Join the Traditional Family Activists!

Hello everyone. I’d like to announce I’ve just started a new group, the Traditional Family Activists or TFAs. Launch day was October 30, 2013. I changed various things on this site yesterday and put in a new “About” page consistent with the change in my political identity. I am no longer a TWRA, I am instead a TFA. I am very sad to leave the TWRAs, I liked being a TWRA a lot, but it is time for me to try to create something new I can put my own stamp on and call my own. The TWRAs welcomed me with open arms back when I joined them on January 27, 2013 and I am grateful for that. I do believe however that I have a unique contribution I can offer as a man to the cause of Traditional Women’s Rights and that the unique contribution The Radical One can offer as a woman needs to be separated from what I can give as a man so that our different gifts and strengths will both help the cause of Traditional Women’s Rights together in cooperation towards the common goal rather than either one of us being stifled by the need to conform to the other.

I fully support The Radical One and the TWRA group she is leading; she is advocating for Traditional Women’s Rights just like I am and that’s what’s important to me.

For those who want to learn more about what the TFAs stand for I recommend these two posts on the subject of TFA identity:

TFAs Page

The Meaning of Being a Traditional Family Activist
(Yes, The Meaning of Being a Traditional Family Activist post is exactly the same as the original The Meaning of Being a Traditional Women’s Rights Activist post except for the name change part.)

For those interested in some of my personal thoughts about this transition go to my “About” page.

Though the TWRAs and the TFAs share common goals and have a unified overall purpose organizationally we are completely separate. The TWRAs are The Radical One’s territory and the TFAs are my territory.

The TWRAs are more feminine while the TFAs are more masculine. The TWRAs are more egalitarian while the TFAs are more hierarchical. The TWRAs are more liberal while the TFAs are more conservative. The TWRAs are more strictly secular while the TFAs are quasi-religious.

Though I am hesitant making these generalizations and what the TWRAs develop into is for The Radical One to decide and direct; this is my impression of the differences between being a TWRA and a TFA.

I urge everyone who thinks they would prefer a group like the TWRAs over what I am trying to create here as a TFA to join The Radical One and her TWRA group. Choice is a good thing; people should go where they feel the most comfortable and where they think they can do the most good.

Shout out to The Radical One; if I mischaracterized the TWRAs or you just want to describe the TWRAs to everyone in your own words you are welcome in the comments section.

For those interested in what the TWRA Principles and Policies are:

What’s Wrong With Equal Rights? – TWRAs Page

My intention going forward is to link to all TWRA blogs in my blogroll and everybody who joins the TWRAs in the future is welcome to comment at my site. TWRAs and TFAs are allies.

The 3 fundamental principles of the TFAs are support for Traditional Women’s Rights, support for unconditional Chivalry, and obedience to the Superior Power. In addition what the TFAs support come from 3 broad sources of moral thinking; coverture, modern Christian Patriarchy, and natural law. The TFAs have no specific policy positions at this time.

So come join the TFAs! Let’s roll back feminism together!

About Jesse Powell TFA

Anti-Feminist, MRA, Pro-Traditional Women's Rights Traditional Family Activist (TFA)
This entry was posted in Traditional Family Activist. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Join the Traditional Family Activists!

  1. Will S. says:

    So your former ally is now too feminine, egalitarian and liberal for you?

    Even though you share all the same goals, according to you.

    You contradict yourself.

    Ah well, your problem, not mine.

  2. Amusing observations on your part you make there. The Radical One is not returning to me the same generosity of spirit I tried to extend to her. She has stopped linking to my blog and has put up a post with the title “Women, Stop Obeying Men” which is an obvious negative reference to me. I think I spoke too soon with my words of praise and support for The Radical One. She doesn’t see me as an ally regardless of how I see her. Maybe The Radical One knows something I don’t and indeed we aren’t allies after all.

    I will write up a new post shortly rebutting The Radical One’s claim that women should only obey their husbands, not any other man. I will also try to explain more clearly in what kind of circumstances and for what reasons women should obey men.

    I think women have a general obligation to obey men assuming the particular man in question demonstrates competence and good intentions, marriage being a specific application of the general rule. Men owe women Chivalry unconditionally and women owe men obedience if the man is doing his Chivalrous duty as he should. That is how I would set things up. A woman has an objective obligation to obey the man if the man is obeying God and I would not restrict this to the marriage relationship only; I would present it as a general rule.

    I get the feeling that The Radical One and the other TWRAs associated with the group previously (all women) saw obedience to men as a kind of manipulation tool to “get what they want.” I did not see women obeying men in the same way.

    Finally, me and the TWRAs have separated.

    When I set up the contrast between TFAs and TWRAs I did so for the purpose of trying to explain to my readers why people might want to join the TWRAs instead of me on the theory that “we were both in this together” and some might like one flavor more while others would prefer the other flavor. That the split between me and The Radical One was stylistic rather than ideological. So much for that idea. I am still in favor of “Traditional Women’s Rights” at least how I define the idea but my idea of Traditional Women’s Duties certainly seems to be at odds with what The Radical One is promoting.

    Just hypothetically speaking here, are you still open to a link exchange with me?

    • Will S. says:

      Oh, that’s interesting; before you didn’t want reciprocity; now you’ve lost your female ally (I’m not surprised, BTW), suddenly you want it.

      No thank you.

      Unconditional chivalry by men towards women is cultural, not grounded in Biblical mores, to which you do not even subscribe, as a secularist (even if by some neo-Kantian ‘logic’ you endorse them all the more, which is not rationally consistent, in my view; if you’re absolutely free, you’re free with all the freedom of the abyss). It is a stark point of difference between us, despite our common belief in patriarchy, and coverture, etc. We reject it. We are not Victorians.

      Your unconditional chivalrous pedestalization of women is precisely why your supposed ally kicked you in the teeth, the moment you dared to just minimally self-define in your new ‘TFA’ label, despite your ass-kissing reprofession of support for her goals, and changing only your label, really.

      Beware, the feminist wolves in traditionalist sheep’s clothing. They are legion, in the reactionary / traditionalist part of the blogosphere. They care not what is best for men, except insofar as it is of benefit to women; they want to have their cake and eat it too. Too much like Sarah Palin, even if they’d reject that label.

      You should think long and hard, IMO, about why this happened, and whether you’ve been misguided all along in your unconditional chivalrous / female-pedestalizing mindset.

      You already know what I think, in that regard.

  3. Jesse, I very much resent your saying that I am a manipulator; you know very little about me, and I know next to nothing about you. If you expect women who are total strangers to just obey you on the basis of what you say, you are going to be very disappointed.

    I don’t know exactly what the Radical One’s thoughts are, but she is probably speaking mainly about men who refuse to be chivalrous. I haven’t thought much about this issue, but I am inclined to agree with her that women should only obey their husbands, because actions speak louder than words. A husband has proven his commitment through actions; would you have women obey every sweet talker who comes along saying the right things? Why would they need a woman to whom they are not married to obey them, anyway?

    • Hello Judithann. I was wondering if the comment section of this post might get interesting. It took awhile but it looks like it’s getting interesting.

      I responded the way I did to Will S. because he was right, I did put too much of a happy face on the differences between me and The Radical One at this time. I was surprised to see The Radical One making a post indirectly attacking me and not linking to this site anymore. I was trying to stay on good terms with The Radical One but she doesn’t seem to want to stay on good terms with me.

      For whatever it’s worth if you and The Radical One can patch things up together that would be all good. If the old TWRA group can reassemble I think that would be good but I’m staying out of it. I’m sticking to being on my own and getting my own supporters over a period of time.

      The TWRAs constantly talked about obeying men but almost as soon as I joined the group trouble started and never ended. At first I was happy being subordinate because I was the 4th member and didn’t feel entitled to “take over” but as time went on I found more and more problems coming up that always led to fights when I wanted to fix what I saw as being wrong and then the person I fought against always quit making the group a little smaller. I came to the conclusion that the only way the fighting could stop was me being given control of the TWRAs but of course that didn’t work so basically I had to quit.

      Me being a man totally didn’t work as far as group dynamics were concerned. The TWRAs formed themselves as a women’s group for women and a man coming in totally destabilized everything. I felt it was my job to fix things and improve things and add in some overall ideological cohesion to the cause so the rationale for Traditional Women’s Rights would make more sense. I was fought every step of the way in this process by women who claimed to respect male authority and now in the finale The Radical One claims that men should have no authority except in relation to their wives as if men have no social function except within the specific context of marriage.

      It is like the TWRAs think men’s role in patriarchy should be defined by women and my input in the matter is most certainly not welcome.

      Chivalry can be used as a tool for manipulation when a man says “I’ll give you Chivalry if you give me this, this, and this in return.” I condemn this behavior among men which is why I have always called for unconditional Chivalry as the standard. I think however women can use obedience in a similar manipulative way where the woman says “I’ll give you obedience if you give me this, this, and this in return.” I condemn women treating obedience in this fashion just like I condemn trying to “gain something” by threatening to withhold Chivalry on the part of men.

      The fact that I was always fought against when I tried to assert authority to try to fix one problem or another among the TWRAs tells me the TWRAs were always against my assertion of authority when I tried to assert authority for the purpose of strengthening the TWRA cause but that whenever I assigned duties to men that was always good. In other words me assigning duties to men was always good but me trying to impose duties upon women was always bad. This tells me that women obeying men was always meant to be on the woman’s terms; in other words that the women’s choice to obey was always thought of as a power resource for the woman. This is obedience used as a tool for manipulation in exactly the same way that a man withholding Chivalry is manipulation.

      Patriarchy is based on male control, what patriarchy is is not defined by women. What the man’s duties are under patriarchy is not defined by women. Saying that women define what patriarchy is puts Chivalry under women’s control and I always condemned the idea of Chivalry being under women’s control.

      My purpose in joining the TWRAs was not to promote Edita’s agenda, it was to promote my vision of how a moral system of patriarchy would work in obedience to what I have called the Superior Power. My purpose was never to serve women based on women’s demands; it was always to serve women based on God’s demands.

      Anyways, it has been proven that I cannot effectively work with any of the original TWRAs so I have to strike out on my own instead. So I’m starting my own group where I set the rules without people undermining me or attacking me. That’s the way it has to be. I will continue to promote the cause of Traditional Women’s Rights because that is my duty to God but I am not obligated to work with women who will try to undermine me and frankly who refuse to obey me.

      None of this is personal against you Judithann. Your kind and good acts towards me far outnumber anything negative. Really my positive feelings towards the TWRAs are much greater than my negative feelings. It may be crazy to say this but it was a great experience. The TWRAs showed me a secular group in favor of patriarchy was possible. Also in my mind I always did what I did for the sake of the group, for the sake of the cause. It is just at this point the “cause” is something I can best do on my own. In my mind I am really promoting the same cause as before I am just using a different vehicle to do it.

      I have come to the conclusion that I must be obeyed to be effective. No TWRA will obey me so I must quit the TWRAs. It is really as simple as that.

      I will be posting an article specifically responding to The Radical One’s article “Women, Stop Obeying Men” tomorrow. The article will get into a lot more theory regarding what I think women’s relationship to men should be on the issue of “obedience.”

  4. As for unconditional chivalry, it isn’t or at least shouldn’t be something that men do to gain obedience from women, although it will inspire women to be more obedient. I know you disagree with me about this, Jesse, but women have obligations under chivalry too: in a lifeboat situation, children should go first, then women, then men. But children must go first, meaning, women must be willing to die for children, including children they don’t know. This is the way it has to be if we want to be civilized; civilized women do not allow children to die so that they can save themselves, and civilized men do not allow women to die so that they can save themselves. The strong must protect the weak.

    • As far as unconditional Chivalry and obedience, men have a duty to be Chivalrous simply because Chivalry is good in its own right; whether Chivalry leads to women being obedient is irrelevant. However a man being Chivalrous creates an obligation in the woman to obey the man. Men owe Chivalry to women unconditionally but women owe obedience to men only if the man is fulfilling his Chivalrous duty. The woman’s duty of obedience is not unconditional because it requires the prior existing condition of the man being Chivalrous first but the woman’s duty of obedience is not based on the woman’s own choice in the sense that the woman doesn’t choose whether the man will be Chivalrous and it is the man’s choice to be Chivalrous that imposes the duty of obedience on the woman. So women’s duty of obedience is not unconditional but it is not voluntarily chosen by the woman either. The man’s Chivalry imposes the duty of obedience on the woman. The obedience of the woman then must be used as a means to serve the woman, as a means for the man to fulfill his Chivalrous duty. The duty of the woman to obey the man is always intended for the benefit of the woman with the man acting in a guardianship capacity. The whole point of women’s obedience is so that the woman will not undermine the man’s ability to serve the woman’s objective interests as determined by the man.

      In my model of how this all works a woman is always obligated to obey the man if the man and woman are of equal moral status. The man attains equal moral status to the woman through Chivalry. If the man seeks to violate a moral norm the man’s desire to violate the moral norm makes him morally inferior and a morally inferior man does not have legitimate authority over a woman. A man not fulfilling his Chivalrous duty is always a morally inferior man as the act of withholding Chivalry by itself makes the man morally inferior. Also a man using his authority for selfish gain is making himself morally inferior by using his authority for selfish gain thereby forfeiting his right to claim authority. So a man must always be affirmatively good through Chivalry to claim moral equality to a woman but once he achieves moral equality to the woman he then has authority over the woman; such authority by obligation being used for the woman’s benefit. The man diverting his authority to serve his own interests violates the purpose of his authority thereby making himself morally inferior thereby forfeiting his right to claim the authority any longer.

      I will get more into the theory of all this in my post responding to The Radical One’s “Women, Stop Obeying Men” post.

      As far as women having obligations under Chivalry to such as the duty of women risking their lives to save children and the strong have an obligation to protect the weak; I am not saying such moral obligations do not exist, I would only say that those moral obligations do not fall under the category of Chivalry. I’m defining Chivalry in a specific way for a specific purpose. My term “Chivalry” is specifically meant to apply to the male side of the man / woman relationship. It’s just a matter of definitions is all.

  5. The question is, what constitutes a level of chivalry that calls for obedience? Are women supposed to obey all men who hold the door for women? But there are lots of men who hold doors for women, and they disagree with each other about all sorts of things, so which one of them should I obey? Are women supposed to obey any guy who shows up on the internet claiming to believe in chivalry? Even though they know squat about him?

    These are very complicated issues, and yet you are treating it as if it’s all cut and dried. I think that is a mistake.

  6. If all chivalrous men agree with each other about everything, then it would be different. But good men disagree with each other about all sorts of things, and that puts women who want to honor chivalrous men in a difficult position.

  7. The question is, what constitutes a level of chivalry that calls for obedience? Are women supposed to obey all men who hold the door for women?

    Holding the door open for a woman I would call a ritual act of Chivalry in which case a ritual act of obedience would suffice. A polite smile, a thank you, bending your head down in appreciation; something like that. The man holding the door open is engaging in a friendly show of dominance assertion in service to women. The woman can then respond in an appreciative friendly way with some submissive gestures thrown in. The interaction is then closed.

    Social interaction used to be filled with such Chivalrous dominance / woman appreciative demure and submissive in response rituals. Men taking off their hats when a lady entered the room for example. Women expressing submissive body posture when a man was talking to them. The male side of the ritual communicated “I am in service to you.” and the female side of the ritual communicated “I appreciate you and submit to you.” This being what the gender relationship was in a nut shell.

    These social rituals then set the stage of how men would treat women and how women would treat men in more serious relationships or endeavors of cooperation. With the social rituals being absent it is hard to all of a sudden “act right” when one is in a more serious relationship where the man being dominant in service to the woman and the woman being obedient and appreciative to the man in return is actually important. If a man is trying to be dominant and in service to a woman and the woman responds with disobedience and defiance and hostility to the man’s attempts to assert himself for the purpose of serving the woman’s interests then the man will feel like he is being unfairly attacked and that the woman is trying to take advantage of him and why should he try to help a woman fighting against his attempts to help her and stuff like that. Maybe serving this woman just doesn’t make sense? This is exactly how I felt towards the end of my time with the TWRAs and is ultimately why I quit the TWRAs to launch my own group where I could be “the boss” and start over again.

    As far as things being easier if all Chivalrous men agreed with each other; of course a community consensus that is right and healthy would make things easier. In the actual world that exists however the “community consensus” is completely wrong and completely feminist. That is the whole problem. So what we have is a bunch of radical cultural entrepreneurs trying to invent some new social rules they think will work better. This is largely what I am trying to do though I am trying to stay faithful to what worked in the past (coverture) and to what others whom I admire are teaching (the Christian Patriarchy preachers).

    A woman definitely has to use her own judgment about who to trust and who not to trust, to whom it makes sense to submit in order to cooperate with him because his goals and your goals are in alignment and to whom submission is not a good idea because his agenda is not something you want to be associated with. I can’t make such decisions for you of course but in judging myself I thought I displayed good characteristics and I had the confidence that I could find people to follow me even if the TWRAs wouldn’t follow me so if it is wrong headed of me to try to make the TWRA women follow me I then need to do something else where I can attract a following and thereby promote my political and cultural goals to the best of my ability. Hence my reason for breaking away and starting the TFAs.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s