If you’re not reading the This Is Why MGTOW blog, you should be. The author of that blog, Cerberus Alpha, made a good point about Nazbol misandrists. Here are some snippets from that post (although I recommend you read the whole thing):
I think it’s correct to state that most women are in the Nazbol camp by default, rather than being feminist or traditionalist. To be feminist or traditionalist, you have to be ideological (either political or religious), and attempt to frame everything in terms of how you view the world. Even if they are inconsistent (which they often are), they at least attempt to present their views consistently.
E.g. a feminist thinks that gender is socially constructed, and all inequality flows from this. To a feminist, women being paid less is therefore a major issue (despite it not being true any more, in fact young women are out-earning young men, and when you balance for women taking years out to have children, men more aggressively pursuing advancement, men and women choosing different fields of work, there is no disparity at all). But I digress; let’s humor them for a moment. ‘Unequal pay’ is a major issue because it prevents women from being as independent as they could be if they received the same pay as men.
Fair enough; nothing inconsistent so far. But if you ask your average feminist who should pay the bills, they tend to squirm and remain silent, or try to change the subject. They would like the autonomy that comes from men being providers, but they are aware of the inconsistency between this and their self-declared independence. So eventually, if you can withstand their rage and attempted evasions, you will get them to poutily admit that yes, going Dutch, splitting the bill, is the only way to be consistent with feminism, because the male provider role is directly connected to ‘patriarchy’ (again, we are humoring them; ‘patriarchy’ does not actually exist).
A traditionalist, on the other hand, believes the exact opposite to the feminists: she believes that male and female roles are naturally different, because that’s what God has decided, and/or time has proven that the traditional model of sex roles works. Thus, a traditionalist does not complain about ‘inequality’ – she believes that inequality is necessary and right.
Traditionalists are pretty much hated in the manosphere, for acting as though we still live in pre-feminist days. They tell men to ‘man up,’ and argue that we have a duty to provide for women, to sacrifice, even to die for women. Their views might be hopelessly anachronistic, but there is nothing inconsistent yet; they equally exhort women not to work outside the home, but to be good, traditional housewives. They recognize that the only way for them to be consistent, if they are going to make these demands on men, is to give men the leadership role within the family.
However, Nazbol misandrists have no regard for consistency whatsoever – they think that women should receive equal treatment, equal pay, be considered equal to men, etc. – and that men should still fulfill the provider role!
Trying to be completely consistent with either feminism or traditionalism runs into the same problem for most women. In some way or another being a truly consistent feminist or traditionalist ends up with a negative impact on a woman. This is why even a lot of self described feminist women and tradcon women will use twisted logic to get around these things. (For example, when tradcon women talk about “male leadership”, they will use concepts like “servant-leadership” where male leadership is effectively nothing but being a chauffeur for women.) Most women, instead, just don’t bother with consistency and choose the path of Nazbol misandry.
Most women, like most men, are not overtly ideological; they do not attempt to view the world through a single, narrow lens, and do not give too much thought to their worldview being consistent.
That’s why I say most women are Nazbol misandrists – they will demand equality when it comes to their paychecks, but then they demand chivalry when the bill comes. It doesn’t even matter that it’s inconsistent; it’s about what feels right to them. And what feels right, obviously, is being the ones who end up with more money. After all, if women are paid the same as men, but men are obliged to shell out more, who ends up richer? … Exactly. Most women, if only unconsciously, are female supremacists. After all, they want to be seen as ‘equal,’ ‘just as strong and capable,’ yet are unwilling to let go of the princess treatment that they feel is their natural right.
We can see this around the house, too. Women complain about men “not doing their share” of household chores. But then you realize they are referring only to certain chores – like cooking, ironing, and vacuuming. They conveniently omit chores like mowing the lawn, cleaning the car, changing the car’s oil, taking out the trash … tell me, have you ever once heard of a woman volunteering to do those chores? Or is it more likely that a woman who complains bitterly about men not doing enough ironing will dump a garbage bag in her husband’s arms and tell him to go take the trash out?
I think you get the point … they want equal help when it comes to their burdens, but they sure don’t want to take on part of yours.
So, now that traditionalism is dead, and given that feminism has only a limited appeal … it seems most women have embraced Nazbol misandry, because despite its inconsistencies, it serves their self-interest better than the other two. Why be consistent when you could “have it all,” and dump all your baggage in the arms of some poor shmuck? Why be content with being only ‘equal,’ when you could be ‘equal’ and ‘special’?
Understanding that most women are not overtly ideological is the key. Most women don’t feel the need to hold themselves to an abstract ideological standard like feminism or traditionalism. Like Cerberus Alpha says, it’s all about what “feels right” to women. Unlike both feminism and traditionalism, Nazbol misandry always delivers what a woman wants whenever she wants it. Neither feminism not traditionalism can do that for a woman, unless she is already oriented to those ideas. And even then such a woman will try and get out of anything that negatively impacts her from either feminism or traditionalism with twisted logic and/or being evasive.