’s goofy. Done right, oral health shouldn’t take more than a few minutes a day. Same with exercise. Nutritional supplements, the Primal Diet and longevity medicine round it out. Life should be about more than sweating in a gym.

Complementary interests are also important. One of the women I’m in love with loves fish. Yes, she likes to-fish, but she’s obsessed with restoring fish habitat and healthy fish runs. I wouldn’t say that I love fish, but I admire her obsession. I want to restore human habitat and establish healthy human communities. She sees government programs as the means to accomplish her goals. Under current conditions, she’s right. But I see liberty and free enterprise as the means to accomplish my goals, and believe that eventually they will work to fulfill her goals, too. So our interests are complementary.

Another woman I’m in love with has an obsession to bring organic produce and wholesome meals to her community. That’s another fine obsession, in my opinion, and also complementary with my interests.

There are other women I’m in love with, and all of them have extraordinary interests. Is it possible to be in love with more than one person? Yes, of course. I’m not in a sexual relationship with any of them, and if that ever changes I will be committed to just the one woman because I believe in and support the institution of marriage as the bedrock of a healthy community.

I’ve written about that before and will again but no one, in my opinion, has written more eloquently on the importance of marriage than George Gilder in his book, Men and Marriage, and I recommend it without reservation.

Traditional Women’s Rights Activists 

But now I want to address a recent article written by “Edita TWRA”. What does “TWRA” stand for? The first result in Google is “Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency,” but that didn’t seem to fit. Edita’s blog is Feminine Mystique: A Voice for Women ~ TWRA, and on her About page she explains:

I am a TWRA (Traditional Women’s Rights Activist). I am an ardent believer that feminism has hurt women and made it harder for women to reach happiness in our society. And I am here to expose feminism. – Feminine Mystique – About, Edita TWRA

Excellent! Men’s Rights Activists (MRA) have been waiting for conservatives to get with the program and join us in opposing the feminists. Unfortunately as with most conservatives, Edita is openly hostile to the Men’s Rights Movement (MRM):

We are not egalitarians, feminists, men’s rights activists (MRA) nor masculinists. This page is for anyone that believes women’s lib was the worst thing to ever happen to women. Somebody has to say what nobody else is willing to. – Feminine Mystique – About, Edita TWRA

Now, I am a gender egalitarian and an MRA. More specifically, I’m a classical liberal (i.e., libertarian conservative) who focuses on exposing and opposing the anti-male sexism of the progressive and otherwise socialist feminists. But should that mean that we cannot work with traditionalists? Experience suggests we cannot. For decades we assumed we should be able to work with conservatives, only to discover that conservative organizations were more inclined to side with the feminist bigots!

Why would they do that?

From Shahrazad to Conservatism to Feminism 

Ironically, feminism is rooted in conservatism. Even more ironically, modern day feminism traces its roots to Islamic culture. In brief, here’s how: Minstrels accompanying the Christian Crusaders returned with Muslim stories, like The Arabian Nights. Remember Shahrazad? Christian culture at that time did not put women on a pedestal, but Islamic idealism did, in theory though not in practice.

Tales express values and these values gradually find their way into culture. It is often observed that “corrupt American values” infect the world through Hollywood. Well, not all American values are corrupt, but it’s true, nonetheless, that stories are a powerful medium for conveying cultural values. Thus it was that as Shahrazad became a part of the Christian culture, so the Islamic idealization of women became a part of western culture.

It took centuries, but this led western cultures to put women on a pedestal, too, and eventually to universal suffrage and feminism. Doubt it? Historian Reay Tannahil explains in her delightful book, Sex in History.

Women on a Pedestal 

Objectively, there is no basis for putting women on a pedestal. We are all humans, all just people, and last time I checked women still grind food in their mouth and pass gas and more out the other end. Was the Apostle Paul thinking only of men when he wrote, in the Epistle to the Romans, that “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God”? No, I’m pretty sure he meant women, too.

So women are neither better nor worse than men. We are all just people.

Culturally, however, the practice of putting women on a pedestal is very effective. Cultures compete. Sometimes, one culture gains advantage through an accident, such as when the European cultures invaded the Americas. But for infectious diseases, like Small Pox, modern America would have a very different complexion today, if it existed at all. Nevertheless, once it took root, American culture was able to compete with other cultures very effectively. And it began with putting women on a pedestal.

Culturally Competitive 

Culturally, England in particular gained a leg up on the rest of the world by putting women on a pedestal. The flip side to the “woman on a pedestal” myth was that a man was “the king of his castle.” So what we call conservative values today held that women were morally superior to men, but that men “ruled the roost.” It was contradictory and ignored certain fundamentals of human nature, but it worked.

This view spread to North America and Australia, whose cultural eminence today owes in large part to the social stability conferred by a middle class in which each man married one woman and toiled diligently to support her in “his” castle.

Do I think that’s ideal or the best way to go? No. In my religion, women and men are equal partners and we believe there is a way to live that is optimally healthy for the individual, the family, the community, the nation and the world that does not involve putting women on a pedestal or viewing every man as the king of his castle.

Should that mean that those of us who have a more libertarian view should not work with those who hold a more conservative view toward achieving mutually desired goals? No. Historically, however, the conservatives have often given support to feminists, though they almost never give support to the men’s and fathers’ rights movements. And when they do attack feminism, often as not they take the same opportunity to attack MRA’s:

Women have been the biggest dupes of feminism. They have been manipulated, exploited and used as pawns thanks to the feminist ideology, which is pervading our society today. Probably the biggest loss lies in the degradation of the female body and spirit. This phenomenon clearly exposes itself in the modern girl. The modern girl who is promiscuous, she is independent and she is career minded. She believes that she may use the man for sex. – The Degradation of the Virtuous Woman or why Men Embrace Sluts (but Never Commit to them), Edita TWRA, Feminine Mystique, A Voice for Women, December 24, 2012

A lot of women and men can agree with that. Western culture today has been so corrupted that it’s hard to find a relationship. And when we do, the risk runs high that it will end badly, both emotionally and socially for the woman, and legally as well for the man. So a lot of people who would prefer a committed relationship settle for hookups and one night stands, or no relationship at all.

No common ground? 

Conservatives and traditionalists could find common ground with the MRM, but instead they attack, as Edita does in her article:

Paul Elam for example calls traditional women nothing but mere whores. As he espouses that women ought to be feminists who do not seek commitment from loyal men. Paul Elam wants men to be free from the duty of being the breadwinner and especially from the duty of being a father. Just like feminists Paul Elam and Co. have started a bizarre vilification fest against the traditional woman. This clearly marks the merging of the feminist and MRA movements that oppose the traditional men and women who seek to combat the venomous ideology of feminism. – The Degradation of the Virtuous Woman or why Men Embrace Sluts (but Never Commit to them), Edita TWRA, Feminine Mystique, A Voice for Women, December 24, 2012

To be fair, she’s reacting to something Paul wrote, which she quotes extensively from part of the following:

You see, as much as you might like to delude yourself into thinking otherwise, you are not a voice in defense of men and boys, you are simply another female elitist defending the traditional power to enslave men to your needs, desires and whims.No one is fooled by your fair weather defense of MRA’s. You are acting in your self-interest and your self-interest alone. I’d sooner break bread with a feminist than a traditionalist whore seeking to protect the free labor and protection that keeps her on her bon-bon fattened ass.

You want to help men? Get the fuck up off your lazy ass and get a job. Even better, find one that is good paying and that exposes you to every danger and hardship traditional men have been shielding women from for all time.

You want to help men? Take on the responsibility of being one for five fucking minutes of your pampered, entitled life and see what it actually means to be one. There are women that do that, you know? Just not women like you.

I for one am sick and fucking tired of seeing leeches come in to this movement defending nothing more than their free ride on this planet at the expense of the brainwashed bastards whose blood and sweat keeps a pillow under their ass.

You want to help men? Then quit pretending like you know a thing about their lives and start actually learning that your traditional values are nothing more than a death trap for them so that you can take everything they earn and lavish yourself with trivial desires, before they die…and after. – A Letter to Traditional Women, Paul Elam, A Voice for Men, April 14, 2011

Boys Are Icky – You Go Grrl! 

I support marriage and agree with Edita’s criticism of feminism and the consequences of the degradation of women…and men. But I also agree with Paul Elam. For decades, MRA’s like Paul and I have opposed the bigotry and hatred and cultural degradation of the feminists. And for decades we have endured their harsh reprisals.

In years past I endured public humiliation in the mainstream media, job loss, death threats and assaults, all due to the very public and noisy attacks of the “women are good victims and men are evil villains” second-wave feminists. And currently, “boys are icky – you go grrl!” third-wave feminists are trying to drive me out of my tribal community. All for taking a stand against the bigotry and sexism that praises women for every little thing they do, and scolds men to serve women.

Both then and now “traditional women” stood by and either gave their tacit consent to the feminist supremacists who put women on a pedestal, or when they have opposed feminism, it is with feeble complaints that women are losing their privileged place on the pedestal.

The thankless job Paul and other MRA’s have taken on is to expose and oppose the anti-male bigotry. It’s a Sisyphean task. They come at us from one source spouting lies. We respond to expose the lies. Before the dust has settled they come from an entirely new quarter spouting the same lies. It never ends, and trying to respond to them all is exhausting.

We have tried, but most MRA’s are regular Joes trying to make a living and have a life. Unfortunately, we are surrounded by women who have been raised in a culture that uncritically accepts the lies. They don’t know any better. So we get no support, no help, and rarely any sympathy. Especially from “traditional women,” who scold us for expending our efforts opposing the bigotry when they say we should be supporting them.

Things Change 

Lately, however, that has started to change. Some traditional women are not only taking on the feminists, but offering moral support to the MRM. Personally, I welcome that. But then I also took several years off from the MRM to serve in a very traditional (American Indian) community, while during that same time Paul and other MRA’s have toiled in the trenches to fight the bigotry that has, for so many years, enjoyed the tacit support of traditional women. So now we should accept “traditional women” who offer their support if only we will step back into the harness to support them?

Paul Elam responds:

 

I am pretty sure I read a comment from zed over at TS not too long ago that “Most MRA’s are one blowjob away from becoming a mangina.” …There is a pretty damned healthy debate right now in that thread about whether I should have spit in the face of what some MRA’s would consider a potential ally. But I have to say I think those MRA’s are missing the point.

Traditionalism is the driving force behind male slavery. It is the psychological machine that socializes men into becoming fodder and into becoming lapdogs disguised as guard dogs.

In my way of thinking, it never was a good deal. In the age of misandry and feminist governance, it is foolhardy to say the least. I would not do it; not for a million dollars, and certainly not for a blow job and plate of beans that I had to pay for. – A Letter to Traditional Women Revisited, Paul Elam, A Voice for Men, April 15, 2011

He’s exactly right, though I disagree with him that it was always a bad deal. Civilization has evolved thanks in large part to the myths that put women on a false pedestal and enslaved everyman as the king of his little castle. Most traditional women–at least in the English speaking nations–want to hang onto their position on the pedestal, but most went along with feminists in knocking men off their little thrones and unseating them as kings within the four walls of their tiny castles. Not all traditional women. I know Christian fundamentalists who still live like that.

Free to Choose 

But Paul is absolutely right that in today’s world it’s an invitation to disaster. I also agree that it’s a matter of personal choice:

The bottom line here is simple. I don’t support any movement to abolish personal freedom. That means that anyone should be free to pursue any type of relationship they want. It is even written into the mission and values here that AVfM opposes any interference in the relationships or the commercialization of sex between consenting adults.But where it concerns activism, men’s best interest and the voice that emanates from this forum, it is my not so humble opinion that any woman who likes “real” men who spend their days carrying a load she doesn’t feel obligated to share is no friend to the men and boys in this culture who now find themselves in such desperate trouble.

This kind of woman is not only an opportunist in an age where such opportunism is outmoded, she will also train any children she has to have the same entitlements, or burdens, depending on whether they are female or male.

Her sons will live on their knees, and her daughters will pay for that privilege – on theirs. – A Letter to Traditional Women Revisited, Paul Elam, A Voice for Men, April 15, 2011

Hard Words for Hard Truth 

Looking back at 40 years of MRA’s opposition to feminist bigotry and getting nowhere, I have come to the conclusion that the only way we can effectively counter the hate-male campaign is for a bunch of us to get rich, if not wealthy, so we can establish a cadre of professionals who work full time to fight this war. And it is a war, a war in which our opponents have the resources of political and academic institutions to draw on, while we have only the pennies in our pockets.

During that time MRA’s have endured public humiliation, heart ache, job loss, hate mail, death threats, loss of children to family courts that favor mothers over fathers, and being publically excoriated for rejecting the stereotypes that men are the ones most likely to commit acts of domestic violence when the preponderance of evidence shows that women are at least equally violent, especially where elder and child abuse are concerned.

How is the war going for the MRM? Are we any farther along than we were 10 or 20 years ago?

Well, support is growing. People are getting wise. The children of feminists are especially inclined to join us, having experienced the hypocrisy and hatred up close and personal. But will it be enough? I’m not so sure.

More Than Grass Roots 

The Daily Bell is in the avant-garde of what they call the “Internet Reformation.” Among other things, they document and analyze the efforts of the Anglo-American Axis (“Anglosphere” for short) to subvert the middle classes and dominate the globe. The feminist movement is a part of that effort. In this, they are very effective, destroying families, keeping men in bondage through the family court system and by stereotyping men as monsters and women as their victims.

It will take more than a grassroots effort to counter that. We will need deep pockets and a full time army of professionals to research, document and counter the lies, and we need spokesmen who are articulate and attractive to become the public faces. Warren Farrell and Christina Hoff Sommers are great, but we need an army.

So I intend to get wealthy beyond my wildest dreams of avarice and then spend my ill-gotten gains on cultural carpet bomb runs to destroy the hate-male programs, directing an empire from a palatial estate nestled in the foothills of Mount St. Helens. (Unlike Dr. Evil, my volcano isn’t extinct.) That’s me, and I’m still working to amass a fortune. Meanwhile, most of the MRA’s are running on fumes, emotionally, financially, politically, socially, and in every way. So I am not inclined to condemn those who are less than charitable. Particularly not someone like Paul Elam, who, in my opinion, has created the foremost website of the MRM.

A Powerful Alliance 

Nevertheless, traditional women and MRA’s could be a thousand times more effective if we worked together. During the past 40 years, however, traditional women by the millions have rejected the men of the MRM and have sometimes even sided with feminists. So who needs to make the first move, and what should that first move be?

Feminist and leftist organizations have repeatedly lied about Paul Elam’s website, A Voice for Men, describing it as a hate site. His site is often angry, but anger is not hate. Maybe it’s past time for traditional women to get off the sidelines and directly attack the progressives for lying about Paul and the rest of us.

Don’t tell us. Tell the mainstream media. Write letters to the editor of your local newspapers in support of the MRM and our efforts. Join Women Against VAWA Excess in their opposition to the unbelievably sexist Violence Against Women Act. Stop hiding behind fake names, get out in public, put your personal reputations on the line and get active.

Anything less is just so much hot air.

About Rod Van Mechelen

Rod Van Mechelen is the sometimes cranky and often opinionated but always curious publisher of The Backlash! @ backlash.com

Main Website
View All Posts
  • AVFM seeks app writer volunteer

    Are you an MHRA? Can you write apps for iPhone and Android? Are you willing to do that for AVFM on a special project? Please contact us.

    A Voice for Men seeks a volunteer with solid app writing experience to help us develop an app that will be linked to the AVFM brand. If you have the qualifications and are serious about following through, we would love to hear from you. Your efforts could be of great assistance to this website and to our cause. Please contact Paul Elam at paul@avoiceformen.com for more details...

  • Wikimasters, Editors, Translators, and Writers Wanted *Apply Now*

    Fight Wikipedia censorship! Add to and improve the AVfM Reference Wiki. Volunteers needed for writing, proofreading, and organizing. Some knowledge of the German language will be helpful but *not* required.

    Please create an account and then follow instructions here

  • Groot

    White Knighting must coincide with female deference to men. But women cannot scoff at such deference while still expecting White Knighting. Yet, such an expectation exists and it is absurd.

    • Robert St. Estephe

      Dear Princess, starting today male service has been suspended. Contact your elected representative if you wish to file a complaint.

      Good luck with the rest of your reign.

      • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

        You should at least have the decency of issuing a trigger warning before you post like that. I paid good money for the enchilada I just passed through my nose and onto my monitor.

        • Robert St. Estephe

          Enchiladas are disposable. Not nearly as disposable as males, but disposable nevertheless.

          • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

            Obviously, you have never had an enchilada from Escalantes in Houston.

  • Theaverageman

    Why is the author welcoming the support of traditionalist women near the end?Traditionalists enslave men to the role of the disposable male.There IS no common ground,our movement is built around the inequality that was produced as a result of patriarchy and the failures of feminism to free men from their gender roles,their characterization of masculinity as oppressive,efforts to destroy masculinity and their willingness to purposely hold us down from reaching true equality while giving women privilege.

    Traditionalist women are just as big bigots as feminists and if we let traditionalists give us their support they’ll hurt our image and attempt to change the direction of our movement.

    • http://www.backlash.com rodvanmechelen

      Why am I “welcoming the support of traditionalist women near the end?” Traditionalist women are social conservatives and I’ve been trying to get the social conservatives on board for the better part of 20 years. I don’t hold out much hope for that, but as I demonstrated in a conversation with Michael Kimmel that I will eventually write an article about, I make it a policy to always be open to forming alliances while holding the line on the principles.

      That said, a couple days ago I shared with Paul that after reading some of the bilge on the Radical One’s What’s Wrong With Equal Rights? blog, I’m beginning to think that Radical One and Edita may be feminists promoting misandry and opposition to the MRM in the guise of social conservative anti-feminist rhetoric. Paul offered me the opportunity to add some comments about that to the article above, but I’ll reserve that for another article.

      And what makes you think we’re anywhere near the end? Yes, if the economy collapses (and I think it will), then all of the tax-funded programs that support the feminist war on men will evaporate. But there is a real possibility that some transformational technological breakthroughs will be made commercially viable during the next few years, and that these will resuscitate the economy, with the downside that the feminist programs, and their vendetta against men, will be sustained.

      Twenty years ago many of us thought that the “end” of the war on men was within sight. But as Doug Casey has so often observed, just because something is inevitable doesn’t mean it’s imminent. The end we seek might happen tomorrow, or it could take another generation…or two. Hence it’s always good policy, in my opinion, to hope for the best but plan for the worst. And it’s never bad policy to forge alliances where you can find them.

      Unless, of course, it entails watching reruns of Sex and the City. This, I will not do.

    • Marcus

      I agree with you, but don’t you call it the “patriarchy” It’s the matriarchy that has enslaved the male.

      Feminism hasn’t failed in freeing Men, it never attempted to free men, in fact it’s very successfully tried enslaving men with more chains than before.

      I completely co-sign that last line, that’s EXACTLY what conservative women will attempt.

  • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

    A simple question for “Edita TWRA” and other women who think like her:

    You want your “traditional rights?” OK. What’s in it for me? What’s in it for my sons? What’s in it for your sons for that matter?

    No wishy washy bullshit about “pride” or “self-worth” or “respect.” No, I want to know exactly and precisely what changes to the laws — not just the culture, the laws — that would make supporting your movement worth it for any man?

    In fact, why would any man want to marry you at all? In what sense are you valuable to any man? Your vagina isn’t so precious that we need to throw everything away to worship and slave to it. And in any case, what exactly will prevent you, if you get your way, from abusing us with the family court system, abusing us with laws that deny the reality of female violence, the reality of female sexual predators, and so on?

    What precisely is in it for any man to trust any one of you?

    That is not a sarcastic question. At all. It is a direct and forthright question: what is in it for any man anywhere to support your movement, other than a vague offer that he feel good about himself somehow?

    What, specifically, would cause any of us to want any of you? Right now the law will let you take our children from us on a whim, so you can’t offer us that. Sex? You can consider it immoral if you like, but masturbation will work. So, did you have anything else on offer? As in, any sort of binding commitment that leaves you unable to rape us financially, abuse us physically, and steal our children at your whim?

    Explain that to us and maybe we’ll even think your “conservative” values are meaningful. Until then, it’s impossible to see you as any better than the radical feminists. In fact, you look, and have always looked to me, a great deal more dangerous and destructive to men and boys than the Feminists have. You say we’re the flip side of the coin with Feminists? Sorry, look again: YOU are the flip side of the same coin as feminism: traditionalists treat male disposability as women’s birthright, and feminists deny male disposability but rely on it for everything they have.

    So what do you have on offer, ladies of the TWRA? Spell it out for us, please.

    • http://gloriusbastard.com/ JJ

      Dean, this just in from the TradL.O.V.E.s in response to your comment:

      From the TradL.O.V.E.’s:

      Dear Mr Esmay

      Although we at the Traditional Ladies of Voluntold Eunuchs would love for you to think we care about your concerns; the truth is we were too busy polishing off our current lifetime’s supply of girl scout cookies, Tollhouse cookie dough, and Betty Crocker frosting sasparilla. You see, between our neighbor’s constant devotion to hooking up our cable every day, and Jimmy da Greek lovingly coming over once a week to deliver the milk for an hour; that we are just getting back to you now.

      I swear I cannot understand why Jimmy would need to spend three hours to deliver milk when I can just take my husband’s credit card to Costco?! But I digress; at least the “conversation” is passionate; not like my whelp of a husband who never talks to me. One of many reasons We TradL.O.V.E.s are so glad for you MRAs to help us whip our men and sons into shape. Mothering is so hard nowadays with hair/nail appointments up the wazoo, and beauty treatments. I wonder how the women of ancient Rome managed to find the time without blackberries, Ipads, and minivans?

      While we are on the subject, we are on the way to OUR refrigerator (that our duped husbands bought for us) to get some ice cream; we honestly don’t understand why our husbands could not love “all of dis!”? I know I put on a few pounds, but I’m still good!

      His longing look at my high school cheer leading photo is really disturbing; do you have any articles on psychology for men I can give to my husband being the great wife that I am?

      We at the TradL.O.V.E.s know to give sex, occasionally (read: once a month) and not shame too much. At least that is what Cosmo and the BIble tells us right? We lay on our back, and only try to “help our husbands” reach their full potential through our “constructive criticism” (read: lazy non reciprocation and belittling sessions).

      If our husbands do decide to force us to divorce; we don’t get that much. And you know he was asking for it right? I mean come on Mr. Esmay, look at me; do you really think that his brother married me for looks?

      Besides, our children already know and love their uncle; although strangely they are distant now? I’m sure it is nothing psychotropic drugs and shrink visits can’t care; at least that was what my son was telling me several years ago when he and the man I shall not mention saw this Bat….IDK, some comic book movie or something?

      Yet we are working through it and I swear I don’t interfere in the four days a month he is allowed to see them at the custody evaluation center! You know I am all for father’s rights; it is imperative they see their kids!

      Alas, my son has been withdrawn lately, and won’t talk to me! Perhaps you and your friends at AVFM could talk to him for me? I would really appreciate it; because my son’s WELFARE is of the utmost importance to me (emphasis on welfare mine).

      Of course I support men’s rights; we need those bastard menz who don’t stick around to support their kids! SO who’s with me you men of courage? Who’s going to meet me at the rally?

      Ok, ok, you can all stay seated. There is no rush; but if you could please come we at the Traditional Ladies Organization of Voluntold Eunuchs will patiently wait for your undying support and devotion.

      If you do come; we have these lovely white feathers that say you were there.

      Until then Tata!

      Sincerely,

      The TradL.o.v.e.’s

      PS: You had a question right?

      • Bombay

        LOL. “Voluntold Eunuchs”!

        • http://gloriusbastard.com/ JJ

          When men “voluntold” you to do it you are in the military; when its women you are married. I always wondered why those men that were both aged so quickly!

          Now I know; and knowing is half the battle like Shipwreck of the GI Joe’s told me as a kid in the eighties while under the tutelage of my single mom. We just don’t shame them like we used to huh?

          The other half is fighting off the feminists GI Joesephine’s team of progressive equality and tax buggery. Knowing takes a moment; changing it takes your mom’s lifetime.

      • Kimski

        “I wonder how the women of ancient Rome managed to find the time without blackberries, Ipads, and minivans?”

        By conspiring to come up with even more shit that leads to division among men than modern day women do, which eventually brought on the Fall of Rome, just as surely as it will lead to the end of the present societies.

        No biggie of a mystery, as it is pretty obvious.

        • http://gloriusbastard.com/ JJ

          That is what I mean………Oh, uh, I mean tell that to the TradLOVEs Kimski.

          Hehehehe, caught on on to one of the many little gems laced in there huh?

          • Kimski

            Always been a firm believer in the saying: “Those Who Forget History Are Doomed to Repeat It”, and there’s an extreme amount of similarities happening as we ‘speak’.

    • Frimmel

      Logged in to up vote and say, “Spot on.”

      I tend to view traditional women in the same light as the GOP. They may be the enemy of the enemy but I see nothing which would indicate they are an ally. They are not against male disposability.

  • http://www.genderratic.com typhonblue

    The Men’s Rights Movement offers an effective opposition to feminism.

    Traditionalists oppose feminism the way indulgent parents oppose their spoilt rotten daughter when she’s throwing a petite mal tantrum in the middle of a grocery store:

    “Oh, dear, please don’t do that, please don’t be upset, sweetheart let daddy get you a loli? No? A doll? A puppy?” And then the indulgent traditionalist daddy turns around and breaks his son’s nose with his fist for “not stopping your sister from getting upset in the first place!”

    Why is this? Because traditionalists are not equipped to recognize female agency, much less deal with it. Over and over again they prove that they prefer to blame the nearest man.

    • http://www.genderratic.com typhonblue

      Also isn’t it sort of suspicious that traditionalist women are suddenly interested in opposing feminism just as male liberation is getting off the ground?

      That entire article was void of any compassion for men; any sense that men exist outside of the writer’s fears and needs.

      Traditionalist women need the Men’s Rights Movement far more then the MRM needs traditionalist women. They are gynocentric to the core; would they be willing to challenge their own male-hatred? Their gynocentric beliefs? The idea that women have the right or even the ability to define men? How about the author’s apparent knee-jerk belief that men are always to blame?

      • Ricardo

        I had a traditionalist old fashioned girl for a wife. She made me feel good, “in charge,” she would “submit” to my will. Sometimes this felt nice, sometimes it was so exhausting.

        When I was no longer useful to her because the job market changed, and I began drinking too much and became depressed and told her I needed help, she lied and said I assaulted her, left me, taught another man to call my chidlren “daddy,” and locked me almost entirely out of their life while taking half my income and leaving me with all the debt and telling everyone I was a “deadbeat” when I got a little behind–I never missed a payment but many time I did not even have enough to eat but she got half my money anyway, just less than she wanted… and when I said anything she said if I could not have enough money for food, I should not see my children anyway. “Why can’t you understand that?” she said.

        She said she was doing me a favor on the rare occasions she would let me speak to them.

        “Fuck feminism” she used to say. She hated feminsts. She still says “fuck feminism.” She thinks it is funny.

        Another man is called “daddy” by my children now. I am no longer useful to her.

        I will never understand those who think these conservative women are any more trustworthy. I say they are more treacherous, they say nice things about men and boys but what do they do but use them up and spit them out the moment they are no longer useful?

        Men Going Their Own Way. I am not quite there yet, but I echo the sentiment above: what is it you have to offer me, “traditional women?” One of yours took everything I had including the love of my life my children away. She hated feminists. She still does. What would you say to her? What would you do about her? Some bullshit stupid “there’s two sides to every story?” “Don’t be a loser?”

        • http://shiningpearlsofsomething.blogspot.com Suz

          So she makes full use of every unjust advantage feminism has made available to her, and she still says, “Fuck feminism?”

          Perhaps this “traditional woman/anti-feminist” movement should grow, and give the feminists a little taste of their own medicine. Just as feminism couldn’t exist without the indulgence of men, women like your ex couldn’t have the lives they do, without the indulgence of feminism.

        • http://www.genderratic.com typhonblue

          “Sometimes this felt nice, sometimes it was so exhausting.”

          It felt nice because it gave you a sense of purpose and identity. Build your own purpose and identity and these women offer men nothing but exhaustion and the palpable sense of being used like a wet wipe.

          If I can do anything for men it would be to inoculate them against being used like this. I will jump up and down and scream insults and smack every ass I see until this stampede starts and can never be stopped.

        • captive

          My first girlfriend was a traditionalist. I loved her like nothing else, would have married her – if she were willing to sleep with me. I became an atheist, she stayed Evangelical and I was in no gentile mood towards the Evangelicals for having duped me until the age of 19. So, I decided to end it because she wasn’t about to deconvert and I would have felt awful “fornicating” prior to marriage due to her religious belief if I had talked her into it. So I decided not to try to talk her into it and just broke it off.

          White knights is an understatement for what the church did to me. They were running a pornography site on the side and they started hiring these hookers to pose as sincerely interested girlfriends (I have evidence of this), started drugging me with emetic substances, etc..

          The conservative white knights are the worst kind of dog because they’re not just brutal scumsuckers, they’re dumb as hell too.

          Remember that traditionalist women are the kind of women who would make the lynching of a black man a Sunday outing for the community because he had cat called her…

          Reminds me of a certain leftist organization I know of that rhymes with “deminist”…

          http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/donglegate-adria-richards

      • http://www.backlash.com rodvanmechelen

        Are you kidding?!? Typhoneblue while I sincerely respect your work and often post links to your articles on my site, I’ve been in this fight decades longer than you and have lost two careers, several hand-to-mouth jobs and a few relationships demonstrating my compassion for men. More recently, I resigned from my seat on the council that will within the next 10 years oversee hundred million dollar budgets because the council is being taken over by progressive women who, in the guise of “traditionalism” are implementing policies that will serve them while, among other things, relegating men to second class status. The position I relinquished was one of prestige and respect, and I did it so I could expose what they are doing before they turn it into another progressive feminist money machine.

        This is not a new attitude for me. Taking nothing away from Paul’s monumental accomplishments with AVFM, I was giving a voice to men at least a decade before he got started.

        When I wrote the article, I knew I’d take some flak for it and that’s fine, it goes with the territory. My goal is not and never has been to curry favor with anybody. Feminists do not take the high road…ever. But a lot of MRAs do. I’m one of them. And when you take the high road, that sometimes means holding out the olive branch to people who would rather spit on you.

        Recently, I held out the olive branch to Michael Kimmel and he concluded our conversation by calling me a liar. Well, he’s a feminist, and feminists never take the high road. But I think the MRM can and ought to be better than the feminists.

        Many here may not agree and that’s fine, but I have demonstrated through decades of sacrifices my compassion for men, and anybody who claims otherwise is simply spouting their ignorance.

        • Turbo

          I have to admit, I do not quite understand the objection to Typhons comment. Perhaps you could explain Rod. Cheers

        • Carlos

          Your response seems out of place and I am also rather confused as to its context. If I may, I suspect you are responding to TB’s statement:

          “That entire article was void of any compassion for men; any sense that men exist outside of the writer’s fears and needs.”

          As though it were referring to YOUR article when I suspect she was responding to the article by Edita TWRA that you extensively quoted. Though I may be wrong.

  • http://marktrueblood.posterous.com/ Mark Trueblood

    Nope.

    Men and women deserve the mutually-beneficial relationships that traditionalism and feminism denied them.

  • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

    I agreed with this article, including the invitation for traditional women to prove they are more than hot air.

    I think part of the problem here is a crisis in terms.

    We need a new social contract that fits the times. At the beginning Rod talked about marriage, but he was not speaking of it in traditional terms. I support that fully. As someone who has been in a monogamous relationship for a decade, I clearly have no problem with it the fact that human males and females will pair bond.

    Men and women CAN bond, and productively. And they can still, at some point, use that bonding to restore some sanity and stability to our society.

    But the old school roles and expectations are defunct and unworkable.

    I note that Mrs. TWRA took exception to being called a whore, but said nothing of the fact that I did not cast traditional men in any better light as a lapdog.

    Therein lies the problem, and the bullshit. Any man who thinks this kind of woman is an ally is a straight up fucking fool. Actually, there is a better word than that.

    He’s a trick. A John. No one has to lie about that any more.

    A word of thanks to Rod. His backlash forum was the first place I ever saw men’s issues being really discussed quite a few years ago.

    Life has never been the same since.

    • http://marktrueblood.posterous.com/ Mark Trueblood

      It’s hard for me to fathom the naivete of these traditionalists.

      It’s like they think they can wave their hands and make men forget about the past century while simultaneously making women forget about the numerous legal innovations available to the darker side of their nature.

      • http://www.genderratic.com typhonblue

        It’s not naiveté. It’s the limitations of their dogma.

        As long as a man is fulfilling his true role as “head of the household” he should have domestic bliss; the instant he doesn’t, he has no one but himself to blame.

        They simply cannot see how women are capable of tearing apart men’s lives even with all the legal enabling going on in the modern era shoving this fact in their faces.

        They just repeat “well if he was fulfilling his role as ‘head of the household’ she would be submitting to him like a good christian woman.”

        They give men 100% of the responsibility but will sit back twiddling their thumbs as men are stripped of every single protection in in their relationships.

        As far as they’re concerned “real men” don’t need no protections. God provides or some shit.

        Oh, and their religion strips men of emotional potency in their relationships as well. How exactly is a man with a body apparently designed by satan supposed to compete emotionally with someone who resembles the mother of God?

        I’d like to see someone try to convince me that making motherhood the process by which a human being came closest to God does not turn men into a spiritual, emotional and social second class.

        Legal second class was just a formality.

        • Turbo

          What she said, 100%.

    • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

      I must take exception.

      She can prove she’s not just a whore who wants to use men by “submitting” to them.

      She can just answer my question: what exact changes will she make to the laws — not just customs, laws — that will prevent women from abusing them and their children, stealing those children, and financially crippling them for life?

      While we’re at it, of what use will she be as a wife if her husband falls ill?

      Please tell us, ladies of the TWRA, what exactly you plan to do FOR TEH MENZ to make them WANT to give you your “Traditional Rights” back. Fuck I don’t even care what you think those “Traditional Rights” are, I haven’t even looked, but first tell me what’s in it 1) for me 2) for my sons 3) for your own sons.

      I await a straightforward answer. I otherwise presume Mr. Elam’s characterization is correct, and you only care what men can do for you, and offer a faux “submission” to “patriarchy” in exchange. If that’s all that’s on offer, go fuck yourself.

      • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

        ya, same same in my book. :)

      • http://www.genderratic.com typhonblue

        @ Dean

        Dude I can tell you already what she plans to do.

        She doesn’t express any sense of compassion towards men; she plans to shame them because men don’t want to do their godly duty and sacrifice for traditional women any more.

        But, you know, men can say they’re the head of the household. Which means they’re responsible for everything and she for nothing.

        • Kimski

          Allow me to simplify with an unwillingly humorous analogy here:

          Both traditionalist and feminist women expect men to leave the toilet seat down. A “crime” that has broken up more than one marriage over time.
          None of them even consider leaving the toilet seat up in return.

          I agree with the writer of this article: We need to get rich, and we need to do it sooner than later. Only money will have a really serious impact on the massive fundings we’re opposed with.

          I don’t believe in a coalition with traditionalist women.
          Only men should define what men should be like.

          • flailer

            on the “we need to Get Rich” theme.

            Option 1) Bill Gates joins our movement – Does anyone here know how to connect with him??

            Option 2) We get really really poor. MGTOW. Pay no taxes. Support nothing connected to the system.

            In my limited opinion, the only reason MRM has made even the small impact it has is due to MGTOW & Marriage boycott.

            As a very successful Engineer, I chucked-it-all, *completely* after being Radically-Wronged by a woman…. MGTOW: Fuck me once; shame on You. Fuck me twice; shame on me.

  • Tawil

    Traditionalist women have been fairly supportive of men’s right to live as male-slave in what they euphemistically call “Marriage”. The same women however, just like their male counterparts, don’t support the true liberation of men.

    In that sense I agree 100% with the quotes by Paul in the article. What could traditional conservative women possibly bring us except a bit of “free choice” to pursue their ideal of male behaviour and marriage?

    Speaking of traditional marriage, ever since the middle ages (but not before) society has actively encouraged women to live out their hypergamous natures. Here’s a quote from 12th century France about how “traditional marriage” looked, and it stands as valid today as then:

    “No woman is attached to her lover or bound to her husband with such pure devotion that she will not accept another lover, especially if a rich one comes along, which shows the wontonness as well as the great avarice of a woman. There isn’t a woman in this world so constant and so bound by pledges that, if a lover of pleasures comes along and with skill and persistence invites her to the joys of love, she will reject his entreaties – at any rate if he does a good deal of urging.

    Indeed, a woman does not love a man with her whole heart, because there is not one of them who keeps faith with her husband or her lover; when another man comes along, you will find that her faithfulness wavers. For a woman cannot refuse gold or silver or any other gifts that are offered her, nor can she on that account deny the solaces of her body when they are asked for. But since the woman knows that nothing so distresses her lover as to have her grant these to some other man, you can see how much affection she has for a man when, out of greed for gold or silver, she will give herself to a stranger or a foreigner and has no shame about upsetting her lover so completely and shattering the jewel of her own good faith. Moreover, no woman has such strong bond of affection for a lover that if he ceases to woo her with presents she will not become luke-warm about her customary solaces and quickly become like a stranger to him. It doesn’t seem proper, therefore, for any prudent man to fall in love with any woman, because she never keeps faith with any man.

    The mutual love which you seek in woman you cannot find, for no woman ever loved a man or could bind herself to a lover in mutual bonds of love. For a woman’s desire is to get rich through love, but not to give her lover the solaces that please him… I have traveled through a great many parts of the world, and although I made careful enquiries I could never find a man who would say that he had discovered a woman who if a thing was not offered to her would not demand it instantly and would not hold off from falling in love unless she got rich gifts in one way or another. But even though you give a woman innumerable presents, if she discovers that you are less attentive about giving her things than you used to be, or if she learns that you have lost your money, she will treat you like a perfect stranger who has come from some other country, and everything you do will bore her and annoy her.” [The art of Courtly Love, by Andreas Capellanus, written in 1174]

    Is that the kind of “traditional” marriage you are looking for, or are you after a more contemporary relationship that looks, well, much like traditional marriage?

    • feeriker

      I think I’m going to print out and frame that extract from The Art of Courtly Love.

    • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

      You (along with, unwittingly, the TWRA ladies) just demonstrated for me, again, why my war cry of “criticizing feminism all by itself is not enough” won’t stop. For not only does it bash the innocent woman who naively believes the “it’s about equality” nonsense who might otherwise be an ally, but it also distracts us from the hard as nails bitter reality of the negative side of female behavior over the ages. We’ve had 40 years of indoctrination on why men are awful, only some of it true and much that is true twisted and mutilated, without any room anywhere for criticism of women at all without being tagged with the “misogyny” slur.

      Underneath it all, the traditionalists, the feminists, and virtually every other part of society, is the whispered but firm conviction: “you’re disposable, motherfucker.” So many men laugh at this as they think is a “funny” truth, until it happens to them and they realize it’s not funny at all. But many young men especially are figuring it out and for some strange reason are deciding they don’t much like it.

  • http://marktrueblood.posterous.com/ Mark Trueblood

    Even if every single law changed tomorrow, men do not get adequate compensation out of the traditionalist paradigm compared to the demands put on them.

    • http://www.genderratic.com typhonblue

      But… but… Mark… you get a positive identity! A pat on the head! A star for good behaviour!

      What kind of man doesn’t seek external validation? Why, a non-man!

      • http://marktrueblood.posterous.com/ Mark Trueblood

        AH! Here I was, foolishly seeking satisfaction through respectable career accomplishments, self-development, and helping others. When all along, all I had to do was bend over and let some woman stand on my back until the day I keel over.

        Silly me!

  • Greg Canning

    My parents who stayed married for more than 60 years ( respected the vow till death do us part) maintained their success was all about “give and take” without keeping a balance sheet. Thats what they said and thats how they lived and raised a family of 9 children.

    Modern marriage for women is often about mostly take and very little give, then end it on a whim and take all, supported by “no fault” divorce and a corrupt legal / family law/ child support systems. Until that all changes marriage remains a very risky preposition for men.

    • Aimee McGee

      Even though my parents divorced after 45 years, I’ve got a fairly good grasp of how to make an equalist partnership.
      The main thing is that all life changing decisions are taken by mutual agreement and that promises to each other e.g. ‘I will return to work when the kids are all at school’, are honoured.
      If some couples have a stay at home parent, that’s their choice, but both parties need to agree to live within the financial constraints imposed by this – my Mum was a true ‘housewife’ when we were young and although we make jokes about the cost of our therapy needed for having to wear homemade clothes, I am grateful she passed on to all of us the skills needed to maintain a household on a budget.
      Humans will always pairbond, it is the socialisation and education that is needed to show there are alternatives to the ‘entitlement of individualidm’

      • feeriker

        If some couples have a stay at home parent, that’s their choice, but both parties need to agree to live within the financial constraints imposed by this –

        BINGO. The sad part of it is, women who are stay-at-home wives/moms (as my wife was for most of our marriage) generally have two major problems.

        First, they cannot grasp (or more often refuse to acknowledge) simple economics, the immutable laws that explain why, to paraphrase a trite old expression, “you can’t drink champagne every night on a beer income.” Second, and directly related to the first point, they cannot let go of the idea that they “deserve the very best that money can buy,” either not realizing or not caring that the money the husband brings home each month, no matter how much he makes, it being the only income for the household, only goes so far. Wants, needs, and expenses have to be carefully prioritized if the household is to continue to function. In other words, it becomes a zero-sum game: if you want X, you’ll have to forgo Y in order to get it. You need to stop and really reflect upon how badly you really want or need X and is it really more important than Y? Too many SAHMs just don’t want to hear this. They just know that they can “have it all.” Many will reveal their inner spoiled toddler when the husband presses the point and finally uses the English language’s shortest and most dreaded “n” word.

        I wonder how many traditionalists would be willing to admit that this is a problem of epidemic proportions in such “traditional” households?

        • Aimee McGee

          One of the funny conversations with my Mum about being a SAHP for 20 years until I was 8 years old:

          She didn’t feel “oppressed” by this. She didn’t feel her brain and skills were wasted. She used those same skills that made her an awesome practitioner for the 20 years subsequent to her restarting work to run a household.

          She organised, budgeted, prioritised, planned, made-do, mended, created and facilitated. She listened, taught, empathised, laughed, cried and played with kittens.

          Actually work was lacking on the kitten front :-)

  • AntZ

    Traditionalists have failed. They lost. This is our fight now. Unlike traditionalists, we are not going to go “back” to any previous way of life. We are going to live OUR life. We will walk away from every institution, nation, and culture that attempts to enslave us.

    Feminists have million to one advantages in political patronage, tax payer financing, institutional control, and submission of the media. But they will never win — because men no longer have anything to lose. Men are no longer invested in a social system that takes everything from us and offers us nothing.

    Cry havoc and let loose the dogs of war.

    • http://marktrueblood.posterous.com/ Mark Trueblood

      You say they lost. I say they enthusiastically joined the parade until they realized it was heading to the bad side of town.

  • Stu

    My message to traditionalist women is basically, if you want into this movement……..earn it. Stop waffling on about men not giving women what they deserve anymore, and start dismantling the legal system that discriminates against men for a start.

    Any women that wants these bullshit, draconian DV laws to stay in place for example, is the enemy of men….and has nobody but herself to blame if she can’t get one into a relationship….you don’t deserve one…..in fact, you deserve nothing from men. Traditionalist, or otherwise.

    If told about all the laws, like VAWA, and those contained in Australias Family Law act, and the bias against men in family courts, policies like primary aggressor, manadory arrest, rape shield laws, etc etc……if any woman’s response is to say anything but……those laws have to be burned…..and thrown out……….then I hope you live to grow old in your bedsit…and die alone…..and your cats eat your body before anybody even notices or cares.

    There, hows that. The traditionalists that aren’t like that……welcome……all four of you, or whatever.

    • Stu

      It was bad enough when a guy had to support his wife and kids, while the woman got to stay home in the old days. But now, she stays home while the machine that the man paid for washes and dries the clothes that he paid for, with the electricity that the man pays for, in the house that the man pays for, while the woman watches soaps.

      He’s supposed agree that his wife is way more important then him, for cooking up some mostly preprepared food, that he paid for, with electricity and gas that he paid for, and serving it on plates that he paid for……maybe five meals if you have three kids…..only one of which he will consume…….but he will pay for everything to produce the five meals. And then he’s supposed to kiss your arse for heating up that plate of slop. And it’s pretty much the same with all the housework. He’ll pay for the car you go shopping in, and all the costs for that car, and he’ll pay for the shopping too, but his contribution to the shopping will be considered………zero. You’ll sit down at the mall with your friends sucking down lattes that he’s paying for….while you’re supposedly doing your shopping, and that is what you call work, while he builds roads or puts skyscrapers up.

      Feminists will tell her, that she does the shopping, the washing, blah blah blah. Those five plates of slop you serve up will be valued at that of the highest chefs lovingly prepared master piece, with no credit for him having paid for everything already for those meals….from purchase of food, to the kitchen they are served in, the gas and electricity used to cook them. They will say that a woman’s contribution is valued at $180kpa, and you will repeat this to your $75kpa husband. Everything he does around the house, inside and out, will be valued at zero, including all the money it costs him to sustain you, and the kids.

      Most of the housework you do will be cleaning up your own mess, and the mess from your kids that you refuse to discipline. You will watch Oprah, Dr Phil, and a heap of other bullshit on TV, you’ll talk on the phone to your friends, and surf the net for ways to spend the money your hubby earns…….you’ll probably get on dating sites too and find a bit on the side……because hubby isn’t romantic enough anymore……that’s why you’ll be seeking anal sex while you have you hair pulled and arse slapped, because you want romance, what else could it be.

      When he wants sex, and you don’t, which will be most of the time, it will be considered coercion for you to nag her, or use any means to seduce her. She won’t want sex because her libido is gone……it’s not you…..it’s her…..she says…..but she has plenty of libido for the plastic power tool she keeps in the bedside draw, and you’ll know that, because you have to keep paying for new batteries for it.

      You’re husband will work and work and work, but he will be poor. He won’t be able to spend his money on anything without consulting you, and if he lives in Australia, this will actually be the law he lives under. Those laws crept in with nothing but support from women, and no women apposing any of these draconian laws.

      Me thinks you tradcon women that come to the MRM want to be here to tell all the men that are over all this shit, that NAWALT. And the answer to their probs lies in traditional women.

      Well, traditional women have been around longer then feminists. You were the majority….overwhelmingly. So how did the feminists get to the powerful point they are at now if you apposed them. The answer of course is that you didn’t, you supported every law they wanted that benefited you.

      Traditionalist woman = a feminist that doesn’t want to work. And that is about it.

      • http://www.avoiceformen.com/activism-page/karma/ KARMA MRA MGTOW

        “that’s why you’ll be seeking anal sex while you have you hair pulled and arse slapped, because you want romance, what else could it be.

        hahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • Codebuster

        And then with all these privileges and entitlements that he wallows in, should he again find himself alone post-divorce and turfed out of the house, he will likely have failed to learn his first lesson. He will again get down on one knee, ring in hand, asking, nay, begging another pampered baby in the body of an adult… again… will you marry me? Please, please marry me so that I can provide for you, protect you, pay your bills for you, pay for your house for you… He doesn’t do this just once. He will do it again and again and again. What a fucking idiot. I’ve encountered far too many men like this. A divorced friend of mine recently got engaged to a new bride. What am I supposed to say? Am I required to congratulate him or offer my condolences?

        • Kimski

          Say what Stu usually says, ’cause he came up with the perfect answer to those kinds of situations:

          “I won’t be there for the wedding, but I’ll show up at the divorce.”

        • Stu

          You go to his wedding and do this

        • feeriker

          A divorced friend of mine recently got engaged to a new bride. What am I supposed to say? Am I required to congratulate him or offer my condolences?

          If you’re a real friend, you’ll take him aside and talk him out of it, no matter how many hours (and cases of beer or bottles of tequila) it takes. Hell, if that doesn’t work, beat the shit out of him, hoping that you’ll knock some sense into him in the process.

          “Friends don’t let friends burned once get burned again.”

          • feeriker

            By the way, I might just write an instruction manual on this, gifting it to my best friend and hoping that he uses my own medicine on me if I ever try to do something so stupid in the future.

      • John A

        Stu,
        That’s an excellent description of unpaid housework!

  • Billybobownway

    100 years ago traditional marriage was useful and neccesary. Women ran the household. The husband took care of the farm, business or his job. If things were going well there was mutual respect. People knew what the deal was and they could not marry if they wanted. Anything involving people has problems but it more or less worked.

    That train left the station a long time ago and the train doesn’t run here any more. This “submission to the husband” is total bullshit. Translation- I will lay there and let you and you will be my pussy slave.

    Family law has been changed (retroactively) to the point where a man has to be a fool to marry or cohabitate and dating is very risky. (Ask Assange). British Columbia changed the law last year to make cohabitation fully equal to marriage with retroactive application. Basicly a mass shotgun wedding forcing a form of marriage on men who did not want to marry. There goes the house and the pension.

    MRM is a step in the right direction. Awareness and education to help men stay out of the trap is vital. Learning the hard way is a waste of life. Changing the laws is way down the road. John Galt action will be needed first. It is already happening.

    The whole RADFEM event has done a lot of damage to our society. It will get worse before it gets better. Families are broken, children are lost, our schools are nearly useless and men don’t want to work any more than they have to. A lot of potential is lost. A nation is not built on single mothers.

  • Stu

    The only way the traditionalist deal can not be a bad one for men, is if the expectations of the man, and the promises of the woman to the man, are legally and socially enforced. You are supporting her for a reason. She must have obligations to you as well, and these obligations must be adhered to or be legal and social consequences. That is what stops people doing whatever the fuck they want, and breaking every deal they make……and that is the only thing…..for most people anyway.

    I’ve asked myself the question many times over many years, about if a woman can ever really love a man, in the same way men love women. Look it, men will take up with a woman that is poor, stupid, has no obvious great talents etc……if he loves her. Of course, we know that it may be infatuation, lust, things like that. But, once a man has been with the woman a number of years, and the infatuation has gone, if he is in a committed relationship with her, he will generally stay with her, unless she treats him really badly. He may sneak off for a bit on the side, but he remains with her. What he feels, I think, is often love…..not the heady romantic…lust filled obsessive desire…..that is not love…..that is what women call love. I’m talking about when that is gone, and you just feel this attachment and affection towards the woman, like she was of your own blood. You still feel protective of her, and still desire her, in a different way. You want her to be your best friend.

    I asked a very wise and knowledgeable woman just a little while ago, if a woman can love a man, the way we men can love women, or is it infatuation, or nothing. We discussed this in detail, over a number of conversations. Her verdict……she is not sure….but thinks so, but those that can are outliers and not the norm.

    This is what I think also. So what this means, is that most women will feel very little for their men after the infatuation stage is over, and will be seeking Mr Right again. Mr Right being, a guy that gives her gina tingles. Money will keep a woman around after the gina tingles are gone, but only as long as she can not dump the guy, and keep the money, and move on to the next Mr Right.

    If you traditionalist women think you can actually make things worthwhile for men again, I’ll tell you the only way you can do it. Get rid of all feminist innovations to the law. Make it so that a commitment from a woman is a commitment…..legally binding. Then you might be able to hang on to your preferred option in life….with a guy that chooses that. Failing that, the feminists are going to make sure that marriage, or any legally recognized relationship between a man and a woman is such a shit sandwich for the man, that your preferred option will all but vanish from the face of the earth.

    Lets not hear from any traditional women about men not manning up, or any of that bullshit. You want traditional relationships, create the environment where men are safe in those……legally.

    • feeriker

      Spot on, Stu. Of course you know that these “traditionalist” women will probably all turn into lesbians before they agree to any of what you propose. After all, these demand legally binding promises of equal commitment and responsibility from the woman, as well as an implicit recognition of that fact that men are something other than disposable beasts of burden, human beings with rights, goals, dreams, and aspirations of their own.

      To expect either a feminist or a traditionalist to agree to any of these things is akin to expecting a snail to drink a saltwater cocktail. It just ain’t gonna happen.

      • Stu

        Correct, it wont happen. All we will get from traditionalists is whining about why we aren’t doing what they want, and selling us their services like a car salesman talks up the biggest bomb in the yard. Then while they are doing that, behind out backs they are going to feminists and advising them on the extra draconian laws they want in place to screw us over even more. And they vote for the parties and politicians that rubber stamp those feminists laws.

  • feeriker

    By the way, Rod, you deserve kudos for slogging through the self-serving, stomach-churning bullshit on “Edita TWRA’s” site. Apparently this article has already attracted her and her followers’ attention – and ire.

    Apparently too, only manginas are allowed to post there in response to her lies. I tried to post, but was blocked.

  • Adi

    MRM is the only truly progressive gender movement.
    Tradcons are JUST AS BAD AS FEMINISTS. It is they who have male disposability as an axiomatic foundation.

    And, somehow people seem to not notice the small detail that feminism was what grew out of a tradcon culture. It’s the offspring that inherited all the female pedestalization.

    In a nutshell:

    1) Tradcon culture is simply how most societies worked in history.

    2) Feminism is what INEVITABLY happens to tradcon culture when economic and technological developments allow for it.

    Feminism isn’t our biggest obstacle. It only seems so because it’s so openly misandric. The real big challenge is the tradcon mentality that’s underneath it all.

    • Adi

      Why?
      Because for every 100 tradcon women, there will be a handful of women who didn’t get what they wanted (for whatever reason). And they become feminists and start speaking for all women even if they’re only a tiny minority. Et voila, that’s what we have today.

      That’s why feminism will ALWAYS happen. The only way to prevent it would be to literally force women to stick to their tradcon gender roles without alternative. In the past that was enforced by circumstances (onto both genders). That’s why some guys dream about some apocalypse that would bring back such circumstances. They’re stupid.

      • Steve_85

        They may be stupid, but that apocalypse is the only thing that is going to bring about the desired conditions within their lifetime. Like it or not, that apocalypse may indeed be coming sooner than you think.

        The entire western world is setting itself up for Roman Empire Collapse 2.0 and it doesn’t look like anything can stop it at this point.

        • Adi

          There is nothing desirable about a total collapse of civilization. They have some false romantic image of people living happily in little villages where everything is simple. It’s a childish fairytale.

          I’m aware that it may very well come. But it’s not some uprising from men. Most likely it’ll be from theocracy.

          There is a chance to prevent it though and as long as that’s the case, we must try. Sitting back, dreaming of some kind of “judgment day” imagining “that’ll teach those bitches who was right” doesn’t quite put the A into activism.

    • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

      1) Tradcon culture is simply how most societies worked in history.

      I am no longer convinced this is true. Not exactly true anyway. I immediately find myself asking “which tradition?” and “which culture?”

      To say that all societies were patriarchal is only a half-truth; most were matriarchal too. Women had their space and sphere of influence, men theirs. Most but not all outward visible spheres of influence were men’s, most but not all internal within the family were mostly women’s but some men’s.

      Many tradcons believe–I’ve seen this myself so I’m not making them up–that a man going to work all day so he can provide for the wife and kids is the norm and defines “patriarchal society.” Feminists seem to believe this too. But it’s not true. That, in fact, is a description of how only a tiny subset of humanity ever lived.

      The man-as-provider notion: not really true. Women always worked, always. If it was on a farm, they were milking the cows, helping with the harvest, putting things away for storage for the winter, making clothing, etc. Men were doing the heavier labor but the notion that they were not involved in childcare is not true–they were around all day, or quite nearby. On average the men spent considerably more time with their children than they did when people started working all day at factories and whatnot.

      Furthermore, throughout MOST of history, in MOST cultures, “the family” was not “mom dad and the kids.” No. “The family” was usually a very large unit consisting of parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, all living under the same roof or within easy walking or even shouting distance of each other.

      Men and women were interdependent on each other, and “family” meant far far more than this strange illusion we have of a young man getting his wife a house and putting her in it and providing for her while she took care of the kids all by herself. No, that was NOT the traditional model in most societies until very very recently. And it’s an enormous burden and arguably unworkable, either for the man who experiences separation from his family all day while he’s at work, or for the woman stuck all alone with her children all day with few if any other adults for company. Both these roles not only have down sides, but they’re also HISTORICALLY UNUSUAL. That is NOT how most humans lived throughout history, and it’s STILL not how much of the human race even lives today.

      Even in hunter/gatherer socities, TYPICALLY, men did most but not necessarily all the hunting, and women did most but not necessary ALL the gathering, and in any case the children were always around not just both parents but around an extended family that was always nearby.

      Modern society has isolated us from each other. This is one of many areas where the so-called “conservatives” scare me: they’re pining for a time in history, a tradition, that was mostly an illusion and mostly sucked when it wasn’t an illusion. Feminism made the mistake of calling all that “privilege” because they didn’t give men any credit or appreciation or even care what all that responsibility really felt like to men. And they still don’t (you should see some of the hateful shit I’ve gotten on Twitter).

      Traditionally, we had roles, but the simple idea of “ibe man as provider, one woman as childrearer”: no. No, that is not right. That’s a peculiar “tradition” that was not the tradition for thousands of years and still isn’t the tradition in much of the world.

      Gah. 40 years of gender ideologues have completely fucked up our preconceptions about so many things. But short take: tradcons are pining for a time that never really existed, or only existed for a tiny minority. Women have ALWAYS worked outside the home and ALWAYS been part of providing for the family, with only rare exception, and men have ALWAYS spent more time with their children than they tend to these days, except for brief historical periods when they weren’t (or are not) allowed to.

      • Kimski

        I agree.
        The shift happened to some extend when we started to put our elderly into retirement homes, because they used to have great value as caretakers of the children back in those days.

        Today we live in societies so fixated with eternal youth, that we stuff the most experienced individuals away from sigth, because we fear the reminder of what we will eventually end up being ourselves: Old.

        It’s really quite pathetic, when you think about it.

  • John A

    Tradcon is dead. The man’s wedding vow has gone from ’till death do us part’ to ’till death will I pay’. The only women worth dealing with are ones with a proven record of self support with savings and preferably real estate to show for it, then she needs to demonstrate she can show you respect. Obviously you need respect her too, otherwise why the hell would you have anything to do with her? As soon as you start to support her, you have just taken on a life time commitment.

  • Steve_85

    Too little, too late. Don’t care, go away.
    I’m playin’ Call of Duty, you’re standing in the way.

    There’s a short poem in there somewhere…

    Seriously, I’m not even listening to women anymore, they have nothing to say that I want to hear. I can’t watch television, or watch the news for the obvious misandry. Hell, even half the computer games I play are full of blatant manginas and uppity wimminz pushing men around.

    This culture makes me sick.

    • Steve_85

      I swear if I see one more movie with some whip-thin little stick of a woman supposedly beating up a horde of massive guys hopped up on a rage virus, or combat drugs or whatever…

      I swear I’m going to scream.

      Your average man is going to have between 25 and 40% more muscle mass than your average woman. The average man is also going to have about 25% more body weight (once you dis-include all the fatties on both sides).

      Muscle mass is not a straight correlation with actual strength either. 25-40% more muscle mass converts into almost DOUBLE the actual strength (i.e can lift twice as much with only 40% more muscle mass). Then you have the weight difference, being converted into forces…

      Your average, untrained male, should have no trouble at all taking on 3-4 of your average untrained females and winning handily.

      And yet, these ridiculous movies persist.

      • Kimski

        Oh, I got something worse for you right here:

        This is what I came across when doing a search on Youtube, to watch the movie “Unlawful Entry” with Kurt Russel, Ray Liotta and Madeline Stowe from 1992:

        “The sex trade all over the world tortures, degrades and humiliates women. The men who pay for these services are disgusting creeps who have no empathy or humanity. One young 15 year old had to have sex only 3 hours after giving birth to a child conceived during her first rape. What does this make the men who abuse so called whores. These women are then chucked away like garbage when they get AIDS. Educate yourselves.”

        You can’t even sit down to enjoy a fucking movie anymore, without coming across the usual feminist propaganda and dogma. I stopped watching TV for the very same reason, but this shit is everywhere. And the movie has absolutely nothing to do with what is written in the comment, whatsoever.
        Un-fucking-believable.

  • http://www.judgybitch.com JudgyBitch

    Oh wow. This could be scary territory, but I am one of those traditional wives we’re discussing. I have not had a paid job since our daughter was first born, and I probably won’t be in paid employment for another two years, meaning that I will have been at home, supported by my husband, for well over a decade.

    Dean wants to know what laws can be changed to make sure that I can’t just decide to betray my husband and walk away with his children even after he has paid my way for ten years. Divorce, custody and compensation laws could all be changed so that the person initiating the divorce bears the major consequences. If I walk away after ten years, I should have some obligation to repay my husband for all the money he spent keeping me.

    I think the more important question is WHY I am at home full time, supported by a husband. The answer is actually very straightforward, in my case. I absolutely, firmly believe that children need a deep and loving primary attachment to a single caregiver for the earliest years of their lives, and biology has determined that I am the ideal primary caregiver. Babies are born with all kinds of mechanisms to detect their own mothers – they can identify their mother’s heartbeat, distinguish her milk, know her voice, imitate her facial expressions. Mothers are the ideal caregivers for babies and small children. I also firmly believe that small children need a small world in their earliest years where OTHER caregivers slowly begin to forge deep bonds – FATHERS, grandparents, siblings and other extended family members. By the time the child is six or seven, they have been nurtured in an environment that provides them with the love and security they need to face the wider world.

    And let’s be clear – a primary caregiver does NOT mean there is no deep attachment between fathers and children. I will never foget the look of total astonishment on our daughter’s face when she first connected her father’s face to his voice. It was about 3 minutes after she was born. She was just stunned to see a face with a voice she knew so well.

    So for me and my husband, it was an easy choice. I would be at home. There was never any question that we would put our children through a set of rotating caregivers, and now that our youngest is four, we are ready as a family to discuss me going back to work.

    I would never use the word “entitled” to discuss being at home. I was use words like “grateful” and “privileged”. We are very lucky that we can survive as a family of five on my husband’s income, but we survive because we don’t have a big house, we don’t go on vacations, we don’t eat at restaurants or buy expensive processed foods, we live in a small town far away from a large urban center, we have one car. In other words we make choices. I do know of stay at home moms who are completely spoiled and who spend their family’s money on the most ridiculous shit, but plenty of other moms don’t.

    I am actually concerned about going back to work. Paul Elam says “get a job”, but getting a job will make someone or something OTHER than my husband and my children my priority. That’s the deal. When the manager says “do this”, he doesn’t mean “after you take care of your husband”, he means “now”. I’m not sure that making someone else a priority in my life is a good decision. Is it worth the money? I don’t know.

    Has my husband taken a huge risk in having me at home? Sure he has. No question about it. But I’ve taken a huge risk in being at home, too. I’ve given up my ability to support myself financially. Those two things seem to work together to make up both dependent and grateful for one another.

    I guess at the end of the day it comes down to valuing family and relationships more than things. Someone who really gives a shit about stuff, who is very materialist, who feels like objects can tell stories about who they are as a person, is probably not someone who will put feelings and relationships first. Big weddings, expensive clothing, fancy shoes, designer anything- those are all really bad signs.

    I’m at home FOR my family. They are what I care about. Their happiness is what matters. Because when my husband is happy, and my kids are happy, I’m happy! And ultimately, that is what I want. To be happy.

    • http://marktrueblood.posterous.com/ Mark Trueblood

      I think it’s great if that is the relationship you and your husband want to have. I don’t think any of us want to cast stones at other people’s relationships, if it’s working for them. Also, I think you understand where we’re coming from on most of these issues.

      I think we have strong critiques of traditionalists in general, because most (not all) are seriously gynocentric and most (not all) are primarily interested in browbeating men into forgetting the 20th century happened.

      In a nutshell, what has been seen cannot be unseen. The limitations of the traditionalist model have been exposed.

    • Adi

      “I guess at the end of the day it comes down to valuing family and relationships more than things. Someone who really gives a shit about stuff, who is very materialist, who feels like objects can tell stories about who they are as a person, is probably not someone who will put feelings and relationships first. ”

      Notice how this sets up the playing field so that the man’s role in this can then be associated with being selfish, materialistic and greedy.

      After accepting this, it’s a small step to ascribe materialism and lack of caring to men in general.

      I’m sure you didn’t mean it that way. But that, unfortunately, is exactly how feminists have interpreted it. For men, the result is the same – they have to defend their role against attacks regardless of whether they had a choice in taking their role.

      • http://www.judgybitch.com JudgyBitch

        Oops. That wasn’t clear. I was thinking more in terms of a women who wants to be at home AND is very materialistic. To me, you have to choose. You can’t decide to live on someone else’s income AND spend that income on satisfying strictly material desires. You need to earn your OWN money to spend it selfishly.

        Does that make sense?

    • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

      Although I believe pretty strongly that infants form a stronger bond with their fathers (and vice-versa) than is generally acknowledged, and that it is actually detrimental for father to be gone all day every day from the children (historically, not the norm at all until the Industrial Revolution, so far as I can see) I do believe you point the way to one possible answer: the person leaving bears the responsibility, including the financial responsibility, for that choice.

      It would mean the end of “no fault” divorce. It would mean that in the case of a spouse who’s developed a problem with being abusive, the requirement before divorce is granted would be not just documenting the abuse, but documenting that there has been no effort at change or reform. Legal separation comes back into fashion: you have a pill-popping problem and are hard to be around? There’ll be a forced separation for a time while you get that in order. You were caught cheating? That needs to be documented. And so on and so forth.

      I’m not sure we *can* go back to those days. The courts don’t actually want to get tangled into who cheated who. So what’s the alternative?

      Mandatory 50/50 shared custody absent strong proof that this would be bad would be a start. And I mean *strong* proof, like proof of a pattern of continuous serious abuse… and even that easily revisited if the accused abusive party shows serious progress toward reform. (Say someone’s developed a pill-popping problem–have they done rehab and shown lots of effort at reforming that?)

      It means no more behaving as if abuse is something men perpetrate on women, but rather, something both men and women are at least equally likely to engage in. Marriage contracts–enforceable ones–which specify what will happen in the case of dissolution of the marriage.

      It sucks that we can’t all fall into these great relationships like you describe with your husband JB. You describe something very nearly ideal to me (although I think having your husband home more, as in, able to work most of the time from home, would be even better). But there is a nagging question, one you don’t have to answer, but I’m curious: what do you suppose you would do if your husband fell seriously ill? Maybe physically, but maybe even psychologically: he cracks, he can’t take the pressure anymore, his job becomes a daily misery and he can’t make even half what he used to make and becomes surly and hard to deal with. What then?

      Maybe you look at him with adoring starry eyes and say “that would never happen, he’s my hero!” OK. What if he stops being that hero? What if he falls to the frailties that most men do sooner or later, and is no longer Mr. Perfect?

      Those aren’t sarcastic questions. As I say, you aren’t obligated to answer them either. But I’m curious.

      • http://www.judgybitch.com JudgyBitch

        First up, my husband DOES have a job that allows him to work from home quite a bit. That’s been a real blessing.

        He doesn’t really have a high pressure job, but let’s say his dad died, and he was crippled with depression. That could happen. We have things like disability insurance and life insurance (that we pay for ourselves -not part of a benefits package), but if he needed to make use of that, it would severely reduce our income.

        What would I do? Work a night shift. Walmart, coffee shop, security guard, whatever. I could be around to put the kids to bed, and be back to get them off to school. It would be tough, but that would make the most sense.

        It’s hard to imagine. He would have to be in such incredible pain to have it affect his job like that. How could I react with anything but compassion?

        Let’s imagine something different.

        Let’s say I had an opportunity for a job that made MORE money than he makes. He would quit his job in a heartbeat and be a stay at home dad, no problem. When our kids were really tiny babies, my husband was a little upset at how much they preferred me. He understood that I had the food- but it still stung. I always countered that by saying that I was the most important parent when they were babies, but HE would be the most important parent when they were teenagers, and I believe that to be true.

        Our oldest daughter is 11 now, and it’s all coming to fruition. Her father is the one she talks to about perplexing emotional issues and they are just so close. It’s wonderful to see.

        So in a way, turning the tables would be kind of awesome. If he spent the next decade at home full time and launched all the children into their adult lives, well, that would be perfect.

        Not sure if I answered your question, but I think it comes down to our joint priority that ONE of us is available to our children full time. Right now it’s me. I would have no problem, and would even think it’s a really wise thing, if he was the fulltime parent as our kids get older.

        We’re good friends with a couple down the street who have exactly this. Mom was at home with three boys for 10 years and Dad worked, and now Dad has been at home for ten years while Mom works. Their last kid has just gone off to college. They seem to have a pretty fabulous life and their boys are great guys.

        What did they give up? Money, mostly. Same as us. But who cares? Having happy, healthy, emotionally stable children is way more important.

        What would I do if my husband came home and said “enough of this shit, it’s time for you to work”? Oh hell. That would be really hard. I would hate that, but it still wouldn’t put divorce on the table as an option because that would hurt our kids so badly.

        I just can’t imagine what my husband could do to me to make it seem reasonable to inflict such an injury on our children. I guess you really have to believe that divorce doesn’t harm children to go through with it.

        50% custody. That should be a no-brainer. What divorcing couples should be FORCED, by the courts, to confront is the impact their selfishness will have on their children. Court mandated courses on the effects of divorce on children. And then if they still want to go through with it, well, okay.

        You can’t fix stupid.

      • Aimee McGee

        Dean, JB can answer for herself, but I can speak from the experience of being the sole income earner in a partnership.

        Its tough. There was the constant nagging fear as to what would happen if my job dried up (I was on contract at that time), or if I got sick or disabled or pregnant. Also, it was hard to get the balance right over needs vs. wants in the household. I didn’t want to deny my partner of the time things he enjoyed as leisure persuits, but sometimes I had to say “Hey, not this week, there haven’t been enough clients”.
        I’ve always been willing to work, regardless of how humble the job is. I’ve done some pretty dire jobs as a consequence. Fortunately my partner was also willing to work humble jobs and he took on a filing clerk role for 15 hours a week which gave him enough money to pay basic expenses. Once he had that, he could look for other work, and got a couple of other part-time jobs.

        There are some hidden challenges in places with an established welfare state, when it comes to partnership and paid employment:
        Beloved is currently receiving an enhanced benefit so he can undergo CBT therapy – the man needs it after 16 years in an abusive marriage and a recent diagnosis of ADHD. If a job came up in his home town and I got it and shifted there, we could not move in together without him losing all benefits. So I have to get the right job able to pay to support us both and pay for his therapy. If this was not the case, I could probably get work pretty quickly.

      • motherX

        An end to no-fault divorce would be a huge boon for men, but not all states are no-fault states. Virginia is one, it also requires mandatory periods of separation. However, they still have skewed child custody laws. And many “mothers” use abuse allegations to get around any impediment to getting what they want.
        When my husband and I applied for our marriage liscense, we found out that if we opted out of premarital counseling, our marriagecertifcate would be held for 90 days before it wouldbe filed. I don’tthink it’s still a requirement now, but mandatory premarital counseling would do a lot, in conjunction with abolishing no-fault divorce, to end a just plain shitty reign of terror.

    • Aimee McGee

      JB, I personally think it is great you and your hub have been able to get the balance right that the two of you can agree to one of you being a SAHP. I too believe that a child needs a strong attachment to a primary caregiver. In the case of my family we’ve had both male and female SAHPs.

      Many times it does make sense that the female partner is the one who is a SAHP. Often it is a matter of good economic sense. It also sounds like you guys had a plan and you are showing respect to your partnership by sticking with the plan.

      I can empathise with your feelings of being divided going back to work, being able to spend less time on family. One of the many aspects that has made my child-free choice inevitable has been my desire to do one thing well (my career), and that coupled by my desire for finacial autonomy, as well as not finding the Beloved until it was too late meant that I have not had the experience of motherhood.

      Also, from reading your blog and your article, I can see you have not let your brain rot. I know it will be tough going out to work, but I also know that when you get out there you will be an asset to whoever employs you.

    • http://shiningpearlsofsomething.blogspot.com Suz

      JB, Living a traditional lifestyle doesn’t make you a traditionalist. You are not committed to some abstract ideal about who fills which roles; your priority is that the essential roles are filled, and your goal is a stable, intact family. Trads would cheerfully sacrifice the stability in order to preserve their illusions.

      • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

        That’s the tradcon delusion in a nutshell: this notion that you can CRAM people into these roles whether it’s what they want or not, that there’s something WRONG with them if they don’t. That everything went to hell because people started leaving those traditional roles–which even there is something of a delusion, there were way more dysfunctional families 50, 100 years ago than any of today’s so-called “traditionalist conservatives” seem to believe, they’ve got these rose-colored glasses on the past and seem to think sin was invented in the 1960s.

        I firmly believe most of what we’re talking about *didn’t* start with feminism, it started with the industrial revolution and the separation of fathers from the family that started when we started sending men off 12 hours a day 6 days a week to provide. That’s not how it worked in agrarian societies, that’s not how it worked in hunter/gatherer socities, that never happened almost anywhere except when industrialization came about.

        This is not to say that we need to shuck technology and go backwards to all living on farms. But the cost to the family we’re seeing didn’t just start with women demanding “freedom” and “independence” (although both of those turned out to be mostly delusions), the family breakup started when “work” meant “leave the kids behind with mom.” That wasn’t even entirely satisfactory to the moms. But they identified the wrong culprit: they blamed the men, and they still do.

        • Tawil

          “there were way more dysfunctional families 50, 100 years ago than any of today’s so-called “traditionalist conservatives” seem to believe, they’ve got these rose-colored glasses on the past and seem to think sin was invented in the 1960s.”

          Dean, right on… I always appreciate your version of history, viewed without the rose colored glasses. You always give us something real.

          I generally agree with your theory about the impact of the industrial revolution but wonder if you are drawing the line too sharply between what went on before and after the revolution in terms of women’s work. For instance, it appears throughout Europe that while women definitely worked hard there was an expectation in towns/cities that men would do the lion’s share of the providing once you got to the lower middle classes or higher. It appears that as she moved up the social status scale women’s work reduced accordingly, though not usually the same applied to the husband who was often a businessman, politician, merchant, lawyer, or some other busy professional who provided the family money from his labours.

          Your point about people living on farms and sharing labour between men, women and children was obviously the case for many before the industrial revolution, but there were thousands of large cities with large populations of city-dwellers (like today) and I suspect these city-dwelling men and women had a view of women and work that is not unlike that seen after the industrial revolution. What’s your take on that? The stories of professional men and writers of the middle ages onward tells of gold digging idle women who pursued working men to get a comfy lifestyle. It seems to me the industrial revolution merely exaggerated what was already there.

    • Tawil

      “This could be scary territory, but I am one of those traditional wives we’re discussing.”

      No, you’re not.

      Most of the ‘traditional wives’ we are discussing do not have your priorities of children and marriage and mutual respect. They merely masquerade those things as a subterfuge for indulging narcissism and sense of entitlement to which the children and husband must defer. You and your husband however are deferring to the greater good of the family, which is about as far from a royal tradcon wife as you can get.

      So my recommendation to you and your husband: keep doing what you are doing, you are an exception to the royalty rule. PS. I totally agree with your take on the kids having a full-time devoted parent- I was that person for two children (no mother in thier lives) and going to work hugely diminished the quality and quantity of devotion I could extend to them.

      The take home message: You are not a typical traditional wife.

    • flailer

      Well, if i may say so; You paint an *extremely rare case*

      Furthermore:
      – If approximately 50% marriages end in divorce, &;
      – If what i have seen with my own two eyes is true: that hypergamy is a major force in 60% of women’s lives, & it has a wide-wide range of personal/political/power permutations both inside & outside of marriage, which includes hypoagency &;
      – If most married Men are “stuck” in unhappy / unloving bondage (because of hypergamy permutations)

      Then, in all these millions and millions of cases, let’s say approx 85%, we shouldn’t consider your claims.

      Problem is, as it stands now, in family courts, your *extremely rare case* is the default setting for all cases !!!

    • tallwheel

      JB, you’ve got a great thing going with your husband, for sure. But, as I know you’re aware, the problem is that IF you wanted to throw your husband to the curb at any time the courts are ready and waiting to help you do it.

      The majority of men out there want exactly the kind of relationship you have with your husband. Problem is they can never be 100% sure that the woman they are with is going to be one of the exceptions to the rule, and will never change and betray him later.

      So, yes, you can hold your relationship up as a shining example of how things ought to work in our current society, but I’m just not so sure what men can do with that information. I think I know what women can do, but again, no way to guarantee she won’t change her mind later even if she internalizes JB ideals. None of this will ever be the solution unless the system changes.

  • hellgorama

    Tradcon = mother of feminism, chivalry and men’s sacrifice = father of feminism. I welcome the total destruction of the family unit. It is an outdated institution that is no longer relevant in a world dominated by technology. I lean well towards MGTOW/grass-eater mentality and avoiding marriage. Here is my reasoning:

    the purpose of forming families was to ensure mutual survival of the human species, because lets face it: humans are pack animals. Even the most skilled survivalist will die if (s)he goes out on his or her own in the wilderness. Even the hermits and lone saints in India visited villages or received support from them from time to time. The family back then also included uncles and aunts and grandparents and in laws etc etc and they all pitched in to ensure that everyone in the family is taken care of and protected. Having to deal with each others grievances, bad habits, and quarrels was a small price to pay for survival.

    Now fast forward to the tech age. If you have a job you can look after yourself. You don’t need anyone else to take care of you unless you are sick or disabled or old or pregnant or underage.

    However if the family unit is to completely die right now (0 marriages, couples and families completely seizing to exist) this would bring about the collapse of civilization and even bring in totalitarian rule towards its end. This is why I very much like to see the development of tech speed up and render civilization OBSOLETE well before collapse occurs. We already have 3-d printing being developed which has the potential to render most of the world’s manufacturing and other industries obsolete. Virtual reality also being developed will provide far superior entertainment (combined with better gaming tech and design) than the currents forms we have. I mean why would you bother watching viggo mortensen lead thousands of men to battle orcs as aragorn, when you can BE ARAGORN and do the same? When virtual reality goes beyond the sense of sight and sound and into feeling as well and combine with advanced AI, you can have VR sex. Why pay prostitutes when you can fuck bots. Same applies to women’s romantic experiences. The internet could serve as a “lobby” where you enter and meet other internet users before going off to do what you want. Also the cyber realm will allow humanity to have things that would never be possible (like the never-ending staircase as an ornament). With this I hope consumerism and the practice of capitalism emigrate into the internet, while the remaining industry on earth become automated and focused on keeping people alive, healthy, and educated.

    What does all this got to do with feminism and tradcons and etc etc? Against all this advancement, the traditional family unit with all its obligations does not stand a chance. What little protections and benefits it offered will be rendered worthless when technology advances sufficiently to meet people needs. Heck we can even have AI therapists whose sole purpose to make everyone feel valued and offer constructive advice for personal growth (there goes the current useless education system and inter-personal relationships).

    Feminism will be defanged. Radfem man-haters will be able to live out their fantasy of living in a matriarchal misandric society that reduces men to sex-slaves and mindless utility bots or even have no men at all. The laws of physics that the computer simulates could even change based on the fembots’ wishes. All this without harming men (except those who are masochistic). Men will also be able to live out their fantasies. People have to put up with almost no obligations other than dealing with server shutdown due to maintenance and perhaps even learning some programming language to make some contributions.

    • flailer

      May i recommend the book “Altered Carbon” by Morgan ?

      The extreme permutations that will result from the world you discuss are within.

      Besides, it is a VERY good read too.

  • oldfart

    It should be interesting to inspect the shiny,shiny new cables attacked to the wrist and leg cuffs
    when the new version of VAWA gets passed.
    You uppity men will know your place and/or be destroyed by ‘The Law.’

  • keyster

    It’s quite clear that NO ONE of any significant influence and power is not an ally of the “Movement” such that one even exists – or can ever move beyond a cyber social awareness campaign.

    Feminists enslave men through government fiat and SoCon/TradCon women enslave men through “marriage culture”, making them mere “disposable utilities”. Oh my, what a quandry!

    So EVERYONE is the enemy of the MRM…
    Manginas
    White-knights
    Feminists (obviously)
    SoCon Women
    Democrats
    Republicans
    White Supremacists
    The New Black Panther Party

    … and no common ground can ever be found if you’re not in lock-step with the Orthodoxy…that men are the real victims and anyone who denies this is the villian to be dismissed if not evicerated in a blog. Paranoia reigns, everyone is a potential enemy. Compromise will not be considered. The enemy of my enemy cannot be my friend – because we don’t quite agree.

    And it’s not as if SoCon/TradCon women are a well organized and funded front against feminism. They’re a bunch of bloggers too, pretty much. Mostly pro-family anti-abortion stuff. But they’re more commited and better organized and most important of all they’re given a platform from which to speak and people listen to them. They write books and get on TV.

    Men cannot represent Men’s “Rights” on the front lines.
    It doesn’t play in Peoria and it never will.
    That’s the reality.

    The movement plods along at best, without some alliances. Trying to convince people that men have been “disposable utilities” for millenia and that this must change – – is too far above the collective conscious mind today to process. While its arguably true, it’s frankly a bizarre concept. What feminism is doing to society (both sexes) is just starting to break through…it’s resonating. Men as “victims” is not.

    • Tawil

      “What feminism is doing to society (both sexes) is just starting to break through…it’s resonating. Men as “victims” is not.”

      Disagree.

      The feminist machine shows demonstrable signs of weakening, even while aspects of it’s discourse are gaining power. I’ve done statistical surveys of key feminist memes to check the trends, and its not an all-upward party… quite the contrary. Its going to take a long time to break down the institutional structures feminists have established, but as with any global disaster such as a tsunami or earthquake, real men and women keep working, sleep deprived until they remove every piece of debris- and they succeed.

      You are also wrong about men as victims (in certain circumstances) not gaining traction. Just look at the widespread traction of the idea that men come of second best in child custody and divorce settlement cases. This week I read of a massive jump in young men seeking prenups, the result of a growing awareness of “what happens”. There’s a lot more happening that that too, and I’m surprised that you undersell the work of AVfM in it’s forming of an international movement that is carving a new discourse and is contributing to awareness on a range of fronts – compliments of the internet that you once lauded as the “New Media”.

      We dont need socon nostalgia to pull us back down into masochistic slavery, especially not as a response to the false claim that our message is not being heard. And fortunately the men and women on AVfM wont buy that message because they are not desperados who refuse to see our gains (or AVfM’s progressive platform) in favour of a mythical yesteryear.

      • keyster

        Those are some lofty platitudes Tawil.
        I speak from what works in social activism and what doesn’t. Men fighting for their “rights” is viewed as anti-woman (angry radical misogynists). Those deconstructing feminism without the “Men as victims” narrative come from a stronger position as popularity of feminism wanes. We’re ALL victims of feminism is better positioning.

        The deep Masculinist types found in the manosphere can relate to the “disposable male as a utility”. The common person is just now processing the fact feminism has substantially over-reached.

        We don’t need yet another Victimized Grievance Group among all the other grievance groups. Those that hold power over these groups won’t allow it. The victimhood narrative itself, would need to be destroyed.

        • Carlos

          I definitely do agree that male as victim does not play well. I don’t just mean in the MSM but in general. Male as victim of woman however barely plays at all. The very idea causes massive cognitive dissonance which manifests as victim blaming responses and/or disbelief in the story and insistence that there must be missing facts.

          To paraphrase Warren Farrel:

          The strength of women is their appearance of women.

          The weakness of men is their appearance of strength.

          None of which is to say that we shouldn’t have, and promote, sympathy for male victims.. and even, and especially, male victims of women, but as a point of practical politics, activism and consciousnesses raising, it is worth recognizing that this is the reality.

          The media, and indeed the public, are much more concerned about how the destruction of men affect others (women, children, animals, society, etc) than they are about the destroyed men (male disposability is deeply ingrained.) Sympathy for second wives whose husbands are financially crippled by child support and alimony debts to their first wives tends to be greater than sympathy for the fleeced ex-husband.

          Put another way, there are victims that matter and victims that don’t, and society doesn’t view male victims, and particularly male victims of women, as victims that matter.

          This is also why it is generally more effective, rhetorically speaking, to point out that feminism actually hurts women and is misogynistic, than it is to point out the far more disproportionate harm it causes to men and boys.

    • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

      What is one life worth?

      What is one man worth?

      What is the point of considering something to be without value just because many don’t get it?

      I used to treat alcoholism and drug addiction. Shitty recidivism rate. Most people in treatment did not even want to be there.

      Should I have thrown in the towel, even for those that wanted help because the whole planet was not going to sober up?

      We are bound together on a ship, Key, the minority who get it. And each of us has it within us to reach a handful of people; to help them find sanity if they want it; to let them know they are not alone.

      How many does it have to be before that is worth the effort?

      • http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F

        Ok Paul you just blew me away.

        I fucking love this abso-lutely old son. You nailed it for all of us who are knowing and who are not.

        Pretty bloody gob smacked here I can tell you.

    • captive

      Women as victims only resonates because society has always told men to protect women and to compete among one another for women.

  • keyster

    It appears I’m being moderated.
    Kinda sucks.

    • Turbo

      In what way, that is unusual.

      • captive

        He said men aren’t victims. It’s patently untrue according to nearly every statistic you examine. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and say he was saying that trying to portray men as victims isn’t working but men are still victims.

        It’s often hard to show truth to cultures that want to reject it because it is inconvenient. Such as the truth that men are one of the most victimized classes of people in society.

    • http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F

      You are not being moderated. Why do you say this?

      • Tawil

        He knows how things work here and that he was not moderated. And because he knows how this forum works I can only put the phony concern about being moderated down to some kind of trolling.

        Maybe its meant to suggest the presence of hidden marxists taking over AVfM who are supposedly moderating out dissenters? Whatever the case the undermining of AVfM is unhelpful (to put it politely).

    • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

      Not that I know of. Why do you say that?

  • TheBiboSez

    Back in 1999, a Christian research organization called the Barna Group caused quite a stir when they released a study on divorce that indicated that traditional Christians had a much higher divorce rate (29% for Southern Baptists, 34% for non-denominational Christians) than for atheists/agnostics (21%).

    Link: http://web.archive.org/web/20020616112707/www.barna.org/cgi-bin/PagePressRelease.asp?PressReleaseID=39&Reference=B

    Now, the denomination with the highest divorce rate (roughly 45%) among CLERGY is Unitarian-Universalist, a very liberal denomination which also happens to be the one most overrun by feminists (the Roe v Wade case is said to have originated in the Women’s Group of the First Unitarian Church of Dallas; 95%+ of UU’s are pro-choice on abortion).

    If we use divorce rates as a proxy for men’s rights issues, it seems neither traditional nor liberal churches are very helpful to men – only the Atheists offer the most support for married men (by not divorcing them as much).

    I wish we had better and more current numbers; after the Barna study no one is very willing to get tarred with this brush again – even Barna took the study down; I had to dig it out of a web archive.

    • Carlos

      I believe in a higher power though I have little patience or respect for religious dogma or fear mongering about hell. As such, I attended a UU sermon several years ago. The pastor was a woman. I had no issues with that. She talked about God as “The Spirit” or something (Great Pumpkin?) and went on to say that it was because she didn’t want to say God or Lord as they had masculine connotations… Having already taken the Red Pill at some point prior to that sermon the whole spiel smacked of more feminist “women are oppressed, male as default” annoying claptrap, and I had a hard time listening to anything else she said. I left at the end and never returned.

  • napocapo69

    Maybe we have been a bit too harsh with traditionalist women.

    After all they just feel betrayed by feminism and they cannot stand the fact that mess they see comes mainly from women; they feel impotent so they do what women do best…blaming the first man in sight, Paul in this case.

    But I can’t blame them, after all they are just trying to idealize a lost world without doing actually nothing to get back on track on real issues such recovering the family values and rebuild a sane respectful relationship between men and women, through law reforms.

    Anyway, I agree with the general (implicit and explicit) opinion expressed by others fellows here, that traditionlist women do confirm women gynocentric approach to men issues.

    • hellgorama

      yes but it doesn’t matter. I made a lengthy post about how the traditional family unit is obsolete. And there is no doubt it is (in most cases) a one sided deal in favor of women and completely to the detriment of men. These women are yearning for a time when men gladly allowed them to be used as ATMs, utility bots, and bodyguards. Nowadays we have actual machines for that and yet this is what is expected of men, while they enjoy the comforts earned by men. NO fucking should we go back to traditional family lifestyle.

    • Bombay

      When I lived in North Carolina about 20-30% of the southern women I met had a similar dream. They wished the South never fell and they could be living on the plantation with slaves. I kid you not. I even confronted a few of them that they wanted slavery. They just shrugged their shoulders.

      I suspect that many women who dream of being in a traditional relationship are not much different than many southern women and their slaves. Of course NATWALT (Not all traditional women are not like that)

  • Marcus

    Because having children is worth my freedom… Hell, paying some bitch to carry my child is a more worthwhile endeavor than that.

    • Bombay

      Yes. It I had to do it over again, I would hire a surrogate to carry my children. I would be much farther ahead in all ways.

  • motherX

    I would perhaps say that we are a traditional family, but only because we both view raising a family as a team effort. Much to both of our mother’s chagrin, we took our que from research and determined that a two-parent household, with one income earner and one caregiver along with homeschooling, would offer the greatest odds of success for our children. We simply didn’t consider what we wanted individually over what would be most likely to benefit our children when they became adults. Because my husband had the advantage of being able to work uninterrupted, in addition to being in the workforce longer, and my already having experience with homeschooling, I quit my job and he pursued his career.
    However, I am neither fool nor slouch. I know exactly how good I have it, as well as taking our children’s education very seriously. The way I view it is that he has trusted me to care for and to educate his children, and that is my career. My personal interests, hobbies and pursuits will all still be there when our children are grown. (I mean tapestry has been around for thousands of years, I’m positive it will still be there in twenty years, so why rush?)
    Imho, these “traditionalist” women aren’t traditional at all. Truly traditional families understand the importance of both parents striving towards helping each other and their children to achieve happiness. But these women who are really just looking for a free ride are severely damaging their children and society.

    • Turbo

      That is a good point MX. I think it is difficult to absolutely nail what is a trad family in the last 30 years. But the point is, no matter what it is, young men must avoid it, until we change legislation in every country to mandate 50/50 shared parenting residence and rights for both parents. Until that happens, I will admire the lion in the zoo, but I will not jump the fence.

  • Steve_85

    Where were all the Traditional Women when all this shit was being pushed through? All through the mid 1900s, where were they then?

    They were sitting at home, spending their husband’s money, enjoying all these extra benefits that they were being given.

    They’re only jumping off the S.S Feminist now because they’ve noticed that it’s on fire.

    There are no Feminists on a sinking ship? There are no feminists in a house fire?

    Too little, too late.

  • tallwheel

    Tradcon women are women who realize women had a sweet deal under the old system and want their sweet deal back. It’s that simple.

  • http://www.veteransoutreach.info Grunt

    Huge props to TheBiboSez for that report on divorce in the church. I have been looking for the hard numbers for 15 years. Mostly because I have long suspected “Christian” females of being even more neurotic and unstable than their secular peers.

    On a side note, when I first started exploring the world of internet MRM issues back in 2001, it was virtually impossible to make a comment about the faults of feminism without being deluged by a swarm of White Knights.

    Now, in 2013, it is virtually impossible to find a man that bothers to defend females or feminists on YouTube or elsewhere. The worm is most certainly turning.

  • motherX

    I was just thinking that as young men reject gender roles in favor of what actually works, this will create a vacuum of old-maid entitled princesses. We can already see the whining of single 50-something, lonely women pontificating on why they could never find a man, while of course completey missing the point. If decent men only accept decent women, then the crybabies are going to be forced to go it alone. Sex is so easy to come by, it can no longer be used as a weapon and women will be forced to bring more to the table than sex and reproduction. They would call it coersion, but really it’s an inevitability that men with such an abundance of choice would naturally opt for the best, and not settle for cheap knock-offs.
    It’s like john nash’s economic theory…if no one pursues the object, it becomes valueless, meanwhile, less trendy but more practical pursuits rise in value as their constant practicality and usefulness make them consistently valuable. Does that make any sense?

  • Bharat Mahan

    I’ve read Arabian Nights and fail to see how Shahrazad was pedastalized, nor does the author explain how he came to that conclusion.

    SAHMs are SAHBs – stay at home bloggers.

    All the “traditional housewives” I’ve seen trying to infilitrate the Manosphere did so simply to garner compliments from men while their husbands were out at work.

    And the men took the bait.

    Everytime Alte or Twerk or whoever talked about “homesteading” or home schooling or type up their Menu Plan Mondays with food porn, the men would respond with, “good to know there are still good, solid women like you out there” and “your husband is one lucky man”.

    Now tell me, how can you “homestead” and home school when you’re blogging and surfing the Manosphere all day long?

  • Gyogami

    Unlike what the author of this article is trying to suggest there and then, there should never be any association with traditionalist women of any kiind, type, shape, sort or form. The ZetaMale/MGTOW is teh pinnacle of the MRA. Traditionnalist women aren’t our ally, they’re leeches! They’re against feminists because feminist are too upfront, to non-undercover while they live thanks to plain deceit. The Snake you reppelled when it came from the back door is no less of a snake because it comes from the front door: IT IS STILL A SNAKE! It is still THE Snake. And Paul Elam said in one of your quote, although it was the work of man, of men, that conceived, built and sustained civilazation, IT WAS NEVER A GOOD DEAL!

    You should have watched more cartoons, there’s a truth that always occur when the protagonist teams up with the usual antagonist to fight a common enemy: the first antagonist always turns its back to attack the protagonist! The enemy of my enemy is my friend? Surely not when the enemy of your enemy IS ALSO YOUR ENEMY.

    Listening to Barbarossaaaa an Stardusk and other MGTOW on the nature of women would be more than useful.

  • Kris W

    Traditionalists should be viewed as enemies(or useful idiots) until they prove otherwise. Me personally that “proving” will be to get feminist’s en masse thrown in prison for their crimes, but I digress.

    We need to ignore them, forgiveness without restitution is simply not possible.

    That said though, this angle illustrates the divide within the MRM. Older MRM are tempted to align with these Traditionalist activists. Us younger guy’s though have much different ideas about things and don’t want a return of Marriage 2.0 or antique gender roles that limit our ability to be human beings.

    The only difference between a feminist and a traditionalist is that a feminist wants to drive, while a traditionalist wants a man to drive for her but she still decides which way the car is going. They both view men as “beasts of burden”. It is basically a question of would like a mean slave owner, a nice slave owner or to be free?

  • TheContrarian

    Serious traditionalist women essentially want a return to Patriarchy and traditional gender roles. There is a good argument for this, but I don’t think the Feminine Mystique TWRA site makes it. For one, they view chivalry and male service to women as automatic duties that all women are entitled to regardless of any individual woman’s gratitude. In other words, it doesn’t matter if a woman is a toxic feminist, men still have to treat her like a princess. This isn’t going to inspire many MRA’s.

    A lot of MRA’s have read enough Rand to dislike arguments premised on faith and collective duty instead of rational self-interest. If traditionalists want to get MRA’s on board, they have to do away with the gynocentrism and explain how it is in men’s interest to again take up a traditional role in a family. They have to concede a man’s right to go his own way and demonstrate that any special treatment they might want for being women is repaid with some benefit to men (or, failing that, demonstrate that such special treatment is necessary / useful and at least is repaid with gratitude).

    For MRA’s, I would just say that they would do well to think a little deeper about the ideal of egalitarianism and its true ramifications.

    • Lodatz

      There’s nothing laudable about the rejection of collective duty; indeed, were it not for the sense of owing something to someone else, then the MHRM would never have existed in the first place. One cannot rationalize away this phenomenon via ‘self-interest’, because self-interest would direct one to leave behind those who are still taking the blue pill, and not waste one’s resources on trying to bring them with you.

      It’s because of a sense of duty to other men that attempts to reach them are made. It’s not for numbers alone, though of course they don’t hurt. It’s to HELP another person, not just attempt to sell them your agenda so they might add their strength to it, that causes us to do such things.

      Rand may have dispelled one’s interest in ‘sacrifice’, but if so, then that one is no longer useful to a cause. Blaming things such as shared interest or ‘sacrifice’ upon femininity, just because men have had to sacrifice so much in our civilization, does femininity too much credit, and also demonizes the very philosophies that may serve the MHRM in greatest stead.

      Don’t let femininity take credit for altruism or shared interest, and don’t let aged, emotionally crippled crackpots like Ayn Rand take away your respect for them, either.

      The whole is always greater than the sum of its parts. If it were not, then there would be no benefit to such parts uniting at all.

  • http://www.NewDemocracyWorld.org Dopesauce42

    We all want to win this war, but let’s not be so easily convinced that some sort of fundraising effort will do the trick.

    If its a game of money, then we will lose, NO MATTER WHAT.

    Sorry.

    Done.

    Really, don’t be naive, there is nothing more to say. Bye.

    Doesn’t taste too good, does it?

    Well, good. You are ready for the good news.

    There is a way out of this mess, a way to win the war. It won’t be done by maintaining a ‘single-issue’ focus, though.

    We need a full-scale reorganization of our government. The enemy controls government and the money system. Typhonblue says it all, the hierarchy is the enemy of the Zetas, betas, and even the alphas, as well as the growth of the Zeta population.

    We need a revolution. We need to connect the issues to the other issues, to all issues, and show how the way to solve them all, the way to win the fucking war for real, is a revolution for the People to shape things the way We want them to be, not the way the Elite wants them to be.

    http://www.newdemocracyworld.org/

    Peace,

  • Alex462

    Fully aware of the threadomancy here, but I’d like to add to this point

    >How is the war going for the MRM? Are we any farther along than we were 10 or 20 years ago?

    With fiat currencies leading the inevitable grind toward hyperinflation (kids, it’s gonna happen, straight up maths is telling you so) we really do not need to do anything.

    What has changed since 20 years ago? The purchasing power of your money is something like a quarter. Wait another twenty, and I’d be surprised if it was one sixteenth of what it is now.

    The only thing that’s going to stop the slow trajectory of the turd toward the fan is a mass awakening of men and the wide scale dismantling of socialism and really government.

    Remember that the second world war was a fight against the national SOCIALISTS. One does not have to ponder long to see what the topic of the next world war will be.

  • electricman

    I have always said that traditionalist women, especially in today’s post modern world, are the biggest haters to the interests and benefits of men. Nobody does misandry better than the traditionalist. Modern day traditionalism is the lowest form of garbage, much worse than even feminism, because these women want to reap in the benefits of what modern day feminism has given them, but yet at the same time they want to be coddled at the expense of men.

    There are many traditionalist bloggers out there today constantly taking shots at men, and filled with both men and women cheering them on. This was one comment I had read on a blog written by a traditionalst woman that stood out to me. It went something along the lines of how many women are chosing to opt out of relationships because of effeminate or immature men, and how these women are ‘empowered’ and strong. However, she never mentions nothing about men who feel the same way, and distorted things by claiming that most single men are pathetic, lonely and are mentally ill (even most feminists from my experience do not go that low). Another comment that stood out to me on a different traditionalist thread was where the author claimed that boys should be raised and molded into the ‘men’ they were meant to be. Really? So fuck my interests, because as a guy I should only live in a way that is politically correct to suit you? Yeah right, whatever.

    I’m a liberal MRA, so the top of my dislike list are traditionalists. I can not put my finger on the conservative MRAs who want to hold men back as prisoners by confining them to traditional gender roles, while women continue to move ahead of them in today’s post modern world. Threads like these are why I joined this site. Oops, I went against my biological programing again by writing this post.

  • captive

    A lot of so called “conservative” or “traditional” women of the Evangelical persuasion are actually men enslaving manipulators. This is my mother’s handwriting from the right wing group I was raised in, describing how mens’ rights are dictated by the female in the family:

    http://imageshack.com/a/img20/2118/sn850249j.jpg

    And how her children are required to be regarded as slaves:

    http://imageshack.com/a/img29/1705/sn850247.jpg

    The right wing is probably just as misandristic in religion as the left wing is. The whole “women act submissive” act is just an act to ensure properly behaving puppies. Honestly, I couldn’t think of anything better than being able to sit around the house all day and do whatever I wanted while someone brought home money and food to me and would love me.