The Natural Order of Relations between Men and Women at the Personal and Political Level

I am a man, I support patriarchy, I love women, and I serve God. I am a traditional man. My greatest fear when interacting with a woman who appears to support me or claims to support me is whether she is “truly” a traditional woman or not. Is the woman selfish or is the woman idealistic? Does the woman place God first or is the woman pretending to place me, an ordinary fallible man, first? Is the woman trying to “get what she wants” in her relationship with me or is she trying to do what’s best in an objective sense in the context of her relationship with me? Most importantly is she obeying me to “get something out of me” or is she obeying me in respect of my role and position as a man because she has determined that I am a good and competent man she wishes to be under the authority of for the purpose of assisting me in my role and duty to provide for her and protect her?

What I call obedience manipulation is my greatest fear when dealing with a woman who claims to be a traditional woman and a supporter of traditional gender roles like me. Obedience manipulation is when a woman offers obedience to a man not based on the woman’s positive judgment of the man and the woman in turn accepting her role and status in relation to the man to form a stable healthy gender role appropriate partnership with the man but instead offers obedience simply as a means of rewarding the man for “giving her what she wants” with the threat of rebellion always in the air if the man “displeases” her or fails to deliver to the woman “what she wants.”

The Radical One, head of the TWRAs (Traditional Women’s Rights Activists), at What’s Wrong With Equal Rights, has written two posts recently addressing the fundamental relationship between man and woman in particular focusing on men’s duty to care for women and give women privileges consistent with women’s gender role and nature as women. The Radical One also in turn focuses on women’s duty to obey men and accept authority from men and to rely upon outside male support in cases where conflict against a man is necessary because the man is in the wrong and to remind women of the dangers of taking on male duties when a man is not taking charge and providing support as he should. A woman who fills in the void doing for the man what the man should be doing on behalf of others runs the risk of creating a long term problem. The man should be pressured and forced to live up to his responsibilities in the family rather than the woman taking on a masculine role in the family to make up for the dereliction of duty on the man’s part.

In the post “Thoughts on Coverture, Suffrage, Chivalry, Patriarchy and the Natural Order” The Radical One starts out with a defense of the principle of unconditional Chivalry, that women are entitled to Chivalry “unconditionally” regardless of the woman’s particular moral character or bad acts.

The Radical One states:

“I believe it is the obligation of men to be chivalrous to women. I believe this duty to be unconditional. That means even if the woman acts bad I still believe it is the duty of men to protect and provide for women. I believe that women have special circumstances in life and the differences between the sexes warrant special consideration and protections for women. I believe it is the duty of men to elevate the interests of women above their own and the responsibility of adults to elevate the interests of children above their own. Women are inherently more vulnerable and weaker than men and are in need of special protections and guardianship in marriage. I believe it to be the duty of the husband to provide for his wife and be responsible for her. I do not believe this duty to be reciprocal. Marriage was never meant to be an ‘equal partnership.’”

To me it is particularly important for people to understand that the male duty of Chivalry (to provide for and protect women) is indeed unconditional, not dependent upon the characteristics of the woman, because this emphasizes that Chivalry is a duty imposed upon the man by God and is an obligation owed to God on behalf of the woman. People need to understand that the relationship between man and woman is not just something worked out between the man and woman together in some kind of agreement of mutual consent and mutual interest, the relationship between man and woman is instead a duty both the man and woman owe to God with a fixed gender role structure both the man and woman are to obey and follow in service to those dependent upon the success and functioning of the man / woman relationship (in particular children). Chivalry being the basic and fundamental duty of the man to the woman.

Another thing I will add. Women are indeed inherently more vulnerable and weaker than men and in need of special protections and guardianship but it should be understood; women are weaker and more vulnerable because the man’s role is to provide for and protect the woman. Women’s weakness and vulnerability is the result of the man’s duty to provide for and protect women. The man is not bound to protect women because women are vulnerable; instead women are vulnerable because the man is bound to protect women. The point being that men’s duty to provide for and protect women comes first and is not dependent upon whether women are more vulnerable or weaker or not. Men are to provide for and protect women simply because that is the masculine sphere, that is the masculine area of strength, and men owe to women the benefits of men’s inherited advantages over women.

The Radical One makes the interesting and beautiful observation that the sex act itself contains within it many aspects of the natural relationship between man and woman.

As The Radical One observes:

“The sex act itself reaffirms traditional gender roles. The man is dominant, the woman submissive. The man gives, the woman receives. The man is powerful while the woman is often helpless. The man covers the woman with his body and penetrates into her most intimate places first with his own body and after the act is completed with his seed that lives inside her in the most intimate and precious place where all life begins. The man controls and leads the act while the woman follows and submits. The sex act depends upon the man’s ability to achieve. He must give to the woman, he must work to bring fulfillment to the woman and put her needs before his own or he has failed and is incompetent, impotent and dysfunctional. This is the order that traditional gender roles take, with the man giving to the woman and being dominate over the woman, while the woman receives and accepts what the man gives and submits. The woman is precious and weaker and it is the man’s job to protect and provide for her.”

Regarding women’s right to vote The Radical One says:

“I don’t believe that women should participate in politics and I am against the vote for women. . . . [but] If women have the right to vote then we also have the obligation to participate in politics and other duties that traditionally fell only to men. As it stands traditional women have no choice because if we back out and don’t participate in politics there will be a huge imbalance as non-traditional women will get everything they want and traditional women will be outnumbered and our voice ignored. If women have the right to participate in politics that means they also have the obligation, and a woman cannot just mind her own business at home and remain under her husband’s authority and be at peace.”

I agree with The Radical One on these points. How I think about women’s right to vote; the government is basically an institution of Chivalry, the duty of government is to provide for and protect women first and foremost and in addition government is the mechanism by which the duty of Chivalry is imposed upon men at the individual level as part of their duty to the male community and ultimately to God. So, since government is basically an institution of Chivalry and Chivalry must be under male control it therefore follows that government must be under male control and that therefore women should not have the right to vote in order to prevent women from “taking over” or “hijacking” Chivalry. In addition of course governance and creating order and setting rules is part of the masculine domain anyways so it also makes sense that only men should have the right to vote on that basis as well.

At the same time The Radical One is also correct on her other point; that given that women already possess the vote it makes no sense for feminist women to eagerly vote as much as possible to try to bend the law to their feminist agenda as much as possible while traditional women stay at home and stay out of the political process because of course that will give the feminist side an unfair advantage making it unnecessarily more difficult to correct society’s problems through the political process.

Regarding coverture The Radical One says:

“Under coverture the woman’s husband spoke for her. He represented her. Men cared more about the interests and well being of women because they were responsible for women. They knew they had the moral duty to elevate the interests of women above their own. They knew they had to think of women and children first. Now men don’t care about the interests of women because many modern women and the feminist movement has insisted that women can speak for themselves, protect themselves and support themselves and they have no need of the protection or support of men. But women do have need of male protection and guardianship. It is not degrading to women. It signifies that women are precious and loved, favored even.”

Coverture, which lasted until about 1850, was the last time the United States and England had a stable functioning social system. The end of coverture was the beginning of long term and accelerating social decline. As far as men caring more for women because they were responsible for women, I think this is very true. The idea of gender equality has a kind of deadening effect on men’s feelings towards women I think speaking from first hand experience as a man. I can love emotionally a woman I see as my “equal” but I cannot serve a woman or contribute in practical ways to a woman I see as my “equal” because if she is equal to me then what is the point of contributing to her or giving to her? Isn’t that just abuse or exploitation, to be expected to unilaterally and in a lopsided way contribute to someone else that is supposed to be your equal? Equality kills the idea of service and duty for the man and creates an emotional distance as well, a kind of barrier between the man and the woman. After I finally gave up the stupid idea of gender equality I found I cared for women much more idealistically and passionately and saw myself as having real purpose in women’s lives. That has been my experience anyways, as a man.

The Radical One closes her post with this:

“This is what I believe. I’ve always felt that it was right to let my husband support and protect me and I always felt it was right to obey him. I was just innocent and naive when I first married. I had never even known the words “women’s liberation” and I knew I felt inside that men should protect women and love them, not harm them. It is particularly damaging when a man exploits, abuses and abandons a woman much more so than if he abused another man just the same as it is particularly more damaging if an adult abused or exploited a child than if an adult did the same to another adult. It is very damaging when the natural order is perverted and women are given no special consideration as being the weaker and more vulnerable of the two sexes. Men are stronger than women and always inherently more powerful. Feminists tried to put women on an equal level to men by erasing laws that protected women but doing so didn’t make women as powerful as men, it left women desperate and vulnerable and liberated men from their responsibilities. It shouldn’t be this way. It is man’s duty to protect women, not declare war on them.”

“It is man’s duty to protect women, not declare war on them.” Indeed, this is very true.

The other post by The Radical One I wish to highlight here is her post “How Can a Woman Deal With a Wayward Husband?” The Radical One points out correctly that a misbehaving wife is a less serious problem and an easier to deal with problem than a misbehaving husband because of the natural authority that men have over women. A badly behaving husband is much more likely to require outside intervention to fix the problem than a badly behaving wife. It is legitimate for a husband to directly punish or discipline his wife to correct his wife’s bad actions but a wife must rely upon her powers of persuasion and outside support to correct her husband’s bad actions.

As The Radical One states:

“Likewise, the woman who finds herself in a position where the one who is supposed to be protecting her (her husband) has gone out of control and refuses to perform his rightful duties towards her and/or the children ideally needs an external form of support. If she is a Christian woman or a Muslim woman she can look to what God says and show her husband where he is wrong and expect of him that he change his behaviors. A woman with no religious affiliation can still look to a form of divine law to tell the husband he is wrong and he needs to change. It is important for the woman not to just say “I want it now do it!” or make her case in such a selfishly-oriented way. This will cause the man to pull away from her and he will be less likely to want to protect her or resume his rightful duties towards her if she makes demands unilaterally in a selfish way against him. Putting her case to her husband in such a way causes her to be unfeminine and removes the man’s natural protective instinct for the woman.”

In a conflict against a man it is much better for a woman to seek outside support in her conflict than to try to pursue the conflict on her own acting on her own behalf. The woman should always be under a guardian and not asserting herself unilaterally. If the husband is not acting effectively or morally as a guardian as he should then the woman needs to seek protection and support from an alternative source. The important point here is that a conflict against the husband should disrupt the marriage as little as possible. The basic foundation of male authority needs to be preserved as much as possible even when a man is doing wrong in some way because a loss of the man’s authority in a generalized sense will do more serious damage to a marriage than whatever sin the man was committing that lead to the conflict in the first place. The goal is to correct the man’s bad behavior or sin while at the same time maintaining his authority in the marriage; the goal is not to undermine or de-legitimize the man’s rightful authority using some bad act that he committed as an excuse.

The point of a woman seeking outside support in her conflict against a man is not to elevate her own position relative to the man; it is so that the male community will be imposing its will upon the man rather than the woman herself imposing her will upon the man. It is legitimate for a woman to seek to impose community standards of how men should treat women upon her husband, it is not legitimate however for a woman to seek to impose her own will upon her husband by means of “ganging up” on the man with whatever outside support she can put together that will “take her side.”

If a woman asserts herself unilaterally and selfishly then it is the woman who is in the wrong, not the man. Bad acts by the man do not legitimize bad acts by the woman in response.

As The Radical One herself puts it:

“The important thing is the woman’s attitude I believe. She should always be willing to obey but make it clear that she cannot do so if he is truly in the wrong (not just because she doesn’t like a decision but because he is truly doing something wrong or stepping outside the bounds of what is moral or appropriate) and is neglecting his true duties towards her and the family. If the husband asks her to do something that he doesn’t have any moral authority to do (such as telling her to “get a job”-that is his responsibility and he has no right to push it on her– or telling her to go commit an indecent or irresponsible act) she must say no. She must tell her husband why she is refusing to make it clear she cannot obey him because what he has asked is wrong and he has no authority to command her to do [that] which goes against God/divine law.”

In the closing paragraph of her article The Radical One emphasizes the very important point that a woman must not allow herself to fall into the trap of taking on the man’s responsibilities for him in response to the man avoiding or failing in his responsibilities as a man. This creates a long term problem more serious than the original dereliction of duty the woman’s “jumping in” and doing the man’s job for him was meant to resolve.

As The Radical One states:

“A woman taking matters into her own hands when her husband doesn’t accept responsibility only worsens the problem in the long run. The same can be true for women who go and get a job because their husband won’t support the family. This may solve the problem temporarily (money’s coming in so the kids won’t starve) but the woman only creates a greater long term problem. A woman should not follow her husband into sin and should put her foot down if he is asking her to accept his responsibilities. If he is rejecting his responsibilities she should remind him what his duties are in a non-selfish way and refuse to obey until he is operating in his rightful role as a man once again.”

The theme of all this is duty to God, not elevation of the self. What The Radical One is saying here is consistent with an idealistic orientation, not a selfish orientation. Yes women should assert themselves but their self-assertion must be idealistic in orientation and geared towards enabling them to serve others through their feminine strengths which is their special gift and their special role in the family and in society at large. Likewise, men’s self-assertion should also be idealistic in orientation and geared towards enabling them to serve those they are in authority over through their masculine strengths ultimately and fundamentally in obedience to God.

The Radical One in the statements and arguments she has made in these two posts I have highlighted here strikes me as a safe woman and as a trustworthy woman seeking to do the right thing in an objective sense and not being inclined towards a manipulative orientation of trying to “get what she wants” in her relationships with men.

A man must be careful in trying to judge the character of a woman before getting too deeply involved with a woman or making any serious commitments towards the woman. The most important question to ask yourself is; is she selfish or is she idealistic? Does she obey as manipulation or does she obey out of respect and duty? Does the woman put God first or does the woman put herself first? Does the woman admire you or does the woman just think she can get something out of you? When she asserts herself is she seeking power (to “get her own way”) or is she seeking status (to get you to treat her right as a man)?

The Radical One in these two posts has given a kind of overview of relationships between men and women both at the political level and at the personal level and I think she did a good job of describing things from the woman’s point of view. I endorse what The Radical One has said here in these two posts.

Advertisements

About Jesse Powell TFA

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

59 Responses to The Natural Order of Relations between Men and Women at the Personal and Political Level

  1. In a perfect world, I would agree with you about women not voting: I would prefer not to be burdened with political decisions and responsibilities, and if all men were like the ones whom I know personally, I would have no problem with giving up the right to vote. However, I have much less trust in men whom I have never met, and they are the ones I would really be giving power to.

    All of your theories seem to assume a very healthy society with a large majority of men who are committed to treating women well; it could be argued that women in the Western World do live in such a society, or something close to it, at least, but what would you do in a place like Afghanistan? How would you apply your principles in a culture that doesn’t necessarily have a strong history of chivalry?

    Also, you talk about punishing women. How would you punish them? Do you believe that it is acceptable for men to hit women?

  2. Almost always when I talk about how things “should” be I am describing a kind of ideal model of how society should work and I am furthermore trying to recreate how society actually did work in the past. My proposed model of how “things should be done” is always based on the assumption of how a society that is already healthy and high functioning would work.

    So I am not saying that women should not have the right to vote today right now; I am saying that in the distant future when things are “good” women not having the right to vote would help to maintain a positive social order and good relations between the sexes.

    As far as Afghanistan? I don’t know about Afghanistan. I live in the United States and more broadly the Western World. I am advocating for what would work and what would be good in reference to the environment that I actually live in and know something about.

    As far as punishing women. I am saying that in principle it is legitimate for a husband to “punish” his wife to enforce his rules regarding the wife’s relationship with him or the wife’s responsibilities and behavior regarding the family. Likewise it is legitimate for the male community to punish the husband for the husband’s misdeeds regarding his wife or his family.

    As for how exactly a husband should punish his wife? I would say how he chooses to or according to what the husband thinks is the best approach assuming the husband is following community standards of what types of “punishment” are preferred and what types of “punishment” are considered too dangerous or too prone to abuse or too damaging to be acceptable.

    I would say the basic rule should be that a punishment against the wife should be minimally harmful to the relationship in itself while still accomplishing the goal of correcting the woman’s harmful behavior. In addition punishment based on the withdrawal of a reward is better than punishment based on the infliction of a harm as punishing through the withdrawal of a reward is less prone to abuse and requires that a man be providing a benefit to the woman before he would be in a position to punish the woman. In this way the woman’s obedience would be motivated by her desire to continue to benefit from the man rather than her fear of being harmed by the man. Obedience motivated by continued access to rewards is clearly more ethical than obedience motivated by avoiding harm.

    As far as men hitting women as “punishment?” Physical violence is a very poor method of “punishment” because it is too dangerous, too prone to abuse, too damaging potentially, and it also falls under the category of inflicting harm rather than withdrawing a reward. It also is unlikely to qualify as the least harmful method available to correct a bad behavior. So I am opposed to men hitting women even under the guise of “discipline” and think it is perfectly reasonable to consider physical violence as too dangerous to be allowed within a romantic context and therefore made against the law and criminally punished.

    • The reason I asked about Afghanistan is because some feminists point to treatment of women in places like Afghanistan as justification for what feminists are doing in places like America. It makes no sense, but some feminists will accuse those who are, for instance, against women in combat or in favor of the Hobby Lobby ruling of not caring about women in Afghanistan. As if anything feminists are actually doing in the western world is helping women in Afghanistan, but to be fair, a large percentage of feminists seem to be pretty unaware of what leading feminists writers and politicians are actually doing.

      Smart answer on Afghanistan 🙂 I want so badly to help the women who are trapped in such horrible societies, but I have no idea how to. I also want to end world hunger and sex trafficking and little boys being forced to be soldiers in Africa; these are all horrific problems, and honestly, I don’t think any of us really knows what to do. Especially when those problems happen in distant countries with radically different cultures.

  3. quietdove says:

    So basically, you want women to be treated like slaves, or like pets? And you expect us women to be okay with that? Sorry, but no. My ancestors fought long and hard for the rights that I, as a woman, have today, and I’m not going to give those rights up just because there are people like you in the world, who refuse to see me as the human being I am. Whether you like it or not, women deserve all of the same rights and freedoms as men do, and it’s no more okay to punish a woman than it is to punish a man.

  4. Joe Soap says:

    Is it fun to go on the internet and fantasize about things that are never going to happen?

    • Женщина says:

      Both what will never happen, and never HAVE happened. Anywhere.

      If you’re Jesse yeah it’s fun. Especially when Jesse is too stubborn to realize that the reason women don’t like him is cause he’s a socially inept, obsessive, self centered twat and probably always has been, whether he was ‘feminist’ or ‘patriarch.’ He dosent need ‘patriarchy’ as much as he needs self awareness and social skills. Even in very patriarchal societies, or during his golden 1950s( that didn’t actually exist. Leave it to Beaver was fictional my friend) women would be repelled by a guy like jesse.

      Jesse should just buy a female robot. Then she can submit to him and he can worship and pedastalize her all he wants. She can be custom designed to his wants and needs and made as realistically as possible. Win win 😀

  5. Patriarchy most definitely did exist in the past and it will return again because all other things being equal patriarchy is much more powerful and much more desirable than feminism and out competes feminism easily. There was a kind of great disruption starting around 1850 in the Western World that disoriented people I would say and allowed for feminism to start to invade as a kind of parasite but a significant backlash against the disorder and family destruction that feminism brought started around 1995 at least in the United States (judging by social statistics) and today one can see religious revival happening quite clearly through the more conservative complementarian / patriarchal type churches. Religious revival is the mechanism by which I expect patriarchy to return again as the dominant cultural norm in the Western World.

    What I advocate for here on this website is not fantasy that never existed; it was the cultural norm and the standard view of the world as expressed in secular terms up until feminism got started with its “new version” of gender relations and its “new definition” of what it meant to be a man and a woman. The results of feminism have been disastrous compared to the high functioning patriarchy that preceded feminism. This shows the patriarchal view of the world is correct and healthy while the feminist view of the world is wrong and unhealthy.

    Feminism is what destroyed my ability to form relationships with women early on in my life; that is just a plain historical fact. My belief in and support for patriarchy is what makes me desirable to the women I want to be desirable to today. Patriarchy is also what makes me a good human being moving society in a positive direction for the future regardless of how women respond to me or not at the personal romantic level. Patriarchy is both spiritually good and romantically good for me at the same time.

    A patriarchal society has much better relationships between men and women than what feminism has to offer. I’m sticking with patriarchy; it is the only sane choice.

    • quietdove says:

      Feminism has nothing to do with your ability to form relationships with women. So why blame feminism for that, instead of trying to be introspective and examine what exactly it is about your personality that women don’t like? Seems to me like you don’t want to have to admit that you’re flawed. That, in itself, makes you unlikeable. Also, patriarchy doesn’t make you a good human being moving society in a positive direction for the future. Patriarchy makes you a Male Supremacist wanting to take society back centuries to the days when women were treated like men’s property. How can you possibly think that’s loving or compassionate at all? Or do you realize that patriarchy isn’t loving or compassionate and just not care about that?

      Also, how can you possibly think that a patriarchal society has much better relationships between men and women than feminism does, when feminism allows women to have their own rights, while a patriarchal society doesn’t allow that? Do you think that oppressing women will improve your relationships with them? Little hint: us women don’t like to be oppressed and we will fight back against those who try to oppress us.

      • While I disagree with Jesse about many things, I will say this: the advice feminists give men on how to treat women often doesn’t work, and is not pleasing to large numbers of women. I think that what Jesse is saying is that when he followed feminists’ advice, he washed out with women, but when he began to treat women in a more traditional way, he met with success, and that is totally understandable. None of this means that I agree with Jesse about everything, but let’s face it: there are lots of women who appreciate men who pay for dates and hold the door. There are lots of women who would give their eye teeth to be married to a man who wants to support them; I think Jesse is just recognizing that, and your personal attack of him is completely unwarranted.

      • quietdove says:

        Judithann, Jesse wants to force women to kowtow to men and to give up their rights and freedoms. That’s what he means when he talks about a “patriarchy.” He thinks that women are inferior to men and that they don’t deserve all of the rights and freedoms that men have. Did you even read the blog post? He thinks that women are weaker than men, and thus, they need to be controlled by men. Why reply at all when you didn’t read the blog post?

      • I did read the post, and Jesse is very aware that I disagree with him about many things; I have no objection to people disagreeing with Jesse, as I often do myself, but I do object to making the attack personal, which you did with Jesse and are now doing with me. Did you read my comment at all?

      • quietdove says:

        Why is it so wrong for me to personally attack someone who wants to oppress me, like Jesse does? Do you think it would be wrong for a black person to personally attack a racist?

        Also, how did I personally attack you?

      • Well, personal attacks are kind of stupid. Dr Martin Luther King never ever personally attacked anyone, but somehow, he managed to get his message across without personal attacks. Stating that someone is wrong about something is not the same thing as a personal attack: if a black person confronts a racist and says “No, you are a racist and racism is wrong”, that is totally fine. If a black person says to a racist “Yeah, well, I think you are ugly and you probably don’t get many dates”, that is a personal attack. It is both wrong and ineffective.

        You sounded pretty sarcastic when you asked if I had read the post, or maybe you were genuinely wondering if I read the post 🙂 Which I did. With both Jesse and me, you made assumptions about people you know very little about: in Jesse’s case, you assumed that he has some personal flaw that has nothing to do with feminism, but you don’t know him at all. Why can’t you just argue on the merits? If Jesse’s beliefs are so wrong-and I agree that some of them are-than why not just point that out? Why are you making it personal?

      • quietdove says:

        I honestly don’t understand why you’re siding with Jesse here. I mean, he’s quite obviously in the wrong much more than I am. Do you really think that personal attacks are worse than advocating for oppression against women?

      • I agree with Mahatma Ghandi when he said that if we live by the ethic of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, then we will all end up blind and toothless. I have disagreed with Jesse so many times about so many things, but you seem to be pursuing a scorched earth policy, and I am just not into that.

        It should also be pointed out: as far as I know, Jesse has never or rarely personally attacked feminists. I vaguely remember him saying that feminists are manipulative, or something like that, but even that he doesn’t harp on. So many people accuse feminists of being unattractive, or of being man haters: Jesse has never done that. He tries his best to argue against feminism on the merits, without engaging in personal attacks.

      • quietdove says:

        Again, are you trying to say that there’s nothing wrong with advocating for oppression? I mean, if a racist didn’t use personal attacks, would you think there was nothing wrong with them being racist?

      • quietdove says:

        Oh, and also, Martin Luther King, Jr. did attack his opponents sometimes. Have you ever watched (or read transcriptions of) all of his speeches? Attacking your opponents is completely normal when your opponents are being hateful. So if Jesse didn’t want to be attacked, he shouldn’t have been hateful.

      • Well, Dr Martin Luther King was human, and maybe he did attack his opponents sometimes, the emphasis being on sometimes, but he is remembered today for appealing to the best in human nature, not the worst. Most of the time, he responded to hate with truth and love. One of the reasons why feminists have such a bad reputation is because many of them respond to what they perceive as hate with hate.

        Of course racism is wrong, but when confronting any form of oppression, I would try to follow the example of people like Ghandi and Martin Luther King. No offense, quietdove, but I suspect that they understand how to fight oppression better than you do. 🙂

      • quietdove says:

        Not all feminists are hateful. Just the radical feminists are hateful. And they’re a fringe group that doesn’t represent the majority of feminists at all.

        And the majority of my posts here haven’t been hateful at all. So how am I not following the example of Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr.? It seems to me like you want to think of me as the enemy for some reason, even though I’ve barely done anything wrong.

        Also, why aren’t you speaking out against Jesse at all? Why do you keep standing up for him, as though there’s nothing wrong with him advocating for oppression? I keep asking you that, and you keep refusing to answer.

      • The only comments of yours that I remember are the ones on this thread, in which you speculate in a very mean way about Jesse having some personal flaw that affects his dating life ( ? What does that have to do with anything?) and then your follow up comments in which you fiercely defend your cruel remarks.And then your comment explaining that radical feminists are the only ones who are ever hateful.

        I am not a feminist, and I don’t agree with Jesse either. I am not worked up over his ideas because I don’t think there is much or any chance of his ideas ever happening: I am not rushing to your defense partly because I disagree with feminism, but mostly because you just seem like a mean person, and I am not in a mean mood tonight 🙂 I have spoken out against Jesse many times in the past, I just don’t feel like doing it right now 🙂

      • quietdove says:

        He was the one who brought up his dating life, and he was saying that feminism has caused him to not be able to find any dates at all (or something like that). So why was it wrong for me to point out how wrong that is? And why was it wrong for me to defend myself? Did you even read Jesse’s post at all before you read my response to his post?

        And why do you disagree with feminism? You do realize, don’t you, that feminists have fought for centuries to gain women the rights we have now, don’t you? Not all feminism is bad, so why pretend it is? And if you don’t support feminism and you don’t support the patriarchy, then what do you support?

      • Jesse stated that as long as he was taking feminists’ advice on how to treat women, he was a failure with women. When he started to treat women in a more traditional way, he became more successful with women. You completely ignored the second part of what he said, because it wasn’t conducive to the personal attack you wanted to wage.

        I am against feminism because I believe that the strong should protect the weak; I believe that, in general, men should protect women and women should protect children. Most feminists seem to disagree with that.

      • quietdove says:

        What he meant by “treating women in a more traditional way” is “oppressing women and forcing them to act in a way that he approves of.” So why was it so wrong for me to get angry about that? And why aren’t you, as a woman, angry about that?

        And not all men are strong and not all women are weak. It’s quite rude for you to imply that, actually. Just because I’m a woman doesn’t mean I’m weak and that I need to be protected by a man. Not to mention that I never want any children at all. Do you think it’s wrong for a woman to never want children? If so, then what about women like me, who know that we’d be unfit parents? Do you want us to be forced into parenthood?

      • Oh, quietdove, I don’t have children either, and at my age, I probably never will. Even so, I still feel obligated to protect children and anyone who is weaker than I am: if I were on a sinking ship and there were not enough lifeboats, I very much hope that I would go down with the ship in order to save the children. None of us can say with 100% certainty what we would do in that situation, so I don’t want to go around bragging about how brave I would supposedly be in a situation I have never been in, but I very much hope that in that situation, I would do the right thing: I can at least recognize what the right thing is. All of us, male and female, are called upon to protect those weaker than ourselves, regardless of whether we are married or have children. In the vast majority of cases, if you are comparing men and women roughly the same age, men are physically stronger than women. I don’t understand why acknowledging that reality is insulting to women. Physical strength is not the be all and end all of existence; being weaker than someone else does not make me inferior, and being stronger than someone else doesn’t make me superior.

        Jesse explicitly stated in this thread that he is totally opposed to men ever being violent with women for any reason; I don’t think he is quite the monster that you seem to perceive him as being. 🙂

      • quietdove says:

        I don’t particularly like children, so why should I be expected to protect them? Let me guess, you’re also pro-life and think it’s wrong for a woman to get an abortion if she knows that going through with her pregnancy would be the worst possible option for her? People like you are so idealistic. It’s like, you see the world through rose-colored glasses and you refuse to listen when people tell you about how unrealistic (and even dangerous) your views are. (That’s not meant to be mean, by the way. It’s just meant to be an observation I’ve made about pro-lifers like you.)

        Also, why is physical strength the only kind of strength that matters to you? Many women are emotionally stronger than men. (And I define “emotional strength” as “the ability to connect with others on an emotional level and be understanding and compassionate to them.”) Yet that doesn’t matter to you at all. Why is that?

        And just because Jesse doesn’t advocate for violence doesn’t mean that there’s nothing wrong with his views. Oppression is wrong, whether or not it includes violence.

      • quietdove says:

        You know what? I’m going to pre-emptively apologize for what I said about pro-lifers, since I know you’re going to take it the wrong way and get offended by it. So I apologize and please just ignore the remarks I made about pro-lifers. I do, however, want to know whether or not you’re pro-life, though.

      • No worries, I am not offended at all by what you said about pro-lifers, and yes, I am definitely pro-life.

        I want to make sure that I understand exactly what you are saying. You don’t like children, so you feel no obligation to protect them. If you were on a sinking ship, you would not hesitate to save yourself and let the kids drown. Is that what you are saying?

      • quietdove says:

        So you want women to be forced through every single pregnancy they ever have, no matter how that would affect them financially, emotionally, and physically? Also, have you ever done any research on what life is like for women in countries where abortion is illegal?

        And yes, I would let the kids drown, but I’d probably let myself drown as well, since I suffer from depression and social anxiety, and thus, don’t exactly think of myself in the most positive light. Most days, I hate myself and wish I would die. (Sorry to be such a downer, but it’s true.) That’s part of why I don’t like kids: because most of them aren’t mentally ill and I’m jealous of them, since I’ve been mentally ill my entire life and I never got to have a normal childhood as a result of that.

      • Quietdove, I am not religious but I do know that God exists, and I know that you are a beautiful creature of God, and that God loves you so much.I don’t know what else to say: God loves you, and He wants you to love yourself.

      • quietdove says:

        If you believe in God and are a member of an organized religion (such as Christianity), then you are religious. So why deny that?

        And can you prove that God exists? (And the Bible doesn’t count as proof, since you can’t prove that it’s anything more than an extremely old book.) If not, then why do you expect me to believe that he exists? I’m not just going to believe what you tell me to believe, you know.

        And you don’t need God in order to overcome depression and anxiety. Plenty of atheists have overcome mental illness on their own. And there are plenty of Christians who haven’t been able to overcome mental illness. So why pretend that converting to Christianity would help my depression and anxiety, then?

        Also, is there a reason why you completely ignored the questions I asked you about your views on abortion? Here they are again:

        So you want women to be forced through every single pregnancy they ever have, no matter how that would affect them financially, emotionally, and physically? Also, have you ever done any research on what life is like for women in countries where abortion is illegal?

        I’d appreciate it if you could actually answer those questions this time. Thanks.

    • Женщина says:

      *eats popcorn

      I concur with quiet dove that your lack of success has nothing to do with feminism(or patriarchy) for that matter. You’re just an unlikeable person.

      @judithann

      And he still has no success, does he?

      No offense jesse, but this whole blog and all it’s posts could be literally be summed up as, ‘me me me me meeeeeee’ and I’m willing you were this way when you were ‘feminist’ as well. The fact is that feminism/patriarchy isn’t your problem or solution… It’s your own personality.

    • Tyler Babydoll says:

      Or your inane rambling about taking away woman’s rights? That ain’t sexy..

  6. I have to go right now, but I will be back and will answer all of your questions, I promise 🙂

    • quietdove says:

      Okay, thanks for letting me know.

      • Hey, Quietdove, I am sorry that I had to leave our conversation so abruptly, I am very tired, but will answer your questions at some point tomorrow. Until then 🙂

      • Hello, again, quietdove 🙂 Ok, here goes:

        I have not done research on what life is like for women in countries where abortion is illegal. However, abortion is legal throughout the Western World, and life outside the Western World tends to be bad for both women and men in a myriad of ways. Still, I should do more research, and I will. In the meantime, I will say this: even if I could be convinced that early abortions should be legal ( with the emphasis on “If”) I would still be very much opposed to the abortion industry in America. Abortion advocates are against health regulations and inspections in abortion clinics, which is why Kermit Gosnell got away with what he did. They also want late term abortions, which almost no one is in favor of, and they want to normalize abortion: the movie Obvious Child, which treats abortion like a joke, is an example of this.

        Someone once told me that suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem. In most cases, the same is true of abortion. Unless the life of the mother is at stake, there is always a better option, such as adoption.

        Of course, I cannot prove that God exists, and I don’t expect you to believe what I tell you to believe, but I am just telling you what I believe: I believe that you are a beautiful creature of God with a divine destiny, and I believe that God loves you very much. 🙂

        I believe in God, but I don’t go to church and am skeptical of organized religion. That is why I say that I am not religious.

        If I have missed anything, or if you have any other questions, ask away 🙂 It may take me a little while to get back to you, but I will respond 🙂

      • quietdove says:

        Judithann, it’s incredibly insulting for you to compare women who have gotten an abortion to suicidal people. Suicidal people are not in their right mind, while women who have gotten an abortion usually are quite capable of thinking logically and rationally. In fact, most of those women have thought long and hard about what to do with their pregnancy and have plenty of valid reasons for choosing abortion. But you don’t care about a woman’s reasoning for getting an abortion, do you? No, you’d rather stay up on the pedestal you’ve got yourself on, so you can continue to lecture women who have gotten an abortion. You don’t want to even try to understand what those women were going through and why they chose to get an abortion.

        Also, do you think that dentist’s offices and orthopedist’s offices should be subject to the same stringent health regulations that you think abortion clinics should be subject to? If not, then why not?

        As for Kermit Gosnell, he was a random madman. Why do you think he represents all abortion clinic doctors?

        And why is it so wrong for abortion to be treated like a joke? Are you really such a fascist that you want to control people’s sense of humor and tell them what they can and cannot find funny?

        And why do you expect me to believe that God exists when you have absolutely zero proof that he exists? I’m not that gullible, you know.

      • quietdove says:

        Judithann, I wrote this a while ago for another pro-lifer, but I’d appreciate it if you could take a look at it and really think about what I’m saying here:

        Why do you think that women should be forced through pregnancy and childbirth against their will? Just because a woman happens to be pregnant doesn’t mean that she’s mature or responsible enough to care for the life growing inside of her. And do you really want an immature, irresponsible woman to be in charge of the life of an innocent fetus? I mean, what if the fetus ends up being poisoned by drugs and/or alcohol, or what if it ends up being starved to death because its mother has an eating disorder? Or what if, after it’s born, its mother ends up abusing it and beating it to death?

        Seriously, I know it’s hard to confront the fact that there are so many sick, messed-up people in the world who can’t care about lives other than their own (including the life of an innocent child), but ignoring that fact won’t make it go away. You have to face the facts that sometimes death is preferable to life. That’s why people kill themselves, and that’s why abortions are necessary: because not all lives are worth living. You might think “Oh, but with Jesus, life is always worth living!” but that’s simply not true. Plenty of Christians (including devout, fundamentalist Christians) are depressed and suicidal, which just proves that simply believing in Christ won’t solve your problems, especially if those problems are psychological.

      • Hello again, quietdove 🙂 You have written quite a lot, and I don’t have time to respond to all of it right now, but I will say this: many of those who are involved in the pro-life movement are women who have had abortions and people who have worked in abortion clinics, including ex abortionists. They are intimately familiar with abortion, they have tons of personal experience with it, and they see it as a bad thing.

        A couple of my dear friends have had abortions: one of the reasons I am opposed to abortion is because I have seen firsthand the pain that it causes. I am definitely not suggesting that people who commit suicide and women who get abortions are totally comparable, but both suicide and abortion are permanent solutions to a temporary problem.

        One of my cousins adopted four kids, most if not all were born to troubled, drug addicted mothers, and there is no question: they have some problems, but for the most part, they are normal, happy kids. Everybody has problems of one sort or another; I don’t believe that death is the answer.

        That is all I can write for now; I may write more later, or if you have more to write, then by all means, I welcome your ideas 🙂

      • quietdove says:

        Judithann, there are thousands of women out there who don’t regret getting an abortion at all. Why are you ignoring them and pretending they don’t exist? Also, do you know what one of the main factors is in whether or not a woman regrets getting an abortion? Whether or not the people around her are supportive of her decision. So why not be supportive of a woman’s choice to get an abortion, so that she doesn’t end up feeling bad about what she did?

        Also, why should any woman have to feel as though she’s obligated to put her child up for adoption, rather than getting an abortion? Why shouldn’t she be able to decide what she does with her pregnancy, and why should complete strangers like you be able to try to sway her decision? Is it really so wrong for a woman to not want to put her child up for adoption (and to, instead, get an abortion), especially considering the fact that there are already thousands of children waiting to be adopted?

      • First of all, in America, at least, there are definitely not thousands of newborn babies waiting to be adopted: it’s just the opposite. There are thousands if not tens of thousands of couples desperate to adopt a baby, but there are not enough babies available, so people go overseas to adopt babies. Nowadays, a birth mother can personally choose who the adoptive parents will be-and she has a wide range of choices.

        There is no question that giving birth to a child and then giving the child up for adoption is an incredibly difficult and selfless and self sacrificing act, but it’s far better for the child than abortion.

        That’s all for now, I will be back later 🙂

      • quietdove says:

        It’s an outright lie that there are not enough babies available to adopt. Here’s proof:

        http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/facts_for_families/foster_care
        http://adopting.adoption.com/child/how-many-people-choose-adoption.html
        http://www.childrensaidsociety.org/issues/aging-out-foster-care

        So, tell me, why did you just lie?

        And are you saying that you care about the well-being of a child more than the well-being of a pregnant woman? Because it sure doesn’t seem like you care about what would be best for the pregnant woman, especially in a situation where continuing with the pregnancy would be harmful, traumatic, or would change her life for the worse. Why not just admit that you don’t care about the well-being of pregnant women? Stop beating around the bush.

      • According to the link you provided from adoption.org, the average age of a child awaiting adoption is over the age of 9; the kids in foster care awaiting adoption are definitely not newborn babies. They are kids who were pulled by the state from dysfunctional homes. There are countless numbers of people waiting in line to scoop up newborn babies; older children have a much tougher time getting adopted, and the system at this point in time does not necessarily make it easier for them.

        I repeat: the children waiting to be adopted in America are on average over the age of 9; they are not newborn babies. Any pregnant woman in the U.S. who is considering adoption can have her pick of couples who would love to adopt her baby.

        I haven’t addressed all of your comments, and I probably won’t be able to tonight, but will at some point probably tomorrow 🙂

      • quietdove says:

        So basically, you don’t care about the older children who are waiting to be adopted? You just care about fetuses and babies? Wow. Your views just keep getting more and more abhorrent.

      • I am not sure what you mean. How does pointing out that there are lots of people eager to adopt babies mean that I don’t care about older children?

      • quietdove says:

        You’d rather that those couples adopted babies rather than older children, which means that you don’t care if the older children aren’t adopted by those couples. You’d rather that a baby was adopted by those couples than that an older child was adopted by them. Understand now?

      • At no point did I ever say that I would prefer people to adopt babies than older children. You are making some pretty wild accusations.

      • quietdove says:

        So why are you okay with couples choosing to adopt babies rather than older children, then? Why not try to get those couples to adopt the older children instead?

      • Why not encourage people to adopt both? The foster care system and adoption for older children in the U.S. arguably needs to be reformed, but it’s a tricky issue: newborn babies who are up for adoption are freely given by their biological parents, which is one of the reasons why they are more likely to be adopted. When it comes to older children, we are talking about children who have been forcibly taken by the state against the will of the biological parents: terminating parental rights against a parent’s will is a lengthy and difficult process, as it should be. Biological parents whose children are taken by the state are given every chance to reform themselves and get their children back, as they should be, but in the meantime the kids end up in limbo, where they can’t be with their biological parents and they can’t be adopted either: that means foster care. Many or most of the kids in foster care are actually not eligible to be adopted. I don’t know what to do about this.

        Part of the problem also is that the beauracrats in charge of all of this often insist even in cases where the child is eligible to be adopted that the child be adopted by parents of the same race; I read a story a while back about a disabled child who was African American. A white couple in Alaska wanted to adopt her, but they were not allowed to because they were white, so the child was not adopted, at least not at that time.

      • quietdove says:

        Also, since you completely ignored these questions of mine, here they are again:

        Why should any woman have to feel as though she’s obligated to put her child up for adoption, rather than getting an abortion? Why shouldn’t she be able to decide what she does with her pregnancy, and why should complete strangers like you be able to try to sway her decision?

      • Well, it’s like I said a while ago: I believe that the strong should protect the weak. Human beings should not be treated like property that can be discarded if unwanted.

        You have accused me of only caring about fetuses, and not caring about pregnant women or older children, but it isn’t legal to kill pregnant women, and it isn’t legal to kill older children either. The reason pro-lifers focus so much on the unborn is because they are the only people who can be legally killed.

        The abortion lobby does not tell women the truth about their options: the fact that you actually wanted people to believe that newborn babies in America have a tough time getting adopted is an example of this. I think that people who really care about women tell women the truth, rather than just what they think women want to hear.The most tragic part of abortion is the fact that many or most women who have had abortions would not have had them if they had been told the truth by those who claimed to care about them. Abortion exploits and victimizes women, it does not help them.

      • quietdove says:

        If abortion doesn’t help women, then how come most women don’t regret getting an abortion at all? In fact, here’s proof of that:

        http://www.nytimes.com/1990/04/06/us/study-finds-little-lasting-distress-from-abortion.html
        http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16094906
        http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/health/research/13brfs-ABORTIONDOES_BRF.html?_r=1&
        http://siecus.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Feature.showFeature&featureID=1984
        http://women.webmd.com/news/20000822/study-says-most-women-dont-regret-abortion
        http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/abortion/index.aspx

        Seriously, you’re blatantly lying about abortion in order to make it seem worse than it actually is and you’re trying to make women in a difficult situation (that being the situation of having an unplanned pregnancy and feeling as though abortion is the best option) feel unsure of themselves. You don’t care about those women’s feelings at all. No, you just care about the fetus inside of those women. To you, those women are just incubators for the fetus, and you don’t care one bit about how harmful or traumatic pregnancy could be for them, nor do you care if pregnancy would end up changing their life for the worse. How can you possibly think it’s okay to have so little compassion for pregnant women?

        Also, just because pregnant women aren’t being killed doesn’t mean that their well-being doesn’t matter at all. It seems like you only care about people if their life is at stake, and otherwise, you refuse to care about their well-being. And that’s just sick. A person can be suffering physically even when their life isn’t at stake, you know. And what about emotional suffering, why don’t you care about that at all?

        Also, I provided PLENTY of proof to support my claim that babies go unadopted (and then they spend years in the foster care system). Why are you lying and saying that I provided no proof of that?

      • Quietdove, all of the information you provided referred to older children who have been forcibly taken from dysfunctional homes; according to the links you provided, 2/3 of those children are re united with their biological parents within two years. You have not provided one shred of evidence that newborn babies in the U.S. have trouble being adopted. I urge those reading to read the links quietdove has provided: there is nothing there about newborns, it’s all about older kids.

        quietdove, I don’t know if you are lying or if you just desperately want to believe something that isn’t true. As I said before, I think that people who really care about women will tell them the truth; you are either unable or unwilling to do that.

      • quietdove says:

        I just submitted two comments with links to multiple sources that show that there are hundreds of thousands of kids waiting to be adopted, and those comments are “awaiting moderation,” whatever that means. So I did reply to you, but my replies just need to be moderated before they show up. Just thought I’d let you know.

    • Женщина says:

      I love how this turned from jesse thinking patriarchal societies are like ‘leave it to beaver’ into an abortion debate :p

      *grabs more popcorn

  7. Tyler Babydoll says:

    I don’t obey anyone, even men I like, never mind narcicistic weirdo’s like YOU!

  8. Joe Soap says:

    Jesse you really are sad git aint ya.

  9. Ms. N says:

    I think the biggest misperception here is that once any male or female who starts a conversation in regards to more traditional roles is attacking individuals who are for feminism. I think it is easier for those who are completely for women’s/equal rights to go into defensive mode immediately, rather than to recognize that there is no true indication that the writer is wanting certain women to cut off their desires to work and vote.
    I think the extreme behavior has turned men off. I am a woman who happens to believe in traditional roles. Does this mean that I want every other woman to feel just like I do? Absolutely not. I have had terrible work experiences with crazy women in hostile office environments, and therefore I believe in a large majority of what The Radical One and Jesse have to say, but I also do not believe that they wish to impose this on everyone. I believe they want to respect CHOICES, just as much as they (and myself) want to see the same reciprocation of respect for those of us who want the freedom of choice to stay at home and not be looked DOWN UPON and be judged for our choice. Our belief that it will put a strain on marriage and children if a woman chooses to be a working woman AND a mother and wife, is just that. Take it for what it is, without turning vicious for no real reason.
    When the fear sets in and women commenting here think this is to miraculously re-write all of history and take away their rights, it’s simply not true, and not the motivation for individuals who decided to write a blog sharing their thoughts.
    If we all took the time to respect the opinions of others and conduct ourselves in a more mature fashion, the world would start to look a whole lot better…we could all have a little more peace in our lives. Despite how nasty women have been towards me over the past several years, for no validated reason, I refuse to impose my thoughts or ideas upon them. The life choices they make are their business, just as mine are my own. I’m just sick of their noses and judgments trying to cross the line and violate mine, as well as the way that they have swayed men to abandon ship when it comes to many protections, and have made THAT the complete cultural norm. My own takeaway here is that there needs to be a balance in personal choice-both for men, and women.

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