@Durek_The_Bald I re-read what you wrote. You focus on the issue of the children after divorce, and compare traditionalism with a lenient version of feminism.

How you look at it depends heavily on what social class we are talking about. For a working class man, divorce today is practically a disaster. Steve Moxon was calculating that in the UK a working class man can lose about 70% of his income.

The thing is, it's not certain that the "independent working woman" thing benefits the middle class man either. Instead of divorcing and finding another woman, In the traditionalist... tradition, we would just find another woman. The mistress was an indispensable part of the traditionalist family. And society acknowledged man's greater contribution to the family, discreetly allowing him his... discretion, while frowning and disapproving of the female one.

Sure, you were saddled with a wife forever, and she could and often did turn sour. On the other hand, some wives adapted, and made a virtue out of necessity, accommodating their husbands.

So, up to this point in the analysis, it's not a clear cut between traditionalism and feminism, when it comes to divorce and custody.

Then, you have to factor the devouring mother effect. This is where my point comes in. Women are unable to make sense of the world on their own. Losing their husbands, they will either burden their children with the task, or depend on the other man - lover, second husband. Neither of these are good outcomes as far as the children are concerned.

I cannot stress this point enough, because I think it's not crystal-clear even in TRP. Even if women are financially independent, they still depend on others in order to operate. Women are the expansion set, men are the main game.