OK, this one is going to be controversial.
We all know that progressives of all sorts don't believe in labour division based on sex. They basically tell you to go out and do whatever. They preach you can choose your own reality nowadays. So far so bad. Now what about the opposition?
What about the people who claim to be "traditionalist, right wing, family friendly, conservative Christians" types. How often will they say something along the lines that they are naturally pro- family and that the SAHM is "the most important job on earth" but if the woman desires to have a career, that's fine, too? But do they ever claim the same about men? Like, it's good to be a father, provider and protector, but if the dude doesn't feel like it and rather stay home, it's a valid choice?
A man without a job or the one who sends his wife to earn money while he's just hanging around playing vidya games is shamed as a loser, or a basement dweller or an incel. Hence the title of my post: the so-called right wingers, a big part of them, don't really believe in enforcing traditional feminine duties of being a caregiver to her family or even being chaste; just like feminists they think women should be allowed to do whatever they wish, but men are still expected to fulfill their traditional duties to women and society.
How often have I read an American conservative on social media saying something like: why don't men in Europe protect their women from criminal attacks? The answer is simple, they aren't their women any more, they are emancipated. They often choose to put themselves in dangerous situations/date dangerous criminals, why should a random man risk his life to save her from her own stupid choices?
The problem with social conservatives is their mentality of wanting to have the cake and eat it, too. In a traditional society both sexes have their rights and obligations. You can't free one sex without freeing the other. You can't encourage your daughter to have a high powered career and have her fun dating random men, may be, having a child or two outside wedlock and then expect a traditional, God-fearing guy come to her rescue when she's 35 and all these "adventurous types" she was running after, don't want her any more and she finally wants to settle down.
"Conservatives" have no problem with shaming men for their anti-social habits, like p*rn, alcohol or mistresses yet they are positively Victorian when it comes to women, who are, on one hand, fit to be senators and army generals but are apparently too weak-minded to withstand the appeal of "bad boys". It's always the man's fault and never the woman's.
There is really nothing at all traditional about this approach and it's unjust, too, and serves to alienate a big number of young men who perceive that so-called conservatives don't have their best interests in mind.