The Rules of Gender Hierarchy; When and Why Women should Obey Men

This post is in response to the article at What’s Wrong With Equal Rights written by The Radical One, leader of the TWRAs, titled “Women, Stop Obeying Men.”

I think I have found a true conflict between what I believe and what the TWRAs believe as indicated in this article by The Radical One and my previous experience with the TWRAs. In the TWRA model of gender relations the man provides for and protects the woman and in return the woman submits to the man; this relationship being operative primarily (or only) in the context of marriage. The important point is that the TWRAs view the male role in this exchange as self-interested rational behavior on the part of the man where the man is maximizing his own interests by providing for and protecting his wife in return getting an obedient wife focused on his needs and the needs of his children and household as his reward for providing for and protecting his wife. Likewise the woman is maximizing her own interests by agreeing to be obedient to her husband in exchange for the reward of her husband providing for and protecting her. The male / female dynamic (husband and wife dynamic) in this way represents rational mutual self-interest. This is what the TWRAs see the traditional family as being based on.

My model of gender relations produces a similar outcome but has a very different foundation, a foundation I see as being superior to and more achievable than and more stable than the TWRA model. In my model of gender relations the man’s interests are subordinate to the woman’s interests and the woman regarding authority is subordinate to the man on the assumption that the man has accepted his duty to subordinate his interest to the woman. My model is based on inherited hierarchy position with the man superior in authority and inferior in interests with both the man and the woman subordinate to God. Mutual self-interest is not the basis of my gender relations model, instead mutual duty is. The man’s duties are imposed upon him by God and the woman’s duties are imposed upon her by men in obedience to God. God is the ultimate foundation of my gender model, not mutual self-interest.

I don’t think mutual self-interest is consistent with patriarchy; instead mutual self-interest is consistent with feminism. Trying to construct a mutual self-interest mechanism to create patriarchy won’t work because patriarchy is necessarily based on self-sacrifice, not self-interest. So I see the mutual self-interest model of gender relations the TWRAs embrace as seriously flawed and not workable, I see it as a serious problem.

The gender hierarchy is applicable to all relationships between men and women; marriage is simply one example of the overall principle of men being in authority over women and being subordinate to women regarding interests. The Radical One is claiming women’s duty to obey men is only applicable regarding marriage. The Radical One’s idea that gender hierarchy is restricted only to marriage is not consistent with how societies actually worked in the past; the idea is not “traditional.” Furthermore I don’t think The Radical One is truly embracing gender hierarchy even in the marital relationship; she is instead proposing a kind of pseudo-hierarchical relationship based on mutual self-interest. It needs to be remembered that mutual self-interest is not hierarchical, it is egalitarian.

Here is a definition of patriarchy from Princeton which shows that the principle of “male rule” under patriarchy is universal, not just restricted to marriage:

“Patriarchy is a social system in which the role of the male as the primary authority figure is central to social organization, and where fathers hold authority over women, children, and property. It implies the institutions of male rule and privilege, and is dependent on female subordination. Historically, the principle of patriarchy has been central to the social, legal, political, and economic organization of Hebrew, Greek, Roman, Indian, and Chinese cultures, and has had a deep influence on modern civilization.”

Patriarchy is derivative of the masculine traits of men and the feminine traits of women. Here is a list of classical stereotypical masculine and feminine traits related to the authority realm (from a college Sociology text by Pearson Education, Inc.):

Masculine Traits Feminine Traits
Dominant Submissive
Independent Dependent
Intelligent and competent Unintelligent and Incapable
Rational Emotional
Assertive Receptive
Analytical Intuitive
Strong Weak
Brave Timid
Ambitious Content
Active Passive
Competitive Cooperative
Insensitive Sensitive
Sexually aggressive Sex object
Attractive because of achievement Attractive because of physical appearance

Notice that all the masculine traits are related to the overall theme of “dominant” and all the feminine traits are related to the overall theme of “submissive.” Some of the dominance related masculine traits are skills (intelligent and competent, rational, analytical) where the rest are mostly character traits. This indicates that male dominance is based both on superior power related skills and on character traits related to greater assertiveness. The most important part I want to point out however is that all these masculine and feminine traits belong to the individual man or woman and that therefore a man carriers his masculinity and a woman carriers her femininity with themselves everywhere they go so that in every interaction and relationship between a man and a woman the man will be masculine and therefore exhibit a tendency towards dominance while the woman will be feminine and therefore exhibit a tendency towards submission. This gender dynamic will be present in all relationships between men and women, not just in the marital relationship.

Here is my basic model of how gender hierarchy works.

Man defective Woman normal Woman competent
Man normal Woman normal Woman incompetent
Man normal Women defective Woman incompetent

A man is either normal or defective (same for the woman). A normal man is a man being obedient to cultural rules; he is an “average” man or the norm for men. He is not doing anything wrong. A normal woman is likewise defined. A “defective” man is a man who is incompetent or immoral or violating cultural rules. He is not normal, there is clearly something “wrong” with him, he is violating cultural rules. A defective woman is likewise defined. A defective man may also be characterized as a morally inferior man. The label of “defective man” and “normal man” is meant to refer to situational conflicts related to the subject of whether the man is legitimately dominant in a particular situation or not; a man is “defective” in a particular situation, not necessarily as any kind of durable state.

The first rule of gender relations is that the man’s interests are subordinate to the woman’s interests. The outcome of any conflict between a man and a woman should be designed to serve the woman’s objective interests in a way not abusive to others. The woman’s interests are always considered to be of superior importance. Men’s interests are subordinate to women’s interests; this is a basic principle of gender relations.

The next issue is, in a conflict, who should get their way? Should the man be dominant in the conflict or should the woman be dominant in the conflict? This is based on whether the woman should be considered competent. The woman has an obligation to serve her own interests because the woman’s interests are superior. Therefore if the woman is in a competent position she should have dominance so that the woman’s objective interests will be best met based on her choice.

On the other hand if the woman is in a state of incompetence then the man should be dominant because in the case of an incompetent woman the man will serve the woman’s objective interests better based on his imposing his will on her than the woman would serve her own interests herself based on the decisions she would make in her incompetent state.

So when both the man and woman are “normal” the man has the right to dominance as in such a situation the woman will be incompetent in relation to the man. The only situation where the woman is not obliged to obey the man is when the man is defective or morally inferior; if the woman is normal while the man is defective either due to incompetence or bad intent or cultural rule violation then in that situation the woman has the right to dominance in the particular conflict she is in with the man.

The principle of Chivalry is based on the duty of men to subordinate their interests to women. Chivalry is male subordination of interests to women; that is the whole point of Chivalry. Chivalry by its nature is unconditional because the whole point of Chivalry is subordination of male interests to female interests and if a man is simply using “Chivalry” as a bargaining tool to “get what he wants” then he is not acting in a subordinate fashion in relation to the woman and is therefore undermining the whole point of Chivalry. Another reason why the Chivalrous duty is unconditional is because a man has the capacity to subordinate his interests to the woman unilaterally with no preconditions needing to exist first. Since the man can be Chivalrous no matter what he therefore has an obligation to be Chivalrous no matter what; to be Chivalrous unconditionally.

Traditional Women’s Rights is the subordination of male interests to female interests in the area of women’s traditional role in the feminine realm, in the area of female superiority. Chivalry creates Traditional Women’s Rights as Chivalry is men subordinating their interests to women which is what Traditional Women’s Rights are all about.

A man who is not acting according to his Chivalrous duty is automatically defective or morally inferior as the failure to be Chivalrous is a cultural rule violation. Similarly a man using his authority for selfish gain is automatically defective or morally inferior as the purpose of male authority is to serve the woman so that a redirection of male authority to serve the man’s interests is an abusive act or a demonstration of bad intent. In this way a man must be Chivalrous and use his authority to serve the interests of the woman in order for his claim of authority to be legitimate as his failure to be Chivalrous and direct his authority to serve the woman’s interests establishes him as defective and therefore no longer entitled to a dominant authority position.

A woman has an obligation to obey any man who has subordinated his interests to the interests of the woman through the mechanism of accepting and fulfilling his Chivalrous duty to the woman. A woman has no right to withhold obedience as a bargaining chip to “get what she wants” as the man has already completed his duty to the woman by fulfilling his culturally imposed Chivalrous obligation to the woman. Once the man has established himself as a “normal man” he is then entitled to the obedience of the women he interacts with. A woman withholding obedience to a man who has shown himself to be competent, good intentioned, and in compliance with Chivalry as culturally defined is being abusive towards the man.

Chivalry manipulation is when a man withholds Chivalry as a bargaining chip to “get what he wants” saying to the woman “I will give you Chivalry if you give me this, this, and this in return.” Chivalry manipulation is a violation of the woman’s right to receive Chivalry without strings attached and is an abusive act against the woman. Obedience manipulation is the female equivalent of Chivalry manipulation where the woman says “I will obey you if you give me this, this, and this in return.” This is an abusive act against the man in the same way Chivalry manipulation is abusive to women. Once a man fulfills his culturally defined obligation to the woman he is entitled to the woman’s obedience without the woman imposing any additional burdens or responsibilities upon him. The male community is what decides what the man’s duties to the woman are, not the woman herself.

The Radical One made the comment in her article:

“Traditional women believe only one man is to have any authority over her and that is the man that takes responsibility for her, is in a lifetime commitment to her and sees that she is protected and all of her basic needs are met. The non-traditional woman just consents to sharing in the man’s responsibility when he doesn’t want it.”

This is an interesting statement. It presents the “traditional woman” as being more “disobedient” to men than the non-traditional woman based on the “traditional woman” placing higher demands on men than the non-traditional woman. First off the idea that a woman is to obey only one man, her husband, is not “traditional” or how society operated in the past at all. In a traditional society women have a generalized duty to obey men. The non-traditional woman is disobedient to her husband and disobedient to men in general simultaneously; indeed her disobedience to her husband is derivative of her unwillingness to be obedient to men in general.

There is another point of interest. A traditional woman does not place various demands on what a man “owes her” before she will obey the man. Instead the wider culture itself places various demands on the man regarding what the man owes his wife. A traditional woman’s assertiveness in relation to men is derivative of what the already established rules of Chivalry in the society are. In other words it is not the woman herself who unilaterally decides that her husband owes her taking responsibility for her, making a lifetime commitment to her, protecting her, and providing for all of her basic needs; it is the male community who decides that this is what men owe their wives where the male community then imposes this list of obligations upon the man as what a husband owes his wife under Chivalry.

It is entirely legitimate for a traditional woman to disobey a man or defy a man who is violating moral rules, it just needs to be kept in mind that the moral rules themselves are based on what the male community decides, not based on what an individual woman asserts in her own right. The male community in turn must be acting based on the will of God to the best of its ability in regards to the rules it sets for men and women.

The duty of a husband to take responsibility for his wife, to take his lifetime commitment to his wife seriously, to protect his wife, and to meet all his wife’s basic needs are all a part of the man’s Chivalrous obligation to his wife. In this way if a man fails to live up to all these obligations to his wife he is then a defective or morally inferior man and is not entitled to obedience on that basis. Still the moral reference regarding whether the man is living up to his responsibilities or not is the male community and ultimately God, not an individual woman traditional or not acting on her own.

The Radical One made the additional comment:

“The non-traditional woman will agree to sex with a boyfriend without the promise of marriage or agree to go to work when her husband doesn’t want to support her. The traditional woman, however, does the opposite. She puts her foot down and demands responsibility on behalf of the man before she submits to him.”

I agree with this statement by The Radical One completely. It should be understood however that this is not part of a generalized right of women to defy men to get the man to “do what she wants.” These are particular examples of a man violating moral rules which then establish the man as morally inferior which then grants to the woman the right to defy the man based on the man’s morally inferior status in relation to her regarding the particular conflicts represented.

Premarital sex is a moral violation so that the man asking for premarital sex is clearly morally inferior due to his rule violation which then grants to the woman the right and duty to disobey his request for premarital sex. Likewise a wife working is a moral violation so that a man “demanding” his wife work is clearly morally inferior and therefore not entitled to obedience regarding his request.

These examples of men in the wrong however does not mean that men should be routinely disobeyed whenever they ask a woman to do something; it only illustrates the fact that a man is not entitled to obedience when he is engaging in a rule violation. If the man is “normal” however and not defective the man is entitled to the presumption of having legitimate authority over the woman.

So the basic rule of gender hierarchy is that men’s interests are subordinate to women’s interests while at the same time male authority is the rule as long as the man is not markedly incompetent, bad intentioned, engaging in a rule violation, or shirking his Chivalrous duties. These violations of “normal” status for the man should be determined by objective community standards and not merely be based on the woman’s impression of things. The woman’s duty to obey is based on the man conforming to community standards of how men should treat women, not based on what the woman thinks of the man’s behavior herself.

Men must accept and understand that their interests are subordinate to women’s interests and act accordingly. Likewise when a woman submits to a man because the man is living up to his obligations as a man the woman’s submission must be “true submission” based in respect and honor towards the man for being a good man and a trustworthy man and a competent man and a Chivalrous man; the submission the woman offers must not be associated with threats of “you better do what I want or else” or anything likewise of an abusive or manipulative nature.

 
Companion Piece: The Source of the Rules of Gender Hierarchy

Advertisements

About Jesse Powell TFA

Anti-Feminist, MRA, Pro-Traditional Women's Rights Traditional Family Activist (TFA)
This entry was posted in Chivalry, Gender Hierarchy, Patriarchy, Traditional Women's Rights Activist, Women's Duties and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to The Rules of Gender Hierarchy; When and Why Women should Obey Men

  1. mamaziller says:

    I agree 100% the only thing I will add or say is that the idea that it is the woman’s place or right to not give submission to a defective male is easier in theory than it is in reality. I also want to ask do you see this as an obligation that women have to patriarchy? That women are doing their duty by not submitting to defective men?

    It can be, but if it is an obligation it does go against our nature. I think that if it is an obligation that women have (to not submit to defective men), then it might also make sense for it to be an obligation that men have to persuade other men away from defective behavior (maybe this falls under the realm of the male’s duty to protect women).

    Because if submission to males is a part of our nature then not submitting to defective males becomes very, very difficult and somehow feels like setting us up for failure.

    So what I want to add or say is that yes, I think I can take on the duty of not submitting to defective men but not alone, and certainly not within a culture where men do not see that if this is a part of my duty it must also be a part of their duty to protect me from other defective males.

    I do not know how to describe what I am saying properly. But the situations when it is easy to not submit to a defective male (like not cheating) are situations where you have the support of males in general or at least the most important male (husband). But if we assume that women are submissive by nature then there are many situations where not submitting to a defective male becomes harder as there is no male support for this action.

    When women are in a culture that tells us that what men actually want is sex before marriage etc. then if we do not have a male figure to tell us not to do that, then it becomes VERY hard and even unnatural for us not to give sex before marriage because then that becomes an act of not submitting which goes against our nature.

    So for example in the society that I grew up in ALL men, literally ALL said that they wanted sex before marriage and there was no way for me to really be sure that that was defective so the normal and correct thing for me to do would be to submit to that desire. I suppose if all men wanted their women to sleep around then it would be normal to submit to that as well and the reason it is easier to not cheat is partially because society has established that men do not want that.

    My point is really that defective vs. not defective men is not clear to us women especially in the case of sex before marriage. It has never ever felt natural or right for me to deny a male sex when I was single. This is one reason I simply could not date in real life (ended up meeting my husband online). Because the experiences I had showed me that it was just not within my nature to deny a male (who was close enough and felt free enough to to pursue sex) sex.

    This might not make sense but well, and maybe I am wrong and it is that we sometimes just have to do things that goes against our nature and that this is one of them??

    So the questions: is it also male duty to correct defective male behavior? do you agree that it goes against the nature of females to not submit even when dealing with defective males?? how should females navigate that, is it that it is duty even though it may not feel natural and we should therefore suppress our natural inclination in this case?

    • Definitely, theory is definitely easier than practice. Virtue is tough, especially when the world has gone crazy and proclaims the good bad and the bad good. I will also add my above essay is kind of a “standard model” of the rules of gender hierarchy; how gender hierarchy works in a functioning social system. It is obviously a bad idea for a woman today to just simply follow cultural rules regarding what male behavior is bad and what male behavior is good but in the hypothetical of a future society that does work again the woman should indeed take what the cultural rules are as her guide in judging whether the man is “doing right by her” or not.

      There are however alternative cultural models a woman can rely upon and use as her external basis of support and legitimization; obeying the moral rules of a church being a good example or trying to recreate the social rules of coverture might also be a good example. At my website here I am trying to present an alternative cultural model that atheists and others not attached to organized religion can use. I would encourage women seeking to live a traditional life to adopt one of these alternative moral systems as their guide to what they should consider a “rule violation” and therefore not something they will submit to in a romantic relationship. A woman should not be proclaiming what she considers to be a “rule violation” simply based on her own assertion and her own initiative, she should be relying upon an external authority to support her in her conflicts with her romantic partner and she should be obedient to the external authority she is using as her moral framework. Also the husband and wife should agree with each other regarding what external authority to submit to; the husband and wife should be on the same page regarding the legitimacy of the external authority they both agree to submit to. The ideal is that both the husband and wife are committed to obeying God; the challenge then for the traditional woman not connected to an organized church is to find a “reasonable approximation” to God’s will to obey and to make sure “her man” agrees to abide by some reasonable approximation to God’s will himself.

      Definitely it is men’s job to impose Chivalry and a respect for women on other men. Men set the rules of how both men and women behave. Hierarchically the male community is above the individual man and God is above the male community. So definitely if an individual man is disobeying the male community the male community has the right to punish the man or take other corrective action to bring the man’s behavior into alignment with community standards. If the male community itself is “defective” then you’ve got a real problem but all hope is not lost as God is above the male community so a cultural activist can then appeal to Ultimate Truth derived from God’s will to create an alternative healthy culture in opposition to the dominant culture but obedient to God. In the practical real world this takes the form of promoting and pledging allegiance to the various different traditionalist subcultures that are popping up.

      As far as whether women have an affirmative duty to disobey a “defective man,” to some extent this is a judgment call regarding the particular situation. However the woman’s duty is to obey God. The purpose of obeying one’s husband is to obey God, obeying one’s husband being a practical way to obey God. This is all fine and dandy when the husband himself has subordinated himself to God which is the rule of what men should be doing. Being Chivalrous is men’s duty to God remember. The problem comes when the man is in rebellion against God, the man’s rebellion against God being what makes the man “defective” in the first place. So the woman is then faced with the conflict; obey the man or obey God. She can’t obey both at the same time if the man is going against God so she has to choose; either obey the man or obey God. This is the situation where the woman should disobey the man in order to obey God instead because God outranks the man and is superior to the man. Since the woman has the duty to obey God always this then means that in some situations yes the woman has an affirmative duty to disobey the man in order to maintain her obedience to God.

      • mamaziller says:

        the duty to disobey man and obey god is actually where the problem lies. Most women naturally seek to obey men. Men today have accepted feminists thinking and set the rules that what they want from women is feminism. Feminism is a form of submission for the majority of women who practice it. Women see it as becoming the type of woman that society wants them to be and that is something decided upon by women based on what males (esp. alpha males) indicate they want.

        The “problem” is that men like both the traditional submissive woman and the rebellious feminists woman. Men in general and more specifically alpha males must be attracted to both of these women. I think if alpha males or all males today were to make it clear that they wanted traditional females, feminism would be history. Women gain their status among other women and society by being attractive to males, esp. alpha males. So it is ultimately them who decide what is a good woman and therefore who is the average woman

        By asking women to obey God, you are asking us to disobey men, and that is not natural for most women. It puts women in the same position that feminist thinking puts most men. And unnatural position that will not give us joy. God and nature cannot be in conflict (as god and nature are the same thing).. so in this sense feminism must be women doing their duty and when men are ready to change it they will.

        You said “If the male community itself is “defective” then you’ve got a real problem but all hope is not lost as God is above the male community so a cultural activist can then appeal to Ultimate Truth derived from God’s will to create an alternative healthy culture in opposition to the dominant culture but obedient to God”

        Well the thing is the male community is defective from your point of view, and females follow what males want. You can be an activist but until you get the male community on your side women will continue to submit to men and therefore submit to feminism.

  2. tteclod says:

    For what reward does a competent man enter a relationship with a woman predicated upon the primacy of her interests? No reward compensates such a competent man. A relationship founded upon such filth interests only incompetent men either lacking wisdom to comprehend its obligations, and thus not competent to consent to the arrangement and unreliable within it, or knowingly foolish and irresponsible, but willing to become enslaved for the sake of survival.

    • What’s the reward to putting the interests of the woman first? To be a good man, to be a virtuous man, to be the head of a happy and healthy family enjoying the satisfaction and pride that comes with knowing that you are the one who put your family together and makes your family work. Your wife and children will know that it is your heroic sacrifices that make the family work and will love you and admire you for it. What more could a man want?

      The selfish orientation of your comment is completely dysfunctional and does not work when you are in a relationship with another for the purpose of achieving a common goal and a common positive outcome. Family and marriage is necessarily an idealistic undertaking where both the man and the woman are called upon to make sacrifices on behalf of the other and on behalf of their children.

      • tteclod says:

        Gosh, I you have me there. Clearly my sacrifice on behalf of my wife and children is my reward and the standard for morality – NOT! It is the things I value, and not the things my wife values, that set the standard for my morality. Your argument is impractical, irrational, and immoral. How is it that such insanity persists? You surely know that sacrificing yourself to further your goals is not in fact a sacrifice. If you love your wife and children and wish them well, then your efforts on their behalf are not sacrifices – this would only be true if you lost something else you truly valued greater than the welfare of your family. As for their praise: what of it? If you love your wife and children, you do not need their praise to do that which you will do because you are moral and abide by your commitments. Praise as reward feeds hubris and vanity; are you so vain that flattery motivates you to do good when you might otherwise do evil? Is that the depth of your morality? Does your innate sense of justice lack any direction? Are you utterly rudderless in a mighty river of ethical possibilities, relying wholly on the beneficent opinions of your dependents to provide you direction toward a safe mooring?

        Still, there is hope for you. You may yet choose to do what is good because it is good, and not because of mewling children and a brown-nosing spouse. This good is founded in your own desire that your family be successful based upon your love for them, and not upon your selfish quest for external justifications for doing what you know to be good and in your interest rather than pursue evil and your personal suicide. If you love your family – and I have yet to see proof you do not – then your pursuit of that love will not be their undoing: it will be their salvation.

        The counter to your argument is so well established, I won’t bother citing the source; any internet search engine is sufficient. Here it is: sacrifice is evil.

        ““Sacrifice” does not mean the rejection of the worthless, but of the precious. “Sacrifice” does not mean the rejection of the evil for the sake of the good, but of the good for the sake of the evil. “Sacrifice” is the surrender of that which you value in favor of that which you don’t.

        “If you exchange a penny for a dollar, it is not a sacrifice; if you exchange a dollar for a penny, it is. If you achieve the career you wanted, after years of struggle, it is not a sacrifice; if you then renounce it for the sake of a rival, it is. If you own a bottle of milk and give it to your starving child, it is not a sacrifice; if you give it to your neighbor’s child and let your own die, it is.

        “If you give money to help a friend, it is not a sacrifice; if you give it to a worthless stranger, it is. If you give your friend a sum you can afford, it is not a sacrifice; if you give him money at the cost of your own discomfort, it is only a partial virtue, according to this sort of moral standard; if you give him money at the cost of disaster to yourself—that is the virtue of sacrifice in full.

        “If you renounce all personal desires and dedicate your life to those you love, you do not achieve full virtue: you still retain a value of your own, which is your love. If you devote your life to random strangers, it is an act of greater virtue. If you devote your life to serving men you hate—that is the greatest of the virtues you can practice.

        “A sacrifice is the surrender of a value. Full sacrifice is full surrender of all values. If you wish to achieve full virtue, you must seek no gratitude in return for your sacrifice, no praise, no love, no admiration, no self-esteem, not even the pride of being virtuous; the faintest trace of any gain dilutes your virtue. If you pursue a course of action that does not taint your life by any joy, that brings you no value in matter, no value in spirit, no gain, no profit, no reward—if you achieve this state of total zero, you have achieved the ideal of moral perfection.

        “You are told that moral perfection is impossible to man—and, by this standard, it is. You cannot achieve it so long as you live, but the value of your life and of your person is gauged by how closely you succeed in approaching that ideal zero which is death.

        “If you start, however, as a passionless blank, as a vegetable seeking to be eaten, with no values to reject and no wishes to renounce, you will not win the crown of sacrifice. It is not a sacrifice to renounce the unwanted. It is not a sacrifice to give your life for others, if death is your personal desire. To achieve the virtue of sacrifice, you must want to live, you must love it, you must burn with passion for this earth and for all the splendor it can give you—you must feel the twist of every knife as it slashes your desires away from your reach and drains your love out of your body. It is not mere death that the morality of sacrifice holds out to you as an ideal, but death by slow torture.

        “Do not remind me that it pertains only to this life on earth. I am concerned with no other. Neither are you.

        “If you wish to save the last of your dignity, do not call your best actions a “sacrifice”: that term brands you as immoral. If a mother buys food for her hungry child rather than a hat for herself, it is not a sacrifice: she values the child higher than the hat; but it is a sacrifice to the kind of mother whose higher value is the hat, who would prefer her child to starve and feeds him only from a sense of duty. If a man dies fighting for his own freedom, it is not a sacrifice: he is not willing to live as a slave; but it is a sacrifice to the kind of man who’s willing. If a man refuses to sell his convictions, it is not a sacrifice, unless he is the sort of man who has no convictions.

        “Sacrifice could be proper only for those who have nothing to sacrifice—no values, no standards, no judgment—those whose desires are irrational whims, blindly conceived and lightly surrendered. For a man of moral stature, whose desires are born of rational values, sacrifice is the surrender of the right to the wrong, of the good to the evil.

        “The creed of sacrifice is a morality for the immoral—a morality that declares its own bankruptcy by confessing that it can’t impart to men any personal stake in virtues or values, and that their souls are sewers of depravity, which they must be taught to sacrifice. By its own confession, it is impotent to teach men to be good and can only subject them to constant punishment.”

  3. What you are saying sounds good in theory, Jesse, but it doesn’t translate well into reality. You basically say that women should obey good men and should not obey bad men: fine, but how should a woman deal with a man whom she doesn’t know? Or, if a woman knows two men and knows that both of them are good, and those two men disagree with each other, and each of them is telling the woman to do something different, what should she do?

  4. First off, let’s be clear what “obey” means here. To “obey” means to do as you are told, it doesn’t mean agreeing with someone’s total moral philosophy or anything. If you don’t know a man there is no particular reason why he would tell you to do anything and there would also be no particular reason for you to obey him if he did tell you to do something. If you don’t have a relationship with a man then any “obedience” you may offer to him will just be trivial or ritualistic anyways.

    Also, keep in mind what the purpose of “obeying” a man is. The purpose is to cooperate with the man in the goals he is trying to achieve on your behalf. You and the man in question have some sort of mutually shared goal or project; this being the basis of the relationship you have with the man in the first place. You benefit from the goal the man has taken on, this is why you are in relationship with him to help him further the goal that you benefit from or that you support. This is the context in which a man would give you an “order” in the first place. So by “obeying” the man you are helping him to better help you. In this kind of relationship set up you then should indeed “obey” the man unless the man is “defective” in some serious identifiable way. That is what I am saying here.

    If you are in some situation where two different men are telling you to do two different things then there is a hierarchy conflict situation going on among the men themselves. In such a situation one man may be above the other man hierarchically so you can by default obey the higher ranking man. Of course there might be other ways to handle such a situation to. That is getting overly complicated however. In general each man will have his own project that you are a part of and his own sphere. You obey each man in his own sphere, there is no reason why two different men will be both on the same project arguing with each other and forcing you to take sides; that seems to be an unlikely scenario in real life and if such a thing is happening that is more a power struggle between the two men than it has anything to do with you.

    • Unless she is an employee, in which case she should obey her boss, why would a woman be in “the sphere” of a man to whom she is not married or related? Many conservative cultures and subcultures deliberately shelter their daughters so that they won’t be in the sphere of men to whom they are not related or married.

      I want to repeat this: I very much resent your insinuation that all TWRAs or ex TWRAs are self serving manipulators because we refused to obey you blindly. I.don’t.know.you. I have no idea who you really are, or if you are for real, and it is extremely unreasonable of you to expect that level of obedience from women whom you have never even met. Besides that, my husband disagrees with you about a number of things; my husband outranks you. That doesn’t make me a manipulator.

  5. mamaziller says:

    I agree that women should obey men, but not that women should disobey defective men. I think that it is natural for most women to obey men (defective or not), the responsibility is on men to insure that most men are not defective.

    It conflicts too much with the nature of women to have us disobey defective men. Society would completely stop and die if that were the case. Women as a whole always obey men. That is just how we are.

  6. mamaziller says:

    Also with respect to The Radical One you are agreeing with her entire post if you think that obeying God for women can be different from obeying men. She is saying women should not obey men, but obey god or what is right because men today are defective men.

    To me obeying God as a woman is obeying men. If men want feminism then feminism it will be. I also think the majority of men do not want feminism though, but until they find a way to get that message to women then we are stuck with feminism.

  7. Responding to some general points Mamaziller brought up:

    You talk about how it is “unnatural” to disobey men, even “defective” men. That if men want women to be feminist then men will be feminist. I totally understand that a morally inferior man puts women in a bad situation, “normal” men don’t like the morally inferior man either and the defective man makes all men look bad thereby making it harder for the women to trust and obey men in general; good or “normal” men included. I would also agree that the duty to fix things falls primarily upon men and that men as a gender deserve the most blame for how things are now because with authority comes responsibility.

    All that being said women still have moral agency in their own right due to their intrinsic free choice capacity; therefore woman have moral obligations to. Moral obligations are never easy to live up to; that doesn’t mean however that the moral obligation doesn’t exist. Women have a duty to obey God just like men have a duty to obey God. Obeying men is a kind of shortcut for obeying God but if a man clearly has something “wrong” with him and is therefore “defective” then obeying that particular man as a shortcut to obey God doesn’t work. That is when the woman to fulfill her duty to obey God is obligated to disobey the man. As a general rule the woman will have community support in disobeying the particular man in her life because the man will be violating a community norm in the first place as it is the man’s violation of the community norm which will enable the woman to see that the man is “defective” and thereby not entitled to obedience regarding the particular issue of conflict.

    The bottom line I guess in all of this is that women are not “off the hook” in regards to their own personal responsibility just because they are women. Women have judgment capacity and free will and that is enough to establish women’s independent duty to obey God even when it is difficult or confusing for her. A man trying to hold true to moral principles faces difficult and confusing situations all the time; women are not exempt from this burden likewise.

    As to what my disagreements are with The Radical One; I think the basic disagreement is that The Radical One sees the individual woman imposing moral duties upon the man with threats of disobedience to back up the woman’s position while I see the individual woman only imposing moral duties upon the man that are imposed upon the man by God first. In other words I want the locus of control to be with God and The Radical One wants the locus of control to be with the individual woman. This is really the basis of my whole dispute with the TWRAs.

    I think the TWRAs should “obey me” on the basis of me being the most competent person to try to put together an overall moral framework for Traditional Women’s Rights and to do the governing tasks of keeping together and promoting the organization largely because I am a man and the other TWRAs are women. The Radical One and the other women who were TWRAs previously seem to want the moral rules to be determined by each particular woman in her own particular situation independent of any “male authority” I may want to impose upon them. I consider this to be tantamount to female controlled Chivalry and therefore not something I can promote. I do however totally agree with The Radical One that a man must show himself as responsible and trustworthy and willing to serve the woman before expecting obedience. It’s just that I don’t think The Radical One should be setting the terms unilaterally; she should be relying upon an authority greater than herself that she herself agrees to be obedient to.

    • mamaziller says:

      Okay first of all I got emotional and should apologize for that. Sorry. The reason is because what you are saying is that most women in Jamaica for example are wrong because they/we have submitted to defective men. The thing is for women it is basically impossible NOT to submit to defective men.

      I can agree with you in theory Jesse but in reality, in the real world (whether right or wrong) women will and do submit to what men want. It is like instinct, it is just what we do. The same goes for men prioritizing the needs or wants of women. The reason the men in the MRA and the general man adopts the principles of feminism and shouts them as his own is because he has gotten the message that that is serving the needs of women.

      And the reason that women behave like sluts, chase after careers and become feminists is also because we get the message that that is what will give us social status and women determine their own social status by how attractive they are to MALES. So the reason we become feminists to to please and submit to what males want.

      When you ask us to disobey defective men, this is just unnatural and will never actually happen. It is like asking men to stand against feminism even while thinking that that is what is best for women. Most men will naturally say no. Women need to get the message that feminism is unattractive to men and THEN we can change. That is the natural order that is how it is. Without that message women will never change because it is in our nature to seek to please men as a whole.

      We can disobey defective men only if we have a large amount of support to do so from men as a whole and if you look at Jamaica non-defective men are outliers.. so we cannot disobey defective men as it goes against everything in our nature!

  8. Pingback: The Source of the Rules of Gender Hierarchy | Secular Patriarchy

  9. Mary says:

    My gosh, I just love what you have explained so thoroughly here. This is not an emotional remark (other than that I am practically thrilled and wish I could shout this out to the world) on my part, really, but more so an expression of relief, or vindication maybe, that what I’ve felt (and probably believed, but would have denied ever believing until I was a good ten years or so fully done [graduated] with college, which incidentally was a waste [of effort, money, time, etc.] in my case). I have way too many thoughts, too much to write here, to mention. I just thank you, very sincerely, for taking the time to write about this. What an undertaking!

    (I’ve bookmarked this page/site, hoping I can find the full version and subscribe if that’s an option. [I so greatly admire and respect all you’ve written in this “article” here!])

  10. WayneMan says:

    One should wonder who created the submissive wife rules. Well, maybe it was some self serving male pigs, that wanted complete control over women, sexually and financially. That certainly makes more sense than women are not capable, or do not deserve equality. It is a gigantic con job, and unfortunately many women fall for it. Some to the point where they exists in a totally abusive relationship, and feel they must. It is complete BS.

  11. Pingback: A Husband’s Right to Punish his Wife | Secular Patriarchy

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s