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.