According to what mainstream culture promotes and what feminism promotes the relationship between husband and wife is supposed to be egalitarian based on mutual benefit; the relationship is not supposed to be based on hierarchy with the man dominant and the woman subordinate. The man has certain things to give, certain personal qualities, and the woman has certain things to give in return. What these strengths and personal good qualities are exactly is supposed to be kind of randomly generated as men and women are not supposed to be particularly good in the “masculine sphere” or “feminine sphere” respectively because the whole idea of a “masculine sphere” and “feminine sphere” is supposedly an artificial “social construct” simply meant to oppress and restrict people to arbitrarily defined gender roles. The issue is simply whether a particular man and woman have good “chemistry” together and whether their own particular goals and vision of what a good relationship between them would look like matches.
The key part I want to focus on here is that the romantic relationship in modern feminist culture is seen to be based on mutual benefit among equals with each party having something to give and each party expecting something in return and then the relationship between the two “consenting adults” is supposed to be maintained as long as the relationship continues to be “mutually beneficial” with each side having the right to back out at any time (as per no-fault divorce).
This is a totally wrong way to view the husband and wife relationship and is the wrong way to view relationships between men and women in general. Men and women are not equal to each other; hierarchy and subordination is the natural form relationships between men and women should take.
Men are above women hierarchically in terms of authority and women are above men hierarchically in terms of interests; the man is dominant and the woman is subordinate with the women’s subordination or obedience being specifically designed for the purpose of benefiting the woman as is consistent with the principle that the woman’s interests are superior to the man’s interests.
In modern feminist culture men do not see women as subordinate to them in any kind of general sense; likewise women do not see themselves as subordinate to men in any kind of general sense. This is a big problem as it leads to men thinking they are being “taken advantage of” and “treated as inferior” when they are told that their interests as men are subordinate to women’s interests as women. In the same fashion women think they are being “taken advantage of” and “treated as inferior” when they are told that they are to be subordinate to men in areas of authority and decision making. Men think they are “equal” to women regarding interests and women think they are “equal” to men regarding the right to assert themselves and claim authority. Both are wrong; men are decidedly inferior and subordinate relating to interests and women are decidedly inferior and subordinate relating to authority.
In the mutual benefit model of relationships it is poison to acknowledge ones inferiority to the other party, one has to assert their “equality” in order to not disadvantage themselves in the power struggle that is intrinsic in the mutual benefit relationship model. A man unilaterally declaring themselves to be “in service” to the woman will be walked all over in the negotiation process of what the relationship between the man and the woman should be like. Likewise a woman unilaterally declaring herself “obedient” to the man is simply setting herself up to be taken advantage of in a relationship model based on mutual benefit. This is why the man is thinking he is being abused being told to “serve” the woman and the woman thinks she is being abused being told to “obey” the man because from the point of view of power struggle such unilateral admissions of inferiority are simply nonsensical self-sabotage.
Still it is an objective fact that the man is morally obliged to serve the woman and that the woman is morally obliged to obey the man assuming the man has placed himself in service to the woman first according to objective criteria. It is not this mutual subordination of man to woman and woman to man that is wrong; it is the mutual benefit egalitarian relationship model that has power struggle and mutual selfishness at its core that is wrong.
When I talk about unconditional Chivalry what I am talking about is men subordinating their interests to women, I am talking about men taking on a subordinate role in relation to women regarding interests. This idea is totally intolerable to MRAs (Men’s Rights Activists) because they are trapped in the feminist created mutual benefit model of relationships where a power struggle between equals sets the foundation of what the relationship will be governed by. MRAs are often OK with Chivalry for manipulation purposes where they give Chivalry to the woman if the woman gives them something in return but this way of using Chivalry is just a negotiation tactic in the context of power struggle and thereby completely side steps what Chivalry in reality represents; men subordinating their interests to women.
Sadly I have learned over time that TWRAs (Traditional Women’s Rights Activists) are trapped in the same mutual benefit power struggle based relationship model that the MRAs are locked into that was created by feminists in the first place. For this reason the TWRAs as women refuse subordination to men regarding authority in the same way MRAs refuse subordination to women regarding interests. TWRAs are often OK with obedience for manipulation purposes just like MRAs are often OK with Chivalry for manipulation purposes; a TWRA will submit to a man assuming the man in return gives to the woman something to make her submission to the man worthwhile and of benefit to her. This however presents the woman’s submission as a power tactic in the overall context of power struggle for the purpose of setting the stage for how the mutual benefit based relationship between the man and the woman will work going into the future.
TFAs (Traditional Family Activists), what I represent, reject the entire egalitarian mutual benefit model of relationships between men and women entirely. For TFAs relationships between men and women are based on obedience to God and on covenant instead of contract where mutual generosity and sacrifice is the rule, not mutual self-interest. The man is bound to obey God and the woman is bound to obey the man once the man has demonstrated his commitment to obeying God. The man is bound by unconditional Chivalry, the man’s duty to God on behalf of women, as the man accepts his subordinate status in relation to women regarding interests. The man accepts and understands that he is to serve women. The woman in turn accepts and understands her duty to obey the man once the man has committed to obeying God as determined and judged according to objective criteria. The man is not allowed to use Chivalry as a manipulation tool or source of power for himself; the man owes to the woman Chivalry as an Unearned Gift with no strings attached. The woman is not allowed to use obedience to the man as a manipulation tool or source of power for herself; instead the man is owed obedience by the woman with no strings attached once the man has taken on and accepted his duties as a man to the woman as imposed upon him by God.
One might say the TFA relationship model is unworkable because there is no way to punish cheaters. The feminist mutual benefit model assumes that both sides are cheaters; that both parties are “in it for themselves.” In this way it is impossible to “cheat” or “be taken advantage of” in the mutual benefit model because both sides’ “cheating” is assumed as the norm and built into the very foundation and structure of the relationship. This is exactly why the mutual benefit model of relationships is so popular, because each side knows they will not be “fooled” by the betrayal of the other against them as the other person’s betrayal is assumed as a given before hand and therefore guarded against.
So how does the TFA relationship model guard itself against cheaters if neither the man nor the woman are allowed to engage is abusive power tactics against the other? You might think this is an intrinsically unstable relationship arrangement as the first person to “break the rules” wins by gaining an unfair advantage over the other with the victim being unable to defend themselves due to their being bound by ethical constraints.
It needs to be understood that the TFA relationship model has three parties involved, not two. In the feminist egalitarian model it is just the man and woman together equal to each other in power struggle against themselves with the state imposing certain rules upon the couple meant to promote “equality” and meant to protect the woman from abuse by the man on the assumption of the woman being “equal” in general to the man. In the TFA relationship model there are three parties involved in a definite hierarchy in relation to each other; God on top, man below God and above woman, and woman below man who is in turn is below God. As the woman’s first duty is to obey God as God is above the man if the man is in clear conflict against God the woman is to obey God and thereby disobey the man.
In terms of dealing with cheaters in the TFA relationship model; if the man cheats God is to punish him. In a practical sense this means the man’s conscience punishing him, the man feeling morally obligated to treat the woman right. If the man is lacking in conscious then the man will be socially shunned by the wider community, the man will be disciplined by the church authorities he is subject to, or else the man will be directly punished by the state based on him violating a law the state has enacted for the purpose of imposing moral standards of behavior upon men. Also if the man is not living up to his duties as a man and is therefore in violation of the will of God the woman is no longer bound to obey him and is entitled to inflict punishment upon the man for his wrongful acts to the extent she is able unilaterally or with community support; community support that will be available to her if the man is violating community norms.
In the TFA relationship model if the woman cheats the man will punish her directly as the man will have many power resources available to him that will enable him to punish the woman unilaterally for her disobedience or moral violations. The man’s punishment strategies must be in accordance with community norms of how men are supposed to behave, must be consistent with the man’s duty to uphold God’s will and purpose as the motivation for his acts of punishment against the woman, must be consistent with the theme of imposing upon the woman behavioral expectations consistent with the woman’s own interests in maintaining her beneficial relationship with the man, and must not violate or contradict the man’s universal Chivalrous obligation to the woman. Chivalry and punishment of the woman for bad acts must be separated from each other so that Chivalry is always maintained towards the woman regardless of the woman’s behavior.
The TFA relationship model can be sustained and is indeed more stable than the feminist mutual benefit model because both the man and woman are under the authority of a power greater than themselves with the duty and capacity to punish them for wrongful acts in violation of moral norms. In the TFA model God is to punish both the man and the woman for objective moral violations of God’s will; in practical terms the community punishing men and men punishing women according to community rules. In the feminist mutual benefit model the man and woman punish each other unilaterally for rule violations the man and women invent themselves independently and only in exceptional circumstances does the state intervene due to violations of state imposed moral rules; moral rules meant to impose an equality ethic upon the couple.
Here is a table giving the basic characteristics of different secular based political ideas.
|Group||Basis of Authority||Interests||Authority|
|TFA||Obedience to God||Explicit Female Primacy||Explicit Male Primacy|
|TWRA||External Duty||Female Primacy||Male Primacy|
|Feminist||Weak Traditional Biases||Female Bias||Male Bias|
|MRA||Egalitarian Negotiation||Radical Equality||Radical Equality|
The different political orientations here are organized according to a hierarchy. At the top is the most hierarchal, the most quasi-religious, the most supportive of female interests, and the most supportive of male authority. At the bottom is the most egalitarian, the most atheistic, the most hostile towards female interests, and the least attached to male authority.
The source of my conflict with the TWRAs is that I fully committed myself to the superiority of female interests but in return the TWRAs did not offer me the level of authority I felt I needed to defend my interests as a man. I then experienced this as abuse against me as a man and felt a strong need to assert authority as a man in order to protect male interests and create an overall social model that would work well for both men and women. The TWRAs are a kind of hybrid between feminism and traditional patriarchy; me seeing myself as representing traditional patriarchy. I do however want to make it clear that I see the TWRAs as being definitely superior to MRAs and mainstream feminism. The TWRAs place the support of female interests as a priority which I fully support; I just think they are making a mistake by not placing the superiority of female interests as a principle like I am doing with my unconditional Chivalry principle. I also do not like their apparent use of female obedience as a bargaining chip to try to extract a “better deal” from men; they instead should rely upon men’s duty to God as the means for imposing responsibilities on men on behalf of women. I get the impression the TWRAs do not feel they can trust or rely upon an external source of moral authority; that they need to still have the option to fight for themselves on their own behalf as women. The problem is the TWRAs still wanting an independent source of authority and self-defense as women leaves the door open for them to abuse men and for men to abuse them. This will drive away men who seek to support women on principled grounds (like myself) and it will invite men in who have their own manipulative agendas to pursue (namely MRAs). It is better to slam the door shut on opportunities for manipulation for both men and women; this being what the TFAs are trying to accomplish with their strong God centered approach to moral rules and gender roles.