The Childlike State of Women and Unconditional Chivalry

Feminists often complain about traditional gender roles or patriarchy “infantilizing women” or “treating women like children” or being “paternalistic.” The idea is that it is insulting or wrong for men or society overall to treat women like children. I wonder though, is it wrong for men to view or treat women like children? Maybe a woman is like a child in many ways in relation to men. Maybe treating women like children is exactly what women need, what women are entitled to, what women are owed by men.

What is a very desirable and attractive young woman called? A “babe” as in “check out that hot babe.” Men even use the term “baby” as a term of endearment for their wives or girlfriends sometimes such as “Hey baby, come over here” or “Baby, what’s wrong?” Men may also refer to a woman as “kid” in a playful affectionate way. It is very common for men to refer to women as “girls” when referring to women in a romantic or sexual way; for instance the popular “Girls Gone Wild” videos or if a man says “I’m going out to meet girls” what he means is seeking women for romantic opportunities. What about the famous order “Women and children first?” Why are women and children being grouped together as part of the same protected class? A man hitting another man is bad but a man hitting a woman is much worse as indicated by the moral edict “You don’t hit the girl.” with the term “girl” referring to women. Likewise an adult hitting a child is particularly loathsome just like a man hitting a woman is particularly loathsome.

Here is an exhortation about how men should treat women going around on the internet portraying how the ideal man should treat a woman:

“Every woman deserves a man who calls her baby, kisses her like he means it, holds her like he never wants to let her go, doesn’t cheat or lie, wipes her tears when she cries, doesn’t make her jealous of other women, instead makes other women jealous of her, is not scared to let his friends know how he really feels about her, and lets her know how much he really loves her.”

So why is it that when a man feels romantic and affectionate towards a woman he naturally starts to think of her as “baby” or “kid” or a “girl” and why is it that women and children are often grouped together as a protected class deserving of extra strong protections against danger or abuse? Women are even often seen as “innocent” and not fully responsible for their actions in much the same way that children are viewed as “innocent” and not fully responsible for their actions.

I think the reason for men tending to view women as childlike particularly when a man is viewing a woman romantically is because a woman is in fact childlike in relation to the man in the areas where men contribute to women as is the case regarding men’s romantic behaviors towards women. A man will naturally view a woman in a similar way to how he views a child when a man is romantically oriented towards a woman because the romantic feelings in a man tell a man to care for and protect and control a woman similarly to how an adult (male or female) will naturally feel a desire to care for and protect and control a child under their care.

Going back to basics here. What is the job of the man? To provide for and protect the woman. What is the job of the woman? To provide for and protect the child. The man provides for and protects the woman while the woman provides for and protects the child. The relationship of the man to the woman is analogous to the relationship of the woman to the child. The man’s role in relationship to the woman is similar to the woman’s role in relationship to the child. This means the man views the woman similarly to how the woman views the child. In particular the man’s role in relation to the woman is based on the man’s romantic relationship with the woman and the man’s romantic feelings towards the woman. So it is the man’s romantic feelings towards the woman in particular that causes the man to see the woman in a childlike way, as someone he needs to provide for protect and control just like as an adult he needs to provide for protect and control the children under his care. The woman is under his care just like the child is, the woman is under his authority just like the child is; this is why he views the woman and the child similarly.

There is another similarity between the woman and the child in relationship to men other than the similarity of the man’s role regarding both; that is that the woman has reduced capacity in the masculine realm compared to the man just like a child has reduced capacity overall compared to the adult. It is not only the man’s role to provide for protect and control the woman; the woman actually has an inferior capacity to provide for herself, to protect herself, and to discipline herself compared to the man’s ability to provider for her, protect her, and impose an orderly environment upon her. The woman has skill deficits compared to the man in the areas of male superiority (the masculine realm) just like a child has skill deficits compared to the mother overall. This is an additional way in which women are similar to children in relation to men.

Men evolved superior skills in the masculine realm because men had to be superior in the masculine realm to succeed as men. The man’s job is to provide for women, to protect women, and to control women. A man has to provide for women and protect women because that is how he contributes to the well being of his children and therefore passes on his genes. A man then has to control women in order to be able to provide for and protect women because the man has to make sure his contribution is used for the purpose intended. In every kind of relationship where one is the giver and the other is the receiver the giver always has to be dominant over the receiver. So for a man to succeed as a man the man must provide for women, protect women, and control women. Because these are necessary functions for the man the skills and abilities related to these functions developed in the man to a superior level compared to the woman because the woman did not have to excel in these areas to function as a woman. The woman developed superior skills and abilities in her feminine role as a woman that fit with her more direct supervision and care of the child but regarding the masculine realm the woman is inferior as she did not need masculine skills to the same extent the man needed masculine skills.

So regarding the masculine realm of resource acquisition, protection from danger, and rule setting and establishing order women’s relation to men is very childlike both in terms of the man’s role in relation to the woman and the woman’s underlying weakness and inferiority in providing these needs for herself independently.

Is it wrong to treat a child like an adult and on that basis refuse to provide for the child or to punish the child by abandoning the child rather than giving to the child corrective discipline and then continuing to care for the child as before? Of course; such behavior towards a child is child abuse. Well, a woman’s status relative to a man is similar in many ways to the status of a child relative to their parents. It is abusive to a woman to refuse to provide for her in a marital context. It is abusive to a woman to deny her basic provision and protection when she does wrong to a man when corrective discipline can be imposed upon the woman instead while the woman continues to receive the basic support and protection she needs. When a woman is “out of control” it is the fault of men requiring male intervention to fix the problem just like it is the fault of parents when their children are “out of control” requiring intervention from adults to fix the problem. Just like parents are never entitled to abandon their children and deny their responsibilities towards their children and just like adults as a community are never entitled to abandon their collective responsibilities towards children overall men are never entitled to abandon women and deny their responsibilities towards women and men as a collective body are never entitled to abandon their collective responsibilities towards women overall.

This brings us to the issue of Chivalry. Chivalry is men’s responsibilities towards women. Chivalry involves the subordination of men’s interests to women’s interests and is the mechanism by which men assert domination over women. Chivalry is men’s duty to provide for and protect women. I always emphasize that Chivalry is an unconditional duty; not dependent upon the woman’s behavior or any other cultural or legal factor. This is because of the childlike status of the woman in relation to the man; the fact that the man is necessarily in authority over the woman and that the woman is dependent upon the man’s support to function and succeed as a woman. A parent likewise is necessarily in authority over their children and the child is dependent upon their parents’ support to be able to grow and develop successfully into a high functioning adult. A man owes women Chivalry unconditionally just like a parent owes support and protection and love to their children unconditionally.

Another thing I will add, men have a duty to elevate women’s interests above their own interests in the same way a parent has a duty to place the needs of their children before their own needs as adults. A man who treats the woman’s interests as equivalent to his own interests is abusing the woman because he is in authority over the woman and the woman is dependent upon the man’s support for her own well being as the man has a greater ability to provide for the woman than the woman has the ability to provide for herself and the woman providing for herself is damaging to the woman and is contrary to the woman’s natural role as a woman while the man providing for the woman is consistent with his natural role as a man and is part of the man’s superior strength as a man.

The man treating the woman as an equal while he maintains his dominance over the woman and while the woman is dependent upon the man makes no sense; it is outright abuse against the woman treating the woman as an inferior. The thing that must be understood is that the woman is always under the authority of the man and the woman is always dependent upon the man simply because of the reality that she is a woman and inferior power and dependency are fundamental attributes of the status of being a woman. Because of these fundamental attributes of what it means to be a woman men must always elevate women’s interests above their own while at the same time claiming the dominant position relative to the woman they are entitled to after first subordinating their interests to the woman’s interests as is their duty as men.

Unconditional Chivalry is the mechanism by which proper gender relations between men and women are established as Chivalry places women’s interests above men’s interests while at the same time establishing male authority over women. Good relations between men and women require both elements; both male dominance and the privileging of female interests. Feminists don’t like the male dominance part while MRAs (Men’s Rights Activists) don’t like the privileging of female interests part. Regardless, for society to work both sides of gender hierarchy are necessary; both the part that protects men and also the part that protects women. The relative positions of men and women are fixed; what it means to be a man is fixed and unalterable and what it means to be a woman is fixed and unalterable. The Chivalrous duty is a byproduct of what the status of women is in relation to men. Chivalry is therefore fixed and unalterable just like what it means to be a man and what it means to be a woman is fixed an unalterable. This is why Chivalry is an unconditional duty men owe to God on behalf of women.

About Jesse Powell TFA

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

87 Responses to The Childlike State of Women and Unconditional Chivalry

  1. lolenjoy50 says:

    Your basic premise that a woman cannot take care of herself and requires a man to do it for her is wrong. Look around you and you will see plenty of women doing just that. And without that premise your entire argument collapses. You have delusions of grandeur where you believe your penis allows you to control half the world’s population. It really doesn’t.

    • Camille says:

      lolenjoy50 has a good point. Besides, I have never read such bad writing like this “The Childlike State of Women and Unconditional Chivalry” post, regardless of content.

    • Crystal says:

      Agreed. Women are NOT children! And they never will be. Their very biology (childbearing, menstruation, and menopause) calls this premise what it is – a LIE. Women should be treated like the adults they are – competent and valuable – and not just because they can bear children. Why is it that women’s ability to bear children is used as a way to infantilise them? If anything, they are goddesses for the marvellous gift of creating life, and they should be looked up to with awe and adoration for it.

      • FightingForever says:

        I agree with this, if anything woman should get extra credit for holding everything together, looking after home, husband, children, and themselves! And even if they don’t have any of that, they deserve credit, for growing up woman with periods, and stalkers, and objectification, and this dangerous world for woman…

      • FamilyFirst says:

        Men are not children either and yet the legal system infantilizes them. Takes their own kids away from them and then forces them to pay child support for the kids they are barred from seeing. The legal system feels that men aren’t competent enough to nurture their children but forces them to pay for them – just like child laborers. Children around the world are forced to do hard work and give up their wages to adults. That is a form of slavery. Men and women are both gods and goddesses and both should be honored but the legal system doesn’t allow this. Men are still forced to do the most difficult jobs and are deprived from the joys of loving and raising their own children.

    • FamilyFirst says:

      Apparently, too many women have delusions of grandeur and believe their vaginas allow them to control the world’s children.

      The DHHS data shows that of children abused by one parent between 2001 and 2006, 70.6% were abused by their mothers, whereas only 29.4% were abused by their fathers.
      And of children who died at the hands of one parent between 2001 and 2006, 70.8% were killed by their mothers, whereas only 29.2% were killed by their fathers.
      Furthermore, contrary to media portrayals that leave the viewer with the impression that only girls are ever harmed, boys constituted fully 60% of child fatalities. (Table 4-3, p. 71, Child Maltreatment 2006,, reports that 675 boys died in 2006 as compared to 454 girls).

  2. I am not really arguing that a woman cannot take care of herself without a man supporting her; what I am saying is that a woman cannot function well as a woman without a man supporting her. Taking care of children is a perfect example of this. A woman with children cannot properly take care of her children without a man supporting her; in other words for the woman to dedicate herself to her children she cannot be financially supporting herself at the same time as the energy she expends towards supporting herself will necessarily be at the expense of her ability to care for her children. The woman needs the man’s support to be able to give her feminine contribution as a woman to others; that is the key reason why women need the support of men and why women are entitled to the support of men. The woman supporting herself is not the primary issue; the primary issue is the woman’s ability to contribute to others.

    As far as my possession of a penis goes; the fact that I have a penis means my role in sex is to inject semen into the woman to impregnate her, the woman herself then becoming pregnant, not me. The fact that it is the woman who becomes pregnant and then bears the child and not me means that my role is to support the woman who is highly vulnerable and dependent because of her need to care for the child she had by me. In other words the woman being the one who bears the child is what makes the woman dependent and needing my support. The woman’s dependency on me then establishes my authority over the woman as I must have authority over the woman in order for me to be secure providing support to the woman which I am obligated to do because of the woman’s dependency on me. My authority over my romantic partner in the context of having children then becomes a generalized authority of men over women and a generalized duty of men to provide for and protect women because the basic characteristics of the man and the woman that are derived from the romantic relationship between men and women are still in operation and still in force whenever a man and woman are in any kind of relationship with each other for any purpose.

    • Mark says:

      I know of a few very strong independent women who can support themselves and kids without the father in the picture. Coming from a single mother household, women have more capacity then men to handle more. They are not masculine but they have their ways of getting things done. If a man falls in love with her strong independent nature and wants to take her under his reaponsibility the chivalrous thing to do is leave her her independency. It is what makes her beautiful beyond measure. The strong independent women are far from being children but what I came here for was to learn why women display childlike behavior in certain situations. It has a disarming effect that leaves a person wondering what the hell she was feeling and thinking to make her act in such a way. Women are amazingly sophisticated creatures and should be treated respectfully and chivalrous at all time regardless.

      • Crystal says:


        I agree with the heart of your statements. Please write in here more often.

        BTW, could you please explain how you define chivalry so I can understand where you are coming from? Thanks in advance.

      • FamilyFirst says:

        Studies don’t show that women have more capacity then men to handle more.

        Research by Sara McLanahan at Princeton University suggests that boys are significantly more likely to end up in jail or prison by the time they turn 30 if they are raised by a single mother. Specifically, McLanahan and a colleague found that boys raised in a single-parent household were more than twice as likely to be incarcerated, compared with boys raised in an intact, married home, even after controlling for differences in parental income, education, race, and ethnicity. Research on young men suggests they are less likely to engage in delinquent or illegal behavior when they have the affection, attention, and monitoring of their own mother and father.

        But daughters depend on dads as well. One study by Bruce Ellis of the University of Arizona found that about one-third of girls whose fathers left the home before they turned 6 ended up pregnant as teenagers, compared with just 5 percent of girls whose fathers were there throughout their childhood. This dramatic divide was narrowed a bit when Ellis controlled for parents’ socioeconomic background—but only by a few percentage points. The research on this topic suggests that girls raised by single mothers are less likely to be supervised, more likely to engage in early sex, and to end up pregnant compared with girls raised by their own married parents.

        The DHHS data shows that of children abused by one parent between 2001 and 2006, 70.6% were abused by their mothers, whereas only 29.4% were abused by their fathers.
        And of children who died at the hands of one parent between 2001 and 2006, 70.8% were killed by their mothers, whereas only 29.2% were killed by their fathers.
        Furthermore, contrary to media portrayals that leave the viewer with the impression that only girls are ever harmed, boys constituted fully 60% of child fatalities. (Table 4-3, p. 71, Child Maltreatment 2006,, reports that 675 boys died in 2006 as compared to 454 girls).

        Children need the love of both parents in addition to grandparents, uncles, aunts and family friends. I don’t know why we glorify single parenthood. How are children going to learn about love, stability, commitment, loyalty and respect when they don’t have the role models to show them all of these things?

      • Crystal says:


        I agree with your points on fathers. That being said, which is better – glorifying single parenthood (especially single motherhood) as a liberated and noble choice, or glorifying abortion? Feel free to refrain from answering the question if you are not PL.

      • FamilyFirst says:

        I don’t like the glorification of single parenthood because it implies that the other person (whether it is the mother or father) isn’t important. So many times, we have heard that women don’t need men to raise children and that was wrong. Now, there is a growing single fatherhood movement where men are saying that they don’t need women to raise children. That is also wrong. So what does this mean for the future? When a person wants to be a parent, he or she will just purchase the sperm, the egg and then rent a surrogate mother or whatever in order to procreate? What does that mean for society? What about love, compromise, sacrifice, loyalty, respect and values? How are kids going to learn those if you don’t have committed parents who showed it to them? We seem to be treating people as mere resources instead of human beings.

        What do I think about abortion? I think it should be done only in extreme cases. I do believe people should behave responsibly so that it doesn’t have to lead to that. But in a society where people are forming fewer social bonds and demanding more individual entitlements, I am afraid of the future.

    • Roger Mari says:

      O my God, bro. Get some WRITING LESSONS!
      You write like an ignoramus trying to sound like an articulate, erudite person.

      • FamilyFirst says:

        And you have proven that you are an ignoramus:

        – You don’t do research;

        – You insult because you don’t have the intellect to debate effectively;

        – You post under a male name because you believe your misandry will be more respected by doing so but any intelligent person can see through that;

        – You are frustrated and don’t know how to express yourself in an intellectual way.

        Finally, you don’t even try to sound like an articulate, erudite person. Hating others won’t help you love yourself.

  3. lolenjoy says:

    1) A woman can take care of children alone. It happens quite a lot. You can argue that she will have an easier time if she has some support, to which I say a man bringing up children alone would also benefit from support. Gender is irrelevant.

    2) Just because the woman is the one who gives birth doesn’t mean she is any more responsible than the father in caring for the child. And provided she has things like paid maternity leave (which most developed countries provide) she is not dependant on anyone while pregnant. Support is nice obviously, but it isn’t required. It doesn’t have to be provided by a man either.

    3) Providing support for someone doesn’t entitle you authority over them. They are free to reject your support if it comes with such strings attached.

    • FamilyFirst says:

      1) A man can take care of children alone as well. Does that mean we should tell men that women aren’t needed? I don’t think so.

      2) Just because the woman is the one who gives birth doesn’t mean she has more rights to the child than the father does.

      3) All parents have the responsibility of supporting their children. Men should not be barred from seeing their children just because women aren’t interested in what the men have to offer. Many women require men to pay support and then attach strings to visitation. What message does that send to the children? That it’s okay to treat human beings as cash slaves when it’s convenient to do so?

    • Roger Mari says:

      To Lolenjoy–
      I totally agree with your points 1 and 3.
      Familyfirst, the blogger, makes all kinds of self-serving logical and factual errors in his writings.
      Methinks he’s watching too much Fox News!

      • FamilyFirst says:

        To Rogette:

        Roger Mari makes all kinds of erroneous, ignorant, hateful, sexist, bigoted statements and me thinks she watches too much CNN in her basement!

  4. Jojo says:

    I suppose you’ll be happy to know that I have no disagreements with this. It’s funny that you have to compare the man/woman relationship to the parent/child relationship for me to agree with you on chivalry. Maybe it’s because I see it doesn’t entail female superiority like the way I saw it before. A parent having an obligation to provide care for their child obviously isn’t saying children are superior to their parents nor is it putting them on a pedestal, it’s just the natural order of things. I was very put off by the idea that men should put women’s interests
    above their own, but comparing it to how a parent has to put their children’s interests above their interests doesn’t makes it seem not so terrible after all.

    I still want to think about it, make sure I haven’t missed anything, but I guess I’m coming around :).

  5. Yes, of course I’m glad to hear you agreeing with me more on Chivalry. 🙂 I want you to honor yourself as a woman just like I honor you as a woman. Before you accuse me of female supremacy however for saying such a thing I also expect you to honor me as a man just like I honor myself as a man and value my masculinity as a man highly. Valuing yourself as a woman is a good thing when it is directed towards strengthening and protecting your femininity because your femininity is your contribution towards others. Chivalry is not a generalized empowerment of women; Chivalry is empowering women in the feminine realm and disempowering women in the masculine realm. Chivalry both gives power to women and takes power away from women at the same time; it is designed that way. Chivalry gives to women the power to be good as women and at the same time takes away from women their capacity to be bad; it strengthens women in the feminine realm and weakens women in the masculine realm at the same time. This is why Chivalry is desirable and a moral good; because it forces women into the feminine role and then empowers women in the feminine role. Chivalry likewise also forces men into the masculine role and empowers men in the masculine role. Society cannot function without the feminine role being maintained in this way so society cannot function without Chivalry.

    Speaking as a man here; I have never experienced Chivalry as degrading me or insulting me in any way, I have always seen it as a great honor and a great source of pride and a way of expressing my love towards women. Mind you, in my feminist days long in the past I tended to be mad at Chivalry and see it as abusive and arrogant but that was because I didn’t have a concept of myself as a man. Now Chivalry is something I own and something I am very proud of and something I am very attached to. Mind you, I am defining Chivalry in a very specific way here to serve very particular goals in terms of how I think relationships between men and women should be and how society should function overall but regarding Chivalry as I am defining Chivalry it causes me no problems as a man at all.

    MRAs are the ones who endlessly talk about how Chivalry is female superiority and a great injustice against men and stuff like that but they are not speaking simply as men, they are speaking as men with no concept of or attachment to manhood and masculinity. They don’t understand what their special purpose and role as a man is; they don’t see the heroism and the pride and honor in it and the great love for women it entails. Chivalry is good for a man’s soul; it’s good for his heart and fills him with love for himself and love for women.

    I think you understanding your role and purpose as a woman will enable you to love Chivalry and feel fully comfortable with it just like me understanding my role and purpose as a man has enabled me to love and feel fully comfortable with Chivalry. However it should be understood that Chivalry belongs to me as a man; I the man am the active giver and you the woman are the passive receiver. Chivalry is masculine and therefore it belongs to me. What is feminine is what belongs to you as a woman.

    As far as your concern that you may have “missed something,” I have spent years thinking about this Chivalry stuff and I am quite sure I will be able to answer any objections you may come up with.

  6. Barbara says:

    I totally agree with this–a society which loses sight that men are responsible for women, if even in the most symbolic way, is a society that will survive, and thrive. I’m a stay-at-home housewife, and have been seen as a parasite by feminists and MRA’s. My husband always wanted a stay-at-home wife, and although I worked for years, I’ll never forget how I overheard a woman tell someone once “My husband won’t let me work”, and all I could think of was “I bet he really cares about her”, and the way that she said it sounded like she was totally happy with that arrangement, too. My husband can make about 8 times as much money as I can in the workplace, and I always found dealing with many strangers and crazy co-workers something that was emotionally traumatic. This works for us, and there’s nothing wrong with it, and it doesn’t destroy society to have traditional gender roles–it’s nothing to be ashamed of.

    • mamaziller says:

      I know but MRAs are so against traditional women because they see us as lazy.. yet it is them who are lazy. They want women who have children and have careers.. can you imagine how stressful that would be?

      • FamilyFirst says:

        Actually, it was feminists who said that women could have it all – careers and children. Why are you blaming that on MRAs?

      • Crystal says:


        Don’t you think that a bunch of people have been at fault here – on both sides? While feminists did state that women could have it all, they have begun allowing for traditional homemakers which is a significant improvement. IMO MRAs and feminists seem to have been backlashing and reacting against one another rather than sitting down and discussing their differences – and similarities – which we all share as humayns.

        I do not buy into the rhetoric that all men oppress by virtue of being men, and all women are allies by virtue of being women BTW. Just throwing that out there.

      • FamilyFirst says:

        I agree that both sides have been at fault but that wasn’t what the commenter was stating. The commenter was stating that it is the fault of MRAs. The commenter claimed that MRAs are against traditional women. While I consider myself to be a humanitarian, not an MRA or feminist, I am aware of both positions. Feminists were the ones who were against traditional women, not MRAs. MRAs are pretty much “masculinists” who want to change the roles of men in the same way feminists changed the roles of women. There is nothing necessarily wrong with that unless it leads to men and women treating each other like enemies, which is horrible.

    • Mrs. N says:

      I really enjoyed your comment! I had several bad work experiences, so I am in a semi-difficult situation right now.
      It’s nothing to be ashamed of, and I know EXACTLY what you are saying about emotional trauma. Other women bullied me constantly in these places-basically tried to distract me to entertain themselves, no matter how nice I was towards them.
      So, why as a society do we see it so bad to want a man to protect us from immature BS?? It’s not wanting to be lazy, it’s desiring safety, sanity, and peace in our lives!
      I don’t care what any feminist or “independent” woman says: It can keep relationships healthy, natural, romantic, and thus functioning much more properly.

    • Rachelle and Roger Mari says:

      Traditional gender roles work for you, in your current estimation.
      But you need to see too that the traditionalist arrangement does not work well for many more. That’s why and how feminism got its start.
      Please be aware that there are numerous reasons why practicing traditional gender roles is unwise, especially for women and children, as well as being artificially limiting upon intelligent, capable women. Reimposing strict traditional gender roles would be an unmitigated disaster.

  7. Tyler Babydoll says:


  8. Pingback: When Women Act Bad | What's Wrong With Equal Rights?

  9. Cate says:

    WTF?! If you want to live like a baby totally dependent on a man then that’s your own business. I, for one, enjoy being depending on myself. No man could ever offer that feeling of security. AND I have a child. GASP. A mutually beneficial relationship is ideal. One where neither is overly dependent on the other. One where both play different but equal roles. I have nothing against women that find patriarchy to be “beneficial”. But then again, you’ve all been lucky enough to live during a time where you rights as women were fought for by previous generations. Gone are the days where you can be virtually sold off to the highest bidder. Gone are the days where you man could beat you and it was his right. Gone are the days where the only profitable living you could make for yourself was prostitution. Gone are the days where men make all of our decisions for us. What does “traditional women’s rights” even mean. You are asking for the right to give up all of your rights? I’m really fucking confused. And ashamed.

    • Elizabethan says:


    • FamilyFirst says:

      There was never a time when men had the right to beat women. If men beat women, they would be jailed. But no one cared if men were beaten by women. Men had to support women, often for life. Women were not sold off to the highest bidder. But men were drafted to fight in wars and to work on dangerous, deadly projects. Prostitution was not the only way for women to support themselves. Women could be teachers, nurses, secretaries, seamstresses and so on. Even in the 1900s, more women graduated from high school and college than men did because men were always expected to work to support the families. You should be confused and ashamed for your ignorance of the past. A man could work for years and when he died, the woman could still reap the benefits of his efforts. How many men had the privilege of being supported by women and collecting her benefits? I don’t know why people believe the virulent feminist propaganda.

      • Roger Mari says:

        You are wrong on the facts! Before tbe mid-1900s, all the things you claim didn’t exist DID exist, big time. Still do, in many parts of the world.
        Your traditionalist fantasies are a dysfunctional anachronism and deserve to go down in flames.

      • FamilyFirst says:

        You are the one who is wrong on the facts. You provide no sources to contradict me. Yes, there is a lot of domestic violence everywhere but in the West there are no recent laws that gave men the right to beat women. In fact, there were laws that punished men for beating women but there were no laws that punished women for beating men.

        In a case known as Fulgam vs. the State of Alabama (1871), the court ruled that, “The privilege, ancient though it may be, to beat her with a stick, to pull her hair, choke her, spit in her face or kick her about the floor or to inflict upon her other like indignities, is not now acknowledged by our law.”

        Women are also more likely to initiate domestic violence.

        “Analyzing data gathered from 11,370 respondents, researchers found that “half of [violent relationships] were reciprocally violent. In non-reciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more that 70% of the cases.” Out of all the respondents, a quarter of the women admitted to perpetrating the domestic violence and, when the violence was reciprocal, women were often the ones to have been the first to strike.

        Data from Home Office statistical bulletins and the British Crime Survey show that men made up about 40% of domestic violence victims each year between 2004-05 and 2008-09, the last year for which figures are available. In 2006-07 men made up 43.4% of all those who had suffered partner abuse in the previous year, which rose to 45.5% in 2007-08.

        Lesbian violence is quite common.

        About 17-45% of lesbians report having been the victim of a least one act of physical violence perpetrated by a lesbian partner (1,5,6,13). Types of physical abuse named by more than 10% of participants in one study included:

        – Disrupting others’ eating or sleeping habits
        – Pushing or shoving, driving recklessly to punish, and slapping, kicking, hitting, or biting (11).
        – Sexual abuse by a woman partner has been reported by up to 50% of lesbians (12).
        – Psychological abuse has been reported as occurring at least one time by 24% to 90% of lesbians (1,5,6,11,14).

        Your feminazi, misandrist lies deserve to go down in flames.

    • Rachelle and Roger Mari says:

      Well said!

  10. Donna Ryan says:

    Mrs N, I’ve been in exactly the same boat as you re stressful and bullying work environments. My fiance is an Alpha male, and he often treats me like a child, but in an affectionate, caring way. There is only a 4 year age difference, yet he uses language reminiscent of being affectionate to a child (eg, “come here to papa bear”). I have to say he is a large alpha male and his view of himself as a strong, protective male is part of his ego-structure. I used to worry about it, about what it meant, but now I see that it is him expressing his deep love for me and his desire to keep me safe and secure and provided for; a desire he has expressed verbally a number of times. What exacerbates this, I think, is the physical size difference. He is quite tall and large chested. I am tiny, petite, and look much younger than my real age – to the point where I’ve had people ask me outright how old I am because you could see they were worried that he might be cradle-snatching! Not quite cradle snatching, but the concerns were there that he was getting with someone much younger than himself (should see the looks of relief when I tell them my real age).Yet I also believe it’s this large disparity in body size, combined with my more youthful looks than I ought to have, that contributes to his viewing me as a child, that it’s my We actually both love and enjoy the size difference for this reason. He loves to express his desire to protect me, and does this often physically, which says makes him feel like a man. I love to feel this, so I snuggle into him and enjoy being the protectee! At first I was a little worried about him seeing me as a child and not a grown woman, but he treats me with enough respect and values my intellect and input in a way that shows me he values me as a whole person. So, it is doable, it is possible for a man to get the balance right and in a loving, romantic, and mutually beneficial way. Personally, I love it!

    • Nicole Jenny says:

      Hey Donna! just saw your comment. That’s great. If any woman makes you feel guilty about it, don’t let them. I think it’s been a chain effect-especially with the feminists and just other women, in general, who are diluted into thinking there is something wrong with that. I hate to say there is a right or wrong way to live life, but I personally wish to live a life with a strong, protector who is head of the household, and therefore compliments my femininity. I wonder (quite frequently) though-these women who claim to be happy taking the lead and being kind of masculine-you have to wonder why they are always up in everyone else’s business, if they were so personally happy and fulfilled themselves….

      • Quell says:

        It’s not all or nothing. I wanna be cared for, but I need to be independant and have my own cash/sense of self worth/achievement.
        Ya’ll think way to black and white. It’s not all or nothing.

    • Crystal says:


      Although I strongly disagree with his viewing you as a child, I can appreciate the desire to want a man to protect you so most of what you write is my personal fantasy as well, LOL. I might perceive it differently, as I have been influenced by feminism and egalitarian principles, but for me personally I tend to want a leader and protector who values my input too so yeah, I grok that.

      • FamilyFirst says:

        Some people are better at being protectors and providers and some people are better at being nurturers and nurses. No one should be locked into those roles and no one should be prevented from assuming those roles. Society needs them all.

    • Roger Mari says:

      Donna Ryan,
      Your type of viewpoint holds other, more achievement oriented, women back.

  11. Hi colleagues, nice piece of writing and nice arguments commented
    at this place, I am genuinely enjoying by these.

  12. Pingback: talk to me like an adult: planned parenthood edition | Ordinary Times

  13. Britneh says:

    Will you help your wife have her own life? Usually when people start condescending to people and wanting to be their protector they are trying to make the person dependant and overly reliant on them. This is wrong! I see so many lives ruined by this unfairness and double standards.

    • FamilyFirst says:

      Will you help your husband have his own life? Usually when people say that women want to nurture it really means they want to control. This is wrong! Yes, there is a double standard.

      • Bonnie Andersen says:

        Hey Familyfirst–
        I don’t want to nurture. Or control, either.
        Just want to be as successful as I can without anyone or anything getting in my way!
        I oppose traditional gender roles and sexist values because they impose compulsory altruism upon both sexes.
        And yes, I’ve read Ayn Rand!

      • FamilyFirst says:

        Glad to hear that. Yes, women have been the victims of sexism but what isn’t discussed as often is that men have also been the victims of sexism. All victims should be heard.

  14. Great article.Feminism has trained women to reject this model as “an old fashioned, oppressive stereotype” even though it reflects their natural instincts. They were fooled and victims of Social Engineering. The same people who brought you Communism, Crony Capitalism (is there any other kind?), Programmed you with TV, the Women’s Movement, and now the Homosexual Movement did this while destroying the Faith and Morals of the culture through Contraception, and Sexualizing the Culture. It is now every man and woman for himself.I believe one of the main tenets of chivalry was defending a woman’s honor.I see woman disrespected all the time in today’s culture.

    • Bonnie Andersen says:

      Prem Dasa,
      You’re a traditional thinker from India, I take it?
      This business of protecting a woman’s honor (chastity) is truly a double-edged sword. What it boils down to, in the end, is that any woman who has sex before marriage is shamed, devalued, and treated like a chewed piece of gum.
      Returning to this as an ideal is not human progress, either!

  15. One thing that annoys me the most is the absolutely foul, dirty, language used in front of women these days in public settings, especially in front of the older ladies,I wonder how many door openers and chair-pullers on this thread would put their ass on the line and would act chivalric when the time comes to defend a woman’s honor.

  16. …Women should always be treated with chivalry, with “deep respect and tender sympathy.” Equality of opportunity aside, women and men are not the same — it is good that a man should understand how they are different, and take pains to make women feel welcome and valued. He should showcase his valor in the way of the knights and poets of old: so that, in him, the entire range of knightly virtue is expressed through love.

  17. chia maria says:

    This article is pretty spot on if you ask me. I’m sick of the feminist mantra about not needing a man. Yes we do need men. Both genders need each other, actually, though in different ways. If you believe you don’t need a man, then fine, that’s your choice, just don’t start bitching when you bump into a man who gives you no respect because you make it clear to him that his gender is a redundancy for you.

  18. Slamot says:

    This was clearly written by someone with low self esteem and misogynistic tendencies. Women are adults, not children. They should not ever be treated like children. They are logical, mature human beings and should be treated as such. When you downplay a woman’s capacity to take care of herself and think for herself and have her own sense of self-discipline, you are effectively insulting all of the intelligent, creative women out there who contribute to the sciences, technology, protection, teaching, etc.

    It was also ridiculous because you act as though taking care of children is primarily the job of the women. No, you deadbeat pathetic excuse for a “father,” it is not. You are supposed to help nurture and support and care for the child as well, and not in any lesser capacity. And no, “supporting” the family by going to work doesn’t count. Practically adult works, and it has been that way for most of human history. The happy little housewife stereotype was not, nor has it ever been, the norm for the vast majority of human history.

    Also, it’s not the man’s duty to control the women (nice job exposing your lack of faith in your capacity to communicate with another adult effectively, though,) nor is it his job to be the authority over her. No, women will never be dependent on you the way you want them to be.

    Men who think like this are incapable of loving women. If you loved women you’d want them to achieve as much as they could and live their dreams. Instead, you want them to toss their dreams aside, to give up being a doctor or a scientist or an explorer, because that would be far to “ambitious” for her and you have no faith in the mental capacity of someone you claim to care for. You’re the type of guy who tells his daughter that she’s less than the boys around her and that no matter how much sports make her feel fulfilled she needs to go clean your toilets instead.

    The reality is, women are going to go work and do great without you. They are going to raise children who will do great without you. They are going to protect themselves and do great without you. And if she has a man in her life, she’ll be picking someone who sees her as an equal, not some poorly-romanticized version of a lesser being that makes him more comfortable with his weak masculinity.

    • FightingForever says:

      This,especially the bit about artists, female artists get zero credit as it is.

    • FamilyFirst says:

      What is ridiculous is the way the legal system treat fathers. Yes, taking care of children isn’t primarily the job of the mother but children are not the possessions of the mother either. If women want men to take care of the children, then they need to respect the fathers and co-parent with them. Women just want men to obey their orders and pay the cash without allowing them the right to parent their own children. It is not the job of the woman to control the man and to use the children as manipulative tools and weapons against their father.

      Women who think this way are incapable of loving men and of raising children properly. The legal system allows women to break up families, alienate the father from his children and treat fathers as cash slaves. You are the type of woman who tells her son that men are sh*t and inferior to women. You believe that a man has no rights, only responsibilities.

      The truth is, more and more men are deciding to disengage from women. They are choosing not to marry. They are choosing not to have children. Some are choosing to become single fathers.

      Women always think that they can do well without men but when something goes wrong, they demand a rescue. They want welfare and social services to be provided and who pays for that? Society does. A real man wants a real woman, not some hyper-glorified angry lesser who cares only about herself and no one else. A real woman doesn’t shame men and treat children as possessions in order to compensate for her weak femininity.

      • Roger Mari says:

        Spot on, my friend.

      • FamilyFirst says:

        Thank you for agreeing with me.

      • Roger Mari says:

        Uh, Familyfirst,
        Sounds like your real beef is with your ex. So you’re fantasizing about times past when us dudes were in charge and very few opportunities existed for women outside the home, rendering most women completely dependent on men, ergo guys got to dictate– oops– control every detail of women’s lives. Man, what a power trip!
        You really are a dinosaur.

      • FamilyFirst says:

        Uh, Roger Mari, from your posts it sounds to me as if you are the one who has a beef with ex relationships – and the name you use doesn’t fool anyone.

        The truth is, most dudes were not in charge and they worked the most difficult jobs just to support women and their families. Most men don’t have the high-paying, powerful jobs that you fantasize about and it is men who created a more advanced society with opportunity for everyone. Feminism can’t exist in a poor, underdeveloped society. The greatest feminists have been men.

        In “The Feminine Mystique,” which sparked the great feminist revival of the 1960s, Betty Friedan saw men not as villains but as fellow victims burdened by societal pressures and by the expectations of their wives, who depended on them for both livelihood and identity. Most men didn’t have any power trips. It sounds as if you fantasize about being on a power trip.

        You are the ignorant dinosaur. Embrace humanity and discard misandry. Free your mind already. You will never earn equality by attacking others.

    • Roger Mari says:

      Spot on, my friend.

      • FamilyFirst says:

        Friend? Do you know Slamot? Well, I guess if you live alone in a basement, internet screen names become your only friends.

      • BlueFeather says:

        *sigh* the trash can “FamilyFirst” is back like a wart on one’s behind…

      • FamilyFirst says:

        *Sigh* the trash dumpster “BlueFeather” is back like a virus in one’s intestine with yet another screen name. I guess when one can’t improve one’s own life, blame and trash someone else.

  19. lauren says:

    this smacks of psychological paedophilia grooming,creating a dependency & terming a violation as an act of love or affection,perhaps a rapist was just overcome by the look the woman gave & took as his right an act of dominant affection,if you are secure in your adulthood,secure in your masculinity you won’t need to uplay my feminity comparing it to childhood,i have kids & if someone compared my sexuality to my daughter’s I would slap him/her upside their head…I call my kids babe a boy & girl….neither is said out of attraction to them. men also tend to call themselves boys & their mates too.just going with the boys,

    • FamilyFirst says:

      Your comment smacks of misandry and why did you bring up pedophilia? Is that your fantasy? You have kids and you can’t even structure a sentence properly? You also seem prone to violence. I feel sorry for the kids.

      • Crystal says:


        I believe lauren brought up the pedo subject because of the obsession that certain people have with infantilising one partner, referring to them as a child etc. This seems to show a certain preference for a childlike partner rather than an adult partner who will assist you in life’s struggles. Hope that helps.

      • FamilyFirst says:

        I appreciate your attempt to bring insight to the comment but I still think that was bizarre and disturbing.

      • Roger Mari says:

        Hey Family,
        What a bunch of pathetic strawman arguments you gave.

      • FamilyFirst says:

        If they are so pathetic, why couldn’t you contradict them? Using the old, pathetic “strawman” argument when you can’t intellectually respond to the facts – on top of using a fake male identity in a lame attempt to give credence to your biased, ignorant arguments.

  20. lauren says:

    FF I apologise for my clumsy wording, though I did say psychological paedophile not in the sexual sense,thank you Crystal for your much clearer wording,of the point I was trying to make. Pity for my kids,huh,my son top 5% in the state in his high school exams,my daughter indeed looks like the poster child for neglect,that is due to autism & sensory issues regarding clothing however she is seen monthly by therapists & a paediatrician,violence,only reactive,my last relationship was abusive,my current not,i hope I don’t come across as a man hater im very close to my father,my brothers & my son is an ardent feminist.but why is there a monopoly on who wrongs who more & who is oppressed & repressed what is all the point scoring benefitting any of us?

    • Crystal says:


      You make good points.

      Firstly, I’m happy I was able to clarify.

      Secondly, I am truly sorry to hear about your children and I hope things get better for them.

      Thirdly, you don’t come across as a man-hater to me and you have no need to apologise for expressing your frustrations. The oppressed need a voice. I also am very close to the men in my family and watching them (plus believing in feminism) has encouraged me to exhort every man I come across to think of women as people and treat them with respect. In regards to your questions of “is there a monopoly on who wrongs who more & who is oppressed & repressed what is all the point scoring benefitting any of us” I’m not really sure. Everyone suffers, but some suffer more than others. That’s what intersectionalism is all about – to determine who is more oppressed and why.

      Hugs if you want them.

      • FamilyFirst says:

        I believe “intersectionality” should be about ending oppression for all as opposed to determining who is more oppressed. I don’t believe victimhood should be a competition because it leads to certain victims being ignored because they aren’t “oppressed enough” or they aren’t high enough on the “victim pyramid.”

      • Crystal says:


        I agree with that point, because I believe that intersectionalists have been making a grave error in seeking to focus on Victim B, who is more oppressed than Victim A, and as a result Victims A and C get left in the cold.

        Here is another link where we could chat if you liked; I’d really encourage you to take a look at it and tell you what you think about this possibility:

      • Crystal says:


        At the same time, some people *are* more oppressed than others and we should be honest enough to recognise that. So I am not backtracking, just expounding. In short, my opinion is that, even while giving priority to those who are most oppressed we should *not* ignore any victims of oppression even if they don’t *appear* to be oppressed.

      • FamilyFirst says:

        Indeed, some people are more oppressed than others and the ones who are oppressed shouldn’t be dismissed just because they don’t fit into the right race, gender, etc. I am not sure what you mean when you say “appear to be oppressed.” Many people assume that some groups have “privilege” just because of their race or gender but after examining their lives and the applicable laws, you will see that they don’t have any privilege at all. Too many faulty and biased assumptions are made with regard to who is privileged and who is oppressed.

  21. FamilyFirst says:

    @lauren I am happy that your son is in the top 5% in the state for high school exams and I extend my sympathy and prayers for your daughter. I extend my best wishes to you and I will pray for you as well. Thank you for your insights.

  22. lauren says:

    Ff thank you for your graciousness.

  23. The Virtuous Atheist says:

    While I wouldn’t go so far to say that women need to be portrayed as childlike beings, I do agree that men hold more power over women as “the weaker sex” and full equality would mean that it would be permissible to hit women and be cowards as men in protecting women from danger. I think everyone should protect and look out for the vulnerable among us in society, women being no exception. I think there is a way to be in a relationship with a strong independent woman, but also be the rock for her to lean on and always be there to protect her in all aspects. I think women should be more accepting of male chivalry and protection, the alternative is a lazy coward who wouldn’t lift a finger to honor and protect the women in his life.

  24. SoftRegality says:

    For this is one of the most brilliant and well thought out articles I’ve read in my natural life. What you said in a few paragraphs I’ve literally thought my life, and much explains the reasoning why some of my relationships have really failed. Hats off to you, and your cerebral quality. You’ve done the world a great service by writing this. You’ve done me a personal service by explaining out loud how my brain actually works. For I am a very feminine lady, and very childlike in the way I express myself. I can’t change and when I feel backed into a corner to, I act out. You are a very therapeutic human being. The clarity I’ve gained by reading your work is miraculous. Today is a better day, ending far better because I’ve read your intelligent and wise words.

  25. Brad says:

    Your inability to grasp the English language should be enough proof that you are not a member of the superior gender.

  26. Georgia Peach says:

    Love this post.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s