Raw Takes - MGTOW and "Traditionalism"

Ah, hello everybody. It's good to see you tonight. Um, how is everybody? Uh, as always, I'm going to be, uh, waiting for the first minute or so for everybody to come in. Uh, I hope, I hope you all enjoyed this. This is one of my raw tapes. Uh, this episode, I'm going to be, uh, just for this episode, I'm going to be talking about MGTOW and, uh, what they call traditionalism, quote unquote. Uh, if you're interested in that, please stick around. I'm going to be, uh, spoiler, spoilers. I don't like either side of this debate, and I'm going to say some good things about each side, and I'm also going to [ __ ] on each side too. So, uh, if you're, if you want those, uh, if you want that kind of thing, uh, let me know. Uh, I'm, again, please like, comment, share, and subscribe to this channel, and, uh, I hope that you all, um, have fun with this video.

Uh, anyway, so, right. So where do I begin? Oh, yes, yes. Okay, okay. Here's where I'll begin. I'll begin by talking about the distributist. Dave, the distributist. He's a friend of this channel. Uh, you can find links to his video, his channel, in my friends, it's friends of the channel list on my channel. So, yeah, he's, he's a pretty cool guy. I like some of his opinions. Uh, I like, I think he's, personally, I think he's a pretty good guy, um, overall. You know, maybe we have our disagreements, but, uh, we may have our disagreements, but, you know, I get a lot of mileage out of him. He, he has a lot of good takes.

Um, but today, but he once again stepped into this, uh, whole manosphere thing where he started going off about members of the manosphere. He started talking about pickup artists and men's rights activists and MGTOW, or Men Going Their Own Way. And I, some of what he said was valid, and other things he said was just bad. Okay, it was just bad. And, um, there was another tiny YouTuber that, uh, I'm subscribed to, named Dystopian Franchise. And I'll, you know what, I'll link to him. I'll, uh, show, show my screen. Uh, let's see. I'll share my screen with you guys. Uh, share screen, application window. Let's see. Chrome tab. Boom. All right. So you see here, I go down here. Uh, yeah, yeah. So Dystopian Franchise. See this guy? 48 subs. He's actually doing worse than me. Imagine that. I, I can't believe it. Uh, he has a lot more videos, though. Uh, it's not that his videos are bad, it's just that, um, he has a terrible mic. And he has a terrible mic. And the thing about the, the thing is, he, because he has a terrible mic, he, um, his videos aren't of good quality. Most of them aren't, in my opinion, which is a shame because he has a lot of interesting, insightful things to say. But he made a video recently called "Manosphere vs. Religious Traditionalism." And immediately, I started seeing a lot of problems with this, uh, video. He, I started seeing just so many different problems here. And, oh gosh, where do I begin? Oh, I, I, I get, I have all these problems with it. I mean, part of it is that, uh, when MGTOW talks about traditionalism, they're really talking about Christian conservatives, or people who have a more conservative sexual morality. Uh, you know, someone who wants to, um, one, someone who embraces says that, you know, men becoming, getting married and becoming a father is the height of masculinity, you know, those types of people, right? That kind of, quote unquote, traditionalist, um, that's what MGTOW calls people, right-wing conservatives who oppose their movement. Or, I mean, at least they oppose them. I, I, I have yet to see, like, a tradition, a quote unquote traditionalist who obsesses over, like, the evils of MGTOW, right? It's always the other way around. It's usually like the MGTOW types bang on about how bad conservatives and traditionalists are because, uh, they're like, oh, well, they don't understand us. They don't understand what's going on. They, they just want to return back to the 1950s. Yeah, real original, guys. Um, original critique, guys. I'm being sarcastic there. But, right, that doesn't mean that the religious traditionalists, if I said, oh, look, if I sound dismissive of the MGTOW types, it's because I personally dislike them. But just because I personally dislike them does not mean that I don't see why they dislike the traditionalist conservatives, and I don't see the problems that they see. And in fact, I think in some ways, they are more correct than their quote unquote traditionalist counterparts. And I'm going to divide this video into, um, into two parts. Like, one part, I'm going to be talking about what I like about the traditionalists, and then before [ __ ] on them. And then the other part, I'm going to be talking about what I like about MGTOW, and then [ __ ] on them.

All right, so now that you've gotten seven minutes of ranting out of the way, uh, I want to give a huge thank you to all five people who are, um, [Music] uh, watching me. Thank you for watching, and I hope you enjoy the show. Um, so now let's talk about these, quote unquote, traditionalists. What are they like? Well, these traditionalists, generally speaking, have a Chris, a kind of Christian masculine, masculine Christian view of, uh, politics. Now, Christian masculinity, uh, was a movement that came out of the the 19th century. Uh, it's a, it's like Christian manliness. It's a, uh, concept, Christian manliness. It came out of, uh, the 19th century, and it was essentially this kind of Protestant movement that focused on, um, [Music] the kind of this kind of moral masculinity. The idea that, you know, we should promote physical, you know, tell me if you doesn't, tell me if this doesn't sound familiar. You should promote the, um, the physical, the male body, the health and physical strength of the male body, and because it has, because that has some spiritual value, uh, we should romanticize, uh, marriage and family and romantic love as necessary for human and manly dignity. Uh, and the idea, uh, and the idea of patriotism, and patriotism as being an extension of service to Christ. And, um, a kind of this kind of nature, kind of an, a conservationist attitude towards nature. You know, we're in charge of nature, but nature gives us such pleasing aesthetics, and, uh, compared to the community, to urban areas, so we want to preserve nature as this, um, beautiful spiritual thing, right? So those are the four parts of Christian manliness: uh, placing spiritual, placing spiritual importance, importance on physical health and strength, maintaining that marriage and the family are necessary for human dignity, patriotism, and, uh, conservationism. The, that's the kind of, that's the kind of thing that you would see in Christian manliness. This is a, this came out of the 19th century. And this, and it's mainly around the second of those things, the, um, this kind of idea of family and romantic love being unnecessary for human dignity, that MGTOW take offense to. Because, you know, MGTOW says, you know, under the current legal system, under the current cultural climate, we, we have a situation wherein it's pretty much impossible to have the traditional, uh, husband, wife, and two kids and white picket fence, you know, homemaker and, uh, homemaker and breadwinner combo, you know, that kind of 1950s picture is just gone, okay? It existed only in the boomer era, and now that the boomer era is gone, now that we have the sexual revolution, we can't put the genie back in the bottle. Like, once we have the birth control, once we have the, like, no-fault divorce, once we have abortion, once we have all of those things, there's, we can't just pretend like these things didn't happen. We can't just, uh, pretend, we can't just say, well, we gotta go and do, go to marriage and family and stuff. Nah, no, that's, that's not, that's not that. That's very difficult for the majority of men to do nowadays, and it might be impossible for the majority of men to undertake this, like, in this cultural climate. Only, like, the chattest of the gigachads, as they would say, can possibly afford to find the right woman and that won't abandon him and, uh, what, you know, have marriage and kids and traditional family. That's, that's just not an option for the majority of men anymore. And why is that? Well, you know, it's the same for the same reasons that traditionalists complain about sexual revolution, feminism, and so on. You know, those kinds of things. They, uh, they. So while the, uh, image that the traditionalists hearken back to aesthetically is very pleasing, it's just not realistic in our current cultural climate. And honestly, you know, it might not be, it might be something parochial to 1950s America. You know, it might be something that only 1950s America could, could have accomplished. Because, you know, in traditional societies, i.e., before the 19th century, we had, uh, women working. They didn't work, they didn't work like in factories as breadwinners like they do now, but they, they didn't work in offices, but they worked, and they worked very hard alongside their husbands on the farm, on their farms, uh, or in their family stores. You know, it wasn't exactly this, um, you know, the housewife just staying at home and doing house chores all day. That's not something that happened, um, for most of human history. True, that women were more domestic than men because of, you know, the physical burdens of childbirth, but that's not really the same thing as the, you know, the stay-at-home housewife. That might never come back again, and, uh, we're just going to have to accept that. So, I, I guess this is one of the main problems with the traditionalists. And this is, like, the main problem I have with traditionalists overall, is, you know, they don't have a vision for what a traditionalist woman looks like that is realistic. That's kind of it. It's kind of an interesting take. Uh, but let me elaborate. So, I mean, like, make, like any good MGTOW guy would point out, we can't just go back to the 1950s and expect trad marriage to work because of, you know, divorce courts and things like that. We can't expect trad marriage to work at this at this juncture. So what do we do? What, well, what we would do is we should, we should try and come up with, um, what masculinity looks like in the current situation. Like, what was, what would the ideal man look like? And to do that, we also, we need a reference to the ideal woman. What does the ideal woman look like in modernity? In postmodernity? What does the ideal man and woman look like in postmodernity? It can't, remember, it can't be like the 1950s housewife and the 1950s breadwinner. That's gone. That diet, that's going to die with the boomers, okay? Uh, so traditionalists, I don't think they can, I don't think they've come up with an adequate idea of what, uh, a woman would, it should be that isn't just like 1950s housewife. That's one problem. But I think another problem is that in a lot of ways, they can't do that. And the reason they can't do that is because if they were to come up with, like, the ideal of what the ideal woman would look like in 19, in postmodernity, then they would have to impose that onto women. You know, using, like, they would have to sort of morally, um, impose the these kinds of duties onto women. They would have to tell women, look, this is your duty, you have to do this, or you're a bad person, okay? And traditionalists are more than willing to do this to men. In fact, everyone is doing in this demand. The problem is women. As this, uh, because of feminism, women are part of this political coalition, and nobody's allowed to, uh, make them do anything except what the political coalition wants, right? You can't, er, the only people who are allowed to tell women what they ought to do is the feminist sisterhood. Other than that, uh, you can't, you can't tell women what to do. Uh, you can't have, like, these, these, uh, moral odds placed on them. And traditionalists have sort of, um, a lot of them have bought into that, uh, hook, line, and sinker. And I have a term for this. It's called Victorian feminism. Okay, comes from the Victorian era. If you go back and read about the Victorian era, you'll find that, you know, there was this attitude towards women at the time that, uh, women had no sexual drive, women were just these pure, these kinds of overly moral angels. Uh, in fact, it was this kind of attitude that led to that, that was led to female suffrage because the idea was that women were more moral than men, so if we gave them the vote, it would lead to a more moral society. Well, look how that turned out. And that's that, that's done wonders, right? Uh, besides this being kind of patronizing to women, it's also blatantly false. Because we, this kind of Victorian feminism, uh, led to all kinds of, not only has led to all kinds of, you know, degenerate moral attitudes in the modern day, but it's, it obviously goes against the general attitude of, uh, people back in the day. You know, what, what is the archetype of the seductress? You know, the woman that leads good men into disrepute, the woman who, uh, charms men into her wiles and and seduces them into, uh, doing evil, right? That, that sort of archetype has been around since, since the biblical Eve. Uh, that's not really that, that's sort of lost on people. And it's, uh, and especially these trads, you know, because these trads think that, oh, women are just always victims. Women are just these victims of this sexual revolution. Well, the sexual revolution might have been bad for them, yes, it was bad. Trads, you're correct, the sexual revolution was objectively speaking bad for women. But do you know who, uh, was the main, who were the main drivers of the sexual revolution? Feminists, right? Feminists were one, some of the main drivers of the sexual revolution. And women in general bought into that. Why? Well, because, uh, because they thought female empowerment was good, or something, you know? You know, they, women have been getting seduced into. It's kind of funny because, yeah, you know, women are, have historically been seductresses, but they themselves are seduced by modernity and its promises of empowerment to the point where they have this, this there's this group thing among a certain type of woman that wants empowerment and freedom and equality to the point where they'll, uh, you know, you, they'll fall for, or like, blatant advertisements that psychologically manipulate them. You know, a perfect example of this was historically there was an advertisement campaign done by Edward Bernays, the, um, nephew of Sigmund Freud. And this advertisement campaign, Bernays, was for a cigarette. And they said that, you know, if women, if you smoke this cigarette, that means you are empowered and free from men and stuff like that. And they bought this, they bought this hook, line, sinker. Sales for this cigarette went through the roof. Why? Because these advertisement people saw that, you know, if we could sell this product as this consumerist product as female empowerment, uh, we'll have boatloads of money. And this has been the relationship between feminism and corporations from the beginning. It's been like this from the beginning. You know, and so this Victorian conservative attitude, this kind of, uh, female archetype of the seductress, and this, uh, kind of empowerment ad corporate advertising enticement, these kinds of things are just, uh, are just part of a larger picture that trad, the traditionalists, as MGTOW, uh, pejoratively call them, which really, they're basically Christian conservatives and people who share that attitude, um, they just don't get it, right? And what does this all add up to? Well, it all adds up to, you know, consider a bunch of traditionalists who come across as weak and, uh, dysfunctional, and all they do is pick on men who complain about the system, right? That's, that's what happens, right? They, they, uh, a perfect example of this was, um, Dave's video on incels, where he just tells them to suck it up and support traditional marriage, basically. That's, that's the summarization of the video. He just tells men that they should just let women choose, that women should just be the ones who choose everything, as if there isn't such a thing as hypergamy, right? He doesn't even address hypergamy. Presumably, it would be, uh, solved through marriage, like traditional marriage would solve the problem of fema, a female hypergamy in large part. Because for those of you don't know, hypergamy is this idea that, you know, women, they, they find, they just go from man to man according to who is the most Chad. You know, how men are attracted to have a kind of polygamous, uh, um, sexual, um, there's a certain sexual vicious, uh, device, the sexual vice that men fall into is called is polygamy, where they want a bunch of women, a kind of a harem. And the vice women fall for is hypergamy, where the, it's not a bunch of men all at once, but rather, one man after another after another after another, right? That's, uh, and, um, divorce allows women to, female hyper, empowers female hypergamists, according to, like, the manosphere argument. And trads don't really address this as often because, again, they have this idealized view of women that they inherited from the Victorian era, okay?

So I've been [ __ ] on trads. Time to talk about MGTOW, right? So Dave, in his video, goes over the three main groups of the manosphere, and he talks about, uh, which are the pickup artists, the men's rights activists, and the men going their own way. PUAs, MRAs, and MGTOW. All right, so PUAs, pickup artists, you know, he dismisses as grifters, right? Which is, um, you know, and yeah, and he may, maybe he should have been clear. And Dystopian Franchise, the guy I talked about earlier, he's like, well, how are they grifters? They're, they're teaching other men, they're the secrets of their craft. Well, that, well, to give an analogy, use the Vaush analogy. That would be like Vaush going onto a live stream and saying, right, guys, this is how you can copy what I'm doing right now and make oodles of money doing political Twitch streaming, right? If Vaush were to do that, would he be less of a grifter? Um, no. All he would be doing is just training people how to be grifters like him, right? Vaush is a grifter. He is corrupt because what he's doing is, he's not making things better. What he's doing is profit, giving himself profit, profiting off of a broke, what he admits to be a broken system. And what are PUAs doing? They're profiting off of what they admit to be a broken system. And in this, that sense, they are like Vaush in being grifters. Now, you can call, say, oh, that's not really grifting. Well, okay, but it's still kind of a shitty thing to do, right? So that's those people are out. Uh, you also have MRAs, and distributist takes these people to task too, because what are MRAs doing? Well, they're begging the power structures to recognize, right, human rights that have never existed before, and they have no reason to exist, even though the system itself, uh, profits from their disenfranchisement, right? So MRAs, those are out, because they have no realistic way of getting what they want. And, you know, Dave also makes the point of saying, well, what they want isn't really, um, going to solve anything, because it, it really, it, it's not going to solve the problems of the sexual revolution. And, you know, fair is fair, that's, that's also true of them. Although I would say that, you know, what Dave said about how there was a mythical moment in between sexual revolution and feminism where women suffered, and I'm like, dude, right, feminism was behind the sexual revolution from day one, okay? Uh, if women suffered, it was mainly their fault, okay? If women suffered, it was because of other women, all right?

So, then we come to MGTOW. And he says, you know, MGTOW are in some ways they're the best, in some ways they're the worst. The idea of MGTOW, and when I first came across MGTOW, I found the idea to be fascinating, honestly. As, as a person, in all personal message, I think the MGTOW people just have, uh, the right idea about the system that we're in right now. The MGTOW types know that this kind of system feeds off of the disenfranchisement of men, and they don't, they see this, and, um, they're very correct that we need to, that we should be angry at this, because this is, this is an unjust system. And they, and they have a proposed solution, which is, we're not going to, um, we're not going to get married. Now, you know, Protestants might throw their hands up in the air at this, but as a Catholic, that seems pretty sensible, actually. You know, vows of chastity, vows of, uh, vows of, um, swearing off marriage. The, that kind of thing is not foreign to the Christian tradition. In fact, Saint Paul actually commends people who do this. He even commends married couples and saying that it'd be better for them to be celibate. Uh, he just, uh, and he allows, uh, people who can't control their sexual urges to, um, do so, to do it in the, um, to the deed in the context of marriage, right? So, yeah, it was a positively, you know, that was the kind of radical message that the early Christians had. And, you know, MGTOW types, they can recapture some of that. They can recapture, if they can recapture some of that radicalism in these broken times, that would be a, uh, a huge boom for our side spiritually. It would be, men would, you know, they, they talk about men liberating themselves from women. What better way to do that than to sort of swear them off and say, we are going to be chaste, and we're going to be chaste, we're going to not have these kinds of relationships because, um, right now, because, you know, marriage was supposed, in the Christian context, was supposed to be for, be a way for, uh, people to, um, have, have sex in a way that is sacrificialized. It, it merits, Christian marriage is a way of sacrificing sex so that, [Music] it doesn't, uh, it doesn't destroy a person. And it's very important to regulate these sexual passions to this degree because it can, it can easily destroy a person. You know, the, we, we can talk about the eight daughters of lust later on in this video, but suffice to say, you know, sex destroys a person. Just look at any simp, and you can see that. Now, the problem is that MGTOW are not really free. They are enslaved, not, if not to real women, then to, er, than to pornography, right? And Dave points this out, but Dystopian Franchise doesn't really address this at all in this video, at least as far as I'm aware. Maybe he did somewhere in the depths of this video, I don't know. His video is like 37 minutes long. Maybe somewhere he did it, and I, uh, just missed it. But he, if he does address it, uh, he didn't give much time or energy to it. And that was one of the main criticisms Dave had of MGTOW, that they, they're obsessed with 2D women, and they, they are, they're basically, they like pornography, they like sex toys and sex dolls. You know, I've seen some of them talk about how they want artificial women to replace women. You know, that's not, that's not healthy behavior, okay? You're not, how is that, how that is freedom from women? Uh, yeah, I, I guess you could say it's freedom from women in the very loose sense, in that you don't have to be subject to the whims of a living woman, instead you can indulge in some fantasy lover that will match everything, that'll be anything you want, no matter what. Uh, this kind of shadowy harem that is always at your beck and call, that's what C.S. Lewis described them. But you become enslaved to your lust. You know, you are enslaved to your vice, and that leads you down the path of destruction. But also, it allows you to become controlled politically by the people who make these, this porn and this, um, this porn and this, um, [Music] and the, this kind of thing. It makes you into a coomer that is controlled, and you don't want to be that low. If, if your goal is literally to be free, then what's the point of being freed from one's, being freed from one master only to serve a master who is possibly even worse? What's the point of being free from, uh, women when you become enslaved to pornography and to sexual addiction? So that's one problem with MGTOW, and that's a huge problem, uh, that I don't see it being addressed. Another problem is that, you know, Dave also points this out, MGTOW people are basically envious. They are, they're envious of men who manage to, under the system, find a wife and find happiness in that sense, right? They, they see men who are successful despite the system, and they resent them, and they crawl on and they say, oh, well, your wife is going to leave you, you're going to be alone and scared, you know, and they've, in, you know, they fill Dave's three-year-old videos' comment section. Like, I, if I, I mean, you know, actually, let's go through the, uh, comment section of some of Dave's old MGTOW videos, because, uh, let, let, let's go and see, right? Because Dave has some videos that are, um, a few years old. But it's, let's see, Distributist has some old videos on MGTOW, societal death, just activity. All right, all right, all right. So, okay. Uh, so I got this, all right. So Jan 7th, 2017, blah, blah. All right. So I'm going to share my screen again. Share screen, uh, share screen, application window. Let's go to, all right. So here, all right, let's go down to the comments section. Had no arguments about. Let's see. Um, all right, so we got this interesting, uh, let's see. So, yeah, this one stood out to me. This one says, um, so he says, Distributist, this was made four years ago, which is hilar, which makes it hilarious. And Einstein, Distributist gets married three to five years later, wife submits, divorce favors family judge. I want grounds. Wife, I'm on, I'm unhappy. Oh, wait. Irreconcilable differences. That's the technical term under no-fault divorce. Judge, aluminum, child support granted. You will receive $1,000 for child per month plus $1,000 in alimony plus, uh, plus, uh, the Distributist's retirement accounts in home, just through his weight. Judge, I'd like to say something. Okay, go ahead. Distributist, talk to your legislator about divorce laws. Good luck. Wait, but, but thank you all. Gavel comes down. Okay, so that's, this is basically somebody who is, um, uh, this is, okay, that comment was hilarious. Basically, like these people keep, uh, talking about like how, [Music] you know, they, that's not something you do to like a brother, right? You, I understand why someone would become resentful, uh, under, if someone happened to succeed under these kinds of systems, right? But that comment just screams, I am envious of you, right? He, this is, that's a fantasy of somebody, Dave getting ruined by his wife, who, for all intents and purposes, they seem to have a happy marriage going on. I don't see the two of them breaking up anytime soon. Now, you know, God willing, right? God willing, but I don't see the two of them breaking up. They seem to have a very strong, in a strong relationship. They seem to be very, a very deep relationship. They're both Catholic, religious, you know. Now, you could, we can appreciate, yeah, maybe MGTOW is right in that kind of relationship doesn't really happen. It doesn't really happen all the time, you know, these, doesn't really happen that often. I mean, both Dave and, uh, his wife come from a highly religious community who that value, and both of them highly value the the sacrament of marriage. And it's not really a, um, [Music] it's not really something that you can, um, disregard. Fair enough, fair enough. But, uh, I think that what does that comment say about that person, right? What does that say about, um, what, I mean, what does, uh, MGTOW say that kind of resentment? MGTOW shouldn't be, uh, resenting the people like Dave, right? Okay, maybe they can, maybe they can get annoyed with Dave being like naive about women, or, uh, uh, Dave complaining about their behavior, yeah, but to be annoyed because somebody was successful in this field when you weren't, that's just envy, okay? That's just you being envious, and envy is evil, all right? Envy negates the justness of your anger, it, because if you are angry at someone not for some evil that they caused you, but because of the good that they have, that they got, um, through their own, they obtained through their own merits, despite, uh, despite a of the system that you say is, you admit is broken, isn't that something heroic that should be celebrated? A rare occurrence in our postmodern cynical age? I think that's food for thought, really. Ah, okay, I'm glad I got that off my chest now. Um, uh, uh, so I've got that all settled now. Uh, thank you for all for watching. I'd like to answer your questions about my hot takes. If you like them, leave comments. I'd love to, uh, talk about, um, some of the stuff I see. Focron, uh, I see that, uh, he started talking. Let's, let's share some of his comments here, and I'll read them out loud. He says, first, trad is a praxeology for cohering men and women so as to have a functioning society applied at the individual level. Absent brother societal scaffolding, you get symptoms and insults. Well, that's certainly, there is certain, a certain amount of truth to it to that. But I don't think most trads see themselves as simply trying to maintain society, uh, or at least if they try to appeal to MGTOW that way, that's not really what the, what really drives them. A lot of them are driven by traditional sexual morality, and they see MGTOW people pooh-poohing of the sacrament of marriage, and, you know, if you pooh-pooh the sacrament of marriage, that's, that's not a good thing. I mean, it's understandable that you could become cynical about, like, the application of the principle in modern times due to a corrupt legal system, but, uh, yeah, in my experience, just speaking personally, right, when peop, sometimes, and I, sometimes when a moralist speaks to someone who is kind of more nihilistic and materialistic and atheistic, uh, what they'll do is try to justify their moral principles by appealing to the self-interest of the other person. And sometimes that works, sometimes it's dismissed out of hand. I think personally that, uh, that sort of thing is, um, sometime, I mean, that sort of thing can work when it comes to power politics, but if you have somebody who can see through your power politics game, I don't think it works for, like, intellectual arguments. I think it's best for that a traditionalist, quote unquote, be honest about why they really, um, why they really want, uh, traditional traditionalism, and the reason they really want traditionalism is because they have a traditional sexual morality, and they should defend, defend their stance on those grounds. Because I personally think those are intellectually stronger than any of the, um, a kind of, oh, society needs marriage or else that would collapse. Well, well, yeah, that's true in a sense, but, uh, like, is society going to collapse if some men decide, I'm going to go my own way and become bachelors? I don't think so. I don't think so.

Next part, it says, um, uh, there are two halves that don't work without each other. Manosphere thinking raises the individual man's value to women, and tradism provides the set of rules and structures that keep both sexes in a certain window of behavior that allows civilization to function. Well, maybe that's, maybe that could work in, like, if you had a synthesis of, like, the manosphere view and the quote unquote trad view. But, um, I don't want the synthesis of those two views. I want something completely different because I hate both of those views, okay? I really don't like either one of those views, uh, because they, I, I've spent like the past 45 minutes talking about all the problems I have with both sides of this argument. And believe me, and especially with, um, you know, with the trads, and they're neither one of these sides, uh, neither of these sides has a, um, an idea of what femininity and masculinity look like in postmodernity, right? Not neither one of them. And you can't have masculinity without femininity, okay? We are a sexually dimorphous, dimorphic species, all right? So the ideal men, man, any, um, any, uh, talk about what an ideal man would look like can't be, um, cannot be complete. Any image of what the ideal man looks like cannot be complete without an image of the ideal woman. And if we can't, and with these ideals become, it comes moral duties that are imposed onto people, okay? And he says, what's missing from both groups is the concept of duty and sacrifice. Marriage is nothing but duty, duty to each other, due to civilization, to God. The pyramid of magisterium starts with that at the bottom. Well, that's a, that's a pretty interesting view, and I think there's a lot to that. You know, on the surface, it's agreeable, although I'll have to, um, meditate on that and see whether it's, it's very good, good. And he says, finally, in the modern world, most people cannot truly understand what duty means. Well, exactly, exactly. What does duty mean? Duty means, um, doing things, doing something to, uh, doing something you have to do in order to, you might not, in order to acquire a difficult good, right? We are used, in, in the modern world, we're used to having things come easy to us. And and reality, uh, do we, we have to have, uh, some level of magnanimity, I think it's the word magnanimity, the, um, which is the virtue of being of pursuing a higher good, at pursuing a higher good, because it is a higher good, and tr, striving to achieve something higher than oneself. And that's very difficult to do. And, um, I think a lot of people in the modern world just have forgotten that. So I think you're 100% right here, Poker. Most people in postmodernity can't do that.

And finally, we had Muhammad here saying, MGTOW is cringe. Yes, MGTOW is cringe, but so is the trads that MGTOW rails against, in so far as they adhere to this kind of Victorian feminist ideal. In fact, you know, I have some books on my shelf, Seven Deadly Sins, because I do not like trad so much. Let's, let me quote like extensively, uh, a chapter from, uh, The Bad Catholic's Guide to the Seven Deadly Sins by John Zmirak. And there's a part of it that says, the chat, the first chapter is about lust, the seventh, the deadly sin of lust. And let me quote this now. Let me read this out loud, starting on page five. News flash, women incapable of sin. When the subject of lust pops up, men typically bear the blame. Male sexuality is more outgoing and, ahem, external than female, and careless Christians can seem somehow more deeply fallen. The fact of sexual difference, which God created and judged as good, and he's entitled to his opinion, leads some adult Catholic moralists to try reanimating the corpse of Queen Victoria. The zombie they revive is the late romantic stereotype of men as lustful predators and women as hapless victims. A notion that would have puzzled such biblical figures as Samson and John the Baptist. Saint Augustine would have just laughed. But guilt-soaked modern Catholic men who've misread their mariology can fall victim to this stealth-styled new feminists who peddle such twaddle, typically by appealing to their chivalry. I saw this botched experiment performed before my very eyes in the course of a single dinner. There were the four of us: myself, an academic colleague of mine, a 60-something, salt-of-the-earth, sarcastic Yankee pastor, and a smart Midwestern seminarian on the brink of ordination. The beer was flowing freely into my glass, anyway, and we have, we're having the kind of conversation laymen have with priests these days, which means that that topics arose that I'm confident never came up between clergy and laity in previous centuries. In contexts like these, I feel a little uncomfortable, constrained to somehow convey the following points: One, I know that you're not one of the bad ones. Isn't it a shame how a few pervy priests and a lot of effectless and bishops put good men like you under the shadow? Two, I know you don't say the traditional liturgy, but I hope you'll reconsider it, since it really is a superior expression of the meaning of the sacrament, according to nor to the nervous overdose, which is all you've ever said. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Three, I've got a pretty good idea how thankless, lonely, and tough your job really is. We really do appreciate you guys here. Let me pick up that check. Four, no, I don't have a vocation. If we talked for another half an hour, you wouldn't ask. In the course of the evening, a topic came up that rang certain alarm bells and almost got me pounding on the table. It was nothing doctrinal. The heresy computer that Reverend John Harden, S.J., soldiered in a soldier into my head, didn't register anything dangerous. By contrast, when I went to the campus ministry in college, the dang thing kept going off like a Geiger counter at Chernobyl. Instead, the issue at hand was something pastoral and subtle. Normally, that's the kind of thing I'd miss. Indeed, as I've always said of my taste in art and apologetics, Hulk light, no, like subtlety, it confuses him, then it makes him mad. Perhaps because it's an intellectual mistake I've made myself and paid for it in tears and treasure. This error alarms and upsets me like finding the head of a rat floating in my soup. It's hard to just eat around it. We were talking about the prevalence of abortion and its root and its roots in, uh, root and its root causes in modern sexual behavior. We'd already agreed on quite a bit, that women got a raw deal in the sexual revolution, which touted the horn dog fantasies of adolescent boys as the model of liberated behavior. We agreed that feminism was in a sense the bloody revenge, insisting on legal abortion so young women could equal the plot of the field with men and minimize the consequences of promiscuity. We agreed that many of the women who have had, who have abortions, pay a terrible psychological price. So far so good. But then the seminarian offered this theory, which I'm paraphrasing as closely as I can: Quote, "Women who have pre-marital sex and abortions are only looking for love. Most of them have had poor relationships with their fathers, and they're seeking substitutes for that paternal love they never had. And men take advantage of that. That's why if we're going to change the the abortion culture, it's going to have to be men whose attitudes we change. Men have to take responsibility for this, and they have to be the ones to who learn how to say no to premarital sex." This quote unquote, this earnest orthodox gentleman who studied in Rome and who's willingly embracing lifelong celibacy and practical poverty to serve the church, which is more than I'd ever do, had clearly been doing his reading. Indeed, he sounded like he was reading off a script from some pious text or other he'd been assigned at a pastoral seminar by a well-meaning pro-life feminist. To this, I responded, "What planet are you from?" Which kind of stopped the conversation cold. The good thing I was prepared with a two-minute monologue detailing all the many shades and colors of utter nonsense he just uttered. In some, I said, less eloquently, I bet, "Granted, there are women who blunder into premarital sex because they're exploited by older or more sophisticated men who lie to them, who promise a lifelong commitment in return for a one-night stand, and some of these girls get pregnant, feel abandoned, and have abortions. But is that really the average profile of a woman who has premarital sex? A clueless damsel who isn't driven by any sexual desires of her own, but is instead searching for pure and perfect love, dragged down by the grubby cravings of filthy men? Is the average unmarried American woman who is, by all accounts, sexually active, an emotional basket case whose father left her wounded, vulnerable to exploitation by heartless Y-chromosomed feminists? If so, she is barely culpable for any sexual sins, gnarly to be blamed for having an abortion. We should treat her purely as a victim, not as a rational adult with free will who committed a sin. Why bother to absolve her, much less excommunicate her? Is this the outcome of the pre-life pro-life insistence that we never foresee any legal penalty for women who have abortions, only the doctors? If so, the price is too high. Have you ever dated? In fact, have you ever met, oh, any women? The ones I've known don't fit that description, including the ones who don't practice perfect chastity. In my limited experience, women have sexual desires too. They are capable of making rational decisions and should be held responsible for them, just like men. Why do they go out and have sex when they know they shouldn't? Here's a theory: original sin. And about your idea of making men the gatekeepers, expecting that since women are pretty much helpless, it's going to fall to guys to be new enforcers of chastity. Good luck with that one." Ah, so yeah, that, if there's, look, I don't like John Zmirak all the time, but man, does he nail that one. I never like, ever since I read that passage, I have not been a quote unquote trad. I have seen through this kind of frankly malarkey that some conservative type Christian types I have. And, you know, many of these conservative Christians are well-meaning, but the problem is again, they don't have an idea of an ideal woman, and as a result, they, that results from, uh, their on being unable to put any moral responsibility on women for leaving, living up to that ideal. Ah, right, okay. I think I've done enough for tonight. Oh, well, I hope everyone enjoys that little tidbit. I hope everyone loves, uh, to hear me rant for an hour. If you like this, please like, comment, share, and subscribe, and have a good evening. Good night, everyone.