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.

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