Men have a duty to be Chivalrous to women unconditionally; women have a duty to obey men conditional upon the man demonstrating a commitment to Chivalry first. Women’s duty to obey men is not unconditional regardless of the man’s behavior or moral character but the duty of the woman to obey the man is not something determined according to the woman’s own individual choice either. The behavior and moral standing of the man is what determines whether or not the man possesses legitimate authority over the woman. When a man and woman have any kind of relationship together where the man and woman jointly share a common goal or are part of a common purpose the rule is that the woman’s interests are superior and that the man’s authority is superior and that the legitimacy of the man’s authority over the woman is based on the man honorably and competently elevating the woman’s interests above his own; Chivalry, the ethic that men are to provide for and protect women, being the mechanism by which women’s interests are elevated above men’s interests so that the man can then claim rightful and legitimate authority over the woman.
This is the basic idea behind gender hierarchy; women’s duty to obey men. There is a problem however today in gender relations between men and women (obviously) caused by feminism and the very unnatural and artificial idea of “gender equality” invented and promoted by the feminists; that is that men are discouraged from being Chivalrous while women are discouraged from being obedient so that the basic relationship between men and women is being actively attacked both by the bad behavior of men (refusing to be Chivalrous) and the bad behavior of women (refusing to be obedient regardless of the man’s behavior or ethics). This brings up the thorny question of how an individual can act morally in an overall social environment where the opposite sex is programmed by the feminists to act in a selfish and abusive way against anyone, either man or woman, who seeks to behave in an honorable and moral way themselves. An honorable Chivalrous man will be attacked and undermined by women’s refusal to obey him while an honorable obedient woman will be attacked and undermined by men’s refusal to be Chivalrous towards her and place her interests first as is what she is owed as a woman.
I will note that this conundrum is easier to deal with for a man because the man’s duty is to be Chivalrous no matter what anyways and because asserting authority is the man’s natural role anyways. It creates no problems in the relationship dynamic for a man to assert “this is the way it is” and then to practice Chivalry with an expectation that the woman will then follow with obedience and the man then taking disciplinary steps to enforce obedience upon the woman. The situation for the woman is worse because from the woman’s point of view whether or not to obey is not certain and because the woman asserting authority telling the man “you must put my interests first” is problematic for the relationship dynamic as it is awkward for a woman to assert authority as a means for creating a good environment for her to be obedient within.
For a traditional woman who wants to be provided for and protected by a man (as is every woman’s right) and who is willing to be obedient to a man of good character and good intent who is reliably and competently discharging his Chivalrous duty towards her, how should she deal with a hostile feminist cultural environment where she will be vilified for her obedience to men and where every man in her environment is being strongly encouraged to disregard his masculine duty to provide for and protect her?
First off it is wise of course to seek a man who is as traditional as possible in his views of how he should treat women and how women should treat him; in particular you should look for the man to be emphasizing his duty and his role as a man, you want a man to be putting your interests as a woman first in terms of what his priority and orientation is. Also you want a man who is idealistic and sees himself as serving God or the greater good or your idealistic higher purpose as a woman. If the man simply sees himself as serving you as an individual woman there is something wrong with that as that is a weak foundation for idealism and self-sacrifice. Also a man who sees himself as specifically serving you will probably think that you in turn should focus on specifically serving him in return as a matter of reciprocity or “fairness.” This is trouble because then you are getting into a reciprocal or contract mindset instead of being committed to mutual generosity and besides it has to be remembered that necessarily the man gives more to the woman than the woman gives to the man as the woman is primarily in service to others (such as children) more than she is in service to the man himself. A relationship between a man and a woman that is “reciprocal” where the man and the woman are giving equally to each other is abusive against the woman and abusive against those dependent upon the woman (particularly children).
Once you as a woman are in a relationship with a man, hopefully a good man, the issue then comes up of how to enforce your right to be treated well as a woman so that you will then be in an environment where you can safely and productively be obedient to the man so that the man himself can then securely prioritize his commitment and investment in you.
There are a couple of different strategies a woman can take to assert her right to good treatment from a man whom she will then obey once the man has demonstrated his trustworthiness. The central theme is that the woman should always seek external support and legitimization for the demands she places upon the man, the demands of the woman should never be presented as simply “what she wants” or “what she expects from the man” or “what she demands.” Basically the woman herself should not be the source of the expectation to be placed upon the man, the woman should always base her demands on appeal to an external authority that she herself pledges to live under and obey; that she as a woman will follow the rules of the external authority herself just as she is expecting the man to follow the rules of the external authority she is seeking support and legitimization from.
The most obvious source of external authority a woman can rely upon to enforce a moral code of conduct upon the man is a church or religious setting. In other words join a religion based sub-culture that supports patriarchy and traditional gender roles; this not only offers the benefit of a set of moral rules for the man to follow but it is also beneficial in that the church setting itself can be a good source for meeting desirable honorable men who have “pre-screened” themselves by their participation and affiliation with the church. A religious setting offers the additional benefit of providing a mechanism for punishing or excluding members who are not following the church’s moral rules thereby enforcing quality control and trustworthiness upon the active members of the church who are in good standing. The other big benefit of the church environment is the intrinsically idealistic orientation of obedience to God which is a very desirable trait you want in a romantic partner.
Another benefit of the church environment for you as a good woman who is seeking a good man is that you as a woman need to be able to communicate your trustworthiness as a woman to the man you are interested in so that the man will then trust you. You yourself being a part of the religious community will make the man trust you just like the man being a part of the religious community will lead you to trust the man. Establishing trust and credentials is a big part of what is necessary for a man and woman to be able to come together and make a commitment to each other.
If you are not comfortable with a religious setting you will need to find some other source of external support for imposing moral standards upon a man. Really any source providing a map for how gender relations should be can be used as an external authority that you expect a man to live by as long as you yourself are also willing to follow the rules for women of the external authority you seek to rely upon and impose upon the man. This website for instance can be used as an external authority on gender relations if you want to use something consistent with atheism that is not religious in its foundations.
The last option for establishing an external authority that you as a woman then seek to impose upon a man is logic itself or direct appeal to God or the Superior Power. Put together a logical well organized internally consistent code of ethics and rules that encompasses the needs and duties of both men and women and then commit yourself to faithfully follow and obey your duties as a woman under the moral system you have put together and then impose upon the man his duties as a man under the moral system you have put together. Though this option is viable logically speaking as God or the Superior Power is fundamentally derived from logic and the practicalities of how the world works; God or the Superior Power being objective truth and objective reality and objective morality at the most fundamental level; this option is the worst and most difficult to apply in practice because creating an effective moral system for gender relations from scratch is very difficult and you don’t want to just end up arguing with the man over differences of “opinion” if the man is hard headed and is inclined to resist fulfilling his duties as a man towards you. If the man will listen to logic however using logic to explain why traditional gender roles are the ideal might work.
So, connect yourself to a source of external authority on how gender relations should operate, you yourself as a woman obey the female side of the duties of the external authority you are using, and then insist the man you are with obey the duties for men of the external authority you are using. This is the basic approach a traditional woman should take in getting a man to fulfill his duties and obligation to her as a man. Assertions of will should be avoided; unilateral declarations of “what I want” or “what I demand from you” should be avoided. The point is placing yourself and the man under a common external source of authority both you and the man are agreeable to. If the man you want to be with absolutely refuses to submit himself to any kind of external authority consistent with his fundamental God imposed duties as a man (consistent with Chivalry) then the man is probably not the kind of man you want to be with.
Unilateral declarations of what you demand from a man or what you expect from a man are no good because that is a set up for selfishly oriented contract style or reciprocity based relationships that are contrary to the legitimate interests and needs of the woman where the man has to be sacrificing himself placing the needs of the woman above his own and providing to the woman in practical terms much more than the woman provides to him. This kind of contribution to the woman has to be based on idealism and obedience to God on the part of the man; it cannot be justified simply based on the woman demanding these things for herself unilaterally because “she said so.”