I was got to thinking by a comment a couple of posts ago by DriverSuz. Here's the part that interests me:
MRAs are the only ones offering honorable women a safe haven and a viable direction for the future. MRAs are trying to bring the sexes back together, but not on feminists' terms. It has to happen sooner or later, either through peaceful change or societal collapse.
As for reactionaries, they might understand parts of the problem, but they don't seem to be offering viable solutions, which makes me question the depth of their understanding.
A little earlier on, I was linked to a comment of Dr. Elam's:
"MRAs. most of them anyway, are not so much against traditional women as they are against the expectation of traditional values in a culture that makes those values dangerous for men to embrace. Many of our members were men who had traditional marriages, worked to support their families, loved and cared for their children, only to have all that swept away, largely by traditional men upholding what they thought was traditional values, at the behest of feminists.
Additionally, most MRAs still recognize that society was built on stable families and that the tearing apart of that system is largely destroying our society.
But blindly embracing those traditions, without recognizing that feminism has commandeered and corrupted the male instinct to protect women is foolish for men and their children, and not so wise for women.
We are in a catch-22. Feeding traditionalism is now feeding feminist governance. So without eradicating radical feminist influence in government, traditionalism is a loser for men."
Also today, I found an article on AVFM detailing "second-wave men's rights". You can see it for yourself.
After that, I'd read a couple of comments over at SSM's that got me thinking:
"Yes, I read that foolish article. Very unfortunate piece of nonsense, really.
They can do what they please, to be honest. The people who read here and at Dalrock’s and so on are not a part of the “MRM”, at least not as Paul’s site generally defines it. We aren’t a kind of feminism-in-reverse for men, and our goal isn’t a more perfect egalitarianism, which is what that site is generally about. We’re the part of the manosphere that is closer to traditionalism, even if we are critical of social conservatives and other traditionals from a political perspective (hence the disagreements with the Orthosphere about how things are framed and so on). So, no, I don’t think it’s “rad” — it’s the same kind of stupidity that is associated with throwing gasoline on a raging fire."
"Egalitarianism is manifestly false. The idea that men and women are alike except for social programming is false. Women do not like supplicating, easily-controlled men, and men do not like ugly, standoffish women. The demand for sex is unbalanced; men want more of it than women (which is why women withhold it as a weapon.) Women hit their sexual and fertility peak earlier, making long careers wasteful if they want children.
On the social level, male sexuality is demonized while female sexuality is celebrated. A wife can punish a husband with punitive post-divorce conditions even though he committed no crime. Sexual harassment has no hard definition; it is simply whatever the woman says it is.
Thus, there is no reason to cater to an equality that doesn’t exist physically or socially."
The arguments between the different quadrants of the Androsphere have been documented to some extent: MRAs vs. PUAs, MGTOWs vs. PUAs and MRAs vs. Reactionaries, so on and so forth. I'm sure you'll get a little more fighting as what happens when you get a group of men together and they all behave like a herd of bulls, with the ensuing results.
So here we have a divide between the state of the two groups' envisioned peace between men and women from the damage feminism has wrought: egalitarianism versus complementarianism. The main issues that have the two sides at loggerheads can be summed up like this, as far as I can tell:
MRA criticism of reactionaries:
-The old deal the reactionaries want is what allowed feminism to take root in the first place, due to social mores that once protected women turned into ones that pedestalised them during Victorian times.
-That the reactionaries are refusing to accept the current political climate and are exclusionary of certain groups.
Reactionary criticism of MRAs:
-The progressively-inclined MRM ignores sociobiological imperatives that render perfect egalitarianism impossible.
-The MRM is playing into the hands of the state: for example, the Marxist dialectic of marriage.
I think the crux of the issue here is whether civilisation as we know it can continue. The MRAs can work, albeit in a massively uphill struggle, against the current entrenched system by working within it. Currently, they are the only ones with any foothold in meatspace, and a game plan of political activism - protests, outing bigots, writing in to political leaders, so on and so forth.
The reactionary platform (both in the sense of sexual relations and the more politicised alternative right), however, pretty much requires a civilisational collapse for it to spread beyond themselves and their families, because from their point of view, the rot is too entrenched to be dealt with without amputation. Their game plan for the moment involves spreading the word and laying the foundation for what is to come. Up to now, they haven't had a foothold in meatspace yet, but with the Capn's latest get-together and Aurini attempting to organise small groups of alt-right thinkers about the globe for networking purposes, that might be changing soon.
If our current state of affairs continues, then MRAs indeed do have the best chance at success, if only because "true equality" is much better-sounding than "let's go back to the old deal". Egalitarianism might be the most practical outcome, given the realities of modern society.
On the other hand, if civilisation collapses and we have the Greatest Depression, then the technology and surplus resources required to maintain not just feminism, but even egalitarianism will simply be not there and the reactionaries will have their day as people will have to revert back to the old deal out of necessity.
On a personal level, I'm finding it a bit hard to reconcile the two, since I do buy into aspects of both sides. Most people are unique political creatures after all, and it's hard to argue against the fact that both sides are doing their best at doing good, be it overtly or covertly. I still need to think this through some more and sort myself out on these positions.
When it comes down to practicality, though - I know I'm a pessimist, but I'm sure that anyone who reads this blog knows I believe it's only a matter of time before the house of cards comes crashing down. Nevertheless, the intervening time can be made a little more bearable, and the more red-pill people are around when the collapse does come, regardless of the source, the better the rebuilding effort can be.