MRA’s have been hijacked by tradcucks

Have you ever noticed that the thing you liked in principle, that you never cared to read or hear about, had changed? However that happened, I do not fully know? But what I do know that even if my linguistic and media exposure to such material was starkly s mall, if ever I had a natural disposition towards something, based on my worldview or life experiences, well when an ideology that your opinions would align with – despite not reading any material from such ideologues – it’s now reached a point where I would disavow the whole thing including its ringleaders and pioneers, as the whole thing is just hijacked now.

People who are against abortion claim that they do not condemn the individual women who have abortions, in the same way that they wouldn’t condemn a person who does shoplifting due to living in poverty. But even so, as the action is wrong on a macro scale rather than the micro, as they would put it, for the sake of argument, I won’t be condemning any individual MRA’s in this article, other than to illustrate that their beliefs are nowadays representative of the ringleaders and pioneers of the movement, hence the majority at the rate things are going. That way, by focusing less on the people, it won’t detract away from the flaws and pitfalls of the ideology.

If there is any repercussions, provided that I can give a concise, comprehensive and all-encompassing overview of a rapidly evolving and superceding ideology, then you can’t say I didn’t warn you. But just who’s opinion is the authorative, definitive and standardised one?

What is a tradcuck?

MRA’s as a movement, failed for the second time because they got hijacked by tradcucks. Even worse, Paul Elam and Warren Farrell from A Voice For Men, have started parroting and preaching tradcuck opinions, issues and soundbites.

A tradcuck is someone who will use pro-male sound bites to be signalling to others that they are a male ally whilst appearing laudable to their peers by distancing themselves from the more derisive, divisive and unsavoury parts of feminism that those extreme radical feminists preach morality and complain about.

All while at the same time, when analysing men’s issues, they are inconspicuously counter-productive for men due to their weighted agency causing their flawed logic to result in them giving glaringly wrong and short-sighted reasonings and justifications for any social patterns, attitudes, opinions, interests or any other phenomenon.

In a perfect world, people would acknowledge that women have the agency (1) to make choices (2) and by women committing this, this then dictates the future options (3) and outcomes (4) that we are given.

Tradcucks do not acknowledge this. They treat women as having kid gloves and poor impulse control who have to be mollycoddled all the time as if they’re wrapped up in cotton wool. Tradcucks do not assign as much agency to women for their actions, as they would for men.

Tradcucks just absolve women of any responsibility for their actions but in a different way, as they deny differences of interest, intention and the urgency for precautionary self-preservation measures as apparently they’re misandry against men.

Prime example: Black Pigeon Speaks

Examples of tradcuck behaviour

Extreme example from Planet Mars

To give an extreme example, tradcuck MRA’s believe that domestic abuse isn’t a gendered crime. They disagree that domestic abuse disproportionately and mostly affects women, contrary to common sense, hence there’s no logical reason why there’s more domestic abuse shelters for women than men so it disproves male privilege and men need their own.

Verging on liberal cancel culture and HR territory, they ask why it’s morally wrong for a woman to clutch a handbag closer to herself if a black man walks past as if he’ll steal it in a flash-grab but somehow it’s magically socially acceptable if women walk to the side of the street with a lamppost after 9pm, why is one socially acceptable and the other isn’t? Or even worse, start chasing after the woman after hitches her legs a dozen steps forward as you cross paths, to then have several seconds of hurried and frightening running before calling her a racist. Yes it’s a real video!

Relatively more mild example

To give a more tame activism example, why when police are called to the house to quell a domestic abuse incident, why the man is arrested or temporarily removed from the house first without first establishing the fact from a proper interview, not a rushed shoddy one? Admittedly this isn’t the best example, it’s not tame enough but you get my point.

Common sense would dictate, which evades tradcucks, that the potential threat to life, triumphs over the human rights aspect of downgrading “reasonable suspicion” to “reasonable doubt” as a reason to formally arrest or informally interview, analogous to terrorism where normal rules don’t apply, as there’s been historical incidents when police just walk away then the woman is dead, assaulted or under GBH, the next day. How do you strike a balance? To a tradcuck, there is no balance, just black and white morality, the false dichotomy logical fallacy, no gray areas.

Pedantic example that’s splitting hairs

Men complaining about Ladies Night giving women free entry, half price entry, a free drink or half price drinks in nightclubs, as if somehow, for a hYpEr-ReAl issue, the nightclub will stay profitable if it’s attendees were 90% male. A woman aghastly wrote a refutal article for that one!

Example of PSA’s by tradcucks

For you zoomers who prefer shortform content, I do NOT agree with the opinions and person who is posting below, despite me being male.

The comments section of any MRA article is flooded with tradcucks

I’m sure you’ve seen those keyboard warriors before. They operate entirely and solely from their bedroom, you know!

Censorious reddit

Simply spend some time reading r/mensrights on reddit. Yes it’s full of tradcucks.

A Voice For Men

Paul Elam, its founder and his high associate Warren Farrell, has started using tradcuck opinions and arguments since the previous decade.

Some other websites I found

I don’t really know any as I don’t really go out of my way to be looking for such websites.

Tradcucks are not a factional third or a fringe minority

The british electorate isn’t the twitterati but the tradcuck websites are the tradcuck composite

For the 2017 Election in the UK well on twitter

Theresa May

  • 100,000 followers
  • Most of the replies are negative
  • You can read every reply within 10-30 minutes to all their tweets

Jeremy Corbyn

  • 1 million followers
  • Most of the replies are negative
  • It would take 1-2 hours for you to read every reply

Guess who won the election? Theresa May.

Leave a comment for the floating voter elsewhere, zero comments or mentions for the detractors

As a male (like me), just try to leave some comments in the comment section, that veers away from the tradcuck type arguments, then see how many upvotes and downvotes you get from the men and what replies you get, if any.

Even the famous figureheads of the movement, have changed to tradcucks

As I said before, Paul Elam and Warren Farrell are now acting like tradcucks and sprouting tradcuck opinions.

Women’s charities have updated their FAQ website, to refute claims made by tradcucks

The most popular women’s charities in the UK are the ones which run the domestic abuse shelters which are female same sex spaces, Women’s Aid and Refuge. Imagine my surprise, that they’ve had to add a section to their FAQ for men to read, which refutes the modern MRA claim that domestic violence and stalking primarily affects men, when it doesn’t.

The Mask You Live In, or the doormat you transfixed yourself?

Democrats love Trump’s tax plans and Republicans love Bernie’s energy rebate plans – when you switch the names round

It’s affiliation over achievement, much like football hooliganism after a team loses. So if you put a male CEO on a charity that helped men’s mental health and domestic abuse issues, instead of it being a woman, while everything else remained intact about policies, protocols and activities, would the men feel any outrage over a male CEO doing the same things? I think not.

Men’s Domestic Abuse Helplines and Male Cancer Charities getting prominence

ss

Male tradcucks endorse male pressure groups and support groups, run by feminists, if you put a male figurehead on it

So by definition, they must also like r/menslib and The Good Men Project, if the ideas are just packaged and presented in a different way.

One minute it’s “treat the malicious behaviour not the demographic”, the next minute it’s “uproot society not the offender”

Yes that’s really what these tradcucks say!

Imagine telling a 30 year old woman (with presumable life experience derived wisdom) she should take more precautions to detect male domestic abusers, to then complain about her pre-emptive self-protectionism withdrawal, when she does?

It really makes you think, doesn’t it?

Despite these men claiming to be right-wing, they are ideologically closer to centre-left The Independent, than they are hard-right The Telegraph

For context, The Times isn’t hard-left, it’s centre-left, as far as right-wing newspapers are in the UK.

Their comments have striking similarities to the Male Privilege Checklist, except it’s only a privilege when it’s about women

Tradcucks don’t truly care about helping other men

They’re just venting their frustrations over an adverse life event

Well probably a tragic divorce.

Here is where the defence mechanism comes in

It’s just episodically and waveringly, as they’ll move on and forget about it, once their life changes

Tradcucks are always splitting hairs about petty and trivial issues, incessantly and infuriatingly, whilst also feigning offence using co-adopted feminist concepts to drive a wedge between feminist media

Tradcucks are more left-wing than you think, unless an issue directly affects them personally

See this article to see what I mean.

How do tradcucks act when women – feminist or not – speak about women’s issues?

The way tradcucks call women deviously manipulative for knowingly benefiting from and engraining double standards, is neonatally naive, much like calling Lottie Moss manipulative for her older sister supermodel Kate helping her career

To use a liberal term, there’s a lot to unpack, with the way they view….

  • value
  • privilege
  • the hive mind
  • being complicit
  • tit-for-tat mentality
  • resource allocation under lopsided demand
  • symbiotic and parasitic relationships
  • add stuff here….
  • add stuff here….

No I don’t see how it makes the women bad people or their own worst enemy, when these tradcucks are talking about micro-scale interactions within the absence of any feminist activism or social engineering driven behaviour.

The MRA movement has shot itself in the foot – twice

Gunshot 1: Trusting tradthots who betrayed them

The reason why the MRA movement failed, is because after the SPLC classified them as a hate group, the women that A Voice For Men had voluntarily catapulted to become the spearheads of the movement, they were concerned about being blacklisted in the media industry, for being classified as part of a hate group due to the SPLC, so all of those women, just spontaneously quit the MRA movement, which then left a huge vacumn in the movement, so that’s why it failed.

They banked their reputation on those tradthot women and when the posibility of a media blacklist happened, the MRA gamble lost and the tradthot women’s gamble won, as the women had quit at the right time early enough, for their income, connections, film funding and media career to remain intact, whilst the MRA movement lost whatever support they had.

They were warned back in 2012, to not let women become spearheads in their movement, as you can’t predict the future, and they didn’t listen.
The women’s gamble won financially as they’d quit at the perfect time.
The men’s gamble backfired spectacularly as they lost control over their prescriptive (long-term) ideological message (1), collective understanding (not sharded understanding) (2) and distribution (3).

Gunshot 2: Being hijacked by tradcucks, whether intentionally or not

This definitely caused a lot of men who would previously of been that way inclined to congregate around them or self-declare they are one, to no longer do so.

Further Reading

I cannot call myself an MRA by today’s standards

It’s just been hijacked.

What year did it become hijacked?

I don’t know. Maybe around 2016-2018 but I don’t really go round reading their websites, forums or books so I’ve not got much idea about what they say in particular.

Have you got extensive and comprehensive sources for that?

How many sources do you need? What happened to empirical evidence and deductive reasoning?

People who value academic sources over empirical evidence, have cognitive biases of their own, as a defence mechanism

9 times out of 10 when someone on the internet asks you for a source to prove your opinion, they always accept a low standard of evidence to prove their assertions while demanding an exceptionally ridiculously high standard of evidence to prove your assertions.

When it comes to their assertions they will use logical fallacies like

1) synthesizing multiple sources together to support an assertion that neither of them can be used for.
2) Using the conclusion of a (psychology) study gives to prove their assertion, when it had a flawed methodology. But the person doesn’t care because it fits their media narrative to backup the premise of whatever they’re campaigning for
3) Use meta-studies which quote over 10 studies inside one article, of which the pdf file makes false and unsourced claims while mis-representing what it’s quoting
4) Deny evolutionary biology and all science which proves that certain mental traits are innate or genetic because it makes them feel good
5) Claim that because you don’t have a degree or career in that specific subject then you’re not qualified to have an opinion on it

But when it comes to YOUR sources they will do things like

1) Attacking the website the article is published in rather than the article itself, which is the “appeal to authority” logical fallacy
2) Selective quoting for your article
3) Demanding that you find a peer reviewed source because academic articles aren’t enough
4) Ab absurdum logical fallacy by blowing your point out of proportion by scaling it to higher severity and broader scope then claiming you’re wrong because the hypothetical absurd extremity isn’t true
5) Use studies which rely entirely on participants self-reporting to give whatever answers they feel like, without realising that due to the social desirability bias, participants typically LIE in their answers to choose the more politically correct option and avoid perpetuating negative stereotypes.

The modus operandi for a tradcuck

Conclusion

Read the sources. Eek!

Related Posts