My Debt to the Women of High School

The origin of how I view women today comes from how I viewed women in high school. High School (in the late 1980s) was the starting point or the foundation for how I felt and thought about “womanhood” and the meaning and nature of being a woman. True puberty for me started in 7th grade so there were 2 years (7th and 8th grade) preceding high school where I had significant feelings for and interactions with women but by the time I started to put together a narrative of what being a woman was all about middle school (7th and 8th grade) was a distant memory while high school (9th grade to 12th grade) was still the recent past with my memories of the specific women who were important to me in high school still being fresh. Also I only “chased after” women towards the end of 11th grade and the beginning of 12th grade, my experience with women during that time being particularly important developmentally speaking.

Women were different from men very definitely. They were pretty, they were nice. They were kind and soft and gentle. They were concerned about me and interested in me. They were fun loving and giggly. They were good friends with each other (with other women). The guys also had their good and admirable qualities, don’t get me wrong, but I was mostly interested in the women in high school for obvious reasons. Also my attention was focused on the women I was attracted to; the more strongly attracted to the woman I was the more closely I would “keep an eye” on her and “notice” her. The women I weren’t attracted to were basically outside of my consciousness and ignored so only the women who had an aura of “attraction” around them constituted my perceptions and feelings of what a “woman” was.

At the same time women were definitely “different” in a positive way women were also “equal” or at least they should be equal or treated as equal or presumed to be equal. Women had different personalities and were caring and mother like but I viewed women as being “basically the same” as men. They had characteristics that made them attractive to men physically and emotionally and personality wise but otherwise they were the same as men or functionally equivalent to men or should at least be viewed and treated as such. Also there was the feeling and assumption that women were better suited to children than men and cared for children more and were better with children and wanted children more. That the “caring” side of women not only appealed to men but prepared women to be good mothers as well.

One of the most interesting elements of high school to me was that it was the time before feminism. Feminism was invisible to me in high school. The way I viewed women was not “feminist brainwashing,” instead it was just good ethics and the “truth” regarding women’s natural abilities and inclinations. Feminism was not an issue of controversy and really was never talked about or thought about at all. Women were not “feminists” in high school, they were just women. Wonderful women that were so beautiful that I loved so much. They were just human beings of the female persuasion like I was just a human being of the male persuasion. I was accepted as a man by women and I accepted women as women, just for what they were and for who they were as women and as individual human beings. This humanitarian spirit where I loved women as women pure and simple just as human beings is probably what appeals to me most in my memory of my high school days; that my view of women in high school was not yet corrupted by the dark shadow of feminism.

Of course it is not enough to just admire and think good thoughts about women from afar. At some point I have to “get close” to women and try to actually get a woman to like me and form an actual real relationship with a woman. This is where things got a bit more difficult. I had partial success I would say in high school but not real success. There was always a barrier I couldn’t overcome or get through. I was not “good enough.” I did not have enough to offer. I could not compete with my competition.

My rejection by women in high school was the beginning of me wanting to “improve myself” and to try to figure out a way I could actually be of value in a woman’s life. I loved women plenty, I could definitely give my love to a woman and be nice to her and be concerned about her and care about her and stuff like that but that wasn’t enough. I had to have something “more” that I could offer, what this “more” was exactly was not so easy for me to figure out and was even harder for me to actually develop and possess. Still I had to be more and possess more and give more somehow.

Being rejected by the woman I was primarily interested in in high school gave me a greater respect for women and for her needs and her legitimate interests as a woman in particular. Being rejected by her instilled in me a greater sense of duty and commitment to her and towards women overall. I failed her, I didn’t have enough to offer her, I didn’t love her enough in the concrete ways I should have loved her. I was too focused on myself and not enough focused on her well being as a woman.

After high school ended I had a series of very short “relationships” where my ability to connect to the woman and get close to the woman was even weaker than what I was able to achieve in high school. The “barrier” was always there and something I couldn’t break through. I was persistently too weak to make any kind of progress with a woman who maybe showed some initial positive interest in me.

Finally I started to gain some skills and ability to “make a good impression” on a woman and suddenly it hit me how I could gain the strength I needed with women and how I could offer something truly valuable and honorable and good to a woman; that is I could be the breadwinner. I could be the 1950s man who “brought home the bacon” to his wife who stayed home and looked after the children. I could go the patriarchy route and leave the debilitating poison of feminism behind.

After I converted to patriarchy in my mid-20s and saw myself as the breadwinner and that my future wife SHOULD stay at home with the kids while I took care of her, then feminism became a big deal. Then I started to see all women or almost all women at least as “feminists” and then I felt myself to be in a kind of battle against women where I would be pressuring them to be “traditional” and expecting them to always be fighting against me or potentially fighting against me or threatening to be fighting against me trying to push their “feminist agenda” of what they wanted to be doing.

In high school I never viewed myself as being “dominant,” the thought would have turned my stomach I am sure. I would have thought of such an “assertion of power” as being cruel and a betrayal of the woman I loved and wanted to be in a relationship with and I would have assumed such a power assertion would have been a great threat and a great turn off to the woman likely leading me to be promptly dumped which would have been a big disaster for me. In high school moreover I really had no sense and no idea of what my purpose with women was in the first place. I knew I loved women and wanted to have sex with women but that was about it, I didn’t connect my feelings towards women with any kind of responsibility or duty towards women. Nobody in my life; neither my family nor anyone at school nor any messages from the wider culture; ever taught me how to be a man. Nobody gave me the slightest clue how to treat women or what my role in relation to women was or that I had any kind of duties towards women whatsoever. On the contrary I received negative messages about masculinity meant to undermine me and weaken me and attack any positive protective or assertive impulses I had within myself towards women.

After my conversion to patriarchy I saw the culture as being bad and feminism as being bad and feminist behaviors and attitudes being bad within a relationship context and I saw basically all women as being feminists but I never saw “women” as being bad. My image of “womanhood” and what it meant to be a woman and my sense of what I owed women and what my duty to women was was fixed on the image I had of women that had developed during my high school days and what I owed to women in principle or as a class became what I owed to the woman I loved the most in high school who rightfully rejected me because I wasn’t able to give her what I owed to her.

My image of “true womanhood” is something I constructed after my conversion to patriarchy where I used the generalized positive regard I felt towards women in high school and combined that with the sense of duty and obligation towards women that was part of my conversion to patriarchy so that love of women was combined with duty towards women in my mind. I then imagined myself to be “doing my duty” on behalf of the women I loved in high school through means of “treating right” whatever women I would meet in the future and by promoting “treating women right” to the culture at large. In this way I would repent for or make up for me not honoring my duties and obligations towards the women I loved in high school while I was in high school.

In my mind the “true nature” of a woman is who women were emotionally and spiritually in high school before my awareness of feminism had developed. This “true woman” needs me and loves me and most of all wants me to take care of her and to support her and protect her, to be a “real man” for her. This is the man I want to be and what I owe at a fundamental level to all women as all women are “true women” at their core, at the root of their being.

My sense of duty and commitment to the well being of women increased markedly after my conversion to patriarchy; after my conversion to patriarchy duty to women became a kind of crusade for me. At the same time my sense of conflict against women and against the culture in general increased markedly after my conversion to patriarchy. Perversely I am attacked and hated by women precisely when I choose to care for women more deeply and more idealistically with my focus being their well being rather than my own selfishly oriented emotional needs. This is because under feminism the locus of control is the woman herself and I am acting in a way subservient to what the woman herself tells me to do. Under patriarchy however the locus of control is God acting through men where the woman herself is no longer in charge; instead it is those acting on behalf of the woman (men) who are in charge.

In my feminist days, yes I admit it, I saw the woman as the authority regarding whether I was a good man or not or whether I was “treating her right” or not. Her approval of me indicated that I was succeeding while her disapproval of me indicated that I was failing and therefore “doing something wrong.” After my conversion to patriarchy it was no longer about whether the woman approved of me or not that told me whether I was good or bad; it was instead whether or not I was obeying God and acting according to objective moral standards and rules that mattered. Indeed after my conversion to patriarchy the goal itself had changed; the primary mission was no longer to “get a woman” but was instead to serve women and do my duty on behalf of women in a way pleasing to God and in service to God whether the woman or women in question liked it or not.

So I am hated by feminist women precisely because I love women and am in service to women idealistically. Since the great majority of women are feminist I am therefore hated by the great majority of women. This however does not bother me because my goal is not to please feminist women; my goal is to please God and to serve women’s objective needs and interests. Regardless of how much feminist women rant and rave against me however my love for women will remain intact because I know the true nature of women is not feminist. I experienced what the true nature of women is really like in high school so I know from first hand experience that woman at her core is not feminist.

 
Related Article:

My Escape from the Prison of Feminism

Advertisements

About Jesse Powell TFA

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

12 Responses to My Debt to the Women of High School

  1. Christine says:

    “I experienced what the true nature of women is really like in high school so I know from first hand experience that woman at her core is not feminist.”

    But Jesse, those weren’t women, they were girls! If you were in high school in the late 80’s that means the women you’d be dating now would be at least in their 30’s or 40’s… not the same creatures AT ALL.

    I’m not a feminist, so I agree with you on some things you say in your blog. But if you’re holding up 16-18 yr old girls (from the 80’s) as a prime example of womanhood, you are way off the mark my friend. And it’s a little creepy.

    Sheesh

  2. When I talk about the “true nature of women” using my experience of the girls I went to high school with as my model I am referring to their underlying natures or souls how I experienced it or viewed it at that time. The girls I went to high school with wanted me to be strong and healthy and functional, I do not remember them as “feminists” and they did not bash men or anything. I am referring to this kind of mindset as being the “true nature of women.” I am not thinking about the practical details of what the women may or may not have wanted in a man either at that time or later on in their lives, I am focusing on their spirit and that they did not have bad intentions and that they wanted me to be a better man, a stronger and more functional man, than I was.

    I am aware that in reality feminism was already in place in my mind and surely also in the minds of the students both male and female that I went to high school with but at a kind of basic level the women were good and they wanted me to be good; that is what I am focusing on here.

    I am not saying the high school girls were “pure” because they were young or anything like that; I am saying that my perception of the girls I went to high school with was “pure” because I myself was young and not yet aware of the practical real life problems associated with the culture and associated with feminism.

    I know or feel that the girls I went to high school with were good at heart and that they wanted the best for me and wanted for me to be a good man, that this is the “true nature” of women regardless of how the feminists have messed things up in practical terms. It is sort of like I can remember what women are like with the political stuff stripped away by going back in time and remembering what women were like in high school before political feminist consciousness invaded my mind and my perceptions of women.

    So this “pre-feminist,” before I was aware of feminism, view of women is what I use for my model of what women are really like “deep down inside” so to speak. It is then this “true woman” that my advocacy for patriarchy and Chivalry and traditional gender roles is meant to serve.

    If a feminist then comes back at me and says “No, women are naturally feminist, hear me roar!” I know that claim is not true because I know that back in high school the women were not power mongering male bashing feminists and that therefore the claim that feminism is natural to the human female is not true.

    Reinforcing how I felt towards women in high school as the ideal is also a way for me to maintain the positive idealistic outlook and sense of purpose that I had towards women in my own youth particularly in 12th grade. It is a way for me to maintain a positive mindset regarding women as the years go by.

    What I owe women at the philosophical level hasn’t changed from my high school days to today and the “true nature” of women hasn’t changed either. At 17 years old I was mighty ignorant and weak regarding women but my heart was in the right place. Now that I am older and not so ignorant and not so weak any longer I still want to make sure my heart is in the right place like it was when I was 17. Holding on to my feelings and view of women that I had in high school is my way of doing that.

    • Christine says:

      Okay…but how does that translate in practical terms? My concern is that you have idealized what you see as the “true nature” of women to a point that no real woman (with all the flaws and scars that implies) will ever be able to live up to your standards.

      Feminism may not be “natural”, as you put it, to the human female, but it is still there. You have to be able to relate to women as they are, not as you want them to be. Can you?

  3. My idealization of women here is meant for the purpose of imposing high standards upon myself regarding how I view women and treat women, it is not meant as a litmus test that the woman herself must be “pure” and “uncorrupted” by the wider culture or by feminism.

    In terms of my own personal life regarding my own romantic choices regarding women I definitely do not want a feminist and I do not want a woman with “feminist tendencies” or “feminist inclinations” either. I want a woman that is part of what I think of as the “God Revival.” I want her to be moving in a more conservative more patriarchal direction compared to her past or compared to her parents. I also want her to be idealistic or God oriented and not selfishly oriented. I do not want her to be part of the “wider culture” but instead in rebellion against the “wider culture.” Her strongly identifying as a Christian or with organized religion is good because the teachings of religion are highly functional and highly idealistic.

    There are such women out there because the “God Revival” is a real thing. I am not looking for perfection as we are all fallen and none of us is without fault but I don’t want a woman who will be fighting against me either.

    If a woman just blatantly says she is a feminist or that she believes in gender equality she is definitely out. The woman must be willing to accept in principle that I am the dominant authority in the relationship because I am the man as a bare minimum. If she meets that minimum qualification then I will look at whether she is idealistic and God oriented or whether she is selfishly oriented and manipulative. I will see if her faults are minor and acceptable or if her faults are serious. I will see if her overall goals and beliefs are something that I support and that I want to be a part of.

    Exactly how “demanding” I should be is a tricky question and of course if I am “too demanding” I will only end up sabotaging myself. However I definitely don’t want a feminist; I know at least that much.

    • Christine says:

      “If a woman just blatantly says she is a feminist or that she believes in gender equality she is definitely out.”

      Equality is a tricky word. My husband and I are equals in many ways, because when it comes to big decisions, we debate the pros and cons together. In most cases he has the final word. But in household matters, I have authority to make my own decisions. If I need something, I don’t have to ask him for it, I tell him what I need. This IS gender equality: we respect each other’s areas of expertise, which happen to fall along gender lines. Does this sort of gender equality seem acceptable in your vision of what you want in a relationship?

      “The woman must be willing to accept in principle that I am the dominant authority in the relationship because I am the man as a bare minimum.”

      Will you listen to her counsel if she thinks you’re making a mistake?

      “Exactly how “demanding” I should be is a tricky question and of course if I am “too demanding” I will only end up sabotaging myself.”

      Actually, it is better to be more demanding! Your desires are unusual and very specific. It would be unfair not to lay them on the table with any woman who wants to get close to you. Better to be alone than with someone who can’t live up to your expectations.

  4. As far as the word “equality” here I mean the feminist version of equality is definitely out. A woman who claims to be equal to me in the masculine sphere or in the sphere of authority, authority being part of the masculine sphere, is definitely feminist and definitely out. Equal before God or equal in value; sure; of course; but definitely not “equal” in the way feminism constructs the idea of “gender equality.”

    As far as the wife having authority in household matters or the feminine sphere in general I would say it is fine for a wife to have authority in her sphere but that authority is delegated to her by her husband; the wife doesn’t possess authority even in the feminine sphere unilaterally or intrinsically. All authority in a formal sense belongs to the husband and then the husband delegates to the wife the authority the wife should have to be able to perform her duties as a wife and mother. In real life there is no reason why a wife should not have considerable autonomy in her area of primary responsibility but the wife should obey her husband as a general rule even regarding the feminine sphere. If the husband is acting incompetently or abusively the legitimacy of his authority is lessened but if the husband is being “reasonable” and in general is fulfilling his obligations as a husband then the husband should be obeyed.

    I would definitely listen to my wife if she disagreed with me or thought I was making a mistake in something, the important point is that the wife should not “expect” the husband to do what she wants just because she voices an objection to him.

    As far as my desires being “unusual and very specific” I am not so sure about that. I think what I am saying here is standard and the norm among the conservative Christian Patriarchy types. I might be an oddball saying this as an atheist today but in terms of the past and what Christian Patriarchy teaches today I think my views are pretty much the mainstream.

    Another thing I will add. If I am with a strongly religious woman then I am willing to go along with what her church teaches regarding the proper relationship between husband and wife out of respect for her religious beliefs. Whatever her church teaches probably is in agreement with me 90% of the way anyways and the 10% area of disagreement is unlikely to be a big deal or important. So in such a situation I am willing to follow the teachings’ of my wife’s religion to make her more comfortable with me as her husband.

    • Christine says:

      “As far as the wife having authority in household matters or the feminine sphere in general I would say it is fine for a wife to have authority in her sphere but that authority is delegated to her by her husband; the wife doesn’t possess authority even in the feminine sphere unilaterally or intrinsically.”

      Oh? Do you realize that makes you sound like a megalomaniac?

      “Another thing I will add. If I am with a strongly religious woman then I am willing to go along with what her church teaches regarding the proper relationship between husband and wife out of respect for her religious beliefs. ”

      Ah .. but what if that church teaches that her role in the household, authority in her own sphere, is granted to her not by you but by God? Would that be a deal-breaker for you?

      I have to wonder, how old is this theoretical woman?

      “So in such a situation I am willing to follow the teachings’ of my wife’s religion to make her more comfortable with me as her husband.”

      Hmmm.

      Sounds like lip-service to me, seeing as how you’re an Atheist and all.

    • lee says:

      The feminist movement came about because women, who were living in YOUR dream scenario, were not happy. Most men don’t have the wisdom to handle having power over other human beings. Abuse it. BACKLASH. Women are human beings. Can’t be happy living under a dictatorship anymore than you can.

  5. Sam says:

    no one is undermining masculinity. some women just want the same things men do, and they want to be allowed that. same with men who want to be able to do the same things women do. a relationship is not a trade. it is not a contract. it is not about providing and serving. it’s about two people who want to be with each other and how they figure out how to do that, and no specific way is right or natural.

  6. Pingback: I Was Told I am a Bad Man by Pseudo Feminist White Knight Jesse Powell | The Reinvention of Man

  7. I am seeing something very interesting here, Jesse. You are an atheist, and like the idea of a Christian wife. This was the social scene also in the first and scond century AD. Pagan Greco-Roman men liked to have Christian wives – they often prefered them to pagan wives. Families often split religiously along gender lines. The fathers and sons worshipped in the temple of Jupiter or Mithriis, and the mother and daughters worshiiped Jesus. As a Christian woman, I really do find this fascinating.

  8. Pingback: Women Have Value! | Secular Patriarchy

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