So traditionalists and MRM can’t work together after all?

A while back, Novaseeker wrote a fairly well-argued article against my claim that patriarchists/traditionalist conservatives should shun The Spearhead (and, by implication, the non-Christian faction of the “men’s rights movement”, hereafter “MSM”).  I wasn’t convinced, of course, but we might as well leave that to one side, because he actually seems to agree with me that traditionalists and MRM advocates cannot collaborate in any meaningful fashion.  The difference between him and me really just comes down to which team we’ve chosen.

First, it should be clear that much of what constitutes the “traditionalist right” can never be the ally of either Game or MRA — their goal is not to help men, but rather to erect a social/moral/political system that reflects their traditionalist ideologies, and make men confirm to their vision.  This is the case both for religious traditionalists as well as secularists who may long for more societal traditionalism.  “Helping men”, as men, is not really one of their key goals, as such.  To the degree that they sympathize with men and men’s issues, it is only to call into question the entirety of the current socio-political system in an effort to convince one to support an alternative total system — it is not to assist men in the current system, at least not in any significant way that would contradict what the utopian traditionalist version of reality would look like.  This does not mean that individual Gamers or MRAs cannot, or do not, hold some views that could be characterized as “traditionalist”.  It simply means that the traditionalist movements, as a whole, cannot be seen as allies, in any meaningful way, of anything in the MRA or Game movements.  They are, in fact, more of a hindrance to MRA and Game goals than they are anything else….

We already know that the traditionalists (who want you to man up and do what their system says you should do), the white nationalists and HBDers (who want you to man up and have lots of white babies), the neocons and liberals (who want you to tune in and tune out to serve their own interests) specifically want to tear men apart and reconstruct us according to what they want us to be, according to what they want us to do.  There are really only two movements that are focused on helping men, and helping men do what men want to do, in ways determined by men themselves — and those are MRA and Game.  It’s an oversimplification and an obfuscation to say that these are “two sides of the same coin” — they’re not.  They’re quite different, as we know.  But they are nevertheless two aspects, two ways, two approaches that are natural allies in that they alone do not seek to destroy men or channel men, or co-opt men, but rather to empower them — in different ways, to be sure, but above all by enabling men to have more informed choices about all aspects of their lives coupled with the freedom – legal, social — to make them.  No-one else is doing this.  No-one else is really qualified to be an “ally” of either group.   Both groups are, however, very well qualified to be allies of each other if — and this is a big “if” — the men involved on both sides can lay aside the well-worn tendency to tear each other apart and status monger, and instead recognize the commonalities, the unique commonalities, that really do make Game and MRA the most adequate allies for men who wish to help men, full stop.

Novaseeker and I agree on the following crucial points:

  1. MRM’s goals are incompatible with a traditionalist remoralization of society.  Rather that seeking to dignify men by rejuvenating patriarchal gender roles, it seeks to help men achieve power, power in the service of self-gratification rather than service.  Individualist “empowerment” is a Satanic goal.  Novaseeker is right to think that the Christian Right wants no part in it.
  2. On the other hand, the MRM does share a commonality of goals with the “Game” community, whose purpose is to teach men how to manipulate women for sex.  The traditionalist right is certainly not interested in “helping” men in this way.
  3. It is acknowledged that traditionalism and the alternative right represent a more radical critique of feminist society than the MRM, which only wants to relieve men of intolerable iniquities without questioning the Leftist/feminist order as a whole.

Finally, let me comment on the double standard that we see in MRM websites.  When a traditionalist criticizes the MRM, that’s an outrage that shows how narrow-minded we are.  How dare I say that MRM and conservatism are inconsistent?  But they can say it.  They can and do attack us all the time.  (And remember, Novaseeker is one of the MRM advocates that makes some efforts to be fair to us.  The criticisms you read above are mild by MRM standards.  Usually they call us morons and cowards and make vulgar insinuations against our wives.)  We are tyrannical utopians.  We are devious manipulators.  That or we’re the manipulated dupes of the feminists.

So any proposed Christian-MRM alliance would have been a very one-sided affair anyway.  We would have been expected to put their agenda first and to refrain from publicly criticizing them, while they would have gone on attacking us without restraint.  In other words, it would have been just like the Christian-libertarian one-sided alliance that constitutes the Republican Party.  The Christian and traditionalist Right seems to have a habit of forming one-sided alliances, and I say that they are worse than useless.  I prefer that the MRM choose the more honest way of admitted antagonism, so that they can hardly complain when we respond in kind.  This is one Christian who doesn’t turn the other cheek.

37 Responses

  1. Do you see a difference between the MRM and anti-feminists? Fidelbogen at the counterfeminist blog has made the point several times that the MRM is so vague as to what it covers that it’s almost purposeless to use the phrase.

    From my experience on the Spearhead it seemed that their were a lot of men who were supportive of individualistic self-gratification as the focus of “the movement” but there were also quite a few who were traditionalist and saw that one wouldn’t be able to solve the problem without dealing with the greater problems of society at the same time.

    “Anti-feminism” is certainly more inclusive then the masculist version of the MRM which you propose as being contrary to traditional thought – a point I agree with. Nevertheless, it seems pointless for either side, both of whom want to get rid of feminism, to place so much of their energies in arguing with each other. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

    The reason why I stopped reading the Spearhead is precisely because there was too much of “the enemy of my enemy is my enemy.” And also, I got to the point where I was sick of hearing the argument which did the same thing to society as feminism did but with the shoe on the other sexual foot. That is the Masculist movement, and to my mind an anti-feminist movement would be inclusive of that mindset as well as others (like ours), but with the advantage of universal agreement against feminism.

    I don’t think it would ever be realized though, since, as you pointed out, they see us as part of the feminist problem, and we see them as part of the societal problem.

  2. I was just reminded that many of the masculist arguments too ended up boiling down to ridiculous assertions based on assumptions of my personal life, juvenile name calling (which I can only suppose they thought masculine), and threats. I find it humorous that they like to throw the word “so-con” at people like its the worst insult imaginable (even that phrase can be so diversely applied as to be near meaningless!) Overall, the kind of movement I would be looking for men to represent to society, in fighting against feminism, would be one that I can respect, one which supports self-control and self-sacrifice rather than (like feminism) self-gratification and egoism.

  3. Yeah, there’s no reconciliation possible here, and I used to think there was. The MRM is not restorationist but merely masculinist (in the deluded sense that “feminism” corresponds to “femininity”). They see us as the enemy, and are quite right to.

  4. The MRM is split.

    On one side are the masculinists, who realize that under a liberal view of the world, men will always be seen as the enemy.

    On the other side are the FMRAs and PUAs, who basically have given up on society and want an excuse to get laid.

    The fact remains that if the MRM will gain any acceptance, it will be through the people who are the backbone of this country — conservative or moderate family-oriented people.

    These people don’t want their daughters or sons participating in what is basically unpaid prostitution, or getting divorces, or other sad things.

    As the MRM grows, it will become more accepting of traditionalist ideas.

  5. I changed my mind about that, Bonald, since that comment I wrote at The Spearhead some time ago.

    I don’t think that traditionalists and MRAs can work together, because the two movements have different goals, both macro and micro. I do think that quite a few MRAs have some traditionalist ideas, some more than others, but as a whole the main, critical, difference is the attitude and perspective toward engagement with the *present*.

  6. This is a complex matter. While a case can be made for “big tents” being an effective approach to practical matters this is usually only the case when the elements in the big tent are held together by more than just a common enemy. Is there anything the MRM and traditionalists have in common other than a dislike for feminism?

  7. Popular Front of Judea.

  8. I would suggest that a deep undercurrent within the Roissy-sphere is the notion that female sexual instincts are so fixed in their directions (of hypergamy and an innate disgust with betas) that getting consistent behavior from them that is non-feral – ie getting a real, emotional commitment from an ordinary woman to please an ordinary man in a monagamous marriage — any kind of reform is bound to go nowhere without drastic external forces..
    IOWs, a society that a traditionalist might approve of must do a pretty good job of arranging things such that the average young man is competent to marry and is seen by the average young woman as desirable to marry. As in sexually desirable. If this set of circumstances cannot be approximated then Marriage as We Have Known It will shrink to insignificance – like it did among upper class Romans in the late Republican era.
    It does not take a penetrating mind to notice that the modern world is doing just about all it can to 1. inflame womens innate hypergamy, 2. Put sticks into young mens spokes in every way possible, 24/7.
    Changing this in the culture would require meeting the strongest head-wind of all – the reality of womens sexual instincts. Because their instincts are strongly gratified by the anachronistic convergence of 1.Suddenly free to raise a child without the help of any one family or man 2. Birth control with abortion as a back up, 3 No public shamming for living such a life.
    According to this view, nothing will induce masses of women to rethink these recent adaptations. Nothing at all. It is like catnip to a cat only 100 times stronger. They would fight in the last trench to give up the SATC dream. The old attitudes required the old conditions and thus it shall ever be.
    What would change their attitudes would be a profound collapse of our entire modern structure of economics and public order. Then, and only then, would the average, healthy, well intentioned guy start ringing the same bells in their hind-brains as a Brad Pitt or Sean Connery. So there is nothing to do but wait.
    In the meantime….Be largely celibate, or surf the female fun-wave???

  9. Hi Brendan,

    Thanks for replying. Since both movements are, honestly, pretty tiny, I think the question of how we can work together is less interesting than the question of what we can learn from each other. That is, regarding MRM and traditionalism not as groups of people, but as groups of ideas.

  10. This put me in mind of a quote from Spinoza:

    “[I]f we say that white and black only agree in the fact that neither is red, we absolutely affirm that they do not agree in any respect. So, if we say that a man and a stone only agree in the fact that both are finite… we should certainly affirm that a man and a stone are in no respect alike; therefore, things which agree only in negation, or in qualities which neither possess, really agree in no respect.” (Ethica, Pt. IV, Prop. xxxii, Schol.)

    Incidentally, Bonald, sorry for the dearth of comments of late: have been very busy with school. Rest assured I still read you regularly!

  11. Traditionalism will always fail, unless the women are willing to be forced to work in coalmines & genuinely die in wars for their families

    As long as women fail to step up to the plate, & use men as husbands as providers & wage slaves

    As long as women & traditionalists have pushed women to act as parasites on men, traditionalism will fail

    Traditionalists have to realise, the “stay at home mom” is a colossal failure for women

    “Stay at home moms” do not protect women, it makes women impotent, & turns women into moronic entitled domesticated sheep

    The legacy of the 50’s i am entitled to a husband & a get out of a life of hard work card, is what we’re witnessing today, in the hordes of entitled women wanting their guaranteed marriage & satisfy my biological clock, the failed screechings of 30 year old women as they settle for the average beta , while dreaming of all the hot alphas of her now destroyed youth, over the expensive bottles of wine, the clueless beta showers her with

    As feminism & the media destroy the mystique of women, created by traditionalists to excuse women from having to work & be financially competent

    Trying to shelter half of the population from the hardships of life, through marriage, only serves to send enslave men into wage slavery & turn the women they love into domesticated entitled morons, with little clue as to how the world really works

    & most importantly the stay at home mom, also shelters them from the idiosyncracies of their own biology, forcing the male to comply with all the inherent stupidity of an unchecked & unchallenged female mind

    Preventing women from correcting & learning from the mistakes of their biology, over centuries of forcing men cheered on by traditionalists, to act as wage slaves & destroy their financial future all for the sake of putting women & children first

    The wage slave has woken, women in their greed & their hypergamous free for all, woke the hard working husband toiling away in life threatening mines & quarries

    The greed of traditionalism as it transformed into Feminism woke the poverty stricken just finished college graduate, from throwing away his future, for a wife & two kids

    Men are no longer required to sacrifice their future & finance’s as a duty to society, something traditionalists have always demanded but never addressed the price men have paid for centuries, in the centuries of traditionalism

    Men are & always have been the dominant species, traditionalists & women in trying to enslave men, in trying to enslave our dominance in intelligence & hard labour alienated & woke us up to the real price of a picket fence & a fat aging wife

    It also woke us upto the very real damage women were doing to themselves, as they rotted away in the none-intellectual existence of stayathome moms & none education

    Women found out, when you forgo your ability to guarantee for your children, for centuries, your self preservation skills turn to mush

    You no longer become rational, your emotional needs take over, as you drool in the emotional pool of your biology

    You can thank traditionalism & its even more brutally puritanical successor, feminism for destroying yourselves women

    You now have to work & fend for your kids, you now have to work as slaves in inhumane sterile corporate environments

    All the while having to make up for the centuries of lost philosophical & technological progress, women could have been making, if they didnt create a social structure to enslave men for their own gains

  12. I do think that quite a few MRAs have some traditionalist ideas, some more than others, but as a whole the main, critical, difference is the attitude and perspective toward engagement with the *present*.

    Novaseeker, I think you’re onto something but I’d like to offer one modification for your consideration: both sides are attempting to fix a problem in the present. Traditionalist MRAs are trying to rip it out by the roots, while FMRAs are trying to apply symptomatic treatment. See what you think of that idea; I’d love to hear any response.

  13. […] It is acknowledged that traditionalism and the alternative right represent a more radical critique of feminist society than the MRM, which only wants to relieve men of intolerable iniquities without questioning the Leftist/feminist order as a whole. – Throne and Altar, “So traditionalists and MRM can’t work together after all?” […]

  14. But are women’s sexual instincts really pushing in that direction? They may have been in the 60s, but the dissatisfaction of the “liberated” hypersexual woman has recently become a popular subject in SWPL magazines, and Front Porch Republic ran an article about it a few days ago.

    It’s not hard to imagine why, of course. Given a choice between providing an orifice for an emasculated hipster or an illiterate brute… well, no wonder Catholic universities are becoming more popular.

  15. rmaxd,

    You are an idiot. You actually think that working at the checkout line in a grocery store, licking envelopes, and copying numbers into spreadsheets (and that’s the intellectual equivalent of what most work is) is more intellectually stimulating than raising children and organizing a household? I have lost patience with this stupid romantization of paid work and lack of respect for the most important task.

    What did these centuries of traditionalist “slavery” give us? Civilization.

  16. Yes, this. Exactly this. And more. It isn’t just households that stay at homes organize. It is practically every voluntary association there is. And the spontaneous community of neighborhoods. And etc. Working women are not only doing stupid, unrewarding, uninteresting things, they are also parasites: feasting on the efforts of the declining cadre of stay-at-homes.

  17. Maxd:

    “i am entitled to a husband & a get out of a life of hard work card,”

    that’s laughable, not only b/c you seem to think that “traditionalism” is the product of the 1950s, but also because anyone who knows anything about raising a family RIGHT knows it isn’t a “get out of a life of hard work card.”

    “You no longer become rational, your emotional needs take over, as you drool in the emotional pool of your biology”

    hm, yes, all those RATIONAL feminist working women out there…oh, wait…. and feminism is traditionalism’s more puritanical successor?? What alternate reality are you from?

    I won’t bother fisking the whole piece, but as Bonald so rightly stated, you’re an idiot.

  18. But traditionalism is good for men, at least in its western Christian form. It is basically a highly specialized adaptation to promote productivity. One woman per man is good for men, at least on average. (It happens to be good for women too.) The alternative is the men towards the top getting most of the goodies, and the rest picking up the scraps, or getting none at all. And without the motivation to provide for progeny the unmarried man retreats from doing much productive. That’s bad for everyone.

    Perhaps I am missing something, but, for instance, wouldn’t traditionalists and MRAs agree to an end of no-fault divorce? Wouldn’t they agree to a legal allowance of rational, sex-based discrimination in the workplace? Wouldn’t they agree to an end of government subsidies of illegitimacy?

  19. Bonald,

    Well said. We traditionalists know that a man can only be happy if he participates in a properly-ordered society, and we know that Western society is radically disordered. In such a situation, for a man to make “men’s rights” or getting laid his highest priority is ultimately to increase the disorder, even if he occasionally makes his life locally better. By making men’s rights the highest ideal, the MRAer is, ironically, making life worse for generations of men yet unborn.

    The best way for a man to keep up his spirits is to work to discover what a good society is, and then, when he finds it, to fight for it. Your unborn brothers will thank you for it. And there are women out there who will admire you for this virtue of yours.

  20. Pardon me Brett, but the PUAs have no connection with the so-called men’s rights movement. So you are mistaken when you describe them as the “other side”. The current debate taking place at should help bring you up to speed upon all of this. Hopefully I have set the record straight.

  21. Brendan, I beg to differ. The “traditionalists” and the “MRAs” can and MUST work together. Or else feminism will prevail. You know the drill: hang together or hang separately.

    I happen to know that the “traditionalists” (or “social conservatives” as we generally call them) are a split camp. Many of them are politically naive about the twisted nature of all this, but a number of them see things will perfect clarity. It is that latter group which I welcome as allies. The former. . . well, they need to get up to speed.

    I will close this comment with a quick thought: We need to form coalitions.

    And these coalitions must be built upon the principle of symbiosis.

    If anybody is down with such a plan, feel free to contact me at:

    In the end, it is all about feminists v. NON-feminists.

    We NON-feminists must hang together. That about sums it up.

  22. My observation of many socons (social conservatives) is that they do not grasp the inherent complexity and poignancy of the situation.

  23. I think that there are many points upon which many “MRAs” and many social conservatives would agree, if they sat down and drew up a list.

    Remember that we are all non-feminists before we are anything else.

  24. “for a man to make “men’s rights” or getting laid his highest priority is ultimately to increase the disorder..”

    First, let’s not put “men’s rights” and “getting laid” on a par in terms of political categorizations. They are galaxies apart.

    That said, the term “men’s rights” is a bit open-ended, and even open to negotiation. But can we allow that there are certain elementary components of a decent existence to which men, purely as human beings, are entitled? And that IF these things are compromised or in abeyance, then “we have a problem, Houston”?

    Well that is where matters presently stand, as I see it. So it is not a question of making “men’s rights” the “highest” priority — whatever that means — but rather acknowledging that they are indeed a very HIGH priority, and then giving them their proper weight.

    For the question is weighty, I would say.

  25. You may be alarmed to discover that I agree with you on this, Bonald.

    It seems to me that the MRM is – and I’m trying to put this as neutrally as possible, since I don’t have much time for these guys – a lobby group seeking to advance the self-interest of its adherents (as they are perfectly entitled to do). The appropriate comparison isn’t with the Christian right, with its broader social and religious agenda, it’s with the NRA, the NAACP or the AARP.

    I can’t imagine St Joseph being an MRA, or indeed using “Game”.

  26. There’s a good example of this in a recent post at In Mala Fide, where Ferd recently announced he is publishing a book. Among the elements he says will be included in it are “A way of bringing back patriarchy without resorting to the fascistic extremes of religious conservatism.”

    In other words, let’s get the benefits of patriarchy without the religious context that rationalizes and ennobles it — the privileges without the duties. I like Ferd but sometimes I think he doesn’t even try to comprehend his enemies.

  27. That would never work because what convincing argument could one use to subject women to male rule than that of religion? Nothing would be moving enough to make the majority of women say, yes, we should give up our independence, our “sexual rights” our “voting rights” and let men rule. They might be convinced that men shouldn’t be persecuted, but they would never give up “equality” without the pull of religion. Why would they? They have it good, and an argument for patriarchy would have to be irrepressibly compelling for them to give that up. I don’t see anything less than “fascistic extremes of religious conservatism” fitting the bill.

  28. Hm. That sounds like “fascistic” in the sense of “something I disagree with”.

  29. Hello DC,

    Welcome back!

  30. I can’t stand him myself. Every once in a while I’ll read an In Male Fide article when one is linked from Traditional Christianity, and even when I agree with the point being made, I come away irritated by all the invalid arguments and straw man vanquishing.

  31. I’ve just tried to access that site from work, and it’s triggered my firm’s obscenity filter.

    I wonder how I’m going to explain this to IT.

  32. Oh, dear. I’m sorry. One more reason to avoid MRM sites.

  33. Success. I’ve just been having a look at the site.

    I don’t think I can quite put my opinions into words.

    I guess the book does solve the problem of what to get my wife for Christmas.

  34. I’m going to defend Ferdinand here, even though I don’t agree with some of what he says. Ferdinand is not anti-religious per se, rather he is anti-religious where it is emasculating. Sadly, many Christian religious branches have become de-facto vehicles for feminism, trying to institutionalise its teachings in marriage, by insisting that the husband be nice to his wife instead of being good to her.

    For instance, most Christian religions would censor a man who assaulted his wife, but when is the last time you heard of a minister/priest/preacher censoring a woman for withholding sex from her husband unreasonably? The current strain of thought amongst some Christian circles is that the good husband is a supplicant to the wife.

    The other big problem, is the anti-carnality strain that runs through a lot of traditional Christian teaching. Amongst the faithful, the Church has been remarkably successful in its war against the flesh, much too successful. It’s why JP II raised a lot of eyebrows when he reaffirmed the legitimacy of sexual pleasure in the context of Christian marriage.

    Game theory, as in the Roissyian sense, is a reality that has to be taken into account in any understanding of male/ female relationships.
    Now I assume that most of the commentators on this blog are smart enough to see the distinction between Roissy’s embracement of Hedonism and his identification of the factors of female attraction.

    Everyone assumes that liberalism is the enemy, but so is puritanism.

  35. great point about the difference between being nice to a wife and being good to a wife, but it’s news to me that the Church (Catholic) looked down on sexual pleasure within marriage as an evil. In the traditional Catholic pre-Cana classes we took, which certainly wouldn’t be taking opinions from JPII, it was made clear that so long as intercourse takes place, anything goes and that God endowed humanity with the ability to have sexual pleasure for the purpose of continuing the human race, making it a good thing.

  36. Sorry for the late reply.

    From my perspective, the former is a much, much longer shot than the latter. Glenn Sacks is already proving that. The likelihood of success in pulling up the whole system by the roots is much smaller than the likelihood of success of tinkering within the system we have, and the system we will likely have for quite some time still.

    In general, I tend to see this, in many ways, as a clash between a more utopian/idealistic perspective and a more pragmatic one. I don’t think they mesh well together, because programmatically that conflict is a substantial one.

  37. […] It is acknowledged that traditionalism and the alternative right represent a more radical critique of feminist society than the MRM, which only wants to relieve men of intolerable iniquities without questioning the Leftist/feminist order as a whole. – Throne and Altar, “So traditionalists and MRM can’t work together after all?” […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: