The Backlash! - Backlash Article Archive - Pseudo-Conservative Feminists
  On-line since 1995 - Published January 30, 2013  |


Vote Male American Flag
Hot Links
  ‑ Shedding The Ego
  ‑ Male Defender!
  ‑ Andy Man
  ‑ Angry Harry
  ‑ Anti-Feminist Technology
  ‑ Anti-Feminist Theory
  ‑ Anti-Misandry
  ‑ Articles About Men
  ‑ Boycott American Women
  ‑ Chapin's Inferno
  ‑ DadsDivorce
  ‑ DadsNow
  ‑ Debunker's Domain
  ‑ DV Men
  ‑ Equal But Different
  ‑ Exposing Feminism
  ‑ False Rape Report
  ‑ False Rape Society
  ‑ Family of Men
  ‑ Fathers and Families
  ‑ Fathers4Justice
  ‑ Feminist Apocalypse
  ‑ Fiebert's Bibliography
  ‑ Girl Writes What Blog
  ‑ Girl Writes What YouTube
  ‑ Heretical Sex
  ‑ Leykis 101
  ‑ Intact America
  ‑ John the Other
  ‑ JudgyBitch
  ‑ Male Affirmative
  ‑ Manist Movement
  ‑ Man Woman & Myth
  ‑ Men Are Good
  ‑ MensActivism
  ‑ MensENews
  ‑ MensNewsDaily
  ‑ Men's Rights Blog
  ‑ Men's Rights Online
  ‑ National Center for Men
  ‑ National Coalition for Men
  ‑ NoCirc
  ‑ No Ma'am
  ‑ Purple Heart House
  ‑ Stephen Baskerville
  ‑ Traitors Of Men
  ‑ Warren Farrell
  ‑ Washington Families
  ‑ White House Council
  ‑ Women Against Men
  ‑ Women Against VAWA
Pseudo-Conservative Feminists
By Rod Van Mechelen
How many of the "traditional women" blogs are feminist fronts? How many are false flag operations pretending to be conservative to promote the hatred and subjugation of men?
Men and Marriage: Of Outliers and the Mellow Middle
2013 Olympia, Wash. - In 1989 after reading Men and Marriage I had this to say about it:
Here, I found a kindred spirit and heard a voice speaking directly to my own experiences, hopes, fears, and deepest needs. His messages filled me, anointed my soul, and set me free in a way I had neither expected nor was prepared for, but welcomed. - Empowering Women, Rod Van Mechelen, 1989
George Gilder is a conservative champion of traditionalism and a pre-eminent anti-feminist. But in what sense is he a "conservative"? In America, when we speak of conservatism it's not about preserving the existing order of aristocratic institutions; most people mean Classical Liberalism:
Classical liberalism is a political ideology, a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties and political freedom with limited government under the rule of law and generally promotes a laissez-faire economic policy. - Classical Liberalism, Wikipedia
This is what most people in America mean by the term, "conservative," and it leads to a lot of confusion, especially when the conversation crosses national and cultural borders, which in the age of the Internet Reformation is a routine occurrence.

It becomes further confused by virtue of the fact that one of the fundamental differences between Liberalism and Conservatism (Classical Liberalism) has to do with outliers versus the averages. Classical Liberal (Conservative) policies are utilitarian in that they are based on the average person. Liberal policy, on the other hand, focuses on the statistical outliers: the worst as well as the best. Hence, Liberal policies tend toward extremes that are quick to embrace radical changes, while Conservative policies tend toward a moderate middle that is slow to embrace change. Slow, but not opposed.

Most people are best served by conservative policies. Traditionalism evolved over centuries of trial and error and is proven to produce "the greatest good for the greatest number." In the case of marriage, the stay-at-home housewife is a recent development. Historically, women worked. Peasants could not afford to have an idle woman sitting at home sipping tea with her neighbors. Traditionally, women gathered, harvested, spun thread, wove fabric, and did a lot of work...close to the home. Traditionally, men hunted, tilled, herded, fished, and did a lot of work...farther from home. This is how it was for centuries.

The Radical Nature of the Stay-At-Home Housewife
The stay-at-home housewife as we understand her today is anything but traditional, and is an invention of relatively wealthy socieities. If there is anything "traditional" about the stay-at-home housewife, it is a new tradition. And for most people, when they can afford it, it is very functional, but for the outliers not so much.

Outliers on the high-functioning end of the curve feel trapped when there is a lack of choices. Feminism began with outliers demanding the freedom to choose. Freedom is a quintessential American value. It is a part of the American tradition, freedom of choice for women resonated deeply with the American psyche, and so when feminists said women ought to be free to choose more, many otherwise conservative "traditionalists" agreed.

As is so often the case with mass movements, however, the feminist movement was taken over by extremists. But their extremism didn't get them too far until they began to demonize men. As Eric Hoffer noted in his seminal book, The True Believer, "Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a God, but never without belief in a devil."

Making devils of men, the original feminist message of freedom of choice for women turned into an ideology of hate. Men responded to oppose the hate-male campaign. Men like Richard Doyle, Harry Crouch, Warren Farrell, Fredric Hayward and Mel Feit, among several others. Feminists attacked, calling them misogynists and rape-apologists. Not because most of the men of the Men's Rights Movement (MRM) actually hated women, apologized for rape or opposed choices for women, but because the men of the MRM were the true champions of equal rights and freedom of choice, including the freedom to choose traditional relationships, and all of that threatened the feminist ascent to power.

A Natural Alliance Spurned
At first, the men and women of the MRM thought that conservatives would side with them against the feminists. But the victimology of the second- and third-wave feminists uses conservative rhetoric to condemn men as villains and portray women as victims, and so even when conservatives condemned feminism, they never sided with the MRM. If they did not ally with the MRM, however, neither did they attack it, until recently.

Under the auspices of traditionalism, an anonymous coward who writes under the pseudonym of "Edita TWRA" is condemning the MRM. Ironically, like the feminists she pretends to condemn, her attacks are often confused and contradictory. When she is not accusing us of siding with the feminists, she resorts to feminist rhetoric to attack us.

For example, in the following post she more or less accuses us of being feminists:

Now, I admit I basically stalk all the MRA hubs on Facebook, Twitter and various MRA blogs and NOT ONCE have I seen where they embrace traditionalism. NOT ONCE have I seen them vouching for inequality of the genders. In fact, majority of the cases they support full fledged feminism, which in its core is a Marxist invention. - Men’s Rights Activists Love Rape and Hate Women, Edita TWRA, January 29, 2013
Second-wave feminism is Marxist, as was amply demonstrated in Shulamith Firestone's book, The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution. But first-wave feminism was deeply rooted in core American values. Nonetheless, after first accusing us of being too much like feminists, she flips around and sides with feminists against us:
MRA’s want to end alimony, they want to exempt rapists from punishment, and they support gender fungibility. ... MRA’s in masse (SIC) also support rapists Paul Elam on the Voice for Men stated that “Should I be called to sit on a jury for a rape trial, I vow publicly to vote not guilty, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the charges are true.” - Men’s Rights Activists Love Rape and Hate Women, Edita TWRA, January 29, 2013
Regarding the rape quote, it's taken out of context. That being a debate among Men's Rights Advocates over jury nullification. Here's what else Paul had to say:
Extreme circumstances call for extreme measures. And there is no better example of extreme than in the way this false rape culture has run common decency and sacred rights into the ground.

One possible extreme is jury nullification. When a law or system of applying laws becomes the source of injustice, jury nullification has long been a viable option.

Nullification occurs when a jury acquits a defendant despite the weight of evidence against him. It is legal and completely moral depending on the application.

Jury nullification may not be the appropriate route to take in a rape trial, but until society learns to approach this problem without pitchforks and torches, it must be an option that is on the table. - On Jury Nullification and Rape, Paul Elam, A Voice for Men, August 1, 2010

No Debates Allowed
On feminist blogs--and on the 3 TWRA blogs I've recently become acquainted with--you will not find comments that express fundamental disagreements. Minor points, only, because they simply don't tolerate disagreement. MRA blogs, on the other hand, are loaded with opposing points of view. Paul expressed one point of view, and then hosted an entire debate on the subject. A debate which demonstrated that far from having a monolithic view on this subject, the MRM is host to a diversity of viewpoints. So for Edita TWRA to stereotype all MRAs as "rape apologists" is to side with the feminists and expose herself as yet another female supremacist.

Nor would I characterize Paul as a "rape-apologist." Intelligent people often pose a very controversial view solely for the purpose of kicking people in their complacency and getting them to open their eyes. Judge Robert Bork is a frequently cited example of this, and of what can happen to people when they do. Look up the term, "Borked."

Incredibly, after "Borking" Paul, she further sides with the feminists to brand Warren Farrell as a rape apologist:

Warren Farrell is yet another well-known rape apologist. - Men’s Rights Activists Love Rape and Hate Women, Edita TWRA, January 29, 2013
Like the feminists who protested Warren's recent talk at the University of Toronto, she doesn't give any reason for why she calls him a rape apologist. But she does continue with all manner of nonsense:
MRM movement is basically the feminist movement because they both exploit and abuse women; they both seek egalitarian ideals and equal rights. Traditional women who want stable loving husbands and families are the biggest losers in this game. What MRM strive to do is to further equalize the balance between the genders so that men will be free to avoid responsibilities, in short the MRM is about men gaining all the rewards and benefits while avoiding the responsibilities of being husbands and fathers. - Men’s Rights Activists Love Rape and Hate Women, Edita TWRA, January 29, 2013
She sprinkles a few facts over a lot of nonsense and juxtaposes equal rights against loving relationships, as if the two are mutually exclusive. And she projects motives onto MRAs without evidence, attributing the consequences of feminist policies to the MRM. Ironically, while feminist organizations talk about equal rights, they demand laws and programs that are frequently in perfect alignment with Edita TWRA's views.

Will The Real Feminists Please Stand Up
Which leads me to wonder if Edita TWRA and the other TWRA blogs are really feminist fronts?

Now this brings me back to the MRM whining that I have been receiving. You made your bed MRA’s now lie in it. You were the first ones who bashed and spit on this blog and on the TWRA movement. You were the ones who rejected the traditionalist message. You rejected patriarchal ideals and instead you support egalitarian communist ideals. Thus, the TWRA’s will never associate with you nor will we ever join you. - Men’s Rights Activists Love Rape and Hate Women, Edita TWRA, January 29, 2013
Here, Edita TWRA lies. Could be she's simply ignorant, but it's a lie, nonetheless.

I'm one of the "old-timers" of the MRM. My participation dates back to the days when most of the MRAs were fathers' rights activists (as opposed to men's rights advocates), and most of the FRAs were traditionalists. Being conservatives and traditionalists, you would think they would have had the support of Conservatives like Edita TWRA. Just the opposite is true: except on issues like abortion, most conservatives sided with the feminists (just as on several issues within just the one article quoted above, Edita TWRA takes the same positions as feminists). This set up a dynamic between the MRM and Conservatives (i.e., traditionalists) that taught MRAs to view conservatives as allies of feminism.

Moreover, when I first found her blog, I submitted comments in which I expressed sympathy and agreed with her on some issues but pointed out where she was mistaken on others. No response, no reply, she did not approve my comments to be posted, and did not acknowledge anything until I wrote my first article about her blog, Traditional Women and Their Manginas, which caught as much flak from the new generation of MRAs as it did from Edita TWRA. The primary concern of the MRAs seemed to be that I was siding with a bigot.

I wonder why?

The MRM are nothing more but simple emasculated boys who are afraid of their own masculinity. You are afraid of true feminine women, thus you shun them. Also, due to your inferiority complex you refuse to grow up. As a result I advise all women to Oppose the MRA’s as much as possible. Because if not stopped MRA’s will exterminate all women. They are crazy and deluded individuals who shun good submissive feminine women. I think we can see where the problem lies, thus MRA’s do not deserve the TWRA’s. Nor do they deserve feminist women, because they are simply so rotten they hate women. Thus, women should NOT associate with MRA’s. MRM is the biggest threat to female happiness. - Men’s Rights Activists Love Rape and Hate Women, Edita TWRA, January 29, 2013
Yes, that could be it. Edita TWRA may claim to support Traditional Women, but most of her positions are feminist. It looks like at least some of the traditional women blogs are merely false flag operations, feminists pretending to be conservatives to promote the hatred for and subjugation of men.


Rod Van Mechelen

Rod Van Mechelen is the author of What Everyone Should Know about Feminist Issues: The Male-Positive Perspective (the page now includes several articles by other authors), and the publisher of The Backlash! @ He is a member of the Cowlitz Indian Tribe and served for 9-1/2 years on the Cowlitz Indian Tribal Council.


Join The Backlash! Forum

Copyright © 2013 by Rod Van Mechelen; all rights reserved.
Rod Van Mechelen, Publisher & Editor,
Notice: All email to the editor may be edited for publication and become the property of The Backlash!™
Hosted by: The Zip Connection