Jun 162011
 

Dalrock said the following:

When my mother was in high school, a 15 year old girl having sex with a guy on the football team would have been considered a slut. Now you (and other traditional conservative women) see her as a victim if the football player doesn’t follow up with an offer for a relationship after the casual sex.

I have been trying to articulate why socons and tradcons (or the church) being against divorce or premarital sex or a thousand other things really is only used against men but haven’t been able to until now.  The reason is because socons and tradcons view women as victims in everything.  When a divorce happens rather than viewing women as perpetrators (especially since women file most divorces), they view women as victims of divorce.  When it comes to premarital sex and promiscuity, socons and tradcons view women as victims and not as willing participants.  This is why you get tradcon women defending sluts.

What this means is that when someone is a victim, then the standard rules of sin do not apply.  For example, socons and tradcons don’t consider rape victims guilty of the sin of premarital sex.  The problem is that  socons and tradcons think women are victims all the time.  Thus their normal sanctions against divorce, premarital sex, and a myriad of other things effectively no longer apply to women.  When socons and tradcons say their against divorce, or against premarital sex in both men and women, effectively this means they’re only against it in men because women are nothing but innocent victims to them.  Plus, who are women the victims of to them?  Men.  Thus to socons and tradcons men aren’t just guilty of the sin but of “tricking” women into sinning as well.  Even this gets taken to absurd extremes, since socons and tradcons believe that women can be “victims” of a “lack of male leadership” (which can be used to justify anything women do).

This is an example of how socons and tradcons are no different than feminists.  Feminists view women as victims of men in a myriad of ways, and as we can see here so do socons and tradcons.

  19 Responses to “Socons And Tradcons View Women As Victims Just Like Feminists”

  1. Nice point of view.

    I started to think in what you said, and that is true.

    Tradcons always see things in a way that the man have to do something, or is guilty of something. But the woman remains untouched in their way of think.

  2. Females seeing females as perpetual victims of men isn’t feminism per se.
    It’s womanism. It just so happens that this aspect of womanism is common to both feminists and CFS’s.
    Why? ‘Cause they’re females.

    Feminism = womanism + marxism

    CFS = womanism + christianity

  3. “Women as victim” used to show up in all kinds of literature that I read. I don’t think it would be a stretch to stretch that observation over most literature ever written, thus making most of it pointless when analyzing the “gender roles” or “women’s place in society”.
    Tradcons probably see male sexuality as the robber, and female “sexuality” as the world’s biggest diamond. Even the hint of robbery is to be dealt with quickly and woe betide any male who doesn’t play into the narrative.

  4. I am really grateful that you are covering the Conservative aspect of feminism. It really helps put it into perspective. As a recent red piller, one of my first reactions was to be furious with my tight association with the liberal party- I just didn’t get the feminism thing. So naturally, I did a full force 180 and thought I was putting the pieces together, that the whole abortion thing has a lot to do with the conservatives battling the feminazis, and then capitalism vs communism, etc. etc. So recently I’ve been enthusiastically trying to support the tea party and conservatives. But when you posted about the tea party and the peculiarity of it being heavily led and made up of females, it definitely got me thinking. And now with your recent two posts on conservatives, it does seem to be shutting the door on that option. For example, as big of a mangyna as Obama is, I can’t help but sense a potentially fatally blind white night in Mitt Romney. So I guess we’re fucked on both ends.

    So this brings up a stark and frankly difficult reality to accept. We have nothing. What do we have? What options do we have. Men, as a group and in terms of championing their own interests in order to combat their annihilation by the feminists, don’t seem to have a fucking crumb of power or any channels of power to align with or appeal to. It seems Men, as a group, are in the gutter and utterly alone. It brings us back to the fucking myth that because men are ‘in power’ such as elected office and corporate heads, that they enforce rules which favor men- while nothing could be further from the truth. As you point out, no one is more fucking judgmental and in a rush to punish men for the slightest thing, than other men. Ahh, it’s so fucking depressing. Men have nothing, and nothing anywhere in sight. Which means there is absolutely nothing to curtail or in any way attenuate the momentum of the onslaught of female supremacy. From here, as horrific as it is, it can only spiral further out of control. How can men be so incredible when it comes to organizing and fighting battles of every kind, but when it comes to this barbaric tribe of female filth, he stands there utterly and completely impotent with his fucking thumb up his ass, beer in hand and glued to ESPN? While the Nazi’s come and take his neighbors fucking kids away and seize everything he owns and everything he ever would own- his whole life. Fuck. Men, you are really pissing me off.

    • “How can men be so incredible when it comes to organizing and fighting battles of every kind, but when it comes to this barbaric tribe of female filth, he stands there utterly and completely impotent with his fucking thumb up his ass, beer in hand and glued to ESPN? While the Nazi’s come and take his neighbors fucking kids away and seize everything he owns and everything he ever would own- his whole life. Fuck. Men, you are really pissing me off.”

      “As a recent red piller”

    • For example, as big of a mangyna as Obama is, I can’t help but sense a potentially fatally blind white night in Mitt Romney. So I guess we’re fucked on both ends.

      Pretty much. Would Mitt Romney be better than Obama? Probably since Romney understands things like having millions of men unemployed is a bad idea but that’s pretty minimal considering all of the issues we talk about. The Republican Party, the churches, the Libertarian Party, and every conservative or libertarian organization has really missed the boat on this because they’re all wedded to female pedestalization. Taking a serious stand for mens rights would give any of these groups large numbers of votes and support yet we hear nothing from them. That’s how wedded they are to female pedestalization. They can’t even do something for men that’s in the best interests of conservatism or libertarianism.

      After realizing the Republicans and the tea party are of no help, the next step for a lot of men is the Libertarian Party, but they have the same problem as the Republicans.

      So this brings up a stark and frankly difficult reality to accept. We have nothing. What do we have? What options do we have. Men, as a group and in terms of championing their own interests in order to combat their annihilation by the feminists, don’t seem to have a fucking crumb of power or any channels of power to align with or appeal to. It seems Men, as a group, are in the gutter and utterly alone.

      This is the reality of the situation. This is why a lot of men have thrown in the towel waiting for the end of civilization. I don’t think we will see an end to this civilization. My guess is that we will see a military dictatorship instead. Conservatives and libertarians may have missed the gold mine from supporting mens rights, but I’m sure there’s a power hungry general in the military coming who will not. If a general wanted a military dictatorship there’s no better way to do it than by getting the support of millions of men by promising and delivering on a real rollback to feminism. As more and more men are hurt by feminism and realize how pervasive feminism is across the political spectrum, the more support an anti-feminist military dictatorship will have.

      • Of course, whether or not such a dictatorship *remains* “pro-male” is another question. Most military dictatorships end up looking like something out of a woman’s most dysfunctional “apex alpha” fantasies: A small number of men at the top (the dictator and his cronies) monopolizing all the power and resources (and women, of course) while the vast majority of men end up stiffed as either worker drones manning the factories or expendable cannon fodder for the dictator’s army.

        It wouldn’t be surprising if an “anti-feminist” military dictatorship ended up being “anti-feminist” in the same way tradcons are–In Name Only.

        • In this scenario if the dictatorship turns anti-male it loses it popular support. That doesn’t mean that won’t happen, but that it will collapse until it does.

          I doubt that men will be sent to cannon fodder at that point. It’s been estimated that 1/3 of the U.S. military is already effectively robotic to some degree. That will only increase in the future.

        • If we’re going with science-fiction scenarios, even if the dictatorship of the future loses its popular support by shafting the majority of men while helping the “alphas” at the top, it won’t collapse, it’ll just use its robot armies to crush the rebellion.

        • The feminists and manginas far outnumber the MRA and would simply drive out any army of anti feminist dictator. Otherwise, it would have already been done. Feminism will instead end with the horsemen(VR and robogirls in particular) that was mentioned in the “misandry bubble” blog.

    • Feminism does not come from German National Socialists. The feminism as we know it today come from Marxism. Feminism is Marxism applied to the sexes. Instead of capitalists oppressing the workers, feminism teaches that men/husbands are the “oppressors”, while women/wives are the “oppressed”. Feminism teaches that being a housewife is oppression- “liberation” is being a career woman. Feminism defines husbands(especially European caucasians) as “oppressors”, while the government is a woman’s liberator.

  5. […] Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech – “Real Parental Alienation“, “A Case Study in the Problems of Socon/Tradcon Thinking“, “Socons and Tradcons View Women as Victims Just Like Feminists” […]

  6. All of these conditions according to the sexuality can apply within specific social situations. We must remember that women have got their own natural sexuality with their own brains which are corresponding to the nature of male sexuality.

    Second thing is these conditions are valid only within a social background which is accepting only the natural sexuality (Heterosexual) and there is a well established sexual lifestyle which is natural.

  7. I hate these kind of people, because they seek to impose their moral standards on others. They come from both the feminist and masculist movements. For instance, on the feminist side, they seek to ban/restrict porn/prostitution thinking they objectify/exploit women and impose child $upport and sexual harassment laws to control mens’ behavior, while on the masculist side, they seek to unify the church with the state, turn women and blacks into the slaves they once were during the pre-industrial era, impose their LBGT-phobic bias and criminalize any and/or all alternative/nontraditional lifestyles.

  8. […] Um dos meus leitores postou esta idéia: […]

  9. Sure. When I entered a Mormon church, I immediately was perceived as a stud.

  10. This is very true. All you need to do is find the churches with single women. (Many churches are nothing but families so that’s a dead end.) You would have some canned reasons for talking to women there just by going. Chances are you will never hear from these women that they are waiting for marriage to have sex since the percentage of female virgins in a church is the same as outside. IOW minuscule.

    You may even be able to make this work. There are plenty of churches that are multicultural/multiracial. Just find those and if they have single women, you’re good to go.

  11. The beauty of Manhattan (when I was there) is that there is a church on almost every block, as in walking distance from one’s place. Plus, that is the big city with a lot of 30-ish sluts who have no racial/ethnic limitations.

    And it’s not like the churches are filled with “pure virginal women”. Instead what we have are “sluts for Jesus” who will put out (even with limited game probably).

Leave a Comment. (Remember the comment policy is in force.)

Translate »
%d bloggers like this: