Fuzzie just mentioned a new row in the manosphere. It actually predates the latest latest one, I just failed to spot it. It might be that I should have caught it from a throw away line by Paul Elam saying (something like) ‘there are apparently some people saying that you can’t be married and an MGTOW…oh really’ in one of the most recent shows on his channel that I enjoyed watching. I wish I could remember which show it was on (anyone else catch it? towards the end of a recent show).
I have not seen Paul’s take on the issue, but I am keen to do so. Because the issue of married MGTOWs isn’t something that deeply worries me, but it is an interesting question. Unless you’re under very specific legal regime about cohabitation and/or marriage (Code Napolean?) without kids, I find it a stretch to be able to claim to be going your own way oblivious to the legal implications of your living arrangements. It’s not that I mind you using the label, but I wonder if the label actually means anything under those situations(?)
I am a big fan of AVFM and have been linking to the site in comments all over the place since its creation. AVFM does waaaaay more good than my small reservations question (uplink the damn videos! all of them! immediately!). Don’t even bother trying to drive a wedge in, there’s no gap. My goals are highly compatible with AVFM’s (luckily for me. they’re getting stuff done IRL).
I’ve only managed to get part way through Diana’s side. So I’m not drawing conclusions, just saying that she’s making a comment about the MRM that should be considered. In an echo of the latest latest issue, is traditionalism really compatible with Men’s Rights?
The echo may not be direct, but to my mind traditionalism is very heavily wrapped up in the attitude that men shouldn’t worry about reality, just go with what is claimed to have worked 50+ years ago. It continued to work in pockets and demographics after that…but can hardly be said to be a good bet nowadays (IMVHO).
I thought that such battles against these buffoons expecting men to just leap on the offer of being lead ended 3+ years ago. Before then it was a regular occurrence that a paleo-con (someone living way in the mythical patriarchal past, long before present realities) would wander into a manosphere site and see the commenters as an army just waiting for a glorious leader (such as himself) to happen along. ‘King A’ / ‘Matt King’ was the latest example of that that I remember. He claimed to be looking to recruit a small number of men for his crusade on Dalrock’s blog. He succeeded beyond his wildest dreams; he recruited none. He was then kicked off of Dalrock’s blog! If you knew what a decent guy Dalrock is, you’d share my surprise. ‘King’ was then seen being lampooned in the comments on Roissy / Chateau / Heartiste. I’m still wondering if he’s back on JFG…under a new name, looking for a new following for a glorious crusade to misery under the wheels of current social realities (aka ‘under the wheels of the bus’).
What do you reckon of the Diana vs Judgy? I won’t finish the videos till tomorrow, but I think that whatever they say, the underlying issue is valid. Whether the individuals involved are accurately described or not.
Can you be a traditionalist MRA, or is that always going to involve men going under the bus (sacrificing / being sacrificed for society (women) in general)? If traditionalists conquer the MRM does one have to become an MGTOW? Until enough MGTOWs have common cause regarding legal issues that they wish to campaign against…causing the rebirth on an MRM. MRM redux, perhaps.