(H/T Hollenhund and Novaseeker for this idea.)
We all know feminists oppose the so-called “men’s rights” movement, Game, and masculinity. There is a group of traditional conservatives (“tradcons”) which also opposes the same things, usually asserting concerns about traditional Judeo-Christian morality, family preservation, the need for sexual conduct within marriage, and so forth.
Feminists are the gender equity crowd, the sex positives, the hookup/casual sex culture promoters, slutwalkers, and Christian feminists. To feminists, “men’s rights” and masculinity are inherently sexist; a construct of an unjust, unfair and inveterately misogynist society. Game is opposed because it misrepresents men, defrauds women, and commoditizes sex. Feminists assert that Game promotes sexual violence, “male sexual entitlement”, and a distorted worldview, particularly of the sexual experience.
Who Are Tradcons?
Tradcons in their present day form comprise a religious/political group in the United States, birthed from a sociopolitical union between the Republican Party and evangelical Christianity. The idea was to marry conservative Christians (and their votes and money) to the GOP’s political muscle and knowhow. The 1970s and 80s era Moral Majority and the less prominent 1990s Family Values movement were forerunners of this group, as were pioneering televangelists Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. But, as their numbers and influence dwindled, tradcons found their homes in Protestant ministries like Focus on the Family and Family Life, and in the more conservative denominations. Prime examples of tradcons in this faction are Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, Family Life’s Dennis Rainey, and Southern Baptist theologian/ radio talk show host Albert Mohler. Tradcons are no longer nearly as politically activist as they were some 20 years ago.
The nonreligious tradcons comprise much of the rank and file membership (and some mid level leadership) of the Republican Party. They also reside in the online “rightosphere” at conservative blogs, and on the talk shows on Fox News and CNN (with a few token tradcons at MSNBC). Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson and Pat Buchanan exemplify this group.
What Tradcons Stand For
Tradcons advocate a return to (or preservation of) the traditional family, consisting of one man and one woman legally married to each other, and living with and rearing their children. The tradcon sees the man as “servant leader” of his family, meaning he leads as long as his wife agrees with the decisions he makes. He is a titular head, but in practice is the pack mule/drafthorse. His wife, however, is the spiritual, sensible conscience of the family. She is the de facto leader, because she is closer to the children and she just “knows more” about raising children and caring for families than he does.
On social and governmental issues, most tradcons are quite conservative or libertarian – for limited government, fiscal sanity, lower taxes, free market capitalism with sensible regulation, anti-abortion, “law and order”, and so forth. But in practice, tradcons are more or less aligned with feminists on sex and divorce.
Tradcons pay lip service to traditional sexual morality but the vast majority doesn’t adhere to it. Premarital sex and birth control usage are common in evangelical Christianity and in American Catholicism. The overall divorce rate among all first marriages in the U.S. is around 40 to 45%. Among professing Christians, 38% of all their marriages end in divorce. Among Roman Catholics the figure is 25%. The evidence supports a conclusion that despite their embrace of traditional positions, tradcons want to avail themselves of feminist social/political “gains” including widespread availability of easy divorce and social acceptance of extramarital sex.
Divorce and abortion are derided and disdained in theory and theology. But in practice, tradcons accept divorce and abortion as necessary safety valves, intended to be used only rarely and only as a last resort. “We don’t like divorce. No we do not. But we need it just in case some evil man is mean to his wife, or he falls into sin, or she is not happy.”
Many tradcons’ grudging acceptance of abortion extends beyond “rape/incest/life of mother” exceptions that most mainline Protestant evangelicals and Republicans nose-holdingly acknowledge. “We hate abortion. But we need it just in case some evil man rapes someone. We need it in case a pregnancy would keep Carrie Career Girl from going to college. We need it in case a pregnancy would make her unhappy.”
Why Tradcons Are in Bed With Feminists on Sex, Divorce and Abortion
So, why are tradcons standing shoulder to shoulder with feminists on Game, masculinity and men’s rights? Why are people at the extreme left and the extreme right such odd bedfellows?
First, the male secular leadership and the female reactionaries in the tradcon “movement” want a systemic fix to society’s problems. They want to restore the old order, to repair the broken system, to return it to its pre-Sexual Revolution state. This faction wants the vaunted, idyllic, Norman Rockwell, immediate post war 1950s era of patriarchal family/economic boom/”good government” society. Their desire for a systemwide overhaul is their main difference from feminists, who want to destroy the old system, and who abjure Judeo-Christian morality in intimate matters like family formation, sexual conduct, and reproduction.
Tradcons acknowledge feminism is a big problem. But tradcons contend that men are a big part of the problem because more and more of them don’t care to help fix society’s problems. Men are a problem because more of them are refusing to do what they’ve always done – grow up, get jobs, and prepare for marriage and fatherhood mostly through producing 500% of what they need to support themselves. Tradcons oppose Game, men’s rights and masculinity because those concepts are at total war with the notion that men must overproduce and must sacrifice their individual wants and needs for “the common good”. The needs of the family outweigh the needs of the head of the family. Men are the problem, because they increasingly see no point in sacrificing themselves to help repair a broken society.
While feminists caricature Game mainly as misogyny and rape apologia, tradcons oppose Game because they view it as trickery, deceit, manipulation, and male sluttery. Tradcons insist that Game’s true purpose is to help more men sleep around; just as the current social milieu allows more women to sleep around. They argue that if a woman sleeps with a PUA or a player, it is because he tricked and manipulated her into it.
(It somehow never occurs to these people that many young Christian women are sleeping with players because they want to have sex with attractive men. Thanks to their feminist sisters and their tradcon overlords looking the other way, they can, and do, sleep with those men without fear of consequence.)
Game is also opposed for married men because it is viewed as mean, unloving, and distracting. Tradcons believe a married man should not concern himself so greatly with the frequency and quality of his sex life with his wife, nor with increasing his overall attractiveness. Tradcons argue that he should instead determine how best to serve his wife by doing lots of housework, and attending to her other needs. Tradcons tell us that if today’s modern husband makes his wife’s life easier and serves her according to her demands, then sex will “take care of itself”.
Second, tradcons want divorce, abortion and extramarital sex available as individual last-resort solutions for individual problems, even as they abhor the systemwide ills these things cause. “We don’t like these things, but we need them ‘just in case’ there’s a problem in the marriage or an unplanned pregnancy.” Most of the rank and file within tradconism is marinated in the ambient culture, and affected deeply in their daily lives by it. Like it or not, divorce, extramarital sex and abortion are now woven into the cultural fabric of American society. Tradcons cannot advance their “cause” without conceding the “need” for divorce and abortion, and that most of their adherents want premarital and extramarital sex. Christians who oppose divorce and abortion in all circumstances are pushed to the fringes, even within their own faith.
It’s easy to find high profile divorces and claims of sexual immorality among conservatives, Republicans and evangelicals. Rush Limbaugh has been divorced three times and, as of this writing, is on his fourth marriage. He has never had any children. U.S. Senator David Vitter (R-Louisiana) had an extramarital affair a couple of years ago. Vocalist Amy Grant, a former darling of the contemporary Christian music scene, divorced her husband in the late 1990s for “irreconcilable differences” and remarried soon after. Sandi Patty, another very popular Christian vocalist, had an extramarital affair and divorced her first husband almost a decade before Grant’s highly publicized marital breakup. Christian evangelists Charles Stanley, John Hagee, Joyce Meyer, and Paula White all have divorces in their pasts. (Interestingly, none of these individuals, except perhaps Grant, has suffered any real or lasting consequences from their high profile personal problems.) There is a 25% divorce rate among American Roman Catholics, and over a third of all marriages among professing Christians end in divorce.
The point here is not to cast aspersions on individuals or groups. The point is the tradcon desire that divorce, extramarital sex, and abortion be available as individual options despite the systemwide ills they cause. Like everyone else, tradcons want consequence-free sex. Like everyone else, tradcons want an escape hatch from unhappy, bad or failed marriages, and they want the chance for a “do-over”. These attitudes are not likely to abate, even among the most conservative among us.
Third, tradcons want to have fun too. Like their secular sisters, young tradcon women are attracted to attractive men too. They are as immersed in the culture as anyone else, and they’re tired of seeing their secular sisters have all the fun. This is a major reason why young tradcon women have increasingly participated in the casual sex/hookup culture. Most tradcons, including pastors and spiritual leaders, look the other way on this for many reasons, notably because it would be “judgmental” and “hypocritical” to call them out for it.
The tradcon/feminist alliance is an interesting one, and one which could well take on increasing prominence in the years and decades to come.
So..um…exactly WHERE does the “data” for this description, and alliance, of tradcon come from?
Yes, safe to say I disagree with about half of the assessment, and with ALL of the Tradcon/Feminist “strange bedfellows” bit.
I mean, I’m not even seeing a Baptists and Bootleggers position.
Of course, IMHO, “feminism” is on a monthly redefinition cycle , as the mood suits.
Crap, no “edit to add:”
I’ll offer: (with hopes of “auto hyperlink”
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/11/05/245890_fear-or-loathing-anger-at-obama.html?rh=1
Make no mistake, I do NOT regard mere “Republican” as Tradcon!
CaptDMO:
Feminists and tradcons are aligned on Game, masculinity and extramarital sex. The positions are subtle and almost imperceptible sometimes, but they can be seen if you know how and where to look.
Feminists and tradcons both hate and oppose Game, but for slightly different reasons. Read over at Pandagon, Jezebel and xoJane for the feminist perspective on it (they’re all sleazy PUAs in leisure suits) and over at ZippyCatholic for the tradcon perspective (Game is male sluttery).
Masculinity and the “men’s rights” movement are both derided by feminists (it’s all sexist misogyny) and by tradcons (it’s all juvenile, selfish, video-game-playing manboys who need to grow up, man up, and get married). Don’t believe me? Read over at FamilyLife, or Boundless.
So feminists and tradcons both vehemently oppose ideas expressed in the manosphere, but for different reasons.
The hat tip is appreciated. Good post. Now, to get to your question:
So, why are tradcons standing shoulder to shoulder with feminists on Game, masculinity and men’s rights? Why are people at the extreme left and the extreme right such odd bedfellows?
I believe the simple answer is that both groups consist mostly of delusional people living in their own little bubbles, divorced from the everyday reality of average, rank-and-file people. This is to be expected in societies that are increasingly fragmented, with decreasing social mobility and growing inequality. The book “The Big Sort” supposedly goes into detail about this, although I’ve only read some reviews. Active supporters of both modern feminism and tradcon-ism tend to come from well-off middle-class or upper-class families living in suburbs or other isolated areas. They often have cushy jobs and a steady income. They don’t know anything about their average “fellow citizens”, they never meet them or even talk to them, and they don’t care.
They are pampered and indoctrinated from birth, only allowed to interact with people like themselves. They don’t interact with average humans, so they easily fall for the BS they are fed. And make no mistake, feminists and tradcons are equally delusional and paranoid, mostly about men and especially about single men. They know nothing about men, and they idealize women. They normally have few or no siblings, which contributes to their ignorance of sex differences. Therefore their beliefs about human sexuality and psychology are equally baseless rubbish.
Let’s not forget that the social class itself that they come from also tends to be paranoid and ignorant about lots of things. There’s growing fear in the middle class, because the realization is dawning on them that the future is something like Brazil, i.e. the middle class will vanish. That’s why they’re paranoid. They desperately cling to their chosen ideologies, because they’re afraid. They envy and fear the class that rules over them, and they despise and hate the class that is beneath them.
@CaptDMO:
Not all tradcons are Republicans; and not all Republicans are tradcons. The GOP these days isn’t all that “traditional” or “conservative” (in terms of advocating Judeo Christian sexual morality, limited government, “original intent” Constitutional construction and jurisprudence, etc.) The Republican Party’s national leadership has inched and lurched more and more to the Left just to stay relevant; while much of its rank and file is increasingly Right (and unhappy about its national leadership).
This post isn’t really all that much about the Republican Party, as it is about the interesting alliance between feminists and traditional conservatives on specific issues surrounding male sexuality. As I said, I argue the two groups are philosophically far apart, yet stand shoulder to shoulder on male sexuality (but for different reasons).
@ Hollenhund:
I think you have part of it. But I disagree with the notion that there’s a lot of isolation going on. On the contrary, tradcons are part of the society and are increasingly “of the world”, not just “in the world”.
They want consequence free sex. That’s why tradcons increasingly look the other way on extramarital sex (by women). They want escape hatches from tough situations like unplanned pregnancies and miserable marriages. That’s why tradcons say “we hate divorce and abortion, but we need them ‘just in case’.”
Interesting post.
I think that for many tradcons, the personal reason they are “soft” on de facto feminism and aligned with feminism’s criticisms of men/Game/MRA/MGTOW, etc. comes down to them having daughters, sisters and nieces, whose interests they generally prefer to “men in the abstract”. So the de facto laxity about things like divorce and so on make sense because these things flow in the favor of “their women”. And MRA/MGTOW/Game, etc., similarly does not work in favor of “their women”, so they don’t like it — they want the advantages of feminism for the daughters and other women in their lives whom they care about, and men should simply do what they’ve been doing and lump it, basically.
I also think most of them share with gender feminists an idea that women are more moral, more advanced, simply “better” than men (aka, “my better half” type of thinking), so this is aligned as well.
Without these kinds of attitudes pre-existing in American culture, feminism would have gotten precisely nowhere. It didn’t win because people embraced radfem ideas. It won because even the conservatives agreed that women were “better than” men, and wanted these advantages for the women in their lives.
Tagging
Completely off topic, but excellent fodder for future discussion, in the meanwhile, I couldn’t think of a better audience.
I’m guessing that it is more a reflection of what the current corporate cubicle occupants are like. Wondering if the data is at all reflective of smaller tech startups. I bet that size/type of organization is an outlier, different behaviors are rewarded than in self perpetuating bureaucracies.
http://www.gallup.com/businessjournal/178541/why-women-better-managers-men.aspx
It is the fathers (I have no children) who evince the proto-incestuous desire towards their daughters – need a degree in case the future husband stumbles financially; needs a divorce if she is ‘unhaappy’ and so on. Their sons can just go out to work and settle down with a ‘nice gel’, and if they don’t or have difficulty making ends meet the reason must be idleness or lack of obedience. That there is a connection between the increasingly independent female and the man who is deprived of a job and of a family seems lost on the trad-con.
feminism has been around long enough for tradcons to think its tradition.Sort of what NS @7 points to about their view on women. The traditional view on women is the exact opposite. tradcons rarely look very far back into history to determine what is traditional culture or not. most I think because the usa had such an influx of foreign born people. people who are not and will never be traditional in any sense of the word because their tie to blood and soil here is shallow.
and I agree with NS @7 as well; they over value their female kin
Heh – As a father of daughters, I see no moral superiority there. But quite a bit of entitlement. Most of my game successes started with observations of what behaviors on my part seems to engender the most respect and pleasant cooperation from my daughters. But I’d Love to learn more about how to plant which seeds to counter the mainstream memes they are receiving in this area.
I actually make it a point to under provide for my daughters – to enable their future partner to exceed their expectations.
Deti, you neglected the pedestalization-of-women notion that both feminists and tradcons agree on. NS touched on it briefly: “I also think most of them share with gender feminists an idea that women are more moral, more advanced, simply “better” than men (aka, “my better half” type of thinking), so this is aligned as well.” This notion is an important reason for their overall agreement about Game, hypergamy, etc. Both deny hypergamy because of pedestalization. Women can’t be hypergamous because that would be bad. Both attack Game because it de-pedestalizes women, which pedestalization both insist on. Both insist on removing inherent penalties for sexual immorality–i.e., women having to provide for their bastards without govt. help, because mothers are of such high value (this feeds into pedestalization). Women must be allowed to divorce without penalty because they are of such high value and their happiness is paramount (more feeding into pedestalization).
Agree with pretty much all except our Author’s comment @6: I don’t see how the GOP or its leadership are lurching left, especially after this election. On most social issues the evidence is overwhelming that they are moving off to the right: seeking to outlaw two things right away: 1) labor unions and 2) birth control (not just abortion; see Hobby Lobby and other “conscience” laws and cases where so-cons don’t want to be forced to sell any contraceptives to anyone). Now you may be in favor of that, which is not my point; my point is that is WHAT IS.
Unless what is meant is the Tea Party-leaning faction of the GOP may be growing as fond of what big government can do by way of social control as liberals are/were. Their form of big government: get back in the bedroom and shut down contraception, banish those gays (re-outlaw gay marriage, sodomy and non-missionary sex) and join feminists in curbing all sex on campus – via Yes Means Yes for feminists, and re-outlawing fornication for so-cons.*
*(Any similarity between the left’s YMY policy at Berkeley or Duke and the no-sex-please-we’re-Christian policy of places like Bob Jones University or BYU is strictly obvious. Consult the student manuals and show me the difference).
To my eye the push to ban birth control has some bit of eugenics mixed in with the “morality”: where da white babiez at? Gots to force tha wimmins to have them white babiez. Except, as the book Promises I Can Keep attests, the single women (now mostly white) are having the babiez – just not with any man in the picture.
Besides the book cited by HH on societal atomization, there is also Bowling Alone, which, though a bit long in the tooth, spots the phenomenon as it was catching on.
This is untrue, Deti.
Eh, not so sure, E.
Anecdotes are not data, but they are nevertheless interesting. In my extended family there is a family which is extremely conservative RC (think “The Wanderer” type), very actively engaged in all kinds of social conservative activity, including protesting at abortion clinics, march for life and so on. Three kids. Older two turned out okay — not great, but par, and no disasters. Youngest one was a powderkeg who rebelled at 17, and moved out of the house and in with thuglife. Obviously they were very upset with this, tried to convince her to behave otherwise, but personality is just exceptionally rebellious. Eventually thuglife knocks her up. Well, what do these people do? They started to make quiet inquiries among the rest of the family about how to go about getting an “early” abortion in a more private and expeditious way. They then pleaded with her to get one, and she, in typically rebellious fashion, laughed at them and had the kid anyway. No longer lives with thuglife1, but now with thuglife2.
Now these are some of the most strongly anti-abortion, and activist, people I have ever known on this issue. But when the time came to think about it, there they were, utilizing what tools were available to avoid greater damage to their daughter’s life.
Blood is thicker than water, I think — much thicker — when it comes to these things.
@ Elspeth:
Agree with Nova. I wouldn’t have made the assertion had I not seen and heard of similar occurrences.
Examples from friends from my own life:
1. Very conservative, prominent Catholic family in my small town quietly sent their wayward daughter “away” for a while, to a private Catholic boarding school during her junior year. Reason: she had gotten pregnant at 15; after which her parents arranged an abortion for her. Mom and Dad had her “serve out” her junior year in repentance and to let the episode blow over.
2. 18 year old HS senior from middle class Catholic family has an “oops” pregnancy. She decides on an abortion. Her parents are at first dead set against it; then relent and pay for it when she makes clear she’ll get the abortion even against their wishes.
3. Preacher’s kid knocks up his longtime girlfriend; he pays for the abortion. His dad, a local reverend, points out that it’s “for the best” because it would have forced his son to get a job and drop out of nursing school.
The following is from the Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church. It’s a part of the Church’s official position on abortion. The UMC Book of Discipline is something like the Roman Catholic Catechism, but not as binding, and doesn’t have the force of “church law”.
Now, granted, United Methodists aren’t really tradcons, since it’s one of the more socially liberal denominations, and being overly concerned with “social justice” issues. But the statement is typical of the hand wringing and navel gazing that tradcons usually engage in over these. Note the hemming and hawing, the “Gee golly, it’s just not FAIR and we gotta be nice and we can’t judge and we gotta make this and that exception” and so on.
File it under “hard cases make bad law”.
“Our belief in the sanctity of unborn human life makes us reluctant to approve abortion. But we are equally bound to respect the sacredness of the life and well-being of the mother, for whom devastating damage may result from an unacceptable pregnancy. In continuity with past Christian teaching, we recognize tragic conflicts of life with life that may justify abortion, and in such cases we support the legal option of abortion under proper medical procedures.”
In a nutshell, the pecking order goes:
Best Interests of Women > Best Interests of Children > Best Interests of Men
Growing up a Catholic I can relate similar stories as others have already shared. The hypocracy in the Church is one of the reasons I parted ways with the faith years ago. That’s not the right wording, because I still have plenty of faith. (Some would say I’m spiritual) I simply couldn’t imagine that the only way for me to understand God was through the guidance of those I had no respect for or trust in. And there was no way I could respect or trust the leadership of the Church, or most of its disciples.
I know, NACALT. Personally I’d imagine any truly faithful Catholic attending Church regularly must do so in the same manner they would change a dirty diaper: plug your nose and get the job done while trying not to walk away smelling like shit.
Now we know that tradcons are sometimes not up to their ostensible values. They’re hypocrites. Everybody feel better, now?
What does it mean in practical terms…?
Practically, it means, by definition, that they do less of what they think is wrong than they would otherwise, occasional lapses notwithstanding.
In Britain, after Cromwell, came the Restoration, and, later on when one of the Georges was not quite up to it, we had the Regency.
Each was marked by extreme license. The Restoration Comedies were notable for their being what might be called “gross”.
In the former case, we had “methody”, the rise of Methodism in the middle and working classes. After the latter, we had Victorianism. In each case, the working and middle classes got to be socially and culturally conservative. The uppers and royals not so much, as Spawny has told us earlier.
A member of the aristocracy putting a goodly chunk of his inheritance on the gaming table in a gentleman’s club, while drunk and just before getting the clap, isn’t going to do as well in life as the small businessman whose idea of a good time is the early nineteenth-century version of a potluck at church followed by slides from a missionary.
It got to be so much the case that the abstemious, hard-working, grim-faced thrusting industrialists could buy/marry their families into the titled aristocracy who didn’t have all that much money. And they had a lot of kids.
WRT pedestalization: Feminists demand special privileges in things like…SBA loans. They get reduced sentences for the worst crimes. They demand the absence of due process in sexual assault cases, predominantly on campus. And they can be brought down to a puddle of angst by some innocuous “trigger”, the delicate flowers. Any man’s behavior which differs from women’s…emotional expression, problem-solving issues, conversational and argumentation styles, are wrong and will remain wrong until they mimic those of women. Feminists think women are superior. They demand men act as if women are superior. That’s pedestalization. In addition, they insist there is no need for courtesy in dealing with a guy whose attentions don’t interest them.
The uniting factor of feminists and tradcons is that in both ideologies it is the male perspective, experience that is “defective”. In feminism, the great evil is male “patriarchy” and male communication, the way men deal with emotions, male thinking are all “wrong”. With tradcons, the male is granted nominal “leadership”, but he will inevitably get it all wrong if he is missing the “civilizing influence” of a “good woman”. With tradcons, the female influence is NECESSARY to prevent the flawed male from screwing it all up.
Now the essence of the sphere as I see it, is to metaphorically whip out your cock and balls and be unapologetically proud of everything masculine. Sometimes, you don’t “talk it out” but punch the asshole in the nose or bodyslam the f’er (see the Youtube video of the kid being bullied). That there is nothing wrong with telling your buddy when the hot chick walks by “damn, that ass is fine”. It is to hold up the middle finger to the feminine imperative, and say the male communication, bold, direct is just fine, that male sexuality, the desire for variety and youth is just fine, to say that being competitive is just fine, etc., etc. The essence of both feminism and trad-cons is that many aspects of maleness are inherently wrong and need to be suppressed and/or corrected.
Feminists insist men submit to whims of women, provide resources, sacrifice their lives for women’s protection. Men have no entitlement but only duty to some feminine version of the Marxist dialectic. Men have no entitlements and need to constantly “check privilidg.”
Tradcons insist men “man up,” marry, become good little kulaks in the croney-capitalist version of state socialism. The same need to sacrifice applies but this time for America Fuck Yeah! But men individually are still reminded they have only obligations and no entitlements.
Both mind sets demand men offer themselves willingly as sacrifices to women, the lives defined and qualified by the willingness, and magnitude of the sacrifice.
Any differences in detail while possibly interesting are not particularly relevant. The shared goal is the same chase material trinkets and dollars for benefit of a femcentric society.
Both mind sets demand men offer themselves willingly as sacrifices to women, the lives defined and qualified by the willingness, and magnitude of the sacrifice.
Any differences in detail while possibly interesting are not particularly relevant. The shared goal is the same chase material trinkets and dollars for benefit of a femcentric society.
To use BV’s terminology, in both ideologies the role of the man is to be the reliable drafthorse. I think one difference is that in the trad-con mentality, the man is supposed to be happy and fulfilled in the role as drafthorse, he is doing what he was born to do which is serve. In contrast, in feminism, there is no concern whether or not the man is fulfilled or happy. It is an entirely irrelevant question…only what women want matters.
A major part of the alliance is that feminism works for tradcon leaders. Republican candidates get plenty of cute volunteers, seminary students have HB10s tackling them like quarterbacks. Absent real contact with ordinary men, they can honestly say “just be nice to girls and pick one out, like I did”.
Feminism is good for the top dog in EVERY social circle.
I’m a recovered conservaholic. I had to face my addiction to preserving the not too distant past head on. I had to look reality in the eye and say: “What the ****!”
I didn’t under stand why many of my Christian conservative friends danced around the parts of the Bible that instructed women to be subordinate. Others danced around the parts concerning divorce, sexual purity, and most other unpopular teachings.
They basically raised their daughters as if they were sons. Instead of teaching them to be good wives and mothers, they sent them off to college to pursue careers where many of them lost their virginity (if they still had it), precious time (that could have been spent building a solid family), and (worst of all) their faith.
One day I realized that most of my Christian conservative friends were actually feminists. Although they did not know it, they had been raised to think and speak feminism. They were, and most still are, feminists. I call them feminists on the right, but they are still feminists.
I’ll spare the reader the mushy details, but one day in deep agonizing sorrow and very reflective prayer I realized that God did not want me to pedestalize the women in my life. He is a jealous God, and rightfully so.
The lefty feminist (progressive) theme “Men are worse than women” is bad.
The righty feminist (tradcon) theme “Women are better than men” is bad.
A Christian man’s duty is to obey Christ. It is Christ he must follow, not his woman. The married Christian woman’s duty is to obey her husband and help him to serve as he has been called. She is not to assume the role of spiritual diviner where her feelings are a proxy for confirmation of God’s approval.
the GOP was the original big govt progressive party; no one should be surprised at how far left it is
that the GOP is not considered leftist only demonstrates how far left the debate has shifted
One of the reasons I know Game to be generally true and accurate is how well it works on my female kin, daughter, sister in law, nieces etc etc.
What is wrong with wanting to ban birth control so their will be more White babies? There is nothing immoral about wanting to see your people prosper and expand.
@24 & 25 & 26….. they crushed it
Tradcons and feminists are onboard with each other because it is about CONTROLLING MEN into conforming with whatever societal expectations women think men need to comply with. Guys rejecting marriage to hang out with their buddies and have fun removes them from female supremacist expectations of financial slavery and service to women. They forget that they were the ones who poisoned the well in the first place by privileging females over males.
“I simply couldn’t imagine that the only way for me to understand God was through the guidance of those I had no respect for or trust in.”
That glorious moment when God helps you to make the distinction between Him and morons who thought they were speaking for Him. I’ve reached it myself in recent years.
I myself am a Christian and a TradCon. But I’m also asexual and childfree, which makes me immune to the “biological imperative” for relationships with Western women and the pitfalls therein, i.e. marriage. It admittedly gets awkward at times, but I feel as though I’m being protected in the long run.
Great post, deti!
I had no idea that those evangelists were all divorcees.
Interesting.
Some humorous exchanges between pilots and air traffic controllers:
http://www.tickld.com/x/actual-exchanges-between-pilots-and-control-towers
Dr Matt Taylor–one of the guys who helped land that spacecraft on the surface of the comet–has tearfully apologised after feminists complained about his ‘sexist’ shirt.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOggVg2Ekko
The comet was 300 million miles away. And “it’s no easy thing to land on a comet’s surface: These chunks of rock and ice are constantly spinning, and the Comet… orbits the sun at a speed of about 85,000 mph. It’s irregularly shaped — like a toddler’s play-dough impression of a duck, or something — and its surface is uneven and pitted. And in a universe of unimaginable proportion, Rosetta’s target is just 2.5 miles in diameter”.
But people got pissed because the scientist was wearing a shirt with scantily clad women on it when he was interviewed.
Höllenhund, …both groups consist mostly of delusional people living in their own little bubbles, divorced from the everyday reality of average, rank-and-file people….supporters of both modern feminism and tradcon-ism tend to come from well-off middle-class or upper-class families living in suburbs or other isolated areas. They often have cushy jobs and a steady income. They don’t know anything about their average “fellow citizens”, they never meet them or even talk to them, and they don’t care…They are pampered and indoctrinated from birth, only allowed to interact with people like themselves. They don’t interact with average humans, so they easily fall for the BS they are fed. And make no mistake, feminists and tradcons are equally delusional and paranoid…
I find comment hilarious. Let’s break it down:
Tradcons are: Delusional. Indoctrinated. Isolated. Paranoid. Pampered. Living In A Bubble.
Yet they: Have Stable Families. Higher Birth Rates. Steady Jobs. Steady Income. Good Education.
As I said: hilarious. I don’t think my commentary is required to point out the silliness. Projection, anyone?
“tradcons oppose Game because they view it as trickery, deceit, manipulation, and male sluttery.”
And they are most assuredly dead-on in their assessment. Game is an affront to Godly masculinity. “Christian” men who comment on the forums of Roissy and Roosh and practice their pick-up practices jeopardize their souls.
A mere sample–“We at ROK fully understand that the reason women are so against fat shaming is because it works. Mocking someone for lazy and slothful behavior is one of the best ways to motivate them to change and appear more pleasing before our presence. If a fat woman goes to the bar with attitude, thinking she’s a great catch, but several men check her for that arrogance by calling her a grenade launcher, do you think she’ll feel comfortable the next day for her scheduled cupcake and ice cream binge?”
Here is what the Bible says about beauty…
Psalm 139:14–I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.
1 Samuel 16:7–But the LORD said to Samuel, “Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.”
God focuses on the inside, NOT the outside. As a CHRISTIAN male, I know there is nothing inherently evil, immoral, or wrong with men encouraging their women to look their best. Clearly, the “guys” are ROK are blatantly anti-Christian in their approach. But God would rather see us work on becoming drop-dead gorgeous on the inside, the kind of girl who talks to Him on a regular basis (prayer) and reads her Bible.
The recent revelations of child-abuse by Catholic priests and their cover-ups were crippling blows to the Catholic church, and they surely weakened the political muscle of the tradcons as a group.
The sad thing about this is that it shows the importance of the political. There is no way around the fact that the Right is eclectic and has no common political vision whereas the Left is monolithic; they are all essentially socialists both culturally and economically.
But there are so many Right wing variants, all of them having different political visions. You have the libertarians with some of them being Minarchists and others being Anarchists. You have the Austrians and the Randians. You have the Classical Liberals. All of these pro-liberty types are not going to favor restrictions on social liberties and personal freedoms.
On the other side you have the Reactionaries: the White ethno-nationalists, the neo-fascists, the right-socialists (StormFront), the Christian Reconstructionists, the Southern Secessionists, etc. The more level headed reactionaries would be the Paleo-cons and the Larry Auster style Traditionalists. But I would throw in Jared Taylor and Steve Sailer in there as well. Basically I think of it as the Reactionary/Paleo/pro-White Right.
In the middle you have mainstream Conservatism. And here I would throw everyone from Rush Limabaugh to Glen Beck to Sean Hannity to Conservative Radio to Thomas Sowell to the Tea Party, etc. This is basically the only legitimate mainstream opposition to the Left which is allowed.
Oh I just mentioned the Left didn’t I. Well they are the cultural Juggernauts and the SJWs (which include Feminists) are their main attack dogs, their main forward phalanx. They are the drivers of the Western world. But why is that?
The answer is too long for here but IMO it is because modern liberalism is the secularization of Christianity. It is Christianity without the Bible or neo-Christianity or late stage Christianity or a Christian heresy or… chose your own language but the concept remains. It is the secularization of Christian altruism and egalitarianism. Leftism would never have arisen if it weren’t piggy backing on late stage Christianity. And that includes Feminism. Christianity’s war against Lust has come to accommodate Feminism’s war against men.
And here is where you get the alliance of the feminist Left with the So-Con mainstream Right. There is too much that overlaps there. And you see it wider than just inter-gender issues. The so-cons are not very pro-free-market. They agree with the Left on many issues dealing with political economy. That is a big problem beyond just Feminism. Liberal Christianity is Liberal.
There are TradCons who totally reject modern feminism. Larry Auster was one such guy. He recognized that Game was an outgrowth of biology but thought it nihilistic. But he didn’t ally himself with feminism. He hated what they stood for. But Auster was a Reactionary who rejected modern Conservatism in total. So that is what you need to look for.
Basically the test is wether the Trad-Con is a reactionary or not. If yes, they will not share Feminism’s agenda. But the sad thing is that for more libertarian, pro-liberty type of red-pillers there really can’t be any political commonality with Reactionaries red-pillers. Libertarians think that solutions to destructive female behavior lie in libertarian politics. Reactionaries think authoritarian measures are necessary. That’s the problem in creating a meaningful opposition to the Left and its Feminist phalanx. About the best libertarian commenter on this that you’ll find is Stephan Mollyneaux. He is an anarcho-capitalist which I don’t agree with but he is red pill. And he constantly shows how socialist / interventionist / regulatory political economy is responsible for the corruption of women today and for their increased promiscuity and entitlement psychologies.
The current world is a mess. And its heading for chaos. My fear is that things may get so bad that many otherwise good people will be screaming for a Ceasar.
I don’t see any alliance between Tradcons and Feminists, myself. I completely disagree. That doesn’t mean “tradcons” are always correct, or that they never behave in a hypocritical manner.
I’m reminded of a thread on a political debate forum “explaining” 14 points asserting that the US system was a fascist system by completely selective cherry picking.
And then there was another thread about Hitler (it didn’t say Hitler, initially…just as “war decorated vegetarian person who wasn’t an alcoholic and remained faithful to his wife” until…OMG! You voted for Hitler!!! And clearly there is no more or less moral value system when you are willing to vote for Hitler…when, you know, lesser things like genocide are eliminated from the equation…you hater (or, excuse me, lover, of fascism!).
Satan and Santa have an amazing number of commonalities also.
While I do not want to offend the Almighty, Christian men know nothing about masculinity
there is no Right to speak of in the usa,
@ Corvinus
Re beauty:
Talking about beauty from God’s POV is a red herring in the context of Game. A better reference about beauty is the Song of Songs. The importance of feminine beauty is shown by the phrases “I am black but lovely” and “If you yourself do not know, most beautiful among women” and “How beautiful you are, my darling,
How beautiful you are! Your eyes are doves.”
Game is an affront to Godly masculinity.
Lol, what an absurdly feminine statement. There may be a few practices that some attribute to Game that are objectionable, but not the overall plan. Just read the Song of Songs accurately and you’ll find elements of Game there. I’ve written some posts on this topic.
“Christian” men who comment on the forums of Roissy and Roosh and practice their pick-up practices jeopardize their souls.
Game doesn’t require doing pickup or practicing sexual immorality.
You are chock full of Blue Pill idolatry of the pedestalized woman.
@ Liz
I don’t see any alliance between Tradcons and Feminists, myself. I completely disagree.
The point isn’t a political alliance, but a shared pedestalization of women, about which I’ve already commented.
What are tradcons doing to limit hypergamy? Nothing.
What are tradcons doing to reverse Marriage 2.0? Nothing.
Deti’s point stands.
Liz – “Satan and Santa have an amazing number of commonalities also”
And you never see them together….hmmm
@ mdavid
Tradcons are: Delusional. Indoctrinated. Isolated. Paranoid. Pampered. Living In A Bubble.
Yet they: Have Stable Families. Higher Birth Rates. Steady Jobs. Steady Income. Good Education.
If higher divorce rates equals stable families, then, yes, tradcons have stable families. Or maybe you have some links?
@ JDG
I didn’t under stand why many of my Christian conservative friends danced around the parts of the Bible that instructed women to be subordinate.
It’s because TradCons pedestalize women.
theasdgamer – “It’s because TradCons pedestalize women.”
With the churchians it’s due to the fundamental corruption that accompanies the need to meet overhead costs. So long as money is necessary to maintain the organization it will pander to those most likely to attend and fill the collection plates. So long as those filling the pews pay the bills the message will be tailored to ensure the pews and plates are full.
#34: “Tradcons are: Delusional. Indoctrinated. Isolated. Paranoid. Pampered. Living In A Bubble.
Yet they: Have Stable Families. Higher Birth Rates. Steady Jobs. Steady Income. Good Education.”
You prove Hollenhund’s point, mdavid. Tradcons follow a specific script and exclude from their company those who don’t. Unmarried? You’re Out. Struggling financially? You’re Out. No accredited, four-year degree? You’re Out. Have ideas that will upset the status quo? You’re Out.
That’s exactly what delusional, indoctrinated, isolated, paranoid, and pampered folks do to continue living in a bubble.
#35: “But God would rather see us work on becoming drop-dead gorgeous on the inside, the kind of girl who talks to Him on a regular basis (prayer) and reads her Bible.”
Corvinus, do you even understand the words you speak? Bible-reading and prayer do not make a woman “gorgeous on the inside”. What does? Obedience to God. Women should keep their marriage vows… which they don’t… and obey men as their masters… which they don’t and which Church leaders train them not to do. Both of these in clear violation of Biblical commands.
We Christian men listen to the pickup artists because we’re tired of being lied to about women by our own pastors and priests. Like Christ, we would rather associate with the whores than the Pharisees. If you do not understand how women and clergy disobey Christ with their acceptance of divorce, sluttery and female leadership of men then you aren’t ready to represent our Lord in the Manosphere.
FYI, don’t quote the Bible here. There was a time in American history when the authority of the Bible could be assumed. That is no longer true; therefore, quoting the Bible at an atheist is a useless debate tactic. Save it for Christian blogs like Dalrock and learn to defend your statements without appealing to authority.
@ Badpainter
With the churchians it’s due to the fundamental corruption that accompanies the need to meet overhead costs.
Chicken-egg. Pedestalization of women in churches is a fact and it’s on that basis that radfems and churchians have common ground.
The Wisdom Of Women – The Folly Of Feminists
http://www.africanglobe.net/headlines/wisdom-women-folly-feminists/
GunnerQ, You prove Hollenhund’s point, mdavid. Tradcons follow a specific script and exclude from their company those who don’t. Unmarried? You’re Out. Struggling financially? You’re Out. No accredited, four-year degree? You’re Out. Have ideas that will upset the status quo? You’re Out.
I’m again LOL. So a guy or gal wants to live a traditional family life and have tight social circles that includes people like themselves. Hell, they have kids, sounds wise to me. So what? Why do you care? I doubt TradCons stay awake worried about people like you; they are too busy living their lives, which sound pretty good.
How exactly does this “prove Hollenhund’s point” which was basically a hysterical rant accusing TradCons of…what, exactly? Read it again. It could have been written by a irrational feminist bitterly envious that TradCons are fat and happy. As I said above, it’s so childish is doesn’t even merit comment.
Judging from the man up hit pieces Tradcons must lose sleep over men like Gunner
theasdgamer, If higher divorce rates equals stable families, then, yes, tradcons have stable families. Or maybe you have some links?
Sheese. I merely took him at this word and pointed out the failure of logic. I didn’t demand links.
Now you are completely reversing his prior assertion. Now TradCons are divorced. unhappy folk themselves…cruelly excluding other divorced people. Which is it? I can’t keep up.
@ mdavid
theasdgamer, “If higher divorce rates equals stable families, then, yes, tradcons have stable families. Or maybe you have some links?
Sheese. I merely took him at this word and pointed out the failure of logic. I didn’t demand links.
Now you are completely reversing his prior assertion. Now TradCons are divorced. unhappy folk themselves…cruelly excluding other divorced people. Which is it? I can’t keep up.
As I thought, you have nothing to back up your assertion. Your reframing merging tactic fails likewise. Your words are vapid.
@ mdavid, hoellenhund
Tradcons aren’t predominantly UMC. Evangelicals are tradcons and evangelicals have slightly-higher-than-average divorce rates, which is not true for UMC generally. Catholic tradcons help bring down the divorce rate of tradcons generally.
Dread Game Update
Mrs. Gamer gave one meager, easily-passed insecurity last night and seems generally quite content. Soft Dread seems to be working well with minimal insecurity instability.
This is probably the final update. Soft Dread seems to be wildly successful.
If the churchian Tradcons aren’t sympathetic to the FI then why are they so eager to feed men to the lions in colosium (man up)? If the Tradcons generally aren’t sympathetic to progressive liberalism why then did they not fully embrace the Tea Party’s initial platform? If the Tradcons are supposed to be the good guys why are they silent on issues like NSA domestic surveillance, and the Patriot Act? And why are the Tradcons, and -cons generally so damned eager to fight half-assed (half-assed to everyone not actually getting shot at) wars all over the third world with no intention of winning?
theasdgamer, As I thought, you have nothing to back up your assertion.
You clearly have reading comprehension issues. It isn’t MY assertion that TradCons are anything. I was merely rephrasing prior comments:
GunnerQ: Tradcons follow a specific script and exclude from their company those who don’t. Unmarried? You’re Out. Struggling financially? You’re Out. No accredited, four-year degree? You’re Out. That’s exactly what delusional, indoctrinated, isolated, paranoid, and pampered folks do to continue living in a bubble.
Höllenhund, …tradcon-ism tend to come from well-off middle-class or upper-class families living in suburbs or other isolated areas. They often have cushy jobs and a steady income…they don’t care. They are pampered and indoctrinated from birth…
OK, TradCons are rich, isolated, and happy about it. I get it. Where can I sign up? Go Ned Flanders!
But wait. Not so fast! No, they are actually divorced, broken men!
theasdgamer, If higher divorce rates equals stable families, then, yes, tradcons have stable families…Your reframing merging tactic fails likewise. Your words are vapid.
Aw, shucks. My fantasy of becoming a TradCon (whatever this is; on this thread, it’s clearly imaginary people who can morph into anything to best be hated) has been dashed. They actually end up broken and alone. Sniff.
@ mdavid
OK, TradCons are rich, isolated, and happy about it.
No, as I said in a previous comment, this is wrong. Try to stay up to speed, will you? The rest of your logic fails because of a false premise.
@ mdavid
Where did Hund say that TradCons have stable families? He didn’t. You made that up (cough lied cough).
@ mdavid
And since you made that up, you need to support your assertionthat tradcons have stable families. You have failed to do that.
And, unsurprisingly, my alleged reading comprehension problem vanishes.
@ deti
I suspect that tradcon young women are more likely to engage in hookup sex than other women because of the expectation that their sexual sins will be forgiven, which is so often preached in the evangelical pulpit and by tradcon women generally.
#49: “So a guy or gal wants to live a traditional family life and have tight social circles that includes people like themselves. Hell, they have kids, sounds wise to me. So what? Why do you care?”
First, they kicked me out of the entire Christian Church. Every church of every denomination, because I don’t have a wife & kids. Oh, I’m welcome to attend and tithe money but there’s no concern for those outside their tight social circles. More than that, many young men have abandoned Christ because of how Churchian Tradcons have treated them. This is a hideous evil.
Then the Tradcons poisoned their own daughters against me. She needs that four-year degree or she won’t fit in the bubble, so she’s pushed away from being a young mother and towards that high-powered YuGo Girl career. Any sluttery is winked at while guys like me either starve sexually until we’re 30 or abandon morality.
Then taxes. None of my money is too much for Soccer Mom. I get taxed again and again, hello Obamacare, for the benefit of other peoples’ families… until I can’t afford a family of my own.
If all Tradcons wanted was to live in a bubble then I’d leave them to it. But no… No, the Tradcon bubble is a Potemkin village, a false reality that requires the “disposable men” of society, men like me, to fund their community and push away the consequences of their feel-good immorality. Just like the feminists. If feminists want to hate men then they can also go form their own bubble… but it would fail, too, unless the “disposable men” are harnessed for slave labor.
That is why I care about Tradcons. They’ll feed me to Hell, literally, for another day of propped-up paradise. Exactly… like… the feminists.
Gunner, First, they kicked me out of the entire Christian Church. Every church of every denomination, because I don’t have a wife & kids. Oh, I’m welcome to attend and tithe money but there’s no concern for those outside their tight social circles.
Strong sense of entitlement (like feminists). Exactly why does anyone, TradCons or Feminists or Regular Joe’s, owe you entry into their “tight social circle”? Become somebody worthy of friendship, make an effort to meet people with your values, and friends will be everywhere.
More than that, many young men have abandoned Christ because of how Churchian Tradcons have treated them.
Let me get this straight: these people abandon their faith in Jesus Christ because somebody treated them poorly? I can only imagine real persecution.
Then the Tradcons poisoned their own daughters against me.
Well, as a parent of daughters, if this thread is any guide…
…while guys like me either starve sexually until we’re 30 or abandon morality.
Personally, I can’t see how my sexual needs, or my sexual values, are other people’s responsibility. They are mine and mine alone. Certainly not TradCon’s.
Then taxes. None of my money is too much for Soccer Mom. I get taxed again and again, hello Obamacare, for the benefit of other peoples’ families… until I can’t afford a family of my own.
So TradCons are liberals who vote for Obama and support high taxes? I’ve always thought they vote lockstep Republican and oppose high taxes. Hell, they’re rich, right? I swear, I can’t keep up with it all.
mdavid – “I’ve always thought they vote lockstep Republican and oppose high taxes.”
Since when are Republicans conservstives?
@64 well BP they did conserve the union by destroying it….
Most tradcons, including pastors and spiritual leaders, look the other way on this for many reasons, notably because it would be “judgmental” and “hypocritical” to call them out for it.
BP stole my thunder upthread, but it never hurts to repeat the message: churchian corporations (not to EVER be confused with the New Testament Church established by the Apostles), by their nature must rely on the Almighty Dollar to function. They must cater to their customers like any business must in order to survive. Because churchian CEOs (called “pastors,” a tellingly unbiblical term of pagan Roman origin), like CEOs of any corporation, only get paid if satisfied customers buy their product and because 99 percent of these CEOs have never worked in any other industry and have no other skills to fall back on, they are not about to say anything to their customers that will alienate them, no matter how much biblical truth and ultimate salvation from the flames of eternal damnation such “alienating” messages contain.
As with for-profit corporations, in which the bottom line is everything, often even at the expense of customer wellbeing, churchian corporations cannot afford to let impolitic scriptural truths get in the way of full collection plates. This is why they are worse than useless as spiritual bodies. Indeed, they are more like cancerous organs that spread contagion, in this case the toxic and immoral secular culture, while undermining the healthy organs (i.e., true believers attempting to live their lives in accordance with scriptural principles in the midst of constant assault by the world). In all honesty this isn’t limited to tradcons; indeed, if anything, it shows how little real difference there is between “conservative” and “liberal” flavors of corporate churchianity.
But I disagree with the notion that there’s a lot of isolation going on. On the contrary, tradcons are part of the society and are increasingly “of the world”, not just “in the world”.
Those are two different trends. It’s true that the overall lifestyle of tradcons is more aligned with the trends of secular society than before, i.e. premarital sex and hedonistic expectations of mating are more or less the norm among tradcons as much as among other social groups. There’s indeed no cultural isolation, but there’s plenty of social isolation, and not just among tradcons. We’re seeing increasing social fragmentation along dividing lines of class and, to a lesser extent, race.
With tradcons, the male is granted nominal “leadership”, but he will inevitably get it all wrong if he is missing the “civilizing influence” of a “good woman”. With tradcons, the female influence is NECESSARY to prevent the flawed male from screwing it all up.
Plus it’s a common delusion among tradcons that widespread sexual promiscuity is driven by the sexual behavior of average young men, not that of young women.
Tradcons are: Delusional. Indoctrinated. Isolated. Paranoid. Pampered. Living In A Bubble.
Yet they: Have Stable Families. Higher Birth Rates. Steady Jobs. Steady Income. Good Education.
As I said: hilarious. I don’t think my commentary is required to point out the silliness.
I’m not making an effort here to try to convince you, because it’d clearly be a futile attempt. But I think it’s important to point out to other readers here that there’s no contradiction.
Tradcons are indeed mostly middle-class, so the economic and social trends of the past few decades have not been to their advantage. They are getting screwed over through mass immigration, deindustrialization etc. However, the prominent pundits and loudmouths promoting tradcon ideology in the media and the public sphere in general are mostly from upper-class and so-called upper-middle-class families. The same applies to feminist and liberal pundits as well.
This means they are coddled from birth and indoctrinated by their parents and teachers. Their social connections and indoctrination gets them cushy jobs and a good income. They live in an isolated social circle, only interacting with people from the same class and raised to believe in the same ideology. They don’t know much about common folk and the country as a whole, and they don’t care. That means they don’t care about average, struggling tradcon families either. Their ideology is designed to pander to people like themselves i.e. well-off, socially isolated people. The same applies to modern feminism.
And yes, it’s actually possible to be well-off, well-educated – or, to be more precise, have good credentials -, well-adjusted (in your own social circle, that is) and at the same time be more or less paranoid, indoctrinated and socially isolated. In fact, the two pretty much go together. Paranoia is born of ignorance and indoctrination, plus the drive to protect your social status. Tradcons have plenty of all that.
@ Hoellenhund
Tradcons are indeed mostly middle-class,
Are you backing off your claim that tradcons are mostly UMC?
They are getting screwed over through mass immigration, deindustrialization etc.
Outsourcing is the current way the MC is getting screwed. That’s an important point to get! So, since the MC is getting screwed, are they really fearful of non-existent threats (i.e., paranoid)?
@ Hoellenhund
Their social connections and indoctrination gets them cushy jobs….
…well-educated – or, to be more precise, have good credentials….
How do their credentials figure into the MC getting cushy jobs, if, in fact, they even do? Seems like you are conflating the MC and UMC.
@ mdavid
Personally, I can’t see how my sexual needs, or my sexual values, are other people’s responsibility. They are mine and mine alone. Certainly not TradCon’s.
Let’s suppose that you live in a country where factories produce a lot of smog and you are too poor to emigrate. Would you say that your breathing needs are your own responsibility and that other people have no responsibility for the smog? Tradcons make the sexual smog. They pedestalize women and demean the status and importance of men. Get it?
Testing
Okay. Tradcons are horrible people. Now what?
Also, they don’t control hypergamy. I thought nothing and nobody could control hypergamy. Hard to keep up.
@ RA
Okay. Tradcons are horrible people. Now what?
Also, they don’t control hypergamy. I thought nothing and nobody could control hypergamy. Hard to keep up.
Hypergamy can be managed, but never controlled. In the past, it was managed by having bad things happen to women who let it run amuck. Back before no fault divorce, welfare, the Pill, etc.
I think because the MC is getting screwed in so many ways they are more fearful of losing what little they still retain.
No, tradcons aren’t horrible people. It’s just that they’re misguided, and quite hypocritical on sexuality. Tradcons have essentially adopted the sexual mores of feminists and the rest of the world, but won’t own up to it. That was my primary point.
Dalrock quite concisely summed up my viewpoint on this over the weekend. I’m copying an edited version for context here, but interested readers can review his entire comment here:
http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/11/13/a-criminal-lack-of-game/#comment-150362
Whether you are a tradcon or a Christian, or not; whether you are aligned with tradcons or Christians, or not; it’s become pretty clear that the more “conservative” factions of society have traveled to the middle and even to the left on matters of sexual conduct and morality.
Moreover, I respectfully disagree with those who claim that advocating Game and masculinity is synonymous with advocating pickup artistry. No; I’m trying to illustrate how strange and odd it is that tradcons would align themselves with feminists on sexual morality. Because tradcons have indeed lined up with feminists on sexual morality. I would prefer it if tradcons and conservatives (and, yes, most Christians) would simply concede the point and be done with it.
Dalrock:
“We have collectively abandoned marriage in this culture. At best, it is a voluntary alternative for our fundamental family structure (child support), to be converted at any time by either party for any or no reason. The average conservative Christian’s favorite movie on marriage is [“Fireproof”,] a divorce fantasy. When most women do decide they want marriage, they start looking for a husband after having looked for boyfriends and/or hookups for 5-10 years. A woman skipping these steps (boyfriends and hookups) is so uncommon, even in Christian circles, that it is considered not only strange but cause for alarm. This is especially true if she looks for a husband before first graduating college and establishing a career. I don’t have the links handy but others have regularly shared proof of this on CAF and Christianforums.com.
“As I have shown, feminists told us they wanted to pass laws to make men afraid of women so women would feel safe traveling to foreign cities and sleeping in strange men’s beds. Even worse, many conservatives heard this and responded: “That’s a great idea! This way we can return to sanity without making sluts unhappy.” Never mind that “sanity” in their view isn’t a marriage culture, but a series of extended hookups (serial monogamy) where the woman decides when she wants to convert over to marriage (and then if she likes, back).
“So piss off when you claim I’m advocating pickup artist culture. I’m showing how crazy our culture really is. But the part where we abandoned marriage is something we are so comfortable with as Christians that it doesn’t even enter into the equation. It is the new normal. All most can see is weak men screwing feminism up.”
Deti,
Okay, if it’s only that tradcons have the wrong idea, what’s the problem?
If they’re promoting the wrong idea to others, we have a problem.
It’s the second that’s worth six dozen comments.
#71: “How do their credentials figure into the MC getting cushy jobs, if, in fact, they even do?”
Rent-seeking and credentialing, mostly. Requiring a Master’s degree for entry-level work is a common form of policing the herd.
#74: “Okay. Tradcons are horrible people. Now what?”
In the short term, point out what they’re doing wrong, both to them and to general society. Internet’s a good mouthpiece.
In the medium term, create alternatives. Either Enjoy the Decline, MRA, politics, expatriating, Prepping, whatever works for you. Don’t wait for the system to correct; instead, take control of your fate.
In the long term, live well. It’s the best revenge and life is too short to be a professional victim. Nothing hacks off a tyrant like realizing his subjects are happier than he is.
#79: “Okay, if it’s only that tradcons have the wrong idea, what’s the problem?”
In a word, utopia. Both feminists and tradcons are trying to create their own idea of a perfect world. It never works but True Believers are hard to discourage.
LOL living well is the best revenge has been a motto of mine since the divorce . Great post Gunner
I commenced attending a new church recently, and it is a conventional tradcon redoubt. Per usual, I attend for the sermons, but must tolerate the insipid praise songs (Jesus as an adolescent girl’s boyfriend) and the grandstanding mommies who let their children run around making noise.
I’ve become friendly with one of the elders, who tried to hug me on introduction (these guys are all huggers), who travels to Promise Keeper rallies, who in our third conversation told me all about his second marriage and how his wife was a major challenge he could not satisfy until God revealed a strategy. I sold him a motorcyle last week, but only after he ‘prayed on it’ with his wife. The check is from their joint account.
In short, virtually every attribute he’s revealed in regard to interacting with men and his wife, is an opposing argument, as far as I’m concerned, for living with a woman. I’d say he fits Deti’s social model of the supplicating ‘servant-leader’/drafthorse quite well; equally true is that he has achieved high status within the church by being so. His is the preferred male social model. Meanwhile, he must be brow-beaten or emotionally dominated by his wife, beyond belief, or else he wouldn’t tell me already how he had to pull off the road to cry real tears of frustration over her, and how his lifesaving moment was when he discovered, through prayer, how to serve her. He must be insecure within that marital relationship, or else he wouldn’t be hugging me instead of saying, “Hi.” I find the whole business pretty creepy, but at least I’ve gotten over my shyness and just tell these dudes, when they go for the soulful man-clinch, “Hey, no hugging.”
Meanwhile, he must be brow-beaten or emotionally dominated by his wife, beyond belief, or else he wouldn’t tell me already how he had to pull off the road to cry real tears of frustration over her,
BV,
What’s scary and bizarre is that to 99.999% of those looking from the outside in I’m sure this man would be held up as the paragon of “mating success”. Many would point at him in the park coupled up, and say “see, Game and Red Pill thinking is unnecessary, look at that example of mating success”. Meanwhile, later that night he goes for the drive alone and bathes in his tears.
He must be insecure within that marital relationship, or else he wouldn’t be hugging me instead of saying,
I find this bizarre, but I think it is an example of the feminine imperative and how the feminine modes of expression are being inculcated into men. What happened to a firm handshake and looking that man in the eye instead of some sappy embrace. Now I have (close) friends where we do the “bro” hug, but I can’t imagine hugging a man I’ve just met or barely know.
I don’t see any alliance between Tradcons and Feminists, myself. I completely disagree. That doesn’t mean “tradcons” are always correct, or that they never behave in a hypocritical manner.
Liz,
I don’t think it is any sort of “official” alliance, but a purely “accidental” one in that there is some overlap in their goals and outcomes. The key similarity is that of male as servant to feminine/female interests and a demonization of certain aspects of masculinity.
Another Garfunkle & Oates special, just for you. They’ve truly outdone themselves with this one.
http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/2014/11/the-joys-of-dating-christian-girls.html
(NSFW: Language Warning)
This one called “God’s Loophole” talks about an apparently newfangled trend in Christian circles (heh) in which Christian girls and women consent to premarital anal sex because it preserves their “technical virginity”.
Highlight:
“Whatever you do, don’t touch my clitoris
If you ring Satan’s doorbell you know God can’t ignore this”
“What’s scary and bizarre is that to 99.999% of those looking from the outside in I’m sure this man would be held up as the paragon of “mating success”. Many would point at him in the park coupled up, and say “see, Game and Red Pill thinking is unnecessary, look at that example of mating success”.”
Yes. There are some who point to the khaki-clad stroller pushers at the park and say “I see LOTS and LOTS of women married off! I see nice beta men married to nice pretty girls driving their nice cars to work from their nice 3 BR 2 BA houses and working at nice jobs earning nice paychecks and on the nice weekends they push their 2.4 nice kids in their nice strollers to the nice park and watch them play on the nice playground equipment and eat nice picnics on the nice afternoons. What’s the problem?”
Reality: He’s a pushover, she’s a battleaxe who runs the house. They have sex every three months or so, when she feels like it. She’s thinking of having an affair with her boss. He has a vague notion that something’s wrong but he can’t put his finger on it. All he knows is she changed drastically after they got married when she was 29 and he was 31.
Same kind of thing with churchians. “Why, there’s LOTS of nice girls out there! They go to church, they go to Sunday School. They are nice to you and everyone else. Sally helps out with Vacation Bible School. Jane teaches the toddlers and works the nursery. And I see lots of young married couples out there. They come to church every Sunday. They help out around the Church. Bill, Mary’s husband? He comes and mows the church lawn. And Jean’s husband Bob? He is such a nice guy. And they have such nice kids. Everywhere I see such niiiiiice couples getting together and having nice kids and living nice lives.”
Reality: Jean runs the household; Bob is incessantly nagged and sexually frustrated. But Bob goes to Men’s Ministry, where he has an “accountability partner” who helps him with his “lust” and his sexual desires. He’s a porn addict and a fledgling alcoholic; all his wife knows is that he stays up late at night on the weekends. His drinking is picking up because he knows his wife hates him; and he’s just bringing himself to the realization that he hates her. Jean had an affair early in the marriage with an old high school flame; she ended it and Bob’s not the wiser. Jean just started another affair with the principal at the school where she teaches.
Their 14 year old daughter has started cutting. Her boyfriend is pushing her for sex; she’ll give in and give it up next year. Their 16 year old son is sullen and angry; when he’s not singing in the church choir, he locks himself in his room and keeps away from everyone. Unbeknownst to his parents, he’s experimenting with weed and gets high every couple of weeks or so. He can’t wait to get away from all the dysfunction, ignoring how dysfunctional he himself is.
We don’t ignore the ugliness residing under the veneers of respectability and piety. We look at what actually is, not just what others choose to see or show you. We reveal it for what it really is, and then you can choose what you want.
@ 86 naw Deti she is thinking about having an affair with me….. I get more IOI’s from those kind of chicks then any other demographic. Bad Boy biker game w/ UMC money. Often when their nice husband is near bye
@ ton
Heh, I get lots of looks from biker babes on the back of Harleys when their old man doesn’t see, lol. UMC frat boy in the beatup pickup for the win.
Women are going for anyone with balls.
good luck with that gamer
in which Christian girls and women consent to premarital anal sex because it preserves their “technical virginity”.
Any woman can put on an apron and say she is a house wife, but if she isn’t married and taking care of the home, I find it hard to believe she’s a house wife.
Are you backing off your claim that tradcons are mostly UMC?
I made no such claim. I said the pundits, public figures and other loudmouths who publicly propagate tradcon-ism are mostly from UMC families that have the kind of socially isolated lifestyle that breeds the sort of ignorance and prejudice that one can see in tradcon-ism.
So, since the MC is getting screwed, are they really fearful of non-existent threats (i.e., paranoid)?
It’s not a non-existent threat. I’d say there’s a silent and creeping realization that the MC will keep getting decimated as the current ruling oligarchy entrenches itself. A small minority of it will become part of the oligarchy, the rest will get gutted economically and their children will basically descend into the faceless and growing mass of proles. I’d say this fuels an overall sense of frustration, fear and helplessness, but only a few people understand the real causes and culprits. Tradcons don’t fall into this category. They prefer to keep ranting about scapegoats. They think the main cause of social problems is that average men are getting trapped in sin, frivolity and degradation for some inexplicable reason, and this is also the reason why their fantastic, empowered daughters have a hard time finding eligible husbands. That’s paranoia and plain nonsense.
I’ve noticed that these pundits tend to go to great lengths to pedestalize women while mocking average men. It’s clear that most of them never had sisters and probably never even lived with an average woman for any period of time. They don’t interact with average men either. They simply know nothing about them. That’s why they believe in nonsense when it comes to gender relations. They live in a bubble.
How do their credentials figure into the MC getting cushy jobs, if, in fact, they even do? Seems like you are conflating the MC and UMC.
The children of UMC parents have good connections and can get good credentials, so they tend to end up in cushy jobs. The nonsensical opinions on the SMP and MMP you see in the media are made by such people.
Last night’s 2 a.m. reading, apropos this topic:
Wildmen, Warriors and Kings; Masculine Spirituality and the Bible. Patrick M. Arnold, S.J. (He’s a Jesuit.) 1991.
He articulated 23 years ago many of the current issues discussed in the ‘sphere. It’s so early in the discussion he has to explain what misandry is, as the term, evidently, was just being invented.
Again reinforcing Deti, as he discusses the Man in Dockers, stumbling through life with his accountability partner, his leased Buick, and the Perpetual Honey Do List.
“Concern for the souls of men is hardly a parochial matter limited to professional ministers. … They can see all too well the devastation in their own souls and those of the men around them: workaholism, father-wounds [alienation and separation from the critical father relationship], alienation from the family, legal discrimination, oppressive social expectations and taboos, lack of genuine male friendships, and above all, The Numbness — the inability to feel joy or sadness or *anything.*”
Out of print but easy to buy. If you’re into Jungian theories of personality as well as Christian examples, recommended.
http://www.amazon.com/Wildmen-Warriors-Kings-Masculine-Spirituality/dp/0824511050/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1416343350&sr=1-1&keywords=wildmen+warriors+and+kings
In both conservative Christian and secular marriage, what I see these days is the fetishization of feminine “feelings.”
At church, that’s what these horrible Christian tunes are all about: soft-rock paens to Boyfriend Jesus. They produce in their celebrants that warm and moist glow of affection for the Girl with a Beard. I do my best to stare out the window, but the ordinal ranking of devotions, inverted here with inchoate feeling being poured all over moral and spiritual striving, strikes me as idolatrous.
And it’s no different if one is seeing a Gaia-worshipping goddess, on her life’s journey of personal exploration. We are meant to worship her feelings themselves, and the feelings are displayed and reference in regard to any — *any* — capricious act or statement. They are their own justification. There is no moral or spiritual abstraction being served by a couple in pursuit of relationship health. Only feelings.
So in my example above, my elder friend, who is being run ragged in his efforts to achieve domestic stability (while being elevated within the congregation for being this servant-leader) has *no idea* that it’s his wife’s capriciousness that is the law in his home. There’s just a stream of “feeling” in which she’s swimming, and his mission is to run along the banks, hoping no one turns the water off.
“Why Tradcons Are in Bed With Feminists on Sex, Divorce and Abortion
So, why are tradcons standing shoulder to shoulder with feminists on Game, masculinity and men’s rights? Why are people at the extreme left and the extreme right such odd bedfellows?”
Are you suggesting here that masculine men, men who use game to pick up women, and mens’ rights activists are all anti-sex, anti-divorce and anti-abortion? Sex and abortion are friends to the pick up artist so at the very least that link is an error.
@ BV
It’s worse than you state. The feminization of the church extends beyond church music and homiletics to apologetics. Of course, church doctrine about the family is thoroughly feminized.
Yeah, I wonder what percent of marriages are really happy for men? I would guess that many marriages where the woman says she’s happy the man wouldn’t. Of course, some churchian men would be such manginas that they’d say that they were happy no matter what.
I’m contemplating an approach to take with respect to discussing the Red Pill with church people I know. Maybe start with some observations of the behavior of church women, then go into the increasingly sexless marriage phenomenon with the men alone. Then evangelical divorce statistics. We need to save the hardest part of the Red Pill to swallow til last.
@ Church Dude:
“Are you suggesting here that masculine men, men who use game to pick up women, and mens’ rights activists are all anti-sex, anti-divorce and anti-abortion?”
No. If you’ll review the post, you’ll see that I’m arguing that tradcons in practice are across the board pro-premarital sex for women. Tradcons are in practice pro-divorce and pro-abortion as safety valves, as last resort remedies to really really hard situations.
I’m being more critical of tradcons here for their hypocrisy on these situations. As I say in a comment above, I’d prefer it if tradcons would simply acknowledge their occasional alignment with feminists on this issue and be done with it.
A. Gamer, I’m a big consumer of apologetics and would appreciate very much a reference or link.
Mostly I just quote Proverbs 31 (‘never give your strength to a woman’, not an easy one for me to remember, given my life in harness) and watch everyone’s jaw drop to the floor. The thing about quoting scripture, at least with my current crowd, is it’s like dunking over a 12 year-old girl. I’d like to read what you’re reading.
B. The tradcons I know, Deti, are essentially vanquished, neutered, quiescent. They tried living like their dads (as did/do most of us) and it blew up spectacularly. They got the hots for some chick and married her for #2. It threatened to blow up spectacularly. So they make a virtue of being supplicants and servants, and hug guys once a year a Promise Keepers.
Church Dude is either a troll or stupid.
My guess is he’s a *she* and a troll, since we don’t spend any time on what she refers to as the concept of “sex and abortion are friends to the pick up artist”. And her attempt to map behavior to right and left political conventions, thankfully, ignores higher order concerns.
I haven’t encountered a single man here who praises abortion, mostly because we lose our children after they are born and the state sequesters them.
@ BV
The feminine-oriented apologetic schemes to which I refer are mostly the appeals to believe based on emotion and Kierkegaard’s stuff. I would include van Til’s presuppositional approach as feminine-oriented with its massive hamsterization.
Contrast these with the traditional apologetic approach based on testimony. Testimony was something only done by someone with testes in the old scheme of things. Evidence-based (masculine) v. faith- or emotion-based (feminine) approaches to apologetics.
I think that for many tradcons, the personal reason they are “soft” on de facto feminism and aligned with feminism’s criticisms of men/Game/MRA/MGTOW, etc. comes down to them having daughters, sisters and nieces, whose interests they generally prefer to “men in the abstract”.
I’m pretty sure roughly half of their children and relatives are male. So, what gives?
Some other similarities between feminists and tradcons I’m noticing also:
1. Both groups refuse to help men or instruct them in terms of social interactions, instead telling them to “just get it” and “just figure it out for yourself”.
2. Both groups tell men that all they need to do is read a book like “How to Win Friends and Influence People”, and they’re good to go. They don’t need to do anything else. They just need to read a book.
3. Both groups deeply fear the majority of men learning truths about female nature. They fear this because they fear being unable to control these men. They also fear this because thus far, attempts to eliminate the majority of men have proven unsuccessful.
4. Tradcon clergy and feminists align because their ministries collapse economically without the sustaining female congregants. I was somewhat stunned, when I was in a reading group with three working pastors last summer, and challenged their acceptance of the recent rewriting of the Bible (e.g., changing “Sons” to “Children” in the OT). (Obvious to most people, at the time new to me.)
O/T, but in respect of our prior speculations on Affirmative Consent and how men will adapt to it:
The University of Maine has adopted affirmative consent. Given that there is no mechanism for proving consent, other than filming sexual encounters, the UMaine policy *forbids* the filming of encounters. (I don’t know if Maine otherwise permits recording (aural or video) without both parties’ consent; if it does, this is an interesting wrinkle in which a university is imposing restrictions on a statutory right, in order to make it easier to manage a sexual abuse tribunal.)
It didn’t take them long to figure that one out.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/university-of-maine-latest-college-to-adopt-yes-means-yes-consent-policy/article/2556377
BV:
I can’t find U of Maine’s policy. I’d like to actually read it.
The primary reason for prohibiting filming is feminine centric and feminist, of course. It proceeds from the typical presumption that women just don’t lie about sexual assault, and that only a low down, dirty man would film an encounter. To this way of thinking, filming sexual encounters isn’t specifically for self-defense. That’s just a pretext for more sinister intentions, so the argument goes.
Translation: “If we can’t get you on lack of affirmative consent, we’ll get you for violating the policy on filming the encounter and discipline you for that. If you try to defend yourself, we’ll discipline you for that.
“If you prove a woman lied, we’ll penalize you for that. If you prove a woman filed a false complaint, we’ll penalize you for that. If you prove a woman abused the system by seeking revenge on a man for jilting or rejecting her, we’ll penalize you for that.”
Finally, I think men will still violate the “no filming” policy. Video evidence which conclusively establishes no assault took place and that the encounter was consensual is a virtually ironclad defense against a criminal sexual assault charge and a civil lawsuit. A man can simply either take the discipline on the “no filming” violation, or withdraw before he’s disciplined.
Deti, here is the Maine policy:
http://www.maine.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Tab-19.1-REVISED-Sex-Assault-Policy-Procedures-WITH-EDITS-110914-1.pdf
Here is the policy for processing complaints:
http://umaine.edu/eo/files/2012/12/complaint-procedure-internal.pdf
As Dershowitz said the other day, “sexual assault” is too important a subject to allow the presentation and proof of innocence.
BV:
I read it.
So “nonconsensual image capturing of sexual activity” is prohibited.
obviously, a man can ask a woman if she’ll agree to be videotaped. When she recoils, he has to tell her —
“It’s for our protection. The new “yes means yes” policy requires that if I am ever asked about our relationship, I must be able to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that you knowingly, voluntarily and enthusiastically consented to every sexual thing you did with me, from light touching to full on P in V sex. I cannot proceed unless you will consent to videotaping.”
Also of interest in the policy: “It is not consent when the exchange involves unwanted physical force, coercion, intimidation, and/or threats.”
Man: If you don’t want to have sex with me, I’ll break up with you and find a woman who does want to have sex with me.
Woman: You have just now used coercion and threats against me. You are in violation of the University policy against sexual assault. You are now subject to discipline. I will now proceed to file a complaint against you.
________________________
Man: I really really want you right now. Come on baby. I don’t want to wait.
Woman: You have just now used coercion against me in an attempt to get me to have sex. You are in violation of the University policy against sexual assault and are now subject to discipline. I will now file a complaint against you.
You state this as if you are surprised. It was always clearly the intent of YMY to convict men at the request of any woman. This is just the policy meeting it’s intent.
Re: deindustrialization
We actually have hyper industrialization. Robots.
deti, Some other similarities between feminists and tradcons I’m noticing also:
1. Both groups refuse to help men or instruct them in terms of social interactions, instead telling them to “just get it” and “just figure it out for yourself”.
Let me get this straight: not only to TradCons and Fems have some sort of “obligation” to “help and instruct men”, these groups both “refuse” do it. The rascals. Hell, why not include the thousands of other social groups who I assume also refuse to perform this educational service?
Is this the Onion?
Both groups tell men that all they need to do is read a book like “How to Win Friends and Influence People”, and they’re good to go. They don’t need to do anything else. They just need to read a book.
Wow, feminists taking the time to suggest men read self-help books? Sheese, it’s my experience they just hate men and wish them to suffer. Why recommend self-help books? Pique?
I personally like that book, and would recommend it to anyone interested in human relations. I wish somebody had recommended that book to me when I was of dating age…I guess I am a TradCom (or maybe a feminist!).
Both groups deeply fear the majority of men learning truths about female nature. They fear this because they fear being unable to control these men.
So TradCons “deeply fear” men learning about female behavior? Just so they can continue to control these men? I really would like to meet these people. First, they have to discover the truth about female nature themselves. Second, they must work night and day to keep this “truth” from ever reaching their victims. I’ll bet they never get a decent night’s sleep, working overtime to enslave their own sons and male friends into this nefarious bondage. I’m curious: what to they get out of it? Power? Money? Women? I hope it’s worth it!
This is the Onion, after all.
@ mdavid:
“not only to TradCons and Fems have some sort of “obligation” to “help and instruct men”, these groups both “refuse” do it. *** Hell, why not include the thousands of other social groups who I assume also refuse to perform this educational service?”
Both groups regularly hold forth and speak out loud and proud about what they expect from men, what they demand from men, what they want from men with regard to interpersonal relationships and how they “should” treat women. Both groups purport to know what “real men” are and do. They influence the culture, government, media, religion, and pretty much everything else.
“Wow, feminists taking the time to suggest men read self-help books? Sheese, it’s my experience they just hate men and wish them to suffer.”
The point is that both fems and tradcons just throw this book at them and tell them to read it. Nothing else. No pointers, no instruction, no practical application. AFAIC, if tradcons and feminists aren’t going to help men, they could at least remain mute while men figure it out themselves through reading here and elsewhere throughout the ‘sphere.
“they must work night and day to keep this “truth” from ever reaching their victims. I’ll bet they never get a decent night’s sleep, working overtime to enslave their own sons and male friends into this nefarious bondage.”
I know you were being sarcastic and derisive, but, yeah, pretty much. Fems have a vested interest in keeping men from understanding what truly attracts and arouses women precisely to gather and consolidate power. Tradcons do too, but for different reasons — their interest is in turning men into packmules and drafthorses for the benefit of women, then imploring them to “man up and marry the sluts”.
Both groups regularly hold forth and speak out loud and proud about what they expect from men, what they demand from men, what they want from men with regard to interpersonal relationships and how they “should” treat women. Both groups purport to know what “real men” are and do.
Fems have a vested interest in keeping men from understanding what truly attracts and arouses women precisely to gather and consolidate power. Tradcons do too, but for different reasons
On the other hand, this is simply a different way of saying that the controllers of the reigning social narrative are usually invested in manipulating men as a group. This has been the norm throughout history, so it’s hardly surprising. There was a time when the narrative was mainly controlled by socons or tradcons or whatever we want to call them, now it’s mainly controlled by leftists who support feminism.
@107 and @109: Well that policy does confirm some of the draconian measures YMY advocates are trying to tell us we shouldn’t worry about! They’ll never happen to YOU! Unless you’re a cis-het-sausage-slinger.
The one policy I was fearful of being added is now here: complaints can be filed not just by a non-consenting participant, but by third parties as well! Anonymously! So some SJW could see a couple snogging, decide it wasn’t enthusiastic enough, and file a complaint. Even the participants might not know until some Dean comes a-knockin’. And the case can go forward even if the participants don’t want it to, if the Dean finds it’s creating an “unsafe” atmosphere at the UMaine.
And as deti feared the policy applies to non-students interacting with students too. Good luck making that stick.
Though at least in formal proceedings they allow the accused to have a lawyer. Most schools don’t.
The role of the separate investigator is unclear, probably deliberately. Part of the problem is the policy is meant to cover both students and employees. The employees may have civil service or other rights. So the whole thing is a hodgepodge. What I don’t see is anything regarding competent evidence being presented, or the use of a full-blown hearing officer or arbitrator whose duty is to follow the law.
Yes I spotted right away that the accused cannot question the accuser directly. Guess that will have to wait for the deposition in the post-expulsion court case.
I know you were being sarcastic and derisive, but, yeah, pretty much. Fems have a vested interest in keeping men from understanding what truly attracts and arouses women precisely to gather and consolidate power.
Feminists are a political juggernaut, so they are organized to benefit women at the expense of men. But you didn’t answer the question: why would feminists help men? You accuse them of “only” offering a book. Why should they even do that?
Tradcons do too, but for different reasons — their interest is in turning men into packmules and drafthorses for the benefit of women, then imploring them to “man up and marry the sluts”.
I’m not sure who these TradCons are, but I can assure you they hold zero political power merely by the name. Look at any traditional or conservative power, and it has been on the wane for at least several centuries. You again dodged the question: What do TradCons gain? Let’s grant your BS argument, that these TradCons are trying to destroy their own male relatives to help women. WHAT IS THEIR GAIN? Why? Why work so hard to get…what? I want to meet these TradCons of yours turning men into slaves. I know lots of socially Traditional people, and lots of politically Conservative people. And while most are generally beta, most are good folk who have zero against men, raise their sons well, and wish them the best. You’ve made sweeping claims about these people, so they must have a serious motive, and I’m waiting to hear it.
Btw, I’m only sarcastic and derisive when logical arguments have no import. This post actually looks like a feminist cheerleading article, devoid of logic and just trying to score political points against people they don’t like.
@ mdavid
And while most are generally beta, most are good folk who have zero against men, raise their sons well, and wish them the best.
“most are generally beta” Of men you speak. beta = Blue Pill? Is that what you mean?
“good folk” Merely worthless propaganda.
“zero against men” Sure, if pedestalizing women doesn’t harm men, then they have zero against men. Since pedestalizing women saps men of masculinity, rapes them financially in divorce court, lowers the status of men and makes many into incels, your claim fails.
“raise their sons well” Lol. Raise their sons to be incels and packhorses and frivorce court rape-victims. Raise their sons to be delusional about women.
Casey has hit the ball out of the park. The crowd goes wild!
Did you really intend to serve up such an easy pitch?
@ mdavid:
I’ll go ahead and give you my answers, despite the fact that you won’t be persuaded no matter what I say. I won’t labor under any illusions that any answer I give will ever be sufficient for you.
“why would feminists help men? You accuse them of “only” offering a book. Why should they even do that?”
Feminists want to make it appear as though they’re helping men, while not actually helping men. This is why we see the claims of “feminism helps men too” by making things “equal”, by pointing out that a man won’t have to support a woman financially if she has her own means of support, etc. They want to make it appear they’re helping, while unintentionally hobbling men who actually take their advice about dating and relationships. It is really all for the purpose of consolidating social, political and economic power. Feminism is about power, first, last and always.
“TradCons are trying to destroy their own male relatives to help women. WHAT IS THEIR GAIN? Why?”
Tradcons don’t work intentionally to destroy men. Like feminists, they think they’re helping, or claim to. They oppose feminism politically and socially, but their opposition is really only surface There are two things at work here. The first is what I pointed out in the OP, which is that tradcons decided to ally with feminists over extramarital sex, divorce and abortion because tradcons want to enjoy sex without the burdens of marriage; and because they want to have the options of divorce and abortion available to them without (and in spite of) religious proscriptions.
The second point is that tradcons speak out and talk about what they want, demand and expect of men because they want to make it appear as if they’re opposing feminism. The clarion calls to men to “man up and marry the sluts” make them believe they’re doing something about feminism and the problems it has caused – premarital sex, destruction of marriage and the family, etc. They put a moral sheen on their own hidden agreement with feminist principles to make them appear antifeminist. It makes them believe they’re opposing feminism by incessantly shouting at men to “do something” and “man up” and get married and support a family. The now disgraced Mars Hill pastor Mark Driscoll was a perfect example of this. He was constantly, literally, SHOUTING at men to “man up”, while not really doing anything about the problem (like, for example, actually teaching men about female nature, outcome independence, walking away from bad relationships, etc.).
I’ve answered your questions in good faith. If you don’t want to accept those answers, that’s fine. That said, the “why” and “what’s their motive” red herrings you’ve brought up miss the entire point, which is this: Feminists and tradcons are in bed with each other on the issues of premarital sex, divorce and abortion. Tradcons made the decision to sell out their spiritual beliefs because tradcons want to enjoy premarital sex; and they want the options of divorce and abortion for “really hard cases”.
deti, I’ll go ahead and give you my answers, despite the fact that you won’t be persuaded no matter what I say.
This looks like an indirect way of claiming I am not discussing in good faith. I won’t honor that with a reply except to say that logic and facts always convince me. You’ve offered neither.
I’ve been clear, cogent, and fair in my questions and replies. I’ve read everything you’ve written and remain shaking my head. If you can’t see how biased and crazy your article (and replies) sound to any fair, fact-based person, further discussion is pointless.
Mdavid:
You claim I’ve offered no facts or logic to support my positions. You must not have read the OP. Perhaps you believe that a 38% divorce rate among professing Christians and a 25% divorce rate among American Roman Catholics are not facts. Perhaps you don’t see the devaluing of marriage – and the embrace of divorce — among American Christians as a logical conclusion from those facts.
As a married Christian man I’m frankly alarmed that we’re talking about divorce rates at those numbers among Christians. There shouldn’t even BE double digit divorce rates like this among Christians. The fact that there are such divorce rates suggests to me that something’s very wrong – that many such Christians don’t really take their faith seriously. The rampant and clearly evident extramarital sexual conduct among Christians says the same thing to me.
I’m simply going where the facts lead me, trying to connect dots. But if you don’t see that, if you’re not connecting those dots, then I agree there’s not much basis for discussion.
Moreover, you seem to object to the notion that tradcons have a “duty” to “instruct” men about love and sex, and other “red pill” things. If you don’t think they should have that duty, then perhaps you might encourage your fellow tradcons not to voluntarily take on said duties. Or, if they insist on assuming those duties, then they should do so correctly and not mislead men and women looking to them for guidance.
Tradcons and other church/religious organizations talk all the time about marriages, how to have better marriages, how to “relate to your wife” better, how Christian singles should date, etc. There are all these “ministries” purportedly devoted to teaching men about women, about what they want from husbands; about how to be good spouses; etc. Most of it is horribly wrong, and ignores human nature. These people are elevating women to the status of sinless goddesses who are to rule over their families. They degrade men to drafthorses and packmules, exhorting men to exhaust themselves with chores trying to please their wives in return for a little dollop of sexual affection here and there. These people are telling men they must work work work to “earn” what is ALREADY THEIRS by virtue of marriage. I see this as a problem. If you do not, then I agree, there isn’t much basis for discussion.
Further, I’ve long since come around to the notion that tradcons, churches and Christian organizations should simply get out of the business of “ministering” to individuals and couples regarding marriage, relationships, dating, male-female relationships, etc. They don’t do it correctly because so many of them are so thoroughly feminized. They give horrible advice. And it’s not the church’s job to teach people how to date, how to find mates, or about male or female natures anyway.
This looks like an indirect way of claiming I am not discussing in good faith.
Actually, I took it to mean that deti thinks that you have made up your mind already. I agree with him.
I won’t honor that with a reply
Maybe because you lack honor.
logic and facts always convince me.
The evidence shows otherwise.
I’ve been clear, cogent, and fair in my questions and replies.
More like totally biased with your head up your tradesmen’s entrance.
I’ve read everything you’ve written and remain shaking my head
Is that a nervous tic?
If you can’t see how biased and crazy your article (and replies) sound to any fair, fact-based person, further discussion is pointless.
I’m fair, fact-based, and I don’t see deti’s article as biased and crazy. The fact that you do speaks reams of bad things about you.
@ mdavid
WHAT IS THEIR GAIN
Money in the offering plate.
What do TradCons gain?
Survival – by figuratively signing a ceasefire with a force that would otherwise be an overwhelming and mortal enemy, modern feminism. Feminists, of course, realize that tradcons have already decided not to threaten them. The last dividing issue between them is the legality of abortion, but it’s becoming increasingly obvious that legal abortion is here to stay. Tradcons and feminists are aligned on all other issues of social policy. They’re co-belligerents. Tradcons don’t pick fights they cannot win, so they survive. Peaceful co-existence between two lousy, harmful, misandrist groups.
@ Farty
Just go away, obnoxious troll.
very good
Another characteristic both groups tend to have in common is a disapproval of pornography and prostitution (though feminists are not entirely uniform on this issue.)
However, what trads, feminists and manospherists overlook is the important function sluts and “sex workers” perform in society. A bucket protects your carpet by capturing water when the roof leaks, and sluts keep the cads away from your wife and daughter.
Just imagine how many rapes could be prevented if prostitution were legalized.
Ok, I am late to this thread, but let me offer my observation as a long-time member within conservative Protestant churches. In particular Southern Baptist and Missouri Synod Lutheran.
The trad-con mentality as expected, rules large. A lot of them just do not get it. Most married within their church, usually in their early or mid 20s, usually to their high-school or college ‘sweetheart’, and have checked out of the SMP a long time ago. They preach a modified version of the nice guy value, saying you gotta treat a lady like a ‘sister in Christ’ with pure intentions. Books promoted included I kissed dating goodbye, Passion in Purity etc. Divorce isn’t as common as secular society but yes, they usually side with the woman. They’re not exactly that bad – they stress the importance of developing good provider traits – which are important in a LTR or marriage – but the lover traits they ignore or preach it as borderline unsafe or even sinful.
Biggest problem in tradcon churches is the prevailing asexual atmosphere. Dating is usually a hush-hush issue while marriage and childbirth are lauded. It’s so hard to discuss topics like dating etc. with the church folks.
That having being said there are a few conservative churches who do try. In a LCMS congregation my pastor used to pastor in, they had a nasty church split because the church leadership tried to excommunicate a prominent female member for wanting a frivorce. She packed up and left (“resigned”) for a more liberal congregation in the synod together with about 1/3 of the members. That’s a main reason why conservative churches are scared to enforce Biblical morality even if they want to try.