The Source of the Rules of Gender Hierarchy

In the previous post I spelled out what the rules of gender hierarchy are as a guide for deciding “who should dominate” in any particular conflict between a man and a woman. The two basic rules are; first the man must subordinate his interests to the woman’s interests and second; after the man has done this the woman must obey the man. Exceptions can be made if the man is “defective” and therefore not in a position to serve the woman’s best interests through an assertion of authority.

Why should this be the basis of gender relations? What are these rules of gender relations based on?

First off why should there be a gender hierarchy in the first place? Isn’t it better if the sexes are presumed to be equal? Isn’t that more fair? In a social model of gender egalitarianism or gender equality no resource transfer takes place between men and women. This is the big reason why gender equality is no good, because in gender equality men do not contribute to women. If the man did contribute to the woman you wouldn’t have gender equality anymore as the very act of resource transfer from the man to the woman itself constitutes gender inequality. With the man providing resources to the woman the woman would then become dependent upon the man’s resource provision making the woman not equal to the man. The man providing resources to the woman will want the resources he is providing to serve the purpose he wants his resource provision to serve; this then means the man must “control” the woman in order so that the man’s investment in the woman will serve the man’s purposes thereby rewarding the man for investing in the woman so that the man will continue to invest in the woman.

Gender equality therefore makes no sense because gender equality means no more transfer of resources from men to women which in turn means women cannot dedicate their efforts to children or others able to benefit from their feminine strengths. Gender inequality is the engine of family life, it is what brings male investment into the family and allows for resources to be directed towards children and the well being of society overall through the mechanism of supporting women. So there has to be a gender hierarchy in order for men to contribute to society and of course men must contribute to society for society to work.

Now that I have established the basis for gender hierarchy in the first place; why is gender hierarchy based on the subordination of men’s interests to women’s interests and the subordination of women to men in terms of authority?

The fundamental goal of gender hierarchy is the sustainable functional transfer of resources from men to women. That is the underlying goal gender hierarchy is meant to achieve. So let us say gender hierarchy is based on male authority by itself, that all gender hierarchy is is “male rule.” Would that work? No, without putting the woman’s interests first there is no reason to think that “male rule” by itself would lead men to serve women. Maybe the man is selfish and lazy and he just wants to steal and take and doesn’t really care much what happens to the woman one way or the other. Such a man “ruling over” women does no good because he is not going to use his authority for any positive purpose. Male authority with no obligation in place to serve women is male authority for no purpose and is highly abusive to women.

What about the other side of the equation? Let us say a strong ethic is in place that men are to serve women but there is no rule that women are to obey men. Let us say all gender hierarchy is is the man’s duty to serve the woman. Would that work? No, in this scenario men would be forced to provide resources to women but women could waste or squander these resources however they wish and furthermore the woman could place endless demands on the man to “serve me more” or “serve me better” as there is no cost to the woman in making unlimited demands upon the man as it is the man doing all the work and taking all the risks while the woman just lays back and enjoys it. The man then seeing his efforts being wasted will refuse to serve the woman anymore.

The situation where the man has no obligation to serve the interests of the woman is abusive to the woman and the situation where the woman has no obligation to obey the man is abusive to the man. This is why the rules of gender hierarchy are that the man must serve the woman and the woman must obey the man. This set of rules combined together protects the interests of both the man and the woman so that a sustainable transfer of resources can take place from the man to the woman thereby enabling society to work.

Men subordinating their interests to women is what Chivalry is. Women obeying men is what patriarchy is. Patriarchy and Chivalry always go together, they have to go together. Patriarchy is what protects the man from being abused by the woman while Chivalry is what protects the woman from being abused by the man. Chivalry is the man’s duty to the woman under patriarchy while obedience is the woman’s duty to the man under patriarchy that is based on Chivalry.

There are important differences between male Chivalry and female obedience though. What is the main point of gender hierarchy in the first place again? Sustainable transfer of resources from men to women. Can men unilaterally as an act of will provide resources to women? Yes. A man can always under all circumstances choose to serve women. This is why Chivalry is an unconditional duty for men, because the man always has the capacity to serve women and therefore be good in that way. When a person can do good they must do good, they have an obligation to do good. Since a man always has the capacity to do good through Chivalry his Chivalrous obligation is always applicable, is unconditional.

What about obedience for the woman? Can a woman always serve her own interests by obeying the man? Here the answer is no. The woman is not in control of the moral character of the man or the moral capacity of the man. Obedience for the woman means adopting the moral characteristics of the man she is obeying as her own. If the man is bad obeying the man is bad and if the man is good obeying the man is good. Since the woman cannot control the moral characteristics of the man this means she also cannot control whether obeying the man is bad or good. Sometimes obeying the man is good and sometimes it is bad; whether it is bad or good being beyond the woman’s control. Since the woman is not in control of the moral characteristics of the man she therefore cannot unilaterally make obeying the man good. This is why for the woman obedience to the man is not unconditional; the man has to be “good” first.

The woman is not in control of whether she should obey the man or not. If the man chooses to be good then the man is imposing an obligation upon the woman to obey him; if the man chooses to be bad then he is imposing an obligation upon the woman to disobey him.

The moral character of the male / female interaction is determined by the man. The man can always choose unilaterally to be good because the man is in charge of his own choices and therefore his own moral identity. For this reason the man always has the duty to choose to be affirmatively moral; the man always has the duty to be Chivalrous. However because the woman is not in charge of the moral character of the man the woman’s duty to obey is not unconditional but is instead dependent upon the man choosing to be good, choosing to be Chivalrous, first. If the man makes the choice to be good he is then imposing an obligation of obedience upon the woman; if he makes the choice to be bad he is imposing the opposite, an obligation in the woman to disobey him.

Since the overall purpose of gender hierarchy is to facilitate the transfer of resources from men to women this means the overall purpose of gender hierarchy is to serve the woman’s interests; that gender hierarchy is about the subordination of men’s interests to women’s interests. This is why the basic fundamental goal of the male / female interaction is to produce an outcome favorable to the woman.

This brings us to the issue of women’s competence. A competent woman should be dominant but a woman can only be presumed to be competent in relation to a manifestly incompetent or “defective” man. There are two bases of women’s presumed incompetence in relation to a “normal” man. The first is a woman’s generally weaker skills in relation to exercising authority and decision making and the second is the woman’s tendency to be abusive when exercising authority in relation to a man as the man is always the one providing the resources related to the dispute while the woman is the one receiving the resources related to the dispute. When a woman disobeys a man what she is doing is taking the resources a man has given her and then using those resources in a way the man did not intend for those resources to be used. This is a highly vulnerable and dangerous situation to place a man into and will have a tendency to be viewed by the man as abuse against him which will then lead to the man withdrawing from the woman lessening the flow of resources from the man to the woman.

So when a woman disobeys a man she will tend to be acting incompetently due to lower decision making skills and she will tend to be acting abusively due to her redirecting resources provided to her away from the man’s intended purpose towards her own purposes. This is why there is a strong presumption that the woman is acting incompetently when she chooses to disobey a man which is why the bias of a woman’s incompetence can only be overruled by the man showing manifest incompetence himself thereby making him identifiably a “defective” or “morally inferior” man.

So the rules are:

1. Men must subordinate their interests to women always (unconditional Chivalry). This is necessary to protect the woman from being abused by the man and to establish the flow of resources from men to women which is necessary for society to function.

2. The woman should always act to serve her own interests as the woman’s interests are primary (this being derivative of rule number 1 above). This means if the woman is competent she should be dominant. However unless the man is manifestly incompetent or “defective” himself the woman is presumed to be incompetent in relation to the man and therefore obligated to obey the man because of the strong tendency of women to be either abusive or incompetent when disobeying a man.

3. Derivative of rule number 2 a “normal” man has authority over the women he interacts with in his life. This then protects the man from being abused by the women he is providing for and protecting (being Chivalrous towards as is his fundamental duty to all women) which then enables the man to provide a steady stable flow of resources towards women thereby allowing the man to do his part in maintaining the health of society.

4. End result; both men’s interests and women’s interests are protected and there is a strong sustainable flow of resources from men to women allowing for children to be cared for and the society to work overall on a sustainable basis.

There are three basic components to patriarchy; gender hierarchy, men serving women, and women obeying men. All three of these elements are necessary for patriarchy to work. Get rid of gender hierarchy and the flow of resources from men to women stops. Get rid of men serving women and the flow of resources from men to women stops. Get rid of women obeying men and men will experience this as a waste of their investment in women and again the flow of resources from men to women will stop. In order for society to be sustained men must provide resources to women and all three of the components of patriarchy must be in place in order for a high flow of resources from men to women to be sustained. All three elements of patriarchy are necessary for a society to work.

Men must serve women and women must obey men once the man has demonstrated that he has committed himself to serving women (accepted his Chivalrous duty towards women); this is the fundamental rule of relations between the sexes.

 
Companion Piece: The Rules of Gender Hierarchy; When and Why Women Should Obey Men

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 and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to The Source of the Rules of Gender Hierarchy

  1. Pingback: The Rules of Gender Hierarchy; When and Why Women should Obey Men | Secular Patriarchy

  2. In the old days, single women were not allowed to be alone with men to whom they were not married or at least engaged; patriarchy meant obeying your father if you were single or your husband if you were married. It has never meant obeying whichever man happens to be standing closest to you at any given time. Unless he is an employer, there is no reason why a man would need a woman other than his wife or his daughter to obey him; if the woman isn’t your wife or your daughter, then it is highly unlikely that you are “transferring resources” to her. In the highly unlikely event of a Titanic like situation, then men should die for women they don’t know, but some women should also die for women they don’t know; as a fortysomething woman, I would see it as as my duty to die for younger women. That doesn’t mean that I get to order younger women around with impunity, especially if those younger women are not my daughters.

    Your theories seem to assume that men will never even consider doing anything for women unless they are guaranteed something in return. You also seem to assume that unless women are kept on a very tight leash, they will take advantage of men at ever opportunity. Most men are better than you give them credit for, and most women are also better than you give them credit for.

    • mamaziller says:

      I think this is really a matter of different people using different words to say the same thing and that it is possible that you and Jesse may agree quite a bit. If you trust that a person is seeking your best interest and they asks you to do something, would you not do it?

      I think in the old days the trust between the sexes was a lot stronger. The sexes had a code of conduct and with chivalry being a part of that it meant that women in general trusted males to be seeking their own interests. So that women in general would very naturally obey men in general.

      If a random guy asks you to take your children and leave a shop immediately, you might be confused but if it is true that you trust males in general to be good people who generally seek the interest of women then you will obey them even if you do not understand why.

      This is women obeying men and this happens everywhere once there is a code of conduct between the sexes that women can trust. As long as women trust men to be seeking their interest there is no problem with obeying them.

      The thing that I think Jesse does not see is that the world that TWRAs live in is not a world of trust. Trust has been broken, there is no social contract between men and women at the moment and so women cannot obey all men because they do not know who is seeking their interest and who is not.

      So what he believes and what the TWRAs believe is very similar. He is saying obey trust worthy men like himself, and disobey the rest. TWRAs are saying we do not know the difference and since the only men we are sure are trust worthy in our position is our husband, that is the only man we can trust. There is no social contract so how can we know who are the defective and non-defective men? Very often men have come into our lives and behaved chivalrous only to change and hurt us.

      Until there is a social contract there can be no trust, there can be no distinction between defective and non-defective. The only man we can therefore trust is the one we know. In the reality that we live in when we obey all men who appear to be chivalrous we become feminists. And in fact this is what a lot of women do. If we lived in a place where society enforced a code of conduct between the sexes and we could trust what appears to be chivalry to actually be chivalry then YES women will trust all men who appear to be chivalrous.

      Basically our environment is too dangerous, too much crime or too many men who appear to be chivalrous but want to harm us exists.

  3. Responding to Judithann Campbell;

    Regarding customs and cultural practices in the “old days,” I remember watching a movie made in 1958 called “The Blob” where a gelatin monster came down to earth like a meteor terrorizing a small town as it grew and grew. The most interesting part of that movie was the gender based interaction patterns being shown. A large part of the plot of the movie was the various attempts at battling the monster. The men in the movie were always and routinely telling the women what to do. The male doctor was ordering the female nurse around telling her to do this and that to help him battle the monster. The boyfriend was ordering his girlfriend around in likewise fashion in his own efforts to battle the monster. Finally the cops showed up, all men, and then they started ordering people around to battle the monster. The “male authority” pattern was never broken in the movie; in every male / female relationship being shown the man was always ordering the woman around. The men also always put themselves in the most dangerous situations in relation to the monster being battled, so the Chivalry principle was also strictly adhered to in the movie.

    I know in the past there used to be various forms of ritualistic customs such as men taking off their hats when a lady entered the room and men were supposed to stop swearing in the presence of a lady. The whole idea of being a “lady” or “ladylike” is interesting. Being pleasant, kind, and demure was expected of a “lady;” signals of submissiveness being part of the package. A “gentleman” would certainly carry himself in a more authoritative and assertive posture than a “lady.” Bernice Sanders, a feminist, talks about how even today in the culture drenched in feminism that studies show that men routinely interrupt women in conversations more than the other way around and that when someone enters a room, either male or female, that person will scan the room to figure out where all the man are sitting first. Feminists call these kinds of social patterns “microagressions.”

    So I don’t think I’m off base when I say that the historical cultural pattern is for men in general to be dominant over women in general. The greater the relationship between a man and a woman the more significant the hierarchy part will be in that relationship but even routine interactions between men and women I gather had a ritualized element of dominance and submission going on. Everybody knows that when lost women have a much easier time “asking for directions” than men do. This is because “asking for directions” is a way of “begging for help” and thereby places one in a subordinate position relative to a stranger. Men would rather not eat their pride in this way but for women it is just another form of social interaction. Subordinating oneself to a stranger is easier for a woman to do than a man.

    Also you know I have made a big deal out of “unconditional Chivalry” being a duty that a man owes to all women. This is based on men and women having a fixed gender based type of relationship to each other where man “provides for and protects” woman and woman “obeys” man. I may not have put much emphasis on the women “obeying” men part but it was always assumed in my mind assuming the man was living up to his duties as a man first.

    When I talk about men “transferring resources” to women I am defining “transferring resources” in a broad sense where every act of Chivalry by a man towards a woman is “transferring resources” to the woman in some way. The woman who then “disobeys” the man is both not trusting his judgment as a man and is also “redirecting” or “stealing” the “resources” the man has provided to her. This is why in general a woman disobeying a man is not a good idea and why men don’t like being disobeyed. If the man’s game is a feminist game and he is not committed to “serving” the woman in the first place then to him the woman “disobeying” him is no big deal because he is not investing in the woman in the first place. For a man who takes his duty to serve women seriously however a woman “disobeying” him is a big problem as it means the woman is fighting against him regarding the purpose his relationship with the woman is supposed to serve.

    You say “Your theories seem to assume that men will never even consider doing anything for women unless they are guaranteed something in return.”

    Here you seem to be saying that a woman obeying a man is giving “something in return” to the man. As if the act of obedience by the woman is a gift or benefit to the man. This is completely the wrong way to think about female obedience. A woman obeys the man to enable the man to serve the woman. Female obedience is not women serving men, it is women serving themselves. Male authority is always meant to be directed towards serving the woman; this is how I am defining legitimate male authority. So a woman is not doing any favors for the man by obeying the man, she is simply refraining from obstructing the man and attacking the man. A woman does not deserve “extra credit” for obeying a man, the woman obeying the man should be standard operating procedure; what is normal and expected. A woman disobeying a man is deserving of condemnation and suspicion (assuming the man is not the one at fault in the situation) but the woman obeying the man is simply acting as a woman should.

    It is particularly wrong headed for a woman to think she deserves “something in return” for being so good as to refrain from disobeying the man just because she could if she wanted. This is extortion where the woman is saying “I’m going to mess things up for you unless you give me these extra goodies that I want.” This is what I have characterized before as obedience manipulation.

    You said “You also seem to assume that unless women are kept on a very tight leash, they will take advantage of men at ever opportunity.”

    I suppose how “tight the leash” should be on a woman is dependent upon the woman herself. If a woman has a history of “causing trouble” then the leash should probably be tighter. A modern feminist woman is in general very oriented towards “taking advantage of men at every opportunity” I would say because after all she is entitled to and she is always being “oppressed” whenever she doesn’t get what she wants and she is always figuring out ways in which she is being “victimized” in order to be deserving of special privileges to compensate her for the “victimization” she has suffered. A modern feminist man is also playing plenty of self-serving games I will add, just to be fair.

    One thing you should keep in mind, if I am trying to “serve” a woman and she refuses to “obey” me that is right away a negative signal to me; she is telling me that she views me as a “defective” or “morally inferior” man because those are the types of men who deserve the disobedient treatment. If I view myself as “doing right by her” and think she has enough experience with me to know that I have “good intentions” then I’m going to view her disobedience to me as an unfair attack against me and I will think she is playing some kind of game in order to get an advantage over me. A woman displaying disobedience is displaying negative qualities as a woman if I as a man am displaying positive qualities as a man. In this way the woman is signaling to me that she is “trying to take advantage of me” which will then encourage me to either put a “tighter leash” on her or to abandon the relationship with her altogether.

    You say “Most men are better than you give them credit for, and most women are also better than you give them credit for.”

    A man not expecting obedience is a man not strongly invested in the woman in the first place. I would not characterize such a man as a “better man.” As to whether I am not giving women enough credit? That may be but a woman disobeying me when I am trying to be a good man and to be in service to her is not treating me in a good way and I have every right to detach myself from such a woman and try to find another woman to partner with that will treat me better and will assist me in my goals rather than obstruct me in my goals.

    You seem to have a bias that a man expecting a woman to obey him is being a bad man, that the expectation of the woman obeying the man is a sacrifice being imposed upon the woman to benefit the man. You may see this as reasonable within the context of marriage as a kind of reward the man has earned due to his financially providing for the woman and the various things he does in the marriage to benefit the woman but that the act of the woman “obeying” is still a sacrifice or injury the woman suffers to benefit the man.

    I view the woman obeying the man totally differently. The woman obeying the man is simply neutral and expected and the act of the woman disobeying the man is an act of aggression or is an attack against the man that undermines the man’s ability to function as a man. A woman therefore is not entitled to demand “something in return” for her obedience; he obedience is simply the default expectation.

    In terms of the wider feminist culture a man “providing for and protecting” a woman is a hero (or a villain as the feminist may cast such a man as an “oppressor”) but regardless the man being Chivalrous is “exceptional.” The MRAs then claim a man being Chivalrous deserves “something in return” or else is simply being a slave to the woman. Likewise in feminist culture a woman “obeying” a man is performing a great sacrifice and is either heroic going above and beyond the call of duty for a mere man or is being a disgrace to the sisterhood letting all women down for being a “doormat” to her husband.

    To me a man being Chivalrous is simply the default position and any man not acting Chivalrously is behaving badly. Likewise for a woman being obedient is simply the default position (assuming the man is being Chivalrous as he should) and any woman not being obedient to a man is behaving badly.

    So if I’m being Chivalrous as I should and then I expect obedience in return and then the woman refuses to be obedient to me or she demands “special favors” from me in exchange for her obedience which she owes me anyways because of my Chivalry then there is something wrong with this picture. I am being attacked and downgraded unfairly; I am being abused as a man. It is not that I am being Chivalrous for the purpose of extracting obedience out of the woman, it is that I am performing my duty to the woman and in return the woman is attacking me and sabotaging me simply because I am trying to prevent the woman from taking advantage of me in the vulnerable state I have placed myself into by dedicating myself to serving the woman in the first place.

    If you think you are entitled to Chivalry because you are a woman and at the same time you think obeying a man is a great favor you are giving to the man and that you deserve “additional rewards” for the sacrifice you are making on behalf of the man by obeying him then that is a female supremacist attitude. That is thinking that what the man gives you you are simply entitled to but that you deserve additional special rewards for then not attacking the man while he is trying to serve you.

    To bring things back to a concrete example here on the issue of “male authority” in relation to women outside of marriage. I hoped to “take over” the TWRA political group that was all women (besides myself) that was dedicated to promoting patriarchy in culture and law. My main claim to legitimacy in this was that I was a man and everybody else was women and that therefore I would be the best one to lead the group, that the group would have the greatest chance at success and being taken seriously and being able to attract new members if a man was leading the group; namely myself. This would then involve the TWRA women “obeying me” in the context of TWRA political activities even though none of the TWRA women are my wife. According to my rules of gender hierarchy this was a legitimate demand on my part. By supporting the TWRAs I was subordinating my interests as a man to the interests of women. I was dedicating myself to serving the TWRA women themselves and women in general as the TWRA cause was meant to serve women in general. So me promoting the TWRA cause constituted a Chivalrous orientation on my part in service to women. My accepting my Chivalrous duty in the context of the TWRA cause then established me as a “normal” man in the TWRA context. One might argue that I was incompetent or had bad intentions regarding the TWRAs and that I was therefore “defective” on that basis but nobody accused me of being incompetent or having bad intentions and I didn’t see myself as being incompetent or having bad intentions and so those disqualifiers of me being a “normal” man didn’t apply. According to my gender hierarchy theory then me being a “normal” man is sufficient by itself to justify me being accepted as the leader of the TWRA group.

    Obviously the TWRA women didn’t see things this way but that is how I saw things towards the end of my time as a TWRA. It should be recognized that first of all as a man I do tend to have better organizational and decision making and rule setting skills as such power skills are part of the masculine realm and I can be expected to be better at the masculine realm as a man than a woman would be. It is also true that the whole point of the TWRA group is Chivalry; is promoting male service to women in the culture and the law. Somebody has to speak up for male interests in the project of trying to create a better culture that works for both men and women. To expect a man to be obedient to a set of rules regarding what they owe women that was entirely worked out and approved and demanded by women is a bit unrealistic. It makes more sense for a man to be the one creating rules and codes of conduct for other men to obey in service to women. This is another reason why a man leading the TWRAs makes more sense than a woman leading the TWRAs. The TWRAs are about men’s Chivalrous duty to women and Chivalry has to be male controlled so it makes sense in turn that the TWRA group itself should be male controlled so that the Chivalry the TWRAs promote can then be seen to be male controlled.

    As part of the TWRAs I saw it as my purpose to make the group organizationally stronger and more persuasive and for the TWRA ideology to serve the interests of society as a whole and to be able to keep people out who might undermine the TWRA ideology and purpose from within. I could only do all those things for the TWRAs if I was the leader and not being fought against or undermined from within by the other TWRAs.

    Obedience is clearly a choice due to the reality of free will and the TWRA women decided to not obey me for whatever reason or combination of reasons. This then meant I could not serve women through the vehicle of the TWRAs in the way I had hoped to be able to serve women. In order for me to be able to serve women in the most powerful and effective way women have to assist me in my project of serving women and therefore obey me in my project of serving women. The TWRAs chose to fight against me rather than fighting for me or alongside me. The TWRA women chose to disobey me rather than obey me. For this reason it no longer makes any sense for me to continue as a TWRA. This is why I have chosen to serve women through the vehicle of the Traditional Family Activists or TFAs instead.

    • mamaziller says:

      I just want to say that I agree with everything in this reply. What the other TWRAs are saying as far as I see is that they cannot trust men without knowing them. I do NOT agree with this though, trust has to start somewhere and if someone does not prove themselves to be bad we should give them the benefit of the doubt. I agree that as the only male in the group of this size that claims to be pro-male leadership you as the male should be the leader. I also agree that in general women should obey men and that this is all part of service to women and society.

      This is honestly how I live my life, I think that if someone does not prove themselves to be bad, I will trust them.

      The only place we disagree is that I think in practice women also obey defective men, and I cannot see how you think that can or will change?? And I do not believe in free will, but that is another matter.

      Generally though I agree that YOU should be the leader and would make a good leader as far as I see. If we are pro-patriarchy we are pro-male leadership. Also as a TWRA I never disobeyed you or the Radical One yet I was still ask to leave, but I understand that you had other reasons which I respect. But it does mean that not all the TWRA disobeyed you or did not want you to lead!

  4. Responding to Mamaziller at November 7, 2013 at 5:24 am;

    I think your comment is very good and probably very true. There is obviously a lot of bad blood and mutual distrust between the sexes. I personally see MRAs as totally untrustworthy towards women and wonder why so many women give them so much credit. I also see feminist men as untrustworthy towards women as feminism is a game of manipulation both sexes can play against the other. If we then restrict ourselves to the secular world then things are pretty grim. I do think there are a lot of good things going on in particular church communities where everybody both men and women are to obey the Bible and their pastor in particular thereby imposing demands on both sexes as part of an overall community cultural standard that then allows men and women to work together towards a common purpose. In the secular world however everybody seems to have their own angle to advantage themselves that they are trying to promote.

    The ideology and world view I have put together is meant to create a blueprint for how society overall should work; both men and women working together in service to each other and in service to children. I am pretty sure my version of patriarchy is pretty close to how patriarchy worked in the past and it is also meant to have the philosophical cohesiveness of the religious point of view.

    If men and women are to work together some kind of trust has to be able to be established and yes in general men will tend to be the leaders and women the followers. I have been plugging away at the TWRA cause for 9 months and have written a large inventory of articles. Before joining the TWRAs I spent 3 years at The Thinking Housewife. What I wrote at The Thinking Housewife matches pretty closely with what I wrote as a TWRA. I have been quite ideologically stable the past couple of years. If people don’t “trust me” by now I am under the impression they will never trust me or they don’t want to trust me if they think “trusting me” means “obeying me” and they don’t want to obey me and they figure that just proclaiming themselves to not trust me is an easy excuse for not obeying me.

    Frankly I have joined in political alliances with others where I took on the subordinate role after about a weeks worth of research and reading through about 3 months of what the other person has written. The history of my political writing that people can look up if they chose is a lot more extensive than it is for most people. This whole idea that I am “untrustworthy” I find very annoying and I see it as a cheap excuse that comes in mighty handy when the person simply wants to come up with an excuse to not “obey me” because they want to do their “own thing” and they want me to support them in their doing their “own thing.”

    So yes trust is a real issue but not trusting someone is also an easy excuse to not subordinate oneself to the other person. I think what’s really going on is that the TWRA women never saw themselves as being in a hierarchy position relative to men; they never saw men as dominant and women as subordinate in the first place. Therefore me trying to claim dominance after several months where I was subordinate first as a TWRA was foreign to the TWRA women and not something they were inclined to go along with. The TWRA women simply do not see themselves as subordinate to men; that is the problem. They see female obedience as quid pro quo for the man providing for and protecting them. They see Chivalry and female obedience as a kind of gender contract among equals rather than being the roles of men and women due to the relative hierarchy position of the man and the woman.

    In a situation where a man who views Chivalry as his unconditional duty towards women meets a woman who sees obedience as a great favor she is giving to the man that then creates an obligation in the man to give her “something in return”; this dynamic is very disadvantageous for the man. The man is giving Chivalry with no strings attached but the woman is responding in return by demanding special benefits and additional privileges to compensate her for the great damage she has suffered by obeying the Chivalrous man in the orders the Chivalrous man has given her for the purpose of better enabling him to serve the woman. This is the position I have found myself in with the TWRA women and I don’t like it. A TWRA woman with an MRA man would be a good match because the MRA will definitely want “compensation” for whatever Chivalry the MRA offers while on the other side the TWRA woman will seek compensation for whatever obedience she offers in return. In this way the TWRA and the MRA will have the same mentality of wanting “something in return” for what they offer.

    I’m not playing that game, that’s not what I’m about. I’m about unconditional Chivalry and obedience in return as the normal state of affairs between men and women; neither side deserving of “special benefits” for what is just their ordinary duty and ordinary role as men and women anyways.

    I do think at some point some woman will trust me and I want to work with that woman; not with the woman who will never trust me no matter what and will then jockey for advantage based on me owing her something to compensate her for the fact that she refuses to trust me.

  5. Responding to Mamaziller at November 7, 2013 at 7:39 am;

    Yes Mamaziller, you are correct. You never disobeyed me and you left the TWRAs quietly when asked to leave. The TWRAs had no rules that you violated. What you did by showing inappropriate friendliness to the MRAs in my judgment (The Radical One agreeing with me on the issue) was against the spirit of the anti-MRA position the TWRAs wanted to hold to; this being the basis of the decision to expel you from the group. Still you disobeyed no one and violated no rules. Rules were established after the fact so that your behavior would have been “against the rules” regarding the future but you are correct; you never violated any expectations directly communicated to you beforehand and so therefore were never “guilty” of anything. I also appreciate the fact that you appear to hold no grudge against me for my part in expelling you from the TWRAs. When I refer to the “TWRA women” I am not in particular referring to you, I am referring to the TWRA social group that was in place before I arrived; you showed up later after I had already joined the group so the dynamic in relation to you is different from how things were for those TWRAs who had already gotten together before I arrived.

    As far as the issue of women obeying defective men; certainly most people will follow the cultural norm whether the cultural norm is good or not. It is primarily men’s responsibility to fix things and men share the greatest blame for the bad cultural situation because men are “the leaders” and “in charge” whether they admit to that reality or not. I still want to stick to the principle however that all have the primary duty to obey God first, both men and women. I still want to uphold women’s moral responsibility for their own actions even though often the man is more to blame than the woman.

    The idea of me being “the leader” of the TWRAs is now a dead letter. I have now started my own group, the TFAs, and I am the leader and founder of the TFAs. If TWRA women past or present want to join the TFAs I am totally in favor of that but they must accept me as “the leader” and be willing to be subordinate themselves to me first. Also they have to be in agreement with the TFA principles and they have to establish a level of trust with me so that I will feel secure that they will be able to stick with the TFA group for a reasonable period of time. The TFAs are based on “male leadership” and all the assets I can give to the group as a man with my particular background and skills.

    I think the TWRAs are based on reciprocal gender contract style pseudo-hierarchy among equals while the TFAs are based on a true gender hierarchy model with men subordinate to women regarding interests and women subordinate to men regarding authority. I think that is the true ideological split that is going on.

    • mamaziller says:

      I see what you are saying and it makes sense. The social norms that women conform to will not trend away from feminism unless males come out in numbers against feminism though. And they will not trend towards traditionalism unless males support that as well. I agree that the secular world is hard for the reasons you say and that both men and women have a responsibly to “God” and to society and their children to keep society patriarchal.

      Men and women both need to start speaking up for society, future and children. I also do not support MRAs but I do think they are right with respect to calling out feminism on their hypocrisy of calling their movement a gender equality movement while completely ignoring the ways in which society benefits women. Beyond that MRAs are the same as feminists, they are destroying the family unit, disadvantaging children and setting society up for failure.

  6. First of all, the fact that I don’t trust Jesse Powell is nothing personal against him; I don’t fully trust anyone, male or female, that I only know through the internet. I especially do not trust people whom I know only through the internet who then demand my total obedience. My husband disagrees with Jesse about a number of things, but my father also disagrees with Jesse: all of the men I actually know in real life disagree with Jesse. I know these men far better than I know Jesse, but Jesse seems to think that I should disregard the opinions of all the men I know in order to obey Jesse Powell, whom I have never met. He seems to think that if I refuse to do this, then I am guilty of abusing men.

    If I actually did what Jesse is asking me to do, the men I know would be extremely displeased with me. I am sorry if Jesse can’t understand that. The only women who might agree to obey a strange man whom they only know through the internet are women who don’t have good men in their lives.

    • mamaziller says:

      What has Jesse asked you to do that your husband disapproves of? Despite the fact that I agree with what Jesse is saying in that on a cultural level women should also obey or submit to men they have just met or do not know I do not think that means that women should disobey their husbands. Obey your husband, I doubt that Jesse would suggest that you do otherwise, he just means that in addition to that women should also treat men that they do not know with the type of respect that good men deserve. That type of respect is one in which you obey them because you trust them to be working towards your interest and the interest of society as a whole.

  7. You know, Mamaziller, my husband and every other man I have ever known disagrees with Jesse about a number of different things, but what my husband thinks and why he thinks it is really none of your business, and it is none of Jesse’s business either. Both you and Jesse seem to have difficulty understanding and respecting boundaries. Neither of you seems to have a good understanding of how to deal with people whom you do not know. If you would trust a man whom you do not know at all just as much as you trust your husband, then you are out of your mind, and beyond that, I really don’t know what to say to you.

  8. Mamaziller, my last comment was overly harsh, and I apologize for that; if you really are a woman ( none of us know for certain who you really are) then you are very naive and far too trusting. Why would a man walk up to a woman with children whom he doesn’t know in a store and demand that the woman and her children come with him? If there is some kind of danger, wouldn’t he warn everyone in the store? Do you really believe that by refusing to obey a total stranger, the woman in that situation is abusing the man? Men who genuinely want to protect women realize that some men are very dangerous, and a man who genuinely wants to protect women would never demand that women obey total strangers.

    You seem to be saying that I should give Jesse the benefit of the doubt, but he has not given me the benefit of the doubt. As far as Jesse is concerned, any woman who questions him in any way is a self serving witch who just wants to use and abuse men. Efforts to explain to him that the men I actually know disagree with him fall on deaf ears, and he just continues his smear campaign. Why should I give the benefit of the doubt to someone who obviously isn’t willing to give anyone else the benefit of the doubt?

    • mamaziller says:

      Judithann, first of all I sincerely, sincerely apologize if I have crossed your personal boundaries. That was not my intention in any way, shape or form. I only wanted to explain or show you that Jesse is not saying that you should disobey your husband, or that you should trust random men above or more than your husband.

      Your husband is the most important man in your life and no one is suggesting that you should not respect his decision most with respect to what you decide to do on any TWRA matter. My husband sometimes tells me that I am not allowed to use certain websites and I simply do not use them. If your husband’s ideas contradict with Jesse’s ideas then I totally agree that you should listen to your husband.

      You say that good men know that some men are dangerous. Assuming that you knew the man in question not to be dangerous, would you obey him then? If you could be sure that the stranger had your best interests at heart, would you listen to him and take your children out of the shop then? It could be that someone was looking for your kids to kidnap them and he knew the person was very close by and so did not want to make a scene by alerting every one around. That could be why he told only you to leave.

      The point though is that the ONLY reason you can give for not obeying men that you do not know is because you do not trust them. Both Jesse and you agree that trust is an issue and he understands that you need to trust men before obeying them. But trust has to start somewhere. I am not say that in THIS society you should trust men that you do not know with your life or kids. But where there is a societal contract between men and women, requiring men to protect and seek the interest of women YES they need to be obeyed to successfully do that.

  9. Mamaziller, I trust most of the men I know, and would have no problem obeying them. I do not trust strange men who expect total strangers to obey them; I do not trust men who say that women who refuse to obey total strangers should be viewed with suspicion. Jesse Powell seems to think that he has earned our trust; I disagree. You don’t earn people’s trust by creating an internet persona; we don’t even know if Jesse Powell is his real name. He goes on and on about how we must obey him because he is a man but we don’t even know if he is really a man: he could be anyone. He could be playing a huge joke. The same is true for almost everyone on the internet; the same could be true about me, but I don’t expect people to trust and obey me. I write some articles and I throw some ideas around, but I am not asking anyone to obey me. If you would blindly obey some person on the internet whom you have never met, then I think you are very naive. To the extent that Jesse feels he is being abused by total strangers on the internet who refuse to obey him, I think women should stay away from men like him.

    • mamaziller says:

      Well fair enough, that is how you feel about it and only you can know what is best for you. I think that it is men who have to lead any pro-patriarchy movement though and it is women who have to support them, submit to their leadership and therefore enable them to recreate patriarchy for all of our benefit. A man trying to bring back patriarchy is a good man, and I can obey such a man if that enables him to work efficiently to do what he has to do for my own benefit and the benefit of society.

  10. To jump in here to defend myself a bit. I think this idea of “trust” that Judithann is throwing out as a reason to not “obey” me is a total canard. When I joined the TWRAs originally it was Edita who let me in. I researched the TWRAs for a couple of days and was sufficiently “convinced” they were for real. I then told Edita some of my overall philosophy and directed her to some things I wrote at The Thinking Housewife as a kind of resume. Edita then agreed to let me in perhaps ignoring some “danger signs” of hidden disagreement, namely me being more friendly to religion than she was, but she agreed to let me in nonetheless. That was all that was involved in Edita “trusting me” enough to let me join her group and all that was involved in me “trusting her” enough to join her group. Also I will add I viewed myself as subordinate to Edita when I joined the TWRAs because it was her group, not my group. All the guest posts I submitted Edita had to publish them on her own website so Edita obviously had the dominant control over my contributions as a TWRA. If Edita “told me” to do something as a TWRA I would have done it because after all it was her group. Also in general I would have “taken Edita’s side” if she got into a dispute with someone because I saw her as the leader of the TWRAs. Eventually my relationship with Edita broke down and Edita kicked me out of the TWRAs and when Edita kicked me out I quit the TWRAs obediently and quietly.

    So my point here is trusting someone in a common political cause over the internet and placing oneself in the subordinate role where you see the other person as “the leader” is no big deal. One might say it was foolish for me to trust Edita or that it was foolish for Edita to trust me but nevertheless we did trust each other enough to unite and then when problems came up later Edita kicked me out and that was the end of that.

    Judithann knows me far better today and has a far longer track record of experience with me than either Edita or I knew each other when Edita and I decided to trust each other enough to work together. I was subordinate and Edita was dominant. The fact that I was in the “subordinate” role did not mean that I had to be really really afraid of Edita and trust her “blindly” to work with her, I was simply subordinate because it was her group, not my group, and I wanted to support her cause which meant I would support her which meant I would be subordinate to her.

    Historically Judithann was very fast and quick to trust me before, before I wanted to take on the “dominant” role that is. The “lack of trust” Judithann is displaying towards me right now is entirely because I am asserting dominance rather than being subordinate like I was before. What I am actually saying politically hasn’t really changed at all, the only thing that has changed is me no longer accepting the subordinate role and instead insisting on the dominant role regarding who I work with politically in the future. Judithann’s entire reason for not “trusting me” now when she clearly and easily trusted me before is because now I am asserting dominance while earlier I accepted subordination.

    Why is it I am totally trustworthy while being subordinate but I suddenly become totally untrustworthy when claiming dominance in Judithann’s eyes? The reason is very obvious and straightforward; Judithann wants me to continue to be subordinate in relation to her and the TWRAs in general while she totally doesn’t want me to be dominant in relation to her and the TWRAs in general.

    I was totally happy to play the subordinate role when first joining the TWRAs. It was only after months went by and I saw one problem after another that I wanted to “fix” that I needed authority I didn’t have to “fix” that it dawned on me gradually that me being subordinate wasn’t right and that I should be dominant instead. During my entire 3 years at The Thinking Housewife I was obviously and clearly subordinate to Laura Wood but that wasn’t a problem for me. The idea that the subordinate role in political activism on the internet is hugely vulnerable and dangerous and therefore requires huge and massive levels of trust for the subordinate party is completely not true. Every political alliance needs a dominant party and a subordinate party or else the people involved are not really “working together” but are instead “doing their own thing.” The whole point of organization and people working together for a common cause is hierarchy.

    So for me to be totally transformed from being “trustworthy” to “untrustworthy” in Judithann’s estimation simply because I want to be dominant now instead of subordinate is completely unreasonable and unfounded.

    This idea that Judithann’s husband and every man she knows disagrees with me on many issues and that that is another reason it is unreasonable for me to expect her to “obey me” or “trust me” is another complete canard. I don’t doubt that Judithann’s husband and every man she knows disagrees with me on many issues; what I am advocating for is radical and unpopular after all; but again such men in Judithann’s life “disagreeing with me” was not the slightest barrier to Judithann expressing support for me when I was subordinate to Judithann or in a peer relationship with Judithann before; other men “disagreeing with me” only becomes a problem for Judithann after I seek to claim dominance in my potential future relationship with Judithann even though what I actually believe and am advocating for hasn’t changed significantly at all. So the real issue here is obviously Judithann’s desire to not “obey me” rather than the contrary opinions of the men around her.

    Judithann suddenly thinking all these negative things about me simply because I am trying to change my status position relative to the TWRAs from subordinate to dominant seems to imply that a man seeking dominance is automatically a bad man simply because he is trying to be dominant; as if the act of a man asserting dominance is bad or untrustworthy or abusive in its own right. This is a very strange assertion coming from a woman who seemed to be comfortable with the idea of supporting patriarchy and the TWRA cause before. I’m supposedly one of the “good men” who was “on her side” before, right? I was certainly treated favorably by Judithann and the other TWRA women when I was accepting of my subordinate status in relation to the TWRAs. I have only become “bad” in the eyes of Judithann and the other TWRAs because I am now asserting dominance and refusing to continue in my prior subordinate role. That is the only thing that has changed. My actual beliefs and what I am advocating for hasn’t changed at all, the only thing that has changed is my assertion of dominance. It is therefore clear that the only basis for me suddenly becoming “the bad guy” in the eyes of the TWRA women is that I am claiming dominance now; my assertion of dominance being the only thing making me “untrustworthy” or possessing “bad intent.”

    This is very strange considering how the TWRA women again and again claimed to be comfortable with and accepting of male dominance. This idea that TWRA women only “obey” their husbands is a completely new invention and something that was never claimed before; this claim was only made after my dominance assertion was publicly declared meaning the purpose of the claim is an obvious ploy to support the idea that women should not obey me. In my writing I asserted several times that women in general should be inclined to obey men in general on the assumption that the man indicates that he is committed to unconditional Chivalry and is therefore trustworthy first. I never restricted female obedience to the marital relationship only. The TWRAs never objected to me saying these things before. The objection to women obeying men not their husbands was only raised after my assertion of dominance meaning the only purpose for the new TWRA rule that women only obey their husbands is to try to come up with a reason for why women should not obey me.

    When the TWRA women were “put to the test” of whether they were being sincere or not in their claim to be “obedient to men” the answer came back as a resounding “NO!” There is no way in hell any TWRA woman would be caught dead obeying me even though I was the one man in the whole world who was loudly and publicly in a committed fashion on their side and in favor of their cause. This tells you all you need to know. I am a “good man” as long as I am subservient to woman defined and woman controlled patriarchy; as long as I in practice advocate for female controlled Chivalry. I am a “bad man” and “untrustworthy” as soon as I refuse the subservient role any longer and demand dominance and respect in relation to who I work with politically in the future; as soon as I in practice advocate for male controlled Chivalry.

    The TWRAs were totally fine with me saying women in general should be obedient to men in general on the condition the man demonstrates a commitment to unconditional Chivalry first, the TWRAs were totally fine with me saying again and again that Chivalry had to be under male control to be legitimate and workable, the TWRAs themselves in their own words again and again expressed their advocacy for male dominance and men being in control. What happens however as soon as a man enters the group and after a period of several months comes to see the need for himself to assert dominance to better be able to support the TWRA group? Endless fighting begins, every single TWRA woman quits instead of enduring the “humiliation” of submitting to the man, and then finally after the man quits the group to start his own group after seeing that getting TWRA women to work with him and support him and obey him is a hopeless cause the TWRA women invent all kinds of justifications after the fact as to why the man never “deserved” or “earned” obedience from them in the first place.

    So the various accusations Judithann is making against me are totally ridiculous. Judithann just simply doesn’t want to “obey me” and is inventing various justifications to legitimize her not “obeying me.” The TWRA women think I should “serve them” both in terms of interests and authority; that they as women are entitled to impose upon me what I owe to them as a man. That’s not what I’m about, it’s not what I stand for, and it’s not what I advocate. It has become clear to me that in order to avoid being manipulated into such a subservient role in relation to women it is necessary for me to clearly and directly assert my right to dominance as a man who has demonstrated his legitimate claim to authority by his commitment to the principle of unconditional Chivalry.

    I am fully aware that the TWRA women liked me better before when I was subordinate to them and happily so. My purpose however is not to be liked and praised by the TWRA women; my purpose is to serve God. It is not good of me to be promoting patriarchy under women’s control as I would end up doing in fact regardless of what I was saying verbally if I continued to allow myself to play the subordinate role in relation to the TWRA women. I can maintain my moral integrity however by asserting dominance and therefore being in control of the purpose of my actions. My assertion of dominance however is not tolerable to the TWRA women and so they will not support me any longer. That is their choice and they have the right to not work with me on that basis. I however likewise have the same right to refuse to work with them unless they agree to subordinate themselves to me first. That is my position. Everyone who agrees to join the TFAs both men and women must accept my leadership and their subordinate status in relation to me first.

  11. Jesse Powell has added at least a couple of new beliefs to his philosophy since he appeared on the scene. When he first appeared on the scene, he said that he believed in obedience to a higher power, unconditional chivalry, and patriarchy; when I asked him to define patriarchy, he refused to do so, but I figured that I would give him the benefit of the doubt. That was obviously a mistake. Out of the blue, he announced recently that he also believes that the father should always get custody of the children, no matter who is at fault in the divorce: this is a new belief or at least a newly voiced belief that he made no mention of until very until very recently. The idea that women owe obedience to men they have never met before is also very new. Jesse has pulled a bait and switch; if he had been open and honest about all of his beliefs from day one, I never would have formed any kind of alliance with him.

  12. Also, I am perplexed by Jesse’s assertion that he was submissive and I was dominant. I never tried to tell Jesse what to do, and I definitely never demanded that he obey me.

  13. The three basic positions I am holding to right now are Traditional Women’s Rights (equivalent to patriarchy), unconditional Chivalry, and obedience to the Superior Power. My very first posts as a TWRA focused on the Chivalry issue tied in with the idea that men had to “go first” regarding Chivalry in order to earn trust in women’s eyes. I always had the idea that men were entitled to trust once they showed themselves to be trustworthy, being Chivalrous being the main vehicle a man could use to show himself as trustworthy. Indeed the whole point of “unconditional Chivalry” is precisely for the purpose of establishing trust, making the Chivalrous obligation “unconditional” and therefore something that could not be used for manipulation purposes by the man. So I always had the idea that women had an obligation to “obey men” once the man established his trustworthiness by making a commitment to “unconditional Chivalry” first. That is my position right now; I have not changed my position at all in that regard. As far as “obeying strangers” that is based on the idea of considering men trustworthy in general in a hypothetical cultural situation in the future where men really are trustworthy in general. Besides “obeying strangers” will only be trivial or ritualistic anyways. If a woman has a reasonable basis for not trusting a man then certainly she shouldn’t trust the man. However if a man demonstrates trustworthiness and the woman still doesn’t trust him then the woman is at fault, not the man.

    In the “Chivalry Explained” post I wrote early on as a TWRA I said:

    “Chivalry is meant to provide a benefit to the woman but it is not based on the desires of the woman. In other words the man practicing chivalry is acting as a guardian of the woman, not as a servant of the woman. Chivalry is done on behalf of women but it is not done on the request or the demand of the woman. The chivalrous duty is based upon the judgments of the man and it is an expression of the man’s sense of ethics.”

    This pretty directly reflects my principle that Chivalry should be “male controlled.” It certainly presumes female obedience in the Chivalrous context even if it doesn’t state directly “women shall obey Chivalrous men.”

    In the “Unearned Gift of Chivalry” article I closed by saying:

    “Dominance belongs to men and chivalry belongs to women. Just as nature imposes no conditions upon the man’s superior power men must not impose any conditions upon women before women receive the rightful gift of chivalry that they are entitled to.”

    In the “Masculinity and Man’s Purpose as a Man” article I said:

    “The woman hates masculinity because the acceptance of men’s masculine identity and purpose means the woman is in submission to the man and the woman is dependent upon the man for her physical well being and safety.”

    All these articles were written early on shortly after my joining the TWRAs and they didn’t generate any complaints about me placing unreasonable expectations on women regarding “obeying men.” As far as I know I sprinkle in references to women “obeying men” constantly in my writing and always have since the beginning. The TWRAs never complained about my references to “obeying men,” they usually enthusiastically claimed to support “obeying men” themselves.

    It is true Judithann asked me to define what I meant by “patriarchy” and I tended to not answer her directly in the form of giving her a list of my positions or beliefs. I in general do not like to get bogged down in specific policies I support; I instead like to stick with principles and then apply the basic principles to different situations. Even right now I am presenting basic principles as part of TFA identity, I do not have a list of policy positions drawn up I am expecting people to agree with. So yes I avoided trying to get specific about what precisely all my beliefs are regarding “patriarchy” because as far as specific positions go I want to stay flexible and not draw up a “list of demands” on the subject.

    I suppose I could have given Judithann a list of 50 positions I tend to support or something but I had a long history of writing at The Thinking Housewife Judithann could have gone through and as the months went by I started to accumulate a history of writing as a TWRA so it’s not like I was being secretive or trying to hide from Judithann what I believed. I guess I thought it was unreasonable for me to have to give a list of specific positions of beliefs to a political ally to see if they “agreed” with me on everything when that wasn’t the approach I wanted to take anyways. I wasn’t about drawing up a list of demands and then expecting people to agree with everything on that list.

    Anyways an issue raised by the feminist Body Crimes finally uncovered a significant dispute between me and Judithann (the Father Custody issue that was in effect under Coverture) and because I took a position Judithann disagreed with on that issue Judithann quit the TWRAs immediately (after The Radical One supported me on the issue of conflict). I did voice support for Father Custody in several comments I made at The Thinking Housewife that I suppose Judithann never read and therefore didn’t know about. There was a general bias in favor of Coverture among the TWRAs and Father Custody was a part of Coverture. In that way me supporting Father Custody was not “completely off the wall” in the context of TWRA beliefs overall.

    So, a disagreement between me and Judithann showed up eventually and immediately Judithann quit when she “didn’t get her way.” I was and am totally comfortable with Judithann criticizing Father Custody as a principle; even for TFAs right now I would accept a TFA openly attacking Father Custody because the TFAs as a group do not hold a particular position on the issue. Judithann however demanded that all TWRAs oppose Father Custody thereby trying to unilaterally impose policy positions on the TWRA group as a whole. That is not something I would support and it was not something The Radical One went along with either and so Judithann quit the TWRAs.

    One might say I was wrong to not draw up a list of specific beliefs I had for Judithann’s inspection so she could reject me right away when she found something on the list she didn’t like but I took the approach of wanting to focus only on principles and Judithann accepted that ambiguity until an issue of conflict came up in real life causing the initial split between me and Judithann.

    Looking back on the episode and how it all went down it only reinforced in my mind the need for me to claim dominance in order to avoid the endless fighting and power struggles and it told me Judithann was very fast to quit when she “didn’t get her way” as if the many many times me and Judithann agreed with each other and supported each other was irrelevant as soon as a point of conflict emerged.

    Also I will add I am not in favor of Father Custody as a principle that should be followed today in the present cultural circumstances; I only advocated for Father Custody as a principle I think would be good at some point in the future in the overall context of a strong patriarchal cultural system.

    I don’t think I am guilty of bait and switch; my beliefs have been very stable and I have a track record of years people can look through. I might be accused of bait and switch legitimately in regards to the status I took on in relation to others. I started out as subordinate and communicated my subordinate status to others. I then tried to turn that around and become dominant instead. I can certainly see how the TWRAs wouldn’t like that and would not be inclined to agree to see themselves as subordinate when they saw themselves as dominant before and rather liked it that way. I guess my explanation is that at first I thought me being subordinate would work smoothly and I could try to make the changes I wanted to make simply by persuading people and expressing my own opinions on different matters. When I then encountered resistance and saw my fighting with the other TWRAs never ending I then came to the conclusion that power struggles were the underlying cause of all the fighting and that basically the only way the fighting would end is if the other TWRAs consciously viewed themselves as being subordinate to me and therefore would know how to avoid getting into fights with me. So I tried to “assert dominance” and it didn’t work.

    The real bait and switch in my opinion is the TWRA women claiming to support male authority endlessly and repeatedly and then totally fighting me every step of the way when I as a man tried to assert authority.

    I’m not going to claim I always did everything right, obviously things turned into a big disaster regarding the original TWRA group, but I at least always tried to support “the group” faithfully and loyally according to the principles I thought the TWRAs should adopt and stick to. I obviously failed in my mission regarding the TWRAs but I think I can succeed regarding the same general goal of promoting Traditional Women’s Rights through the vehicle of the TFAs where I can finally be in control and therefore steer things according to a rational overall plan for the purpose of promoting “the cause.”

  14. The issue of child custody is huge. That you would portray me as a petulant spoiled brat who is just angry because she didn’t get her own way over such a crucial issue is an indication that you lack seriousness, but then, you seem to assume that all women-and who knows? maybe all men too who disagree with you are wrong simply because they disagree with you. It turns out that you don’t just want women to obey you blindly, you want men to obey you blindly too. Good luck with that. Because we all know that the way to relate to both men and women you don’t even know is to immediately demand obedience from them.

  15. Responding to Judithann’s shorter comment regarding my relationship with her (November 8, 2013 at 8:07 pm).

    Regarding Edita I was always and clearly subordinate. Edita saw me as challenging her authority and she may have been right about that, Edita viewed me merely expressing my opinions as a challenge to her authority when my opinions were contrary to her opinions on an important issue (the issue of the “Superior Power” to be exact), but at least in a formal sense I always viewed Edita as being dominant relative to me until she herself quit the TWRAs.

    After Edita quit I then saw The Radical One as dominant and “the leader” relative to me. My subordinate status relative to The Radical One was stable up until the conflict with Mamaziller and “The Meaning of Being a Traditional Women’s Rights Activist” post (now “The Meaning of Being a Traditional Family Activist” post). After the conflict with Mamaziller my hierarchy relationship with The Radical One wasn’t that clear; I was still subordinate in some ways but also starting to claim dominance in some ways. The conflict with Mamaziller was the beginning of the process of me trying to “take over” the TWRAs. Towards the end I tried to assert dominance over The Radical One directly and clearly but she refused leading me to quit the TWRAs formally on October 30, 2013.

    Regarding you (Judithann) my relationship with you I would say was formally a peer relationship but in practice was more you dominant and me subordinate. I was at your website after all which gave you a structural power advantage in the relationship and you did have a tendency to “comment on” some of the things I wrote at my own website indicating a certain desire to control what I wrote thereby indicating an inclination towards dominance. Your attack on me regarding the Father Custody post was a very clear attempt at asserting dominance over me which I rejected with The Radical One’s support which is what caused the split between us and you quitting the TWRAs.

    You quitting leaving only me and The Radical One left in the group then set up my power play against The Radical One as I knew I would end up getting into a fight with The Radical One over some issue or another just like I got into a fight with you and every other TWRA. So I figured that since a power struggle between me and The Radical One was inevitable anyways it was best for me to try to preempt things before a concrete issue of conflict emerged. I then tried to “assert dominance” over The Radical One on the theory that if she accepted then the inevitable fights that would emerge in the future could be avoided before they began and me and The Radical One could actually avoid fighting each other and be able to work together long term. That is what I hoped anyways but The Radical One rejected my effort at dominance assertion so here we are. I am now finally out of the TWRAs and “doing my own thing.” Finally the power struggles have ended.

    The idea that I had to be “the leader” grew on me gradually but it grew steadily and perhaps inevitably. The other TWRA women however never allowed themselves to see me as “the leader” me being the man in the group not withstanding. It is an interesting oddity that whenever I got into a conflict with a TWRA the other TWRAs not directly involved in the conflict always took my side but the person I was directly in conflict with always saw themselves as in the right and never backed down and inevitably quit rather than submit. Inevitably the TWRA women would always “do something I didn’t like” leading me to enter into conflict with them. In this way I systematically destroyed the TWRA group. Now it is just The Radical One by herself and me by myself. Not a single relationship is still intact (except me and Mamaziller are still on friendly terms thankfully).

    The whole thing is a complete disaster and it all boils down to the TWRAs not being able to agree on the hierarchy issue; who has the right to tell who what to do. Me entering the group as the first man is what threw the hierarchy arrangements and agreements off. If the TWRAs included me under the concept of “male authority” they were always promoting then likely authority conflicts could have been avoided as I would have asserted myself as “the leader” and I would have been accepted as “the leader.” That of course is not what happened however. So here we are.

    It’s definitely been a wild ride. A lot of fun to. I learned a lot. Very glad I found the TWRAs in the grand scheme of things because the existence of the TWRA group told me that my message of Secular Patriarchy would be able to find supporters and was therefore worth my effort to focus on.

    I hope the TWRA group will rebuild. Even though I think there are serious flaws in the mutual self-interest model of patriarchy I understand that the TWRAs tried to create patriarchy using feminist tools because feminist tools is all they had to work with.

    Women subordinating themselves to men is a very foreign idea in today’s cultural environment and there is every reason not to trust the men one will run into in the secular sphere we are in. Still in order for me to promote patriarchy as a man I need for women to support me not as peers or dominate over me but as subordinates. I know it is a lot to ask but it is what I need and therefore what I insist upon.

  16. So, anyone who disagrees with you or even questions you about anything is attempting to assert dominance over you? I basically kind of asked you to provide evidence of your assertion that I was dominant; you point to the fact that I disagreed with you once or twice as proof that I was dominant, or at least trying to be. Wow.

    Good luck, Jesse. God really does exist, and He loves you.

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