My recent “Letter to Traditional Women,” provoked a lot of visits, commentary and dissent yesterday. Funny how that happens when you get in peoples faces and drop a few F-bombs on their sacred cows.

Entrails are still hitting the ground.

But now that I have succeeded in provoking people; even offending a couple of redbots with my “tone” (oh, gasp), it is a good time to offer what I think is instructive about this particular situation.

The real point here (because princess certainly isn’t the point) is that our struggle is still as much internal and personal as it is social and political.

I am pretty sure I read a comment from zed over at TS not too long ago that “Most MRA’s are one blowjob away from becoming a mangina.” And I had to laugh when Andrea, not so coincidentally I might add, brought up all the blowjobs that good traditional husbands could expect from good traditional wives if only we were smart enough to indulge them in a life of light housekeeping and cooking, both of which can be had on the cheap, and both of which they directly benefit from more than the man. After all, how much is he enjoying that tidy little abode while he is in the coal mine?

It kind of reminded me of how some people are told that 72 virgins await them in paradise if only they would strap a bomb to their midriff and push the button in a crowded café.

All that aside, the irony here is glaring. As MRA’s we find it easy, irresistible even, to knock White Knights off their horses when they come riding in here lauding traditional values and lecturing us about how taking care of women is the manly thing to do. It is a transparent rouse that gets by no one unscathed and for good reason.

But look what happens when the White Knight’s exact counterpart, the “traditional” woman, comes in with a guise of empathy and agreement for the MRM, but when all is said and done ends up offering fellatio in exchange for indentured servitude, and reveling in her “traditional power,” as a woman.

Tom Snark’s first response was perfect. “Fuck your traditional power.”

And other responses were good as well. But it is clear in the comments that we struggle with it, because she is a woman.

It is totally understandable. To this day, after 25 years of activism for men, if I saw a woman I didn’t know in some sort of trouble, I would still have to go through a conscious process to let her fend for herself.

In other words, I would still have to force myself not to rescue her. I can do it and have, but ingrained chivalry dies much harder than fat-assed Andrea Dworkin. And after 50 years of hot air from feminists about shedding gender roles, MRA’s are the only ones really doing it.

It ain’t easy.

There is a pretty damned healthy debate right now in that thread about whether I should have spit in the face of what some MRA’s would consider a potential ally. But I have to say I think those MRA’s are missing the point.

Traditionalism is the driving force behind male slavery. It is the psychological machine that socializes men into becoming fodder and into becoming lapdogs disguised as guard dogs.

In my way of thinking, it never was a good deal. In the age of misandry and feminist governance, it is foolhardy to say the least. I would not do it; not for a million dollars, and certainly not for a blow job and plate of beans that I had to pay for.

I say this knowing there are married men in this forum for whom I have a great deal of respect, and whom I seriously don’t want to offend. I respect them and I respect their personal choices as sacrosanct.

But a Couch Princess speaking up for traditionalism in the name of men’s activism? Here? Well, I dispensed enough four letter words in the first piece to express my disdain for that idea, but let me add that I am still sitting here laughing.

Again, this is not about women. And if you will allow me I want to use Izzey as an example.

Izzey worked grueling, blue collar jobs her entire adult life. She didn’t just witness a man’s world by watching one walk in the door, beat to hell from work, every day at 5. She took the blows to her own body and the pain that comes with them in order to support a child.

And now here she is writing articles that unabashedly condemn princess idiots. Where it concerns support for men, let’s just look at the difference between her and Andrea.

Andrea gives blowjobs and housework to one man for letting her avoid the burdens of being a provider. That is what she calls a fair deal for him.

Izzey writes, gives money (real money), software, even a fine printer to AVfM to support the cause, and in exchange for that she wants…

Exactly nothing.

Which one of these women do you think is an advocate for men?

Which one would you prefer?

The bottom line here is simple. I don’t support any movement to abolish personal freedom. That means that anyone should be free to pursue any type of relationship they want. It is even written into the mission and values here that AVfM opposes any interference in the relationships or the commercialization of sex between consenting adults.

But where it concerns activism, men’s best interest and the voice that emanates from this forum, it is my not so humble opinion that any woman who likes “real” men who spend their days carrying a load she doesn’t feel obligated to share is no friend to the men and boys in this culture who now find themselves in such desperate trouble.

This kind of woman is not only an opportunist in an age where such opportunism is outmoded, she will also train any children she has to have the same entitlements, or burdens, depending on whether they are female or male.

Her sons will live on their knees, and her daughters will pay for that privilege – on theirs.

Thanks, but I’ll pass.