One of the problems we experience in this part of the internet is that we have various non-mainstream groups of, in many cases, generally like-minded thinkers trying to cannibalize others from another similar non-mainstream group.
A quite prominent example of this, particularly in this corner of the internet, is the ongoing alternating cold and hot (not like Chinese noodles, mind you) war between the “MRAs” and the rest of the manosphere (of which this link is only a recent example, it must be noted). This confrontation becomes particularly acute when it comes to the more traditional-minded elements of the manosphere. This is because the “discourse of rights” that takes place in the MRA-sphere is not really consistent at all with a traditionalist/reactionary view of the world. And so there is a natural conflict.
In my opinion, this conflict is both inevitable and stupid. It’s inevitable because there is a difference in ideological perspective and worldview. It’s stupid because that conflict overlooks broader commonalities and trivializes them in favor of tactical differences which are buttressed by disparities in worldview.
In an ideal world, MRAs would pursue successfully their goals of making things easier for men in the here-and-now, while trads and reactionaries would work towards bringing back a system that is not tethered to a kind of utopian “equalism”, but is rather closely aligned with the interests of men, women and children, understood in a more visceral sense. The main reason that this is not possible is the positing of equalism, or egalitarianism, as an end-state-goal, by the MRAs. It seems fine to me for equalism to be an intermediate goal, in the sense of something that may be a lower hanging fruit than true realized reaction (but, even there, it’s not hanging that low, and the forces arrayed against any kind of real egalitarianism are formidable, even if one has that as a utopian goal), but it certainly can’t be an end-goal. That kind of social experimentation and adventurism always ends badly.
So, perhaps we can bridge this gap by means of alternating timings, or having a peace of convenience for the time being, while each group seeks its own ends? That may sound hard to manage, but it seems preferable to me as compared with the prospect of an enduring and largely self-defeating war between constituencies which have natural overlaps.