The Difference between Feminist Women’s Rights and Traditional Women’s Rights

I am opposed to feminist so called “women’s rights” but I am in favor of Traditional Women’s Rights. I resent a woman arrogantly talking about what “rights” she is entitled to as a feminist but I admire and approve of a woman standing up for her traditional rights as a woman. A woman asserting her “rights” in the feminist sense is an attack against me but a woman failing to assert her traditional rights as a woman is also an attack against me; both women make me feel unsafe, both women are disobedient to me, both women are failing to cooperate with me. The feminist woman is directly saying her intention is to abuse me, the woman not asserting her traditional rights is indirectly saying her intention is to abuse me. Both the feminist woman and the woman not asserting her traditional rights are disloyal to me, are indicating to me they prefer another type of man that I am antagonistic against and in romantic competition against; the feminist woman is signaling she wants a feminist man while the woman not asserting her traditional rights is signaling she wants a MRA (Men’s Rights Activist) man. For this reason going forward I will refer to the woman not asserting her traditional rights as a woman as a female MRA (even though she may not refer to herself this way). I am neither a feminist man nor an MRA man; I am a traditional man instead and I want a woman who is signaling to me that she prefers traditional men rather than either the feminist man or the MRA man who are romantic competitors to me.

A feminist woman is telling me her intention is to steal from me, to take what I give her and use it for a selfish purpose contrary to my goals regarding my family. A female MRA is telling me her intention is to abandon me, to not take initiative in contributing to myself or my family, to neglect her duties on my behalf as a woman. The feminist wants to aggressively steal from me, the female MRA wants to fail to give to me; the feminist engaging in active theft where she steals that which does not belong to her and the female MRA engaging in passive theft where she fails to give to others what she owes them.

Both the feminist woman and the female MRA are failing to discipline themselves, are failing to be idealistic, are failing to place the needs of others above themselves self-sacrificially, are failing to place God above all others.

The feminist is setting herself up to be the abuser; the female MRA is setting herself up to be abused. The feminist is on the attack, the female MRA is passively not defending herself. Both women however are engaging in their own abuse strategies and have their own motives for doing what they’re doing; the feminist being the aggressor and the female MRA being passive-aggressive and a manipulator and withdrawing from her responsibilities.

In the case of the feminist she is asserting “rights” that do not belong to her, that are contrary to her gender role as a woman. In the case of the female MRA she is failing to assert rights that do belong to her; she is failing to assert what is rightfully hers. The feminist is stealing that which is not hers, the female MRA is failing to take that which is hers; the feminist is claiming that which is not hers while the female MRA is refusing that which is hers. Both are wrong, both are being disobedient to God, both are being abusive and selfish in their own way; both are sending negative signals to me as a traditional man. Ones legitimate rights are the means by which one does good; claiming “rights” one is not entitled to is a means by which one does bad to others. The person failing to claim rights that belong to them is preventing themselves from doing good, the person actively claiming “rights” that do not belong to them is actively doing bad. To fail to do good is wrong and to actively do bad is also wrong; the first error being committed by the female MRA and the second error being committed by the feminist. The female MRA is sinning by omission and the feminist is sinning by commission but they are both sinning, they are both disobeying the will of God.

The will of God is to both give to women the rights necessary for them to perform their duties as women; this being what women’s traditional rights are; and to deny to women rights that involve the invasion and usurpation of the male sphere, this being what false feminist defined “women’s rights” are. The female MRA is refusing possession of what God wants her to possess and is in that way disobeying God; the woman claiming rights that are forbidden to her by God (the feminist) is also disobeying God. Obedience to God means to not only refuse that which God denies one, it also means to accept what God wants one to possess. The will of God is that women possess rights consistent with their role as women and also that women not possess rights that conflict with their role as women; the woman obeying God is then obligated to both accept that which God grants her and to also refuse that which God denies her. The woman has to do both to be considered in obedience to God.

Feminist defined “women’s rights” are rights that belong to men, not women; they are rights related duties in the male sphere that correspond to men’s duties, not women’s duties. The purpose of rights is to enable one to fulfill their duties; rights are the means by which duty to others is enabled. Traditional Women’s Rights are rights that belong to women, rights that correspond to women’s traditional role as women, they are rights derivative of the female sphere, they are rights that enable women to perform their duties to others as women. Traditional Women’s Rights are also dependent upon male duty, in particular Chivalry. Chivalry is the source of Traditional Women’s Rights. Traditional Women’s Rights to a large extent are the rights of women to be provided for and protected by men.

A woman who affirmatively asserts her possession of Traditional Women’s Rights and her entitlement to the rights of a traditional woman while at the same time accepting and acknowledging my rights as a traditional man (thereby rejecting the feminist formulation of “women’s rights”) is a truly desirable woman. She is being obedient and loyal to me, she is implicitly saying that she prefers me to my male romantic competitors (the feminist men and the MRA men), she is enthusiastically embracing her role as a traditional woman and taking the initiative in serving me and my greater family mission, she is showing commitment and a sense of duty and higher purpose regarding her role as a woman, and most importantly she is showing that she is a Godly woman who obeys and prioritizes God above all else.

A woman trying to show respect to men and trying to communicate obedience to men might not like the idea of asserting her Traditional Women’s Rights and in particular her right to Chivalry from men. In addition there is the issue of gender hierarchy where a man and woman of equal moral status in relationship with each other should form themselves into a hierarchy with the man dominant and the woman subordinate; the woman therefore not having the right to disobey the man or assert herself against the man. So how to solve this problem where on the one hand women are entitled to the Traditional Women’s Rights granted to them by God and on the other hand a woman does not have the right to assert herself against a man whom she is in a relationship with and the man may not be so keen on fulfilling his Chivalrous obligation towards the woman?

First off the rule of gender hierarchy is that the woman obeys the man when the woman and man are of equal moral status. If the man is denying his Chivalrous duty towards the woman however the very act of his shunning his Chivalrous duty makes him morally inferior to the woman thereby giving the woman the right to disobey him and assert herself against him when she is in the right and he is in the wrong as is the case when she is trying to impose his Chivalrous duty upon him and he is trying to escape or deny his Chivalrous duty. At the same time it is still a rule that a woman is not supposed to assert herself against a man based on her own unilateral will and assertion. However, when a man and a woman are in conflict and the woman is clearly in the right and the man is clearly in the wrong even though the woman doesn’t have the right to directly and unilaterally assert herself against the man she does have the right to obey a man who is in authority over both herself and the man she is in conflict with; a man who is representing the will and judgment of the male community, the male community being in authority over each individual man in addition to being in authority over women. Through this means, through the means of obeying the male community, an individual woman can legitimately assert herself against a man she is in conflict with when the man himself is acting against the rules and moral principles laid down by the male community; the duty of Chivalry being imposed upon each individual man by the male community.

As far as the temperamental element or the “attitude” of the woman telling the man “you owe me Chivalry!” I would say that the woman should understand that her receiving Chivalry is her right; it is her right because she needs the Chivalrous support of men to function as a woman and she has the right to be supported by men in her cause of being the best woman she can be. If a woman wants to be tactful or respectful in telling the man she expects and is entitled to Chivalry from him that is fine but the woman must stand up for herself because if she doesn’t she won’t be able to perform her role as a woman because she can only perform her role as a woman with male support, on the condition that men are fulfilling their Chivalrous duty to her. Also, it should be remembered; the woman “demanding” Chivalry is communicating submissiveness towards the man because with the man’s Chivalry comes the woman’s submission. If a woman is telling me she expects Chivalry from me she is also telling me she will obey me once I live up to my Chivalrous obligations towards her as she is saying that she wants to be supported in her traditional role as a woman and part of the traditional role of the woman is obedience to men. Chivalry is male dominance, let us not forget. Chivalry is male defined and male controlled and meant as a means for men to achieve their goals related to family life and related to women in general. The woman insisting upon the man’s Chivalry is insisting upon both male support and protection and also male assertiveness and male dominance over her.

 
Reference:

In Praise of the Chivalry Honoring Woman

Advertisements

About Jesse Powell TFA

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

5 Responses to The Difference between Feminist Women’s Rights and Traditional Women’s Rights

  1. lolenjoy50 says:

    You keep using the word ‘rights’. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

    Telling somebody they have to behave how you want them to behave isn’t giving them rights, its taking them away. Rights are inherently entitlements, not obligations. Being forbidden from doing something or being forced to do something aren’t rights. That’s like saying you don’t have the right to freedom, but you do have the right to never leave this room. See how that isn’t a right?

  2. How I am using the word “rights” is meant to communicate two different ideas; the right to beneficial treatment from others (more specifically a woman’s right to be provided for and protected by men) and the right to self-assertion and unilateral action according to individual choice. Traditional Women’s Rights are mostly but not entirely based on the right to beneficial treatment from others; Feminist Women’s Rights are mostly but not entirely based on the right to self-assertion and unilateral action. When I am referring to rights above I am combining both types of rights together.

    Women’s Traditional Rights are mostly but not entirely rights to beneficial treatment from others; Men’s Traditional Rights are mostly but not entirely rights to self-assertion and unilateral action. Rights are always tied to duties; rights can only be legitimized based on the possessor of the right needing the right to be able to fulfill their duties to others. All legitimate rights are derivative of God’s will; all rights and all duties come from God. When one possess a right to beneficial treatment from others there is necessarily a corresponding duty on the part of the person providing the benefit to provide the benefit. The male duty of Chivalry is the foundation of Traditional Women’s Rights; the male duty corresponds to the woman’s right to beneficial treatment.

    In my above post I am presenting women’s rights as either being based on women’s duty to obey me or women’s duty to obey God; nowhere am I presenting women’s rights in terms merely of the woman’s self-assertion. This is because rights are always tied to duties for both men and women and because for women in particular a right has to be delegated to her before she possess the right so it is important for me to emphasize the mechanism through which a woman can claim and assert a right delegated to her by a man in authority over her.

    I am attacking the female MRA in particular for not claiming rights delegated to her by the male community and God. This may seem odd but there can indeed be a duty for someone to assert a right. Such a right is still a right because once claimed it gives the person in possession of the right either access to beneficial treatment from others or a capacity for self-assertion and unilateral action. However there is not necessarily a right to refuse a right; one may have no choice but to possess a right in which case the right is still a right even though possession of the right was forced upon the person by another.

    Traditional Women’s Rights are just such a class of rights; rights that belong to all women whether the woman wants them or not. Chivalry, the basis of Traditional Women’s Rights, is something that men impose upon women; a woman has no right to refuse Chivalry; but at the same time the rights a woman possesses due to the Chivalry imposed upon her are real rights, real rights that either grant her beneficial treatment from others or give to her capacities for self-assertion and unilateral action.

    Women do not have the right to refuse Chivalry because Chivalry is tied to the woman’s capacity to fulfill her duties to others; in other words the woman refusing Chivalry is abusing others and those harmed by the woman’s refusal of Chivalry have the right to be protected from such harm through means of Chivalry being imposed upon the woman whether she likes it or not. For the same reasons men have a duty to give to women Chivalry whether the man wants to or not.

    • lolenjoy says:

      Rights are fundamental, they are simply something that everyone has that can’t be taken away. If you think they come with duties or obligations attached then they aren’t rights.

      You still haven’t explained how a woman not obeying you is harmful to you. Or why she should care. We are not all obligated to give up our independence to help others, particularly where that help is entirely fictitious (because of course you don’t *need* women to do anything for you).

      And you do talk about God a lot for an Atheist. Far be it from me to say what you can call yourself, but you should recognise that a lot of people don’t believe your ‘God’ exists or holds any power over them. Trying to make them do what you want is just as bad as trying to make all women wear veils because God tells you to.

  3. bodycrimes says:

    “through means of Chivalry being imposed upon the woman whether she likes it or not
    And how, pray, do you intend to “impose”your chivalry? Something involving gags or whips, no doubt, as in the past.

  4. The First Joe says:

    Your blog wins the prize for “most misleading title”. Everything you talk about refers back to god. That would be the opposite of secular. Wtf?

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