gromm try to escape jumping from the top cake

The Trouble With Traditionalism

We all live under a social contract. But what does that mean?

In the broader picture, the simplest explanation is an implicit agreement among the members of a society to cooperate for the benefit of the community.

There is also an historical social contract between men and woman.

This used to be an implicit agreement between men and women, exchanging provision and protection for esteem and public deference. This definition is terse but deflects any feigned incomprehension at the meaning of the term.

Today, the social contract between men and women is defunct. Masculinity is increasingly treated with feminine scorn. Since early Second Wave Feminism, our culture has peddled the metaphor that men are as necessary to women as bicycles are to fish. While that particular wording is played out, and not directly repeated, it is cast through the public narrative in numerous re-phrasings. The outrage baiting discussion, entitled “Are Men Necessary,” has already been hosted in two forums as a smug repackaging of the implied idea of impending masculine decline.

“We can do away with your entire sex, tee-hee, because we don’t need you anymore, tee-hee.”

The naked psychopathy of this sentiment is difficult to comprehend; which may be why, despite generations of its repetition within the current mainstream culture, most fail to recognize its poison.

“Oh, it’s just a joke.” “Oh, don’t be so sensitive!” “Oh, we’re just having fun.” These are excuses for the continued public advocacy of male degradation. Even men are making excuses for the commentary denying their own humanity.

The question of whether women “need” men or not, and whether men are “necessary” to the continued functioning of society, continues to be debated and tossed about casually. Men’s advocates argue vigorously for men’s continued relevance but, while such arguments are valid, very few MRAs recognize what the question reveals. “Are men obsolete?”

This is not a question about human beings. It’s a question about an appliance or some other item of convenience.

Can we casually dispense of other humans as we would discard such things as an outdated DVD player in favour of newer technology? This question, if seriously contemplated for any other demographic than men, would be met appropriately by white-hot-rage.

If we suggest female obliteration some will chortle smugly that such considerations are absurd or impossible. Women, we understand, are necessary due to their central role in human reproduction. Yet, artificial wombs are already a viable technology. Despite this, nobody is seriously considering the eradication of women, based on their obsolescence. Even true woman-haters do not field such hypotheses, except as rhetorical examples of dehumanization. The question of necessity does not arise, because women are viewed as people. Only men are utilities to be left at the curb for disposal after their toner cartridges run out.

This brings us back to the question of men’s obsolescence.

Two hundred years ago, we needed vast numbers of men to cheerfully, and voluntarily, do jobs we would now regard as far too dangerous and brutal to subject a human to. Many of those jobs still exist, although in much safer, far less physically punishing forms. Coal miners still occasionally die in mining collapses or explosions, but the numbers are counted in hundreds, instead of the thousands of black-lung deaths of previous generations. The modern workplace is far safer, far less physically punishing.

A great deal of modern heavy labor is done with machinery and robotics, rendering the historic sledge-hammer wielding miner obsolete. The same is true for hundreds of other jobs, most of which were once male-only. In addition, global economic systems have supplanted the formerly localized economies. This means that men, who were formally breadwinners of traditional families are, in an economic and labor based sense, increasingly unnecessary.

As long as we are thinking of men merely as utilities rather than people, then to a substantial degree, feminists arguing that men are superfluous are right. Recognition of this uncomfortable reality is one of the factors driving some men, and even some MRAs, in their desire to return to a traditionally modeled family structure: One in which men’s role as protector and provider was both clearly defined, and recognized as a necessary pillar in a functional community.

Compared to the populist view of male identity as a pathology, and men barely-to-be-tolerated, inconvenient subhumans – the prospect of a social model recognizing men as disposable, but valued work-dogs can seem highly appealing. There are also many women who would cheerfully trade the necessity to support themselves for their role as a provided-for wife.

But this masculine desire for a valued identity, however understandable, has several problems. The first is that the valuation of men within traditional roles as providers depended, to a large extent, on economies which no longer exist. Globalization has changed the value of labour. The second problem, related to the first, is that men’s value as providers pre-dated the emergence of a firmly established welfare state which now substantially replaces individual men as women’s providers.

On top of these two primary issues, the traditional valuation of male identity as “provider” is simply a return to man-as-utility – without a return to the economic and social framework which made that model work. In other words, the conditions in which male-as-provider was a valued and viable identity for men is a set of conditions which no longer exists. So, men desperate for a socially valued identity are willing, even eager, to be useful even if disposable. They aren’t aspiring to recognition as humans, merely as properly valued cash or labor dispensing utilities.

A sadder state of being is difficult to imagine. But we don’t have to imagine it because this is the reality, on top of which men weather a continuous narrative in which they are the malignant overlords supposedly denying “equality” to women. Women who happen to own the narrative which claims female oppression and male primacy.

A man who dares complain is not a person with a legitimate grievance. Nope. He’s a spoiled boy-emperor, having a childish tantrum over his historical “rights” to commit rape and assault being curtailed by that “noble” humanist ethic of feminism.

The longing of a great many men for a return to a “traditional” protector-provider role should not come as a surprise. This wish for “return” to the role of useful-appliance, instead of a desire for recognition of male humanity, is understandable. The aspiration for men to be equivalent to the public stature of the female identity is such a great leap it is almost incomprehensible to most men.

Unfortunately, the desire for the old protector role, even as it is endorsed by some women, is a trap. The traditional provider model for men in a modern social and legal setting is one in which all social transactions take place with a metaphorical gun pointed in the man’s direction.

Without delving into a lengthy list of examples in which violence is enacted on behalf of women, via proxy, it is sufficient to note that a single, fraudulent accusation by a woman is enough to denude a man of his home, his children, his income, his freedom, the support of his extended family, and to effectively end his life. And why wouldn’t a woman use this power?

The commonplace lie that “women don’t make false accusations” is refutable in seconds with the use of a search engine.

Even the feminist heroine “Jane Roe” (Norma McCorvey), whose transcribed statements led to the precedent setting case of Roe vs Wade, claimed fraudulently that she had been raped.

So while the urge to respect all choices made by men or women seems reasonable, there are choices which are foolish and delusional and should be discouraged. One such choice is the understandable but misguided desire of men to be valued draft animals, rather than obsolete subhumans. Men can aim higher.

And the advocates for men’s rights, who have studied these problems have no excuse whatsoever for claiming the so-called traditional married male model of provider and protector is a good option, or that it can be supported.

Of all the people party to discussions on these issues, men’s human rights advocates should be the first and loudest objectors to the dehumanization of men in what is now called the traditional male role.

This movement would not enable heroin addicts seeking their next fix, even if that was what they expressed a desire for. We would not be so irresponsible, so cruel, or so sadistic.

That some of the most experienced and knowledgeable MRAs now advocate a “return” to traditional gender roles “for those who want them” is deeply troubling.

5 thoughts on “The Trouble With Traditionalism”

  1. re: “We can eliminate your sex”

    As a hetero male tired of sexual rejection, I’m all for abandoning women completely and letting them experience life without men. No marriage, no dating, only the required interactions of daily life. They can then go off and do whatever it is they think men deny them, and we can go remember who we used to be prior to allowing women into our lives and letting them take over.

    I know this scenario isn’t realistic, as women have been raised to bypass the upper male head and go straight for the lower one to get control. Too many men (especially PUAs) don’t realize how women play them through their prized penises. I don’t see them going along with the program.

    But unless they participate in a reverse Lysistrada, women will never change in ways men need them to change, and life will continue on the course of war between the genders.

  2. Anyone who feels that we simply don’t need men in the workforce anymore, that the things men are good at are simply obsolete, should watch this video showing how manhole covers are made.

    They are just a tiny, tiny part of the infrastructure that makes a city possible – infrastructure that so many feminists (and people in general) never give a second thought to. All the academic literature in the world cannot make one.

  3. Men are only good for labor that requires brute force? Because the educational system is geared towards women’s styles of learning many men fail from frustration. But brute force is not our only forte.

  4. John,

    Here, in this venue, I’ll be brief. I’ve said more at my blog.

    I think it’s worthwhile to walk through the logical progression of you argument and identify where I think you correlate traditional values with male enslavement. As you state at the outset, the was an “implicit agreement between men and women, exchanging provision and protection for esteem and public deference.” Among traditionalists, this is still the agreement. Not service for sex and children, as you imply, but fundamental provision and protection for esteem and public (and private) deference.

    Among PUA’s, who, despite cries to the contrary, are indeed traditionalists, this may be described with a single word: NEXT! PUA’s do not tolerate disrespect, manipulation, or bullying. Unlike many men, they have staked out a position of power, and will not negotiate for sexual favors. Despite claims to the contrary, they are most certainly lead by their brains, and not their dicks.

    MGTOW are similar. Unlike PUA’s, they’ve entirely abandoned the sexual marketplace. Women are trouble, therefore; why bother? Their arguments so closely resemble the arguments of PUA’s that it still amazes me that the MRM slander the PUA’s relentlessly, yet says nothing foul about MGTOW’s. The only difference is that the PUA’s still engage with women.

    Which brings me to the traditionalists, of which I am, no matter my philosophy or the details of my life, a part. I’m in my first marriage – 20 years in – with one child off to college and another in grade school. The agreement with my wife is monogamy, for which she receives my assistance and I receive her deference. If either of us violates any of those three elements of our agreement, the marriage is dissolved – no matter if a judge intervenes or not. That is marriage.

    So, here’s my question for you, John. As you’ve stated often, there are several facets of our society, culture, and government that impede establishing marriages, hasten the dissolution of marriages, and worsen conditions for men after divorce, but these problems are rapidly being addressed by MGTOW and PUA culture. As Chateau Heartiste would say, “The sexual arms race continues apace.” Yet the traditionalists do have the answer, and it’s there for the men and women to see.

    If a woman proposed to you my agreement with my wife, an agreement not based on law and not subject to government approval, that for your assistance she will defer to your judgment, and that you two would be sexually monogamous, would that agreement be too little? Given some basic compatibility of personality and life goals, I don’t think you can propose something simpler and more effective.

    This, I submit, is the traditionalist argument. Your explanation is a straw man misrepresenting our lives.

  5. Ted Colt ..

    Can you say with certainty that your wife has never cheated on you?

    Can you prove (eg DNA or Blood type) your children are yours?

    I have evidence that given the opportunity a wife will cheat. Is that a strawman if it is in her (their / women) nature?

    I would love to have that perfect marriage. But I have come to the conclusion that a) AWALT b) Government has given her the power to nuke you at anytime she pleases.

    Don’t let my 45 years of age fool ya’. I was raised to be that blue-pill draft horse. I got re-pill training from a family friend in my early teens. My brothers didn’t. They (all 3) are now divorced. I’ve learned a lot on the last 30+ years from my red-pill training.

    But what I’ve learned most is traditional marriage is dead and not coming back. And you sir are disposable too. MaMa Government will be there for your wifey if you are not. To say the tax-payers are footing your bill should it come to that .. of course you would be in jail if you fail to continue to provide for them .. not sure how that is traditional when it was always the husbands kids and the wife got no parting gifts (ie cash and prizes) at the exit .. of course that was tge original deal if you want real traditional marriage .. which I guess you would but don’t .. is that a strawman too?

    Marriage 1.0 is dead. It’s marriage in name only. It has nothing in common with what marriage was originally. Your point is moot Ted.

Join the conversation