Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology

Anonymous Reader had this to say about tradcons (traditionalist conservatives):

alcestiseshtemoa

Anonymous Reader what is your problem with traditional conservatives?

Pretty much the same problem I have with feminists: pedestalization of women, reduction of men to sperm donors and walking ATM’s.

In my opinion MRA’s and feminists are more alike than different.

I’m aware this is a standard trad-con claim. There is not much to back it up, but it is clearly popular.

To call Alte, Woods or Kathy feminists is like calling a libertarian a reactionary authoritarian.

Feminism is the ideology or belief that women are inherently superior to men. Feminism is thus female supremacy. Men are to be tolerated, so long as they areuseful to women, and some men can even be sort of liked, so long as they are very useful, such as by keeping other men in line. Men have duties, women have choices. Men have responsibilities, women have options. Marriage 2.0, Affirmative Action, the whole VAWA legal structure, etc. are all legal manifestations of the feminist ideology.

A lot of traditionalist conservatives are basically on the same page, although with different slogans. Because many trad-cons wish to create some sort of pseudo-Victorian society, they accept (perhaps unconsciously) as a fundamental premise the idea the women are morally superior to men. So stripped of the different slogans and wrapping, trad-conservatism boils down to just another form of female supremacy. Men are valuable, but only in terms of what they can deliver for women. Hence the scorn, vituperation and even open hatred of men who won’t marry — just like feminists. Trad-cons demand that men must work, and women may work, or may not as they prefer — rather a lot like feminists. A woman may insult a man in any and every way, and he’s supposed to just take it and like it, woe to any man who dares to stand up to a woman — just like feminists.

In essence, shorn of all the slogans, trad-cons and feminists have the same attitude towards men: those who are able to provide sperm and money to women are to be tolerated, otherwise not. I’m not saying all trad-cons are this way, but it seems quite a few are. Woods certainly is this way, she puts herself on a pedestal far above mere mortal men. Alte doesn’t. I have no opinion at this time regarding Kathy.

PS: The notion that women are more moral than men is so wrong, it’s absurd. If we have not learned anything else from the last 30-40 years, we surely have learned that women can be just as cruel, as nasty, as downright mean, and as evil as men — just in different ways. There is an army of men in the US alone who can testify to that, thanks to “mens-fault” divorce, anti-Family court, and so forth. And the trad-con notion that women are inherently monogamous is not just wrong, it’s scientifically wrong; hypergamy is a fact, no matter how much annoyance it may cause to feminists and trad-cons.

Does this explain some of my disagreement with feminists and trad-cons?

He also said this:

slwerner, it seems to me that trad-cons have not really come to grips with all the implications of the unleashing of female hypergamy. Some may still basically be either denying it or ignoring it (hoping it will go away, perhaps). Heck, if I recall correctly, Woods decided a while back that female hypergamy didn’t exist, perhaps it was one of her solipsistic moments (“I don’t think that way, so women don’t think that way”).

It’s understandable why this is, because so many trad-cons seem stuck with the notion of women as “more moral” than men. It’s impossible to be “more moral” if you not only want the best man (within each woman’s definition of “best”) to mate with, but are willing to dump him on short notice in order to trade up. The act of “trading up” means that promises are broken, heck, in a traditionalist marriage it means oaths, taken before God, are broken. It means deliberately causing emotional harm to at least one person (the discarded man) and any children, implying a serious degree of pure selfishness. And that’s just describing a “friendly”, no-contest divorce.

Add in all the really nasty stuff, such as lying to the police (false DV accusation), lying under oath in court, and so forth, and it’s simply impossible to hold the idea of women as “more moral” just because of their XX chromosomes at all — it fails the basic “laugh test”. We all understand why feminists don’t want to touch this, it crumbles one of the basic premises of their ideology.

What perplexes me is why so many trad cons are so determined to hold on to a clearly false idea. And not only is it false, it is in direct contradiction to their professed religion. Look, I’m no scholar of the Christian religion, but it’s not hard to recall names like “Delilah”, “Jezebel”, Potiphar’s wife, and others from the old testament. It’s also not difficult to search online Bible sites within the new testament and find all sorts of advice on relations between husband and wife —none of which even remotely imply that women are “more moral” than men. Often the opposite, in fact. Plus I’m pretty sure that “traditional Christianity” used to preach that both men and women were big time sinners, maybe different sins, maybe not, but definitely both groups prone to things like envy, lust, laziness, unjustified anger and so forth.

So the only thing I’m left with is that the trad-cons are, as I said before, clinging to some sort of version of Victorianism in which women are somehow, via some magical process, better moral agents than men are, and therefore only the real sluts are to be criticized, never the “virtuous” women. Which leads us back to the pedestal upon which so many women wish to stand, and that in turn leads us to put some criticisms of women completely off limits. That’s where Woods is, it seems to me. Richardson will accept some of these criticisms, but then he’ll just start talking NAWALT, as if that means anything.

The reality is, all people have the capacity to be extremely selfish. We have to be taught not to be that way. The self-esteem movement has done a lot of damage in that regard, and the feminist movement in combination with self-esteem has made some number of women just about impossible to live with, work with or even be around for very long. Given the different ways in which a deceitful, vengeful, woman can damage a man in the world – at work, in a home, in a family, walking down the street – the cry of “NAWALT’ is almost meaningless. Enough “Are Like That” to constitute a threat.

Trad-cons need to give up their romantic-era, rose-tinged ideas about the way men and women really are, and stop with the endless “yes, but…” argumentation, if they want anyone to take them seriously. Dalrock’s “interview questions” for a wife contain more useful advice for a man contemplating marriage than any postings I can recall from any trad-con site. Athol Kay’s site contains more useful, practical advice to married people than any trad-con marriage advice site I’ve seen — in the universe of the web I’m sure there could be such sites and I’m not aware of them, but nobody’s pointed one out yet. Both Dalrock and Kay are married, but neither are laboring under the illusions I see trad-cons burdened with.

I was particularly struck by the idea that tradcons didn’t understand hypergamy.  That explains a lot of their behavior.  Everything else Anonymous Reader said is true as well.