Feminists and Gender Role Traditionalists are two sides of the same coin
- This topic has 5 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
In my opinion, the modern feminists as obnoxious and extreme as they are, aren’t as “radical” as they may seem, if you go back in history, you’ll see that both self identified feminists and members of the general public believed in the same man hating tropes as the most extreme feminists of today, the only difference is that in the past it was pushed less to the extreme than today.
Lets start off with the Gender Role Traditionalists (GRT) and war, one of their most common beliefs is that war is a mans duty and women shouldn’t be in the military, this at first glance sounds like the opposite of feminism because not only are they fine with women serving, but often force armies to lower the tests so more women can enlist, but once you look at their beliefs that men are more aggressive and destructive, it seems to rhyme with the GRT idea of men being inherently more war-like, in essence, they both have outdated belief about men being more violent, they just have different attitudes towards them (feminists hate men for their aggression, whereas the traditionalists celebrate male aggression), just like how even though Christians and (true) Satanists have different attitudes towards God and the Devil, they still believe in the same God and the same Devil.
Mind you that contrary to popular belief, feminists were always evil and were never truly good to begin with, Elizabeth Cady Stanton for example, was a feminist from Lincoln’s time, who believed that women are superior to men, that most men are evil spirited, and was offended that black men got to vote before white women (which made her clash with Fredrick Douglass), so while it can be argued that feminists may have had some good ideas in the past, their worldview and philosophy was filled with outdated prejudiced tropes, just like how the British Empire with their bill of rights had good ideas, when the Empire as a whole was not something that should be copied, since they did things like executing gay people and invading nations for resources.
Both Feminists and GRTs also share the same idea that women are entitled to things that men are not, the feminists say that women need affirmative action because they’re victims of male oppression, whereas the GRT’s believe that in the event of an emergency, every man should sacrifice their lives so the women can live because women are needed for reproduction, feminists may hate GRT’s because they clash with their anti natalism, but ultimately believe that women deserve more, this can be seen in the Titanic’s crew and expressed by certain authors like Robert Heinlein, promoting male disposability in a way that would have feminists proud, even though a different path drew them to that conclusion, that women are helpless victims that need top priority, while men are expendable sperm donors with little value, the only difference is that the Feminists justify this based on entitlement, while the GRT’s do so based on social darwinism.
In conclusion, we shouldn’t be too surprised that we see today in our culture, because the men are pigs trope has been promoted for generations, in a way, feminists are not real progressives, because they’re merely regurgitating rubbish from the past, made by people from a generation defined by people and cultures that don’t exist anymore, from limited experiences, for example, the men of that time who believed that only men are warriors likely never knew that some Japanese Women became Samurai, or how various African Empires had female warriors, they only knew their sisters, wives, mothers and other townswomen who were gentle christian puritans, while the Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s of that time had masculinity defined by the men she was around, who unfortunately were probably obnoxious pirate like drunks, judging by the obsession her kind had with alcohol, if you go back far enough in old entertainment, many of these so called “woke” ideas were already present, as a fan of the Biggles movie for example, I was disappointed when I read one of the author’s “Worrals” novels on the internet, which contained a scene where a main female calls men a nuisance, and had a scene set in the French countryside in WWII, talking about her beautiful it was because men weren’t there to ruin it, this was written by a WWI veteran in the 1940s!, it goes to show that our society isn’t “woke” in the literal term, but in a strange way, still stuck in the past, whilst conserving none of the positive, but all of the negative.
That’s a interesting post. We all know what a feminist is but I am unfamiliar with the definition of a “Gender Role Traditionalists”. Are these people that believe in gender roles or forced roles?
I believe in gender roles because men and women are much better at different things in most cases. But I don’t believe in creating laws based on that. Am I a GRT?
Men and Women are equal. They are equal parts of the family. But they are different in many ways which equips them for different things. Men are better at the war thing (in most cases, clearly you cannot blanket statement everyone) while women are far better are nurturing children (probably THE most important job on the planet). So it makes sense men go to war while women stay behind and create and raise the next generation.
My point is really that while no one should be forced in a role they do make some sense in many cases based on the differences in the sexes.
EDIT – I will add that I think your general theme here can be applied to most extremes. Most extremes that are on opposite “sides” seem to often share many things. I think this tends to make them equally wrong.
GRT is a term I made up for someone who has very old definitions of masculinity and femininity, and wants strict division of labor between the sexes, I’m not necessarily referring to people who for example would prefer their daughter become a nurse instead of a construction worker, as you said, you don’t want gender roles to be the law of the land, I’m talking more about the inflexible types, and more their views on what type of personalities the genders have rather than what they’re good at.
I personally consider GRTs to be the forerunners of the man hating doctrine of feminism, because it casts men as being vicious and women as gentle, the main difference is that they celebrate aggressive masculinity as desirable and don’t see the meekness of women to be victimhood per se, but ultimately both the feminists and GRTs although different in the sides they pick, are based on the same worldview, consider this, when discussing women and war, the GRT would say that the Army is solely the mans role because every war has been fought by a man, and the feminists would say that men are more evil and destructive than women because every war was fought mostly by men and these men committed war crimes, these are misinterpretations, if not outright abuses of history, it is completely unfair to say that men are more violent when these societies generally only allowed men to participate in state sponsored violence, whereas women were trained to be more docile and weren’t given a chance to be “pigs”, personally I think the feminist statement that men are violent brutes because of all the wars fought by men, is equally as unfair to saying that brown haired people are bad because in this hypothetical society, people with brown hair are granted the right by their feudal lords to kill whomever they feel like, whereas people of every other hair color is taught to know their place and never touch everyone, it’s only natural that under such circumstances where only brown hairs are encouraged and allowed to kill that the largest amount of killers will have brown hair.
On a side note, history has proven that if the GRT leaders of every society where men have committed war crimes had allowed women to serve, there would’ve been women that would’ve behaved as badly as the men, one good example is Christian Davies aka “mother moss”, she was a cross dresser who served in the British Army a few centuries ago as a Dragoon, and she was not anymore gentle than the male soldiers, she looted civilian homes, killed another soldier in a duel, and cut off the nose of a woman trying to steal her husband, during WWII the general public including the women in America were racists that wanted Japanese people to go extinct, meaning that the USAAF if they wanted to could’ve gotten a woman to drop the nuke instead of Paul Tibbets (and there were talented woman pilots in the military who could’ve pulled it off, like Jackie Cochran), feminist undoubtedly look at Vietnam War atrocities like My Lai as proof that us men are such nasty bastards, but that is also an unfair assessment because women weren’t drafted to even have a chance at committing war crimes, yet if the Vietnam War went on for longer and drafted women, there’s a chance that the Army could’ve had Brenda Spencer in their ranks, a teenage girl who during the 70s attempted to gun down school children because “she didn’t like mondays”, if the war lasted a bit longer and the Army gave as many woman as much of a chance as men in conscription, she could’ve been a Sgt Barnes type of figure in Vietnam, proving the men are the evil gender hypothesis false, this is not mentioning the small amount of female Nazi servicewomen, who at times were just horrific.
Ultimately, both GRTs and feminists have outdated, prejudiced assumptions about men and women, which historically were the result of circumstances like the contemporary policies and most importantly, the culture , rather than one gender inherently being more violent or evil than the other, the idea that women are vulnerable victims with pure hearts that are at the mercy of the opposite sex that’s more violent, as promoted by GRTs and feminists is in a way an illusion created by historical events that have been misinterpreted, also as valuable as history is, it can also be misleading, because the people from generations past don’t exist anymore, and cannot be an exact equivalent to modern realities due to our now rapidly changing cultures.
I understand your concern, though I also agree with you that gender roles existed for a reason, the motivation behind my post isn’t to discuss the merit of gender roles, but rather highlight the flaws behind feminist using historical gender roles as a morality tale about the nature of men compared to women, and how we shouldn’t be surprised at how society is so “woke” with all the man hating in pop culture and politics, because as I’ve proven, the attitudes promoted by feminists are not woke at all but rather the natural evolution of long held beliefs, I’ve always wondered why society just hated men all of a sudden over the past few decades, but as it turns out, these beliefs about men are quite old, the only thing that the woke culture has done is amplify these attitudes, it feels like a radical change, but the man hating wokesters changed little besides unmasking the flaws with how men are perceived by society (as brutes who are only valuable as forklifts and sperm donors), as I’ve pointed out in my initial post, Biggles creator W.E Johns. a male WWI veteran who grew up in ultra conservative Great Britain, basically looked down upon men as a gender to level not far off from a radical female Democrat from our generation (if his Worrals novels are any indication, which mind you were sponsored by the 1940s era RAF).
Edit: After some time doing researching and reflecting, I realised that the answer to the golden question “why is our society so woke and very anti male?” is rather simple, our civilization’s long held beliefs about men have been leading us to this direction in baby steps for generations, hiding in plain sight, instead of asking “why?” we should be thinking more like “I should’ve known”, it completely changed my perspective realising how feminists are not so modern in their rhetoric.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
