I have been wondering for a while about the difference between traditional conservatives (trad cons) and feminism.

For definition purposes, we all know what a feminist is, but a trad con may be unknown to some in this community. A trad con is simply short for traditional conservative, like Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, and others of that ilk. Trad cons can be traced back throughout human history. Additionally, it's worth noting that the main Abrahamic religions are trad cons. These three religions, Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, have had a massive influence in recent human history and all represent traditional conservatism.

The trad con viewpoint is simple: Men are stronger and more disposable; we use them for war and to provide resources for the country and women. They also have to protect the women and the country. Women, on the other hand, are the protected ones; they will be provided for and protected by their husbands (sometimes the country's government as well). This balance, I have to agree, is the most fair relationship in human history.

Relationships between men and women are fundamentally transactional. You give me what I can't get; I'll give you what you can't get.

Most men can't get sex outside of a relationship, the same goes for children, but women can. Women can't provide and protect themselves, but they can give sex, loyalty, and children and raise them.

So, the men are content, and so are the women. Even though this seems fair, it's not entirely so. A woman being a virgin, dressing modestly, and giving sex to her husband whenever he wants is equal to his protection. But is a man's life really worth what's between a woman's legs? No, of course not. A man providing for women is fair if she raises the children. But once the children are older and the wife has no duties anymore, why should the man carry on providing and protecting her?

I mean, if she's 20 years old, she has a lot of time to raise kids, give sex, etc. But at 40? What's left over? A man can provide and protect until he's 50 or 60. So, you have an inherent deficit in which the men are still doing their job but the women aren't. This has traditionally been balanced by a woman being a virgin. Her sacrifice for him is to be a virgin, so he won't replace her when she's older since it's time for him to sacrifice for her. But yet again, I ask, is that really fair? Should a man provide and protect a woman for the rest of his life simply because she was a virgin for him?

This is one of the main issues with trad cons; they believe the man still should. A woman gives sex and kids, a man gives provisions and protection. But what that means is a man's life equals sex or kids. That's not fair.

So, this means trad cons' idea of men and women relationships are the fairest we've ever had in human history but not the fairest.

This is where feminism comes in. Not to solve this issue but rather make it worse. Feminism has the same belief as men: provide and protect, be disposable and be used for the betterment of women and society. But it differs from trad cons in that feminism believes women should do what they want, really anything but be traditional women.

This causes a fundamental flaw in the modern-day relationships between men and women. Women want a traditional man, but women are not traditional women. So if the man provides and protects the wife, the question arises, for what? She's not a virgin, she doesn't dress modestly, she won't give him sex when he wants, and won't even raise his children!

The benefits for a man are the costs for the women. The costs for a woman are the benefits to the man. A man providing and protecting is a benefit to the women but a cost to the man. The woman raising kids and putting out sex is a benefit to the man but a cost to the women. This is the foundation of relationships and trad con relationships. But feminism has it that the man still does his part, but the women doesn't. In turn, the women get the best of both worlds by not having any costs and getting full benefit from the man, while the men have the worst of both worlds because they have to be traditional, which is a cost, and don't get the benefits in return. This leads us to our final point.

Feminism inherently makes relationships worthless and unfair to the men while extremely profiting for women. While trad cons do make it fair, but not 100% because they have a predisposition to aid women as well. So both feminism and trad cons love women and just see men as a tool to exploit. They simply differ on how to treat the women.

Our allies are not the trad cons, because they still see the men as disposable tools to use. While they make relationships fairer, they don't do it 100% because they don't want to.

In order to help men, we need to realize feminism is not our friend, nor are trad cons. While the latter may seem so, deep down they are not. One only has to look at a war and see the trad cons' true colors. Look at prominent trad cons and how they reject the red pill and the truth because they don't want to accept the reality of women. We need to be aware of this; otherwise, we'll be making allies with trad cons who will throw us under the bus when it suits women, no different from feminists.

"Trad cons and feminism are two sides of the same coin. The misandry coin."