“Your ‘traditional woman’ is as much a commodity to you as Roosh’s ‘modern woman’. She’s still an object to you, if one to be kept and maintained for the long term like a well – tailored suit instead of fast fashion to be disposed of when it wears out. She’s still an object to you who exists only in terms of her ‘quality’ i.e. her sexual and domestic usefulness to the male, not as an autonomous individual, a human being in her own right. Your attitude and Roosh’s are merely two sides of the same objectification coin.”
In Roosh V’s original post that I was responding to Roosh V was attacking “modern women” for turning themselves into commodities by not valuing intimate relationships and creating families with men like women did in the past thereby “forcing” men to treat women as mere sexual objects instead. I then countered in my post that Roosh V was the one who chose to view women as sexual objects for his own hedonistic pleasure; that it was wrong for him to project blame onto the women for how he himself chose to view and treat women. Now Bj is claiming that I as a traditional man am objectifying women in a similar way to how Roosh is doing; my orientation may be long term relationship instead of the pump and dump of the Pick Up Artist (PUA) but I am still looking at women as a utility to serve my own ends rather than honoring and respecting the woman as an autonomous individual in her own right, a full human being with value and a sense of purpose of her own.
I do think in modern feminist society that men viewing women as consumption items, objects to get an emotional and sexual reward from, is a big problem. When I was a feminist man long ago I tended to commit this sin, to view women as love objects that I just wanted to be affectionate towards and interact with and not much else. I didn’t have much of a sense of purpose or a sense of duty, I just loved the woman and wanted to be “with her” and not much else. After my conversion to patriarchy I became much more idealistic towards women and less selfish and saw the woman as having a purpose beyond me, not directed towards me. I was to help the woman benefit others. Me and the woman together would join forces to create a happy home for my future children.
Is the hallowed and sacred “traditional woman” a commodity to me? An object to be exploited for my own personal gain? I definitely expect to benefit personally and morally from my hoped for future marriage to a traditional woman; benefiting personally meaning to be happier, to enjoy the experience of marriage with the traditional woman that I love; benefiting morally meaning to add value to my life, to be able to contribute to others in a more powerful and meaningful way in relationship with women and children versus what I could accomplish just by myself as a single man. So definitely I expect to benefit from marriage to a traditional woman. Indeed the woman that I seek to marry, I would marry her as opposed to some other woman precisely because I perceive her in particular to be the best woman for me, to be the woman that would add the most to my life in terms of my personal happiness and in terms of my ability to contribute to others both directly in terms of what I directly can give to others and also indirectly in terms of how I can empower my wife to better be able to contribute to others herself. Remember marriage means the husband fully financially supporting the wife, this enabling the wife to contribute her feminine strengths to others.
Does this view of what role I expect a wife to play in my life mean that to me the wife is a commodity or an object to be exploited for my own personal gain? As Bj said “She’s still an object to you who exists only in terms of her ‘quality’ i.e. her sexual and domestic usefulness to the male, not as an autonomous individual, a human being in her own right.” Well, a woman is an “object” in the sense of having a physical presence and a physical manifestation that one can touch and hold and look at. Definitely I want my wife to feel good to me; to be beautiful to look at and to feel good physically. I do want the woman to be a high quality woman, to perform well in her relationship with me and to perform well in her other roles as a woman. A wife indeed having sexual value and also “domestic usefulness” for me as the husband; her “domestic usefulness” also being of benefit to my children and others the wife may socially interact with.
As far as the woman being an “autonomous individual” and a “human being in her own right,” this I think is where things get interesting. First off if she is in a relationship with me she is not fully “autonomous” anymore because after all I matter to. I am contributing to her, I am investing myself in her, I expect her to use what I give to her wisely and productively and for her to cooperate with me in furthering the idealistic purpose of the marriage; a purpose that I set or agree to.
As far as the wife being a “human being in her own right.” I’m not quite sure what this refers to. If she is my wife she is not separate and apart from me. She will have aspects of herself that will be her own initiative and her own creation and something that she does herself unilaterally and independently. Also she will have intrinsic rights given to her by God or granted to her by the male community and she will have duties that I owe to her imposed upon me by God or imposed upon me by the male community. So as my wife parts of her will be connected to me and parts of her will be separate from me. Does this fit with her being a “human being in her own right?” She’s certainly a human being in her own right in the sense that she makes her own decisions and has her own role to play and has her own network of social relationships and has her own relationship with God.
Comparing my attitude as a traditional man seeking marriage to the Roosh V PUA attitude looking for women to pump and dump; are we both objectifying women seeing them as utilitarian commodities as Bj claims? It is true both Roosh and me seek to benefit from women, both are looking for women who will “perform well” in either the short term sexual partner role Roosh is seeking or the lifetime marriage partner role I am seeking. The main difference I think from a moral point of view is that marriage is socially constructive and positive while sexual promiscuity is socially destructive and negative. In marriage the man is giving to the woman for a moral purpose while in sexual promiscuity the man is taking from the woman for a corrupt short term sexual reward gain. To “objectify” a woman seems to be to purposely restrict or lessen the value of the woman in order to extract a gain from her while ignoring the woman as a whole or ignoring the other parts of the woman that one has a moral obligation towards. This fits quite well with the PUA mind set where the goal is to “score” and nothing else. To marry a woman with an idealistic purpose in mind of who I am supposed to be as a man and a husband is giving to the woman her full and maximum value as a woman; as much value as I am capable of according to my own ability to perform as a man. So no the PUA looking to score and the traditional man looking to marry are not viewing or treating women similarly.
If I were to value a woman as “an autonomous individual, a human being in her own right” as Bj suggests that would bring me right back to my feminist days where I felt emotionally distant from women, where I saw myself on the periphery of the woman’s life, where basically my mentality was selfish and I would contribute to the woman’s life a little bit according to what she told me to do but that largely I would keep my distance. If the woman is “autonomous” and “a human being in her own right” then of what use am I to her?
I much prefer the idealism and spirit of service and contribution of patriarchy where I matter to the woman’s life; where I love her and serve her as the beautiful feminine woman that God created her to be.