The Men’s Rights Movement offers an effective opposition to feminism.
Traditionalists oppose feminism the way indulgent parents oppose their spoilt rotten daughter when she’s throwing a petite mal tantrum in the middle of a grocery store:
“Oh, dear, please don’t do that, please don’t be upset, sweetheart let daddy get you a loli? No? A doll? A puppy?” And then the indulgent traditionalist daddy turns around and breaks his son’s nose with his fist for “not stopping your sister from getting upset in the first place!”
Why is this? Because traditionalists are not equipped to recognize female agency, much less deal with it. Over and over again they prove that they prefer to blame the nearest man.
This is an excellent summary of tradcon behavior.
Also isn’t it sort of suspicious that traditionalist women are suddenly interested in opposing feminism just as male liberation is getting off the ground?
That entire article was void of any compassion for men; any sense that men exist outside of the writer’s fears and needs.
Traditionalist women need the Men’s Rights Movement far more then the MRM needs traditionalist women. They are gynocentric to the core; would they be willing to challenge their own male-hatred? Their gynocentric beliefs? The idea that women have the right or even the ability to define men? How about the author’s apparent knee-jerk belief that men are always to blame?
Tradcon women need the MRM in the same way that WW1 generals need large armies of cannon fodder. This is why, as Typhonblue correctly points out, tradcon women need the MRM more than the MRM needs tradcon women. In fact, the MRM doesn’t need tradcon women at all (unless they become actual MRAs).