MGTOW Thread, I guess.
I wrote this in the last one:
If you ask me, traditionalism wasn't a half-bad deal for men. In times of violence and instability (war, disease, rampant crime, etc) it was necessary, as in the aggregate, healthy women of reproductive age are far more vital to the continuation of a stable society than are men. A small group of men can impregnate a large number of women to insure the continuation of a given society, whereas a society consisting of many men and a small number of reproductively viable and healthy women A) has no ability to repopulate itself quickly and B) leaves men fighting and killing each other over pussy. Literal civil war.
This instinct is so ingrained in us from eons of trial and error in building societies, that we don't even have to explicitly agree on. If we're invaded. If the village is on fire and people need saving. And yes if the ship is sinking. The women get on the lifeboats and live on and have kids, and the men would freeze to death in the waters of the North Atlantic. Men do and have long done this as a sacrifice, so that the societies we have worked to build have a chance at living on, instead of collapsing under the weight of our individual drives for survival.
The trade-off:
Under a traditionalist system, in which all men hold a lottery ticket, the prize attached to which is imminent and painful death, what is the means through which women balance this inequity? The answer is that they have fewer rights.
No jobs. No paying taxes. No fighting in wars.
No voting. No decision-making in the household. You want say-so, Mary Sue? In the society that men built up around you, the privileges of which you enjoy, but do nothing to pay for directly? Not a chance.
Traditionalism is a trade-off. It's men having cake, and women getting to eat it, and appreciating men for having given it to them.
Feminism, though, is something else entirely.
