Recalling the history of my romantic development, the story of how I turned against feminism and came to support patriarchy in the first place way back around 1995, the fundamental lesson I drew from my failures with women at that time was that women were rejecting me because I was being fundamentally selfish and the women sensed that about me which is why they weren’t interested in me. I was being selfish by focusing on my own emotional gratification (wanting to be loved, wanting to have sex) but not taking the woman’s needs into account, in particular the woman’s need for my practical financial support. I viewed myself as playing a peripheral role in women’s lives, not a central role. I blamed feminism for this moral defect within me, that it was feminism that taught me not to be a breadwinner, that taught me to be on the sidelines of family life rather than at the center of family life, that taught me that me being assertive as part of my family role as a man was bad and was “oppressing women.” So to get out of the hole I was in regarding women I figured that the patriarchal male as breadwinner role as practiced in the 1950s was the way to go. Not only was the male breadwinner role truly valuable in women’s lives but it was heroic as well as it provided for the needs of children the best by allowing for a mother to care for her children directly without farming them out to paid strangers via daycare.
Adam took exception to my presentation of things with this comment in response:
“You feel that a woman should only love you if you materially benefit them in return? There’s nothing selfish about wanting women to love you in return for your love for them. Nothing at all. My girlfriend loves me and enjoys sex with me, however she actually makes more than me in her job (even though I work longer hours). That you feel that you have to give more to the woman than you receive, and that you think that you have to turn yourself into a wallet with legs for a woman to like tells me that you overvalue women and that you undervalue yourself.”
There are several things I’d like to respond to in this comment. A romantic relationship, in particular a marriage, has an emotional bond between the man and the woman that both the man and the woman participate in equally and benefit from but in addition to this emotional bond that is at the center of the relationship the man and woman have separate roles to play in support of the higher purpose or idealistic purpose of the martial union. In simplified terms the male role is to make money and the female role is to maintain the household and care for the children. The man and woman come together for intimacy both emotional and sexual that is the reward center or pleasure center of the marital relationship but then the man and woman branch off from each other and do the “work” of the family unit with the man playing the masculine role (mostly making money) and the woman playing the feminine role (mostly maintaining the household and caring for the children). The idealistic or higher purpose of the marriage is not the emotional bond between husband and wife, it is the “work” component where the husband is caring for those dependent upon him (his wife and children) and the wife is caring for those dependent upon her (the children primarily and the husband to a limited extent).
The purpose of a marriage is not the husband and wife loving each other and enjoying each other’s company, it is service to those dependent upon the woman (in most cases primarily children). The primary emotional motivation for marriage is the intimate emotional / physical bond with the opposite sex; the primary purpose of marriage is idealistic self-sacrifice in service to others; the man in service to the woman and the woman in service to children (or others who may be dependent upon the woman’s feminine strengths).
So, back in my feminist days I saw the purpose of having a relationship with a woman being access to an intimate bond with the woman, access to the woman as a pleasure center or reward center for myself. That was fine as far as it went but the problem was that was all I saw a relationship with a woman as being for. I did not have any idealistic purpose in mind for the relationship, I simply wanted the woman to love me and have sex with me. I somehow thought such a desire on my part was virtuous in its own right; that me and the woman loving each other was enough by itself to constitute a mutually beneficial relationship and therefore something virtuous and good. The idea that my relationships with women should actually serve a higher purpose however was foreign to me. Relationships were about mutual self-interest on the part of the man and the woman I thought and I imagined the love / sex reward by itself was sufficient to establish a legitimate basis of mutual self-interest and therefore a legitimate foundation for a romantic relationship.
With my conversion to patriarchy I was able to see at long last that this attitude towards relationships was totally wrong and actually was nothing more than selfishness and self-indulgence on my part that no woman in her right mind would participate in. That it was women’s good sense to reject a man like me who had nothing to offer her other than my self-directed desire to be loved and to have sex.
What I was missing in my feminist days was the idea that I was in service to women. Patriarchy is about men being in service to women. A relationship with a woman is based on the man’s service to the woman. The man’s orientation to serve the woman comes first and then the woman may chose to enter into a relationship with the man if the woman sees the man as a man who will treat her well and will honorably put her needs first and be a good provider to her. A relationship with a woman is about idealism and being a part of the woman’s higher purpose; the emotional bond with the woman then comes along with service to the woman and becomes the basis and motivation for continuing service to the woman.
When a man is in a relationship with a woman his attention should always be focused on how best he can meet the woman’s needs and what his higher or idealistic purpose in regards to the woman is. Intimacy and love is part of the experience of serving a woman but service to the woman itself is the primary purpose of the man’s relationship to the woman.
Responding to the criticism that I am overvaluing the woman and undervaluing myself; not at all. The man seeing himself as in service to the woman is merely acting ethically. Financial support is certainly a man’s duty to his wife. I think the key point to keep in mind here is that the man and woman are not equal to each other so there should be no expectation of the man and woman giving to each other equally. A man serving a woman is simply acting as a man should, he is not valuing the woman above himself because the service he gives to the woman is meant to further his own goals and achieve his own purposes. The man uses the woman as a vehicle for his own idealistic purpose and mission. In a romantic relationship the man and woman share the same idealistic purpose together so that the man furthering the woman’s interests is furthering his own interests as well. Indeed the man playing the dominant role in the relationship as he should guarantees that the man’s interests and the woman’s interests are aligned so that the man is serving his own purpose as he serves the woman’s purpose.
Also, a man should always give to a woman more than he directly receives from the woman because the man serves his own purpose by serving the woman’s purpose. A man gives to a woman directly so that the woman can give to the man indirectly. For example in a marriage a man financially supports his wife while his wife tends to the man’s children. The man is giving to the woman directly financial support and the woman in return is caring for the man’s children. The woman is not directly contributing to the man but the woman is performing a service the man wants her to perform. The man wants his children to be well taken care of and the wife is taking care of the man’s children like the man wants his children to be taken care of based on his support of his wife. The man’s job is to support the woman’s service to others so that the man gives more to the woman than the woman gives to the man so that the woman can then give more to the children than the children give to the woman. The man giving to the woman is simply fulfilling his duty based on his position at the top of the gender hierarchy.
As far as a man turning himself into a “wallet with legs” for a woman in order to get the woman to “like him”; that is an odd kind of imagery to be using to characterize the man’s role as breadwinner. The “wallet with legs” imagery is kind of dehumanizing, it implies a “wallet” walking around with legs as if the man is nothing but a wallet walking around from the point of view of the woman, as if the only value of the man to the woman is the money he gives her or spends on her. A man who makes money and then uses the money he earned to support his wife is acting on his own behalf to further his own goals. The man is in charge of how he spends his money for what purpose; the support of his wife and by extension the good deeds his wife performs is certainly a legitimate and moral way for him to spend his money and in no way is a man dehumanized when he serves his wife and his children according to his own values and his own goals with the money he earned himself. As far as such support to a woman being necessary before a woman will “like” or enter into a relationship with a man? A woman is most certainly entitled to support from a man she is in a marriage with and so it makes perfectly good sense for a woman to place demands and expectations upon a man before marrying him as a woman needs a man’s support to be able to fulfill her own role and purpose as a woman.