Defining Tradcon Feminism Part 2: Principles

In the last post, the theory of feminism was laid out via its origins in traditional Churchianity. This tradcon or traditional feminism also is referred to as the Feminine Imperative by some bloggers. Foundational feminism looks like this:

(2013-10-23) feminist-theory

In summarizing Part 1, I realized that I described this exact dynamic in my blog post on Marxist influence on marriage. The feminism we have today isn’t much different than what happened in the past. The only change is that the State replaced Christ in the model. This results in the State enforcing the general principles of feminism, allowing the women a greater freedom to act, and making the effects more prominent.

Three principles can be distilled from the theoretical model, in which all feminist thought and action can be described. They are presented in order of natural consequence. However, they can exist in any combination. It is hard to settle on a single concrete example since there are many of them. Even within this blog, there are numerous posts on the topic, so it will be hard to be comprehensive.

Principle #1

Women have absolute moral authority.
Men have absolute moral depravity.

The principle of absolute female moral authority stems from a woman’s assigned status as holy and blameless. This principle centers itself in the morality of thought and judgment. What a woman judges and discerns becomes right and holy, because they are the vicars of Christ. The common phrases “If mama ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy” and “happy wife, happy life” come from this principle.

(2013-10-23) feminist-model

As the truth becomes evident that both men and women have absolute moral depravity outside of Christ, it becomes necessary for rationalizations to be made by women to justify their behavior. This justification must immediately be accepted by all men involved – they must heed to women to be in the right.

This explains the popularity of female writers and bloggers in male-centric environments. It explains the propensity for women to be listened to when it comes to problems involving men, while men are dismissed as childish whiners when it comes to their problems with women. Sunshine Mary describes this principle:

One of the core pillars of feminism seems to be trying to control how men think about women. We want to be seen as smart, so by fiat order we’ll command men to see us as equally intelligent. We want to be seen as having the ability to be sexually promiscuous, so we’ll command men to hold a positive opinion of sluttery. We want to be seen as beautiful at 200 pounds, so we’ll command men to find us hot despite our obesity.

The absolute moral depravity of men brings a couple of very common rationalizations. It was considered that the worst behavior of any individual man would be representative of all men. The justification that a woman was pushed into doing something bad by a man is used as well. When all else fails, new doctrine is invented like the born-again virgin to make what all women do to be holy and right.

This principle, by placing men in a position of absolute depravity leads to:

Principle #2

Women have absolute female masterhood over men.
Men owe absolute male servanthood to disposability to women.

This principle stems from the perceived need of the man to perform continual penance for being born a man. They are to affirm and serve women unconditionally and without complaint. They are trained as children for the roles they are to take. They are to give up everything they have and even themselves at the whim and pleasure of a woman. A man is to be the perfect compliment of his wife, and then all women. He is to absorb all the consequences of the woman’s own actions – bear the sins of the woman.

Men are supposed to grow up to be this for women.
Men are supposed to grow up to be this for women.

This comes out in the entitlement mentality towards both the provision and protection of men. These entitled women feel they are entitled by birthright to a husband personal man-slave and all that he is and can provide.

Any man who does not man-up and marry a slut, and then give up all his hopes, dreams, fantasies and resources to her is a perpetual child, who is being completely selfish. He is a Peter-Pan manboy who has failed to grow up (and all the other feminist shaming memes), because he isn’t following out the plan. The opposition to professed MGTOWs, who are almost always self-sufficient, proves this principle.

As well, the way people reacted to the events of the Costa Concordia drives this point home. The grumbling and furor over why it wasn’t women and children first illustrates that the gift of loving self-sacrifice has been turned into an absolute obligation of men because their wickedness renders them into chattel.

Principle #3

Women are infantilized.
Men provide apologetic rationalization.

This facet is the hardest to describe, because this is the part of traditional feminism that the secular feminists have opposed and largely eliminated. It also happens to be a very lightly touched topic on this blog. This isn’t a deliberate goal of feminism, but a natural consequence of it. When you allow a young woman to remain undisciplined and shield her from the consequences of her own wrong actions, rationalizing them to be right, you get a feral woman. When you raise a young woman to feel entitled to have men shoulder all her responsibilities for her, you get a woman that hasn’t grown up. When girls aren’t trained up in the way they should go before God by doting fathers worshiping their daughters, you get the perpetuation of feminism.


In how the secular feminists address the infantilization of women, they recognize the danger of an adult who can not fend for themselves (2:30-3:15). This is where the false definition that feminism has to do with “equality” comes from – essentially that women can’t play the same games as men due to their own demand of total male sacrifice.

However, the secular feminist answer socializes the responsibilities of women onto all men through government. The State is used to intensify the practice of the first two principles. We get the farce of the “strong, powerful and independent woman” who needs a husband, government assistance, discriminatory laws, alimony, child support, and a host of other things in order to maintain that status. These things enable the independent woman to not take responsibility for herself by doing things the same way men have always had to do. As a result, opportunities are taken away from men and given to women. In a fascinating turn, the secular feminists have chosen to openly embrace childhood and immaturity in themselves.

Instead of rejecting the results of these things as a failure to discipline these women, men rationalize away the consequences as the natural and innate qualities of women. They rationalize that women have reduced or no moral agency whatsoever. In doing so, they fulfill the purpose behind Principle #1, leaving women unchallenged to grow up. Men then bear the consequences for the wicked actions of women. Men do not recognize that these women never had to be tried and shaped by fire in fulfilling responsibility, and never have had to feel the fire in touching The Hot Stove of Life.

Defining Tradcon Feminism Part 1: Theory

One of the things that’s been impressed upon me as I’ve written this blog and have reflected upon what I’ve run across is the need to pull together some of the blog’s material into a definition of traditional feminism, or as those in the manosphere and other blogs like to refer to it, tradcon feminism.

I’ve chosen to use the label traditional feminism as opposed to tradcon feminism because the label “traditional” is more accurate – “tradcon” referring to “traditional conservative”, because there are non-conservatives that hold to feminist principles. The idea of tradition has been discussed before (here and here), referring to something that represents the ways of men, but has been ingrained into habit and unquestioned as what is right, God’s way, natural. It becomes heavily and wrongly defended when it should be reviled and cast into the dustbin of history. Feminism in short is simply female-supremacist hatred of men. Supremacism is:

The belief that a particular race, species, ethnic group, religion, gender, sexual orientation, class, belief system or culture is superior to others and entitles those who identify with it to dominate, control or rule those who do not.

I find this to be apt of feminism as it’s always been, even more as I ponder the nature of these things. One thing I’ve discovered with time that I’ve been mistaken on is that there are different “flavors” of feminism. That can be easy with the way people talk. But in truth, they all carry the same basic principles which I observed here:

The only conclusion that can be taken out of this is that Marxist feminist marriage literally *is* an expression of traditional marriage. Such an arrangement wouldn’t have been possible without the foundations laid by the previous feminist system. Modern Marxist feminism presumes female-centric moral-authority and male sacrifice at its core. It did nothing to build these things.

So in that sense, what most people tend to refer to as feminism is merely the modifications to the original traditional scheme.

The Origin of Modern Western Feminism
In looking at the fundamental foundations of feminism, it all has the same basic principles that originate from the traditional premise of feminism. Oddly enough, the feminism we have today stems from an old Churchian tradition: the idea of bridal mysticism. As Leon Podles work brilliantly describes, there was a point in the 13th century where the use of erotic language to describe the relationship of the soul and God became acceptable (1). It was especially appealing to women then, as it is today. Then the eroticism was extended further into a sexual realm. As Podles writes (1):

Bernard claimed that “if a love relationship is the special and outstanding characteristic of
bride and groom it is not unfitting to call the soul that loves God a bride.

Having established the principle for the use of such language, Bernard then elaborated. He referred to himself as “a woman” and advised his monks to be “mothers” —- to “let your bosoms expand with milk, not swell with passion” — to emphasize their paradoxical status and worldly weakness.

This false doctrine naturally led to an extension of the idea that the individual is the bride as opposed to the Church corporate, along with the confusion of gender identity that exists in traditional Christian teaching today. (2) Women naturally took more to this eroticism than men, so it became held that women were more naturally brides of Christ while men fell short. This also led to the desire of many men to feminize themselves – this is why most of the pastors we get through history after this point are feminized men. Given the naturalness of this eroticism to women, coupled with misandric false doctrine like Augustine’s “demon rod”, they were held in higher esteem than men. Even Mary was substituted for Jesus as a model of admiration. As Podles writes (3):

As Barbara Newman points out, “women with a talent for sublimation need not even give up their eroticism. Beginning in the twelfth century and increasingly there-after, the brides of Christ were not only allowed but encouraged to engage in a rich, imaginative playing-out of their privileged relationship with God. Christ as a suffering, almost naked young man, was an object of the devotion of holy women.” This bridal status of holy women gave them an added cachet in the male imagination. As Abelard wrote to Heloise, she began to outrank him “on the day she became the bride of his lord while he remained a mere servant.”

So we have established an order where women are seen as the superiors of men, because they are perceived to be closer and more fit for Christ than men are. This was naturally pushed out into practice by force of arms through things such as chivalry, and modeling the relationship between women and men in the same way that lords and vassals interacted.

As usually happens, the reasons behind tradition have been forgotten. But the ideas live on in many forms. It is this tradition that produces the sad unfortunate quote out of the Godfather (4):

You let women dictate your actions and they are not competent in this world, though certainly they will be saints in heaven while we men burn in hell.

There you have it – traditional feminism in a nutshell. As this post has gotten too long to continue, I’ll use the next post to describe the practices that stem from this tradition. There will be much room for discussion and addition, as the effects of these ideas standing unchallenged in society have brought numerous consequences. There I will describe the principles by which the consequences have come, some examples, and how modern feminists have modified the traditional paradigm.

(1) – Podles p 103.
(2) – ibid page 104.
(3) – ibid page 105.
(4) – The Godfather by Mario Puzo p 38

Links and Comments #16

Stuff that’s interested me in the last 54 days (which will make this a bit long), with no particular organization or order. The appearance of anything here doesn’t mean I agree with it, just that I found it interesting.

A rant on marriage (NSFW – language) prompted by the latest offensive of the man-up brigade to re-educate men into thinking that being made into disposable beasts of burden is fine and in fact preferable to actually being a man. It takes a lot of shaming, deception, and corruption to keep the machine of traditional feminism going, especially since even the awareness that the man-slaves can go wander off the plantation is dangerous to them. After all, marriage is supposed to be all about the complete benefit of women at the complete expense of men. Consequently, it must be very nice to be a woman in today’s society.

(Appearance and Essence: Tradcons & Marriage)

Definite home run all the way around.

A plea against nihilism. It’s good to be critical about things that are wrong in the sight of God. Otherwise you are not doing justly. Besides the Bible is pretty clear that things are going to get worse, but accepting and defending those things in the name of not being “nihilist” or “defeatist” is not good.

Some brief thoughts on courtship and dating as prompted by this post.

Truth is, the words “boyfriend” or “girlfriend” shouldn’t ever be used in a Christian context. They are connected to a system, “dating”, which embodies a lifestyle and mode of thought which are incompatible with Christian teaching and living.

As I explained, this invention isn’t Godly, because in God’s sight there is only one thing: Marriage. It’s just another invention to allow women to keep from committing to marriage (period), along with no-fault divorce.
Related: The boyfriend inventionMarriage Lite: Mistaking no sex before monogamy for a moral statement.

Another one of my comments written here ended up as another not guest-post guest-post. As I mentioned, I’m thinking on a good way to do a “How to Study Your Bible” series (among a few other posts), but it’s hard to describe mental process in a way others can understand. The related link I mentioned in the comments there: 5 Characteristics of a Strong Mind.

It’s a sin now for a woman to not have feminist moxie towards her husband. Also, we have a script idea for Fireproof II. These things happen because it’s been deemed that God asks too much for women to submit to their own husbands. It’s been deemed that God asks too much for wives to have regular sex as well, but their husbands should apologize for it and devalue it in their own minds, as well as submit to her to get sex. It’s also been deemed that God asks too much for women to stay married to their husbands, so it’s okay to promote divorce. But it is ideal when a man is able to reframe the repeated wrongs done against him by his wife into loving submission to her. Deti points out that Women are indeed responsible for the problem, especially when they’ve been acting morally dominant to get husbands for quite some time. Let’s put the proper focus where it should be, instead of trying to deflect the blame to men all the time. After all, when women complain about men it’s a legitimate problem, when men complain about women they’re whiny losers.

Dalrock doesn’t come out and say it directly, but he describes the doctrine of the Personal Jesus.

The nuts and bolts of cathedral indoctrination: A perfect view of what has been happening for quite some time, within the churches and without.

Glenn Stanton, men are the ones who civilize women, not the other way around.

The depression epidemic in women as of late is linked to feminism. There’s also a depression & suicide epidemic in men which will only get worse because of feminism. If women would start being women again, maybe men will man up, and everyone will be doing better.

Even the red pill ladies have no idea of the poor sales job they are doing regarding marriage. A good rule of consideration for men: Want to see what she’ll be like as a wife? Look at her mother. I know I receive several red-pill boosters myself every time I read around.

One illustration of what is meant when numbers are applied to the "quality" of women.
One illustration of what is meant when numbers are applied to the “quality” of women. (Source)

One problem with the dating market is that women only will accept men who are of much higher quality than themselves. Deti confirms with a perfect description of how dating works today (Part 1, Part 2). Of course, when women do this, they get rejected by men who know quickly where they stand with women, so the cries of how “men’s standards are too high” and “they can’t find men to date” come out. I dispel the fallacy that is used to blame the men in this regard: That men just need to man-up and ask out women. The real truth is that these women just aren’t finding their peers attractive enough to give them the time of day. The feminist (in this case traditional) mound-building always happens in response to the truth, but such are things.

Joseph was a real man of God. Real men of God don’t man-up and marry the sluts. They live lives of righteousness, wife or no wife. They put God first and don’t throw him aside for goddess.

Western women are rejected in Japan while their male counterparts clean house just like in China. The same feminist rationalizations are there too: there’s nothing wrong with the women, it’s the men.

Why do some divorced men don’t get the clue?

An old Ferdinand Bardamu repost about the inherent (and sinful) solipsistic nature of women.

Predictive prophecy regarding the European Union. Daniel is a more solid go-to book to prove this one, using Revelation as support. There’s too many indicators pointing to the fact that the EU will be the Fourth Reich, that anyone who gives Scripture a faithful reading should see it. The Churchians even get this one right (Chapter 3).

Churches have been feminist for a very long time. They are just being more open about it now as the new form of feminism is set into the standing traditional feminism in the church. They were always not-feminist feminists, but the darkness is becoming more bold as the light diminishes in churches today. Make no mistake, a feminist can not be a Christian.

Feeriker points out that US churches are really State Churches by virtue of the 501c3 laws.

A video on how the North Koreans see the United States. As stated there, you have to get past the standard communist propaganda (Dear Leader, Eternal President), but “it’s a pretty damning indictment that they don’t really need to exaggerate, or lie much, . . . because so much of it is based on the truth.” If you are okay with the age restriction requirement (signing in) regarding Googliath, it’s a definite recommend.

The MSM is removing comments sections because it’s swaying public opinion against their pablum.

Sugar-daddy sites are seeing an upswing in traffic during the government shutdown (H/T). Lends credence to the government being the real husbands of women these days.

Stingray begins to see foundational/traditional feminism.

Buying into the victim cult by making men into victims victimizes men.

Christianity’s idols of the age.

Mark Driscoll makes the case for MGTOW himself.

Until next time, a poll since I’m curious: