Note: This post makes generalizations about women and men. Intelligent readers know that generalizations of this sort are generalizations: Not all women, and not all men, are like that.
When the Manosphere says NAWALT, which literally means “not all women are like that,” I believe that they really mean “Yes, not all women are like that, but most are, and you’re a fool if you deny it.” In other words, their NAWALT largely ironic. But mine is not. I acknowledge the existence, and the importance, of exceptions.
Since this is a blog post rather than an in-depth analysis, and since most readers will doubtless possess a degree of sophistication, and since the basic truths of the world are fundamentally simple, I will define the antithesis as directly as possible, shorn of nuance:
In traditional societies of old (that is, through most of human history), most women were believed to endorse the ideals of pre-marital chastity and post-marital fidelity. And for that reason (among others) they were thought worthy of being treated with chivalry. But the Manosphere says that the modern woman is different: Even if she doesn’t consciously think of it that way, she uses men and discards them when they’re used up. For that reason, says the Manosphere, men must be wary of women. And in extreme cases, MGTOW: Men Go Their Own Way.
Remember now, generalizations are generalizations.
Despite the many problems inherent in the Manosphere, I believe their position on this topic is an exaggeration of a valid point rather than a fundamental untruth. My intuition is that they’re on to something. If your intuition says something different, well, I can’t argue with another’s intuition. But I have to call it as I see it. Many contemporary women are like that. MCWALT.
Although we’re definitely traditionalists here at the Orthosphere, we’re not just any kind of traditionalists. Our traditionalism is acknowledging the Order of Being rather than sticking to old-fashioned ways no matter what. We understand how men and women are supposed to relate to one another, and that the traditional idealistic view of women reflects truth. And I’m old enough to know that before contemporary times most women did seem to endorse traditional marital ideals. So the traditionalists were right about women, and the Manosphere is right (more or less) about contemporary women.
The world has changed. So what’s going on? Has female nature changed? Or is something else at work?
I submit that female nature has not changed. In fact, the change in women has occurred because female nature has not changed:
I observe that women are generally conformists. They don’t want to rock the boat. They don’t want to make waves. They just want to get on with living as pleasant a life as possible, and this requires having good relations with other people and not feeling like a fish out of water when they listen to our leaders. Most women just want to agree with what the authorities are teaching and get on with having a comfortable existence.
And this need not be a bad thing. When the times are properly ordered, it is good for a woman not to waste her precious psychic resources tilting against windmills when there is important practical work to be done raising the next generation. The ability and desire to raise children well is the unique gift of the woman, and the world is generally better off when most women leave the idealism to the men.
Remember, generalizations are generalizations. Readers of the Orthosphere are different. If you’re reading these words then you’re probably not a conformist. But most of your sisters are.
Many men are conformists too. But manliness is antithetical to conformity. Men, on average are different.
Therefore the problem is solved. The antithesis is resolved: Through most of human history, when the authorities taught the ideals of pre-marital chastity and post-marital fidelity, most women, being conformists, felt allegiance to this ideal. Being human, they occasionally failed to reach it. And those who fail to reach an ideal are tempted to deny it. But most women, most of the time, endorsed the ideal.
But nowadays the authorities preach actualizing your potential, being true to yourself, letting it all hang out, and so on. At least they do so when it comes to interpersonal relationships. When it comes to “saving the planet,” they’re fundamentalist preachers. But when it comes to interpersonal relationships, their only rule is that those who believe in rules are bigots.
And so the conformist women (and, to be fair, men) nowadays generally conform to the de facto ideal of love-‘em-and-leave-‘em. Of course, saying it that way makes you feel like a heel. So the authorities have developed a vocabulary designed to make the unchaste and the unfaithful feel idealistic. But the bottom line is, if God is not god, then I am god. And if I-god doesn’t like what’s happening in his life, he doesn’t have to put up with it. Love-‘em-and-leave’em indeed.
So marital idealism has been privatized. If you want to believe in pre-marital chastity and post-marital faithfulness, go right ahead. And some people still do adhere to this ideal. But adherence to the ideal is strictly voluntary. If you say that others should follow your ideal, then you’re a bigot. So those who adhere to the ideal are a somewhat limited subgroup of mankind.
Have men changed? Yes, but not as much. Men are not as conformist, so they change less in response to the changing ideals preached by our authorities. And when it comes to mating, the woman is generally the determining factor. The man is always looking for action, but it’s the woman who determines whether action occurs. Therefore when we analyze the marital climate, women are the more important causal factor.
[Remember, generalizations are generalizations.]
So why is the modern woman different? Because she’s a conformist, and so she conforms to the new ideal of selfishness.
Problem solved. Traditionalism is right. The Manosphere is (more or less) right, at least on this point. The world is understandable.
Well, there is a little more to it. Whenever there’s a paradox the obvious question is, Who’s right? But after you’ve answered that question, there’s another obvious question: Now that I know the truth, which side should I join?
Although both sides are right about this topic, you should join us traditionalists, of course.
Why? Because the Manosphere’s view of women only teaches you to protect yourself. But a life of self-protection alone is unworthy of a man. The properly masculine man wants to improve the world, even if only a little.
Traditionalism of the Orthosphere variety doesn’t just order men to “man up and marry the woman” (to paraphrase a popular Manosphere saying.) Our traditionalism is not just doing everything like our grandparents did. Instead, we endorse traditional sexual morality and sex roles because they agree with the order of being, the way reality really is. We understand that the man’s job is to lead his wife and that if men abdicate their responsibility en masse then the human race will founder. Although an individual man may decide for honorable reasons not to marry, we reject the policy of MGTOW. A man is a leader and a warrior. He should lead and fight.
How exactly can a man maximize his chances of marrying well? This is not the place for that discussion, even if an optimal answer existed, which it doesn’t. And isn’t it possible that a man will be badly burned by a contemporary woman? Yes. Some warriors die in battle.
Let’s get one thing straight: Even though it is true that “If you’re not part of the solution, then you’re part of the problem,” this does not help you. You are only one person. You cannot solve the social problem to which this post refers. You have to live in the modern world, with all its foolishness, ugliness, and injustice. That’s not gonna change.
So why become a traditionalist rather than a Gamer? Because a man’s greatest act is consciously to identify himself with the true, the good and the beautiful. You cannot change the world. And it’s difficult to change yourself. But, as a first step, can you choose to identify with the true order of being, and the God who is its Author.