Khal submitted a comment under my previous post “The Protection of the Submissive Dependent Wife under Patriarchy” that I’d like to respond to. First of all Khal’s comment seems to completely ignore what I actually said and what I talked about in the post her comment supposedly was in reaction to. Khal simply seems to be driven by her pre-existing assumptions of what a “dominant man” is and in particular how bad and abusive a “dominant man” seemingly by definition presumptively is. I’d like to respond to her comment line by line at a kind of personal level, as if the comment was directed towards me personally (which of course it was).
Khal starts off “And you [referring to myself] wonder why you aren’t marrried yet?” I don’t particularly “wonder” why I am not married yet; the reason is actually pretty clear. I have not yet developed myself sufficiently to meet the needs of my future wife; to live up to the responsibilities that I as a man owe to the woman I will someday marry. The fault of this is feminism as it is feminism that harmed my ability to develop my capacities as a man both morally and practically to be able to and to desire to serve and take care of a woman as I should.
Khal then says “I hate people who won’t let me have a say and unilaterally decide how our lives go down.” This is an interesting statement as Khal here is presenting herself as a victim of “male oppression” when in reality she is acting as the arrogant entitled aggressor. First off a traditional man, the kind of man I strive to be, will allow his wife to “have a say” in the sense of taking the wife’s opinions and feelings about a subject seriously and seeing the wife’s input as important and valuable information he wants to have to better enable him to make good decisions on behalf of his wife or on behalf of the family overall. As far as the man “unilaterally decid[ing] how our lives go down” it is the man’s job and role to lead his family and provide the overall direction and structure of how the marriage will operate and what the purpose of the marriage is. The man will not be doing this “unilaterally” as if he is operating in a vacuum without outside pressures and influences for him to consider.
There is a fundamental problem with a woman claiming a right or entitlement to “get her way” in regards to her relationships with men; that being the man’s fundamental duty to provide support to the woman and to place the woman’s interests above his own interests. The feminist woman is claiming a right to power in relation to men and a right to support and “special privileges” from men at the same time. A woman “demanding equality” in her relations with men is actually claiming superiority over men and is being the aggressor against men because of the default automatic position the man is in of being obligated to provide for and protect the woman and in general place the woman’s interests above his own idealistically. Since female superiority in the feminine sphere is assumed a woman’s claim to “equality” in the masculine sphere is just blatant female supremacy and a claim that women are “superior to” or “better than” men in an overall global sense.
So men do indeed have a general right of authority over women; this general right of authority over women being combined with the general duty to provide for and protect women and to place women’s interests above their own idealistically.
Continuing with Khal’s comment Khal proclaims “I have walked out on many people who took the dictator route and alienated me as a person who should have a say in her life.” It is the default position the man is in to take “the dictator route” so to hate a man simply because he tries to claim authority over you is to hate men in general or at least to hate masculinity in general and to hate men for acting as men and taking on their responsibilities as men in relation to you. As far as a man claiming authority being something that “alienate[s] me as a person who should have a say in her life.” Certainly a woman in a traditional relationship will have a “say in her life” in a number of ways through a number of means. Furthermore there is no reason for you to feel alienated from a man who is asserting himself as a man in relation to you to better enable himself to serve your needs and your feminine purpose as a woman. Only if you have a hostile orientation towards men to begin with will you experience a man’s claim of authority as being necessarily “alienating.”
Khal continues “You would think if they wanted to marry me they’d listen to my perspective and act on it. Wanted tenure as a mate. Its such a turn off when people act entitled and lack comprehension that two people exist in a functioning collaboration.”
Certainly it would make sense for a man who wanted to marry you to listen to your perspective on things but the man would be under no obligation to “act on it” in the sense of giving you what you want or doing what you “suggested” he do. It is fine for you to express your wishes and opinions as long as you do it in a respectful way that maintains and doesn’t challenge your husband’s or potential husband’s authority over you. You as a woman are entitled to be treated well and to be taken care of and financially supported but you are not entitled to “get your way.” As far as “entitlement”; a man is “entitled” to not be attacked or undermined or resented for protecting his own interests as a man and preserving his own sense of purpose and mission as a man by means of taking on the authority role that naturally belongs to him in his romantic relationships with women. Also, a marriage most certainly is based on collaboration between husband and wife for the unified common purpose of the marital relationship but for two people to work towards a common goal together a hierarchy is needed between them; in the marital context that hierarchy being based on the man being dominant and the woman being subordinate.
Khal then says “From my perspective having someone submissive and lower down and a bossy leader who makes all the important decisions only causes pain in relationships.” The man being dominant and the woman being submissive would only be causing pain if the man is acting abusively or incompetently in his dominant role or if the woman is responding abusively or incompetently to the man’s dominant behavior. In other words male dominance by itself doesn’t cause pain in relationships; there has to be an additional problematic factor going on that is either the man’s fault or the woman’s fault or both parties’ faults. Also there is no reason why the man would necessarily be “bossy” in his leadership style.
Khal then adds, seemingly referring to a real life bad relationship she was in previously, “I submitted to this person and they paid me dust for my self censorship and crippling myself to serve their purposes. So much unneeded pain.”
Male dominance can definitely be a bad thing or express itself in a bad way. Men can certainly be abusive and do wrong. Male dominance is not necessarily bad or automatically bad however. On the other hand female dominance in a romantic relationship is intrinsically dysfunctional or necessarily dysfunctional because it is contrary to the natural dynamic between a man and a woman and is particularly contrary to the man giving to the woman; men giving to women being the primary most important purpose that romantic relationships serve. Equality between husband and wife in the authority realm also is intrinsically dysfunctional and necessarily dysfunctional for the same reason female dominance is necessarily dysfunctional; equality between husband and wife regarding authority being simply a less advanced or less severe form of female dominance or female supremacy. Male dominance is the only romantic relationship structure that has the potential of being truly healthy and high functioning; male dominance being consistent with the natural characteristics of men and women and being consistent with the natural roles of men and women.
Also, a woman self censoring herself in the context of a relationship or crippling herself to serve the man’s purposes is blatantly pathological. The man should clearly want the woman to be strong in her relationship with him as a strong woman can promote the man’s purpose in his marriage better than a weak or self-crippling woman can. Also the man should not want a self censoring woman who doesn’t tell him what is going on regarding her feelings or opinions on different matters because the man can clearly perform his duties and role as a man better with the woman’s input than without the woman’s input.
Khal finishes off her comment with this: “Women do need to look out for themselves. Its just fact, some people in the world are self centered narcicistics who just wanna get off and use others. We must all avoid these jerkwads. The rapists, users, abusers, and otherwise.”
Most certainly women need to “look out for themselves” in terms of avoiding abusers or situations of endangerment or victimization but power mongering on the part of women is not the way to do this. Trying to judge a man’s character and looking for warning signs of potential abusive behavior or an overall selfish agenda or orientation on the man’s part is definitely something every woman should be doing before committing to a man or getting too heavily involved with a man. Also developing contingency plans of how to protect oneself if a man “turns bad” also makes perfectly good sense. The woman however should not use a man’s potential hypothetical bad behavior in the future maybe as an excuse for dominance or “taking control” in the relationship as such an orientation is aggression against the man and abuse against the man and ruins any potential for a truly good and wonderful relationship with a man. Furthermore a truly good man will not tolerate such aggression and power mongering in a woman as he can do better and find a woman who will treat him decently. Only a man with his own manipulative agenda will accept a woman with an attitude of aggression and hostility towards him. Most importantly it is better for a woman to seek support and protection from other men rather than to “fend for herself” and fight her own battles against men without male support.
The last thing I will throw in here is the importance of God or a “God concept” or adherence to objective moral standards and idealistic moral purpose. Relationships between men and women can’t work well without God as the central organizing theme. I want a woman who is God centered in her outlook on life and in particular in how she views her relationship with me and my role in her life and in how she treats me and what she owes to me as a woman in relation to me as a man. Likewise I try to be God centered in how I treat a woman and how I view a woman and in what I owe to a woman and in what role I should assert in relation to a woman. To me a woman I seek a romantic relationship with necessarily is joined with God; the basic theme being that I am to serve the woman on God’s behalf as a duty to God. I would never dream of approaching a woman with the mentality that I am just a man looking for a woman to serve and meet my needs as a man. That is totally wrongheaded. God has to be part of the picture. God has to be in control to the best of my ability as a man.
Without God all there is left is selfishness and no romantic relationship can work well just based on selfishness and self-interest.
Related article at this website: God as the Center of the Romantic Bond