Barbarossaaaa has a post introducing the trad-fem. He focuses on the entitlement mentality that both radfems and trad-fems share, and that sits coiled like a worm at the center of all their claims and pronouncements and demands.
A trad-fem is a woman who opposes feminism because it disrespects men doing their duty by women. This trad-fem expects men to do their duty by women, by the way. Because after all that’s what makes a man a real man. And feminists are mean because the disrespect these men. (That’s not the real reason feminists are mean though, the real reason is that men are starting to question this arrangement themselves, and feminists are giving them cover and terminology, however ironic that is.) And as Typhonblue pointed out somewhere else it can hardly be any coincidence all these trad-fems are coming out of the woodwork just at this particular juncture.
This article is for all those MRAs who fantasize about going back to some mythical Golden Age, some kind of good old days when everything was just wonderful for men. Bullshit – these trad-fems were what men back in the bad old days all faced – women who thought a man’s value was in his usefulness to women and who had no qualms about gender policing man to hard labor and death while they stayed comfortably at home.
This is why MHRM is anti-traditionalist.
Radfems and trad-fems appear 180 degrees out on their views of everything, and feminists in general insist that they are the true crusaders against the old order, but that claim crumbles under scrutiny.
If you look at all their core assumptions they are traditionalist. Every feminist trope requires that you accept female hypoagency and male hyperagncy as fact – the rape and DV narratives all assume female innocence regardless of actual conduct – hypoagency – and male guilt, regardless of who is actually aggressing whom. That is the macho white knight heart of “patriarchy”.
Core feminism is basically indistinguishable from tradcon patriarchy once you peel off the mask of modernism.
And this extends beyond core assumptions to actual working relations. If you look at the history of feminist advocacy and activism, the one constant is reliance on the power of the patriarchal state. The suffrage movement didn’t resort to armed violence – and this was an era of extensive violence between workers and capitalists – because they did not have to. They asked for the vote and they got it. The same goes for entry into the wage economy or the corporate world, or for equal access to universities – they asked and access was granted, and in a very short time, in one or two generations, against basically no real resistance. Pushing against an open door.
Actual working relations – commenter Tamen has found an apposite example in this statement from Michigan NOW. Michigan NOW is so opposed to father’s and children’s basic human rights in their opposition to equal parenting that they are partnering with Focus on the Family on this. Dalrock regularly comments on the anti-male nature of a lot what churches advocate in the area of family life and here you have a clear example.
Despite white feminists’ protestations of broad-church concern for all oppressed people, they are really not all that different from their suffragette forebears who were solidly white supremacist in their rhetoric and justifications for extending the vote to themselves. The parallels between feminist rhetoric and policy positions about rape and that of the KKK are obvious – disdain for due process, centering rape as the ultimate crime (beyond murder of suspected rapists even) and definitions of rape that privilege women as fragile victims, and never, ever as perpetrators.
This point has been made over and over and it needs to be made over and over until it starts to sink in.