Reconciling Men’s Rights and Trad Life
I’ve been thinking about the relationship between the Men’s Rights Movement and the push for traditional values within the wider pro-European peoples’ movement. The arguments and issues put forth by the Men’s Rights advocates drew me in early in my political journey. As a fair-minded individual, the ill and unjust treatment of men today in the West spoke to me. A large portion of this movement is opposition to modern feminism. This is due to the fact that many modern feminists and their political henchmen are in direct opposition to true equality. Spreading false and misleading information about the gender issues is only the tip of the iceberg.
Recently, as in post-Trump’s election, I’ve been increasingly drawn towards the views and ideas about marriage and relationships found within the Alt-Right. I quickly went from being somewhat in the middle on the question about whether I should work towards getting married and having children to becoming a staunch proponent of these life goals. At first glance, a big part of the Men’s Rights movement is opposition to male disposability and the subsidizing of women by men. How then could I go from being a supporter of the first into becoming a proponent of the latter?
First of all, the enemy remains the same, modern feminism. Modern feminism is one of the core columns holding up the castle of societal ills. They actively attack and break down the natural bonds that should exist between the two sexes. In addition to providing alternatives to the classical male-female relationship through singledom, lesbianism, single motherhood and so on, feminism actively works to sour the good will that used to exist in the relationship world. Judicial activism by feminists and the left in general has created a legal minefield for men. Dubious consent standards, false rape claims, unequal punishments for equal crime, misandric family courts, the list goes on and on like an open wound.
My change of “loyalty” needs some fleshing out. I remain completely in agreement with the factual arguments and the importance of the issues put forth by MRAs. I find it horrendous that men get the lion’s share of the blame for the problems in society. Men are dragged through the mud and have their good name and reputation unfairly maligned in a malicious fashion. Relationships and societal living are currently bad deals for the male part of the citizenry. Holding these views are in no way mutually exclusive with desiring living with traditional values and gender roles. In a sense, this is similar to my support for the current white identity movement as a necessary counterweight to the anti-white identity politics of the left. Once the monster known as modern feminism can be slain, my interest in MRA issues will decline as a natural consequence of the restoration of the natural balance between men and women.
If I’m honest, I’m perfectly happy to be the provider and give much of my hard-earned wealth to my wife and children. What I’m not willing to do is be an exploited, unappreciated sucker. The problem with feminism is that it has to a large extent created a societal condition where the role of provider is divorced from the “payment”, i.e. the expectation of services rendered in exchange. This attitude when spread and infecting all manner of societal institutions constitutes a major problem. That is where MRAs come in.
MRAs and “trad lifers” are unified in their criticism of and their opposition to feminism. They do however disagree about the end goal. MRAs might be more positive towards “relationship freedom” either in a uncommitted, loosely committed or a MGTOW sense. I think that they would both agree that the freedom to choose in a libertarian sense would be a desirable goal for both groups. Trad lifers could then go with classic gender roles while MRAs could go for other relationship structures is they so desired. I think a lot of men would “move” from the MRA camp over to the traditional living side of the equation once the noxious conditions created and maintained by feminists could be reversed.
United in their opposition to and contempt of the disastrous movement undermining Western civilization, MRAs and advocates for traditional values are natural allies. Although the end goals they individually foresee and desire might be different, they both want the same neutral playing field from which they can seek their individual paths. If the necessary momentum and strength to defeat feminism is to be amassed, a broad tent approach is surely the most wise.