In the MRM we often see feminists and tradcons (traditional conservatives) compared and contrasted. We hear that tradcons are almost as bad as feminists. In this article I submit that all feminists are tradcons, though perhaps not all tradcons are feminists.
The initial objection to this thesis is that feminism is radically liberal, while tradcons are conservative, so how can feminists be tradcons? The reason is that under traditional conservative expectations, as with feminism, women have much more relaxed and different rules. There’s a very narrow dress code for men, but wide dress code for women. Same with hair, personal expression, and with showing feelings and the expectation that people care about your emotions, or at least will not mock them like we do with male expressions. I’m thinking of the trendy “Manfeelz,” “I bathe in male tears,” “I drink male tears,” “Oh, I hurt your fee-fees?” compared to the traditional-conservative equivalent “Keep a stiff upper lip,” and “Boys don’t cry.”
With feminism and traditional conservatism, women are given more relaxed rules. For feminists, bouncing their bare breasts with the word slut painted on them is an absolute right, of course men don’t ever dare take on a similar “slutty” display because the dress code is much stricter with men. In feminist thought, and I think it’s safe to say traditional conservatism generally, this would be labeled “creepy”, with female feelings being of the utmost importance.
When we look at the shared feminist and tradcon attitudes, near verbatim talking points and views on sex and gender, it makes me wonder if feminism isn’t simply a subset of traditional conservatism. When taking a broader view, we see that all feminists are in fact tradcons. Let’s talk about five ways feminism is traditional conservatism:
Separate rules for women
Feminists, like all tradcons have a real hard time saying no to women. To them, as a man you need to both satisfy and protect women. Treat her with kid gloves, like a child. To them, a man should never make a woman cry, he needs be attentive to her every need. For example, They’ll shout “It’s never okay to hit a woman!” Not even to defend yourself or your child? Not even to protect another woman? No. To tradcons, and I include feminists when I say tradcons, women are weak, therefore innocent. Men are strong, therefore abusive. Women can hit men without violating the tradcon mindset, because “What harm can a woman really do against men? Men are stronger.” This is where both feminists and tradcons mock abused men, and minimize their issues. Being stronger, to them, means being deserving of abuse.
Real men
“Man up and be a feminist!,” “Take it like a man!.” Feminists, as tradcons, love controlling male behavior with this idea of “The real man”. “Real men are feminists” didn’t you know that? I guess I must not be a real man then. And piggybacking on our last point “Real men don’t hit women.” That’s because “Real men protect women.” We need men to sacrifice to their detriment for the benefit of women, that’s how you get to be a “real man.” “Benevolent patriarchy” you see? It’s problematic, except when it directly benefits women… in all other instances, it’s “misogyny writ large.”
Women and children
When the boat starts sinking everyone yells “Women and children first!” It demonstrates the selfless sacrificial love men are trained to have to women they don’t even know. Yet, to a feminist and perhaps even to an everyday tradcon with quite a dim view of men, this selfless sacrificial love is actually based on a hatred of women, on misogyny. Being in the unfortunate position of hearing a feminist try to make this point, we’ll just say it makes sense if you don’t think about it. It’s a recurring theme within feminism, the absolutely indiscriminate use of the concept of hatred with the word misogyny. This might seem like a position where tradcons and feminists disagree, the idea that love for women is hate. Yet, keep in mind the next point.
Men are after women for sex
Tradcons and feminists agree, men are only after women for sex. If he does something nice, watch out! A “nice” guy? No no, naive MRA, men are scum, they’re dangerous. Watch out for the big bad man. To them, men need to be restrained because they are like werewolves, ready to attack innocent women. As with traditional conservatism a female might “flirt” with a man, but a man in the same position is looked at as a potential predator. There’s the presupposition that a man is a up to no good with only sex on his mind, while the woman is pure and innocent. A display of male sexuality is variously “creepy” or “not appropriate,” contrasted with female sexuality where it is variously giving women a wider dress code or the title of “slut pride”. Don’t ever slut shame, you creep!
Men are super men and women are damsels
This last one is probably the biggest point to show how feminism overlaps with traditional conservatism. It screams both at the same time. “Save the women!,” “Fight for women!.” Those brave white knights, feminists, and other tradcons trumpeting the call to rescue those poor damsels. “You don’t say that to a lady,” “Check your privilege before you mansplain to a woman.” This is huge within feminism and a sentiment they love exploiting. Think Elevatorgate, Anita Sarkeesian and feminism generally. Feminism’s whole thing is the “men are evil oppressors”, “Women are oppressed” shtick.
After we consider these five points, we see how feminism is tradcon. When the male-bashing media portrays the MRM as pushing back against feminist over-reach, we have a good reference to see how there hasn’t been “over-reach” it’s simply a new kind of anti-male sentiment substituted for the old. There’s war between men and women for rights that men must lose so that women can win.
Feminism exploits traditional conservatism and our traditional thoughts to attempt to benefit women to the detriment of men in much the same way traditional conservatism expects men to sacrifice for the benefit of women to the detriment of themselves. Feminism and traditional conservatism are virtually indistinguishable, if not identical.
