“It seems that your sexism and inclination towards patriarchy was present in you even before you consciously adopted your patriarchal philosophy. This is clear from the fact that it was a revelation to you in your late teens that women have value and that you only recognized our value in response to your romantic attraction to one of us. This solipsism is mind boggling even for a teenager. And yet even now you seem to view our value only in very narrow terms that you define. You do not love women as we are. You only love an ideal of what you think we are or what you think we should be. This controlling mindset is not love.”
This is a very interesting comment I wish to respond to. The moment of great importance my “Women Have Value!” post was about was when my favorite girl walked into class one day and I thought to myself while looking at her that “You have value!” That she had value as a woman, that my romantic attraction to her was in response to her value as a woman.
I think what was truly new about that moment, that revelation, was that that was the first time I realized there was a connection between my identity as a man and her identity as a woman, that my romantic feelings towards her was my masculine purpose responding to her feminine purpose, that her femininity was linked to my masculinity in the form of my feelings towards her, that my feelings towards her was the signal to me that she mattered, that she was important, that I was to serve her or benefit her life in some way; that that was my purpose as a man.
I realized before that time that I had a tendency to fall in love with different women or be strongly attracted to different women; many women I had been attracted to to some degree and a few women I had been strongly attracted to for a significant length of time; the feeling of being strongly attracted to a woman was not new. Also the awareness or belief that women were different from men, that women had areas of strength or were better at certain things or were more suited to certain things than men, that part was also not new to me. The assumption that women had value as human beings, had equal value as human beings as men, that was certainly not new.
I think the new element that came with the “You have value!” insight was the concept of duty and obligation; that I had a duty, an obligation, to my favorite girl to benefit her life in some way, that I had responsibilities towards her that I was supposed to live up to, that her value as a woman created an obligation in me to serve her as a woman, that she had a moral force or a moral importance as a woman that I was supposed to connect myself to as a man.
The orientation towards obligations and duties, that I was supposed to give to her what she deserved from me, became a big part of how I viewed myself in relation to her over the next several months after the event happened that I thought to myself regarding her that “You have value!”
So the revelation in the later part of 11th grade that was new to my understanding of the world and my view of women was that I had an obligation to serve women in response to women’s value as women; the concept of the duty to serve women was what was new in my thinking; and in particular that my romantic feelings towards women was the signal in me and the motivation in me to act out my duty to serve women; my romantic feelings towards women being inherited, being what was put into me by evolution; in a more philosophical sense being what was put into me by God.
Lori said “It seems that your sexism and inclination towards patriarchy was present in you even before you consciously adopted your patriarchal philosophy.” I first formally thought of myself as being pro-patriarchy in my mid-20s, several years after this “You have value!” revelation in the later part of 11th grade, though truthfully I did not consciously believe that men should be dominant over women until my late 30s. Initially I just viewed patriarchy as meaning that a husband should financially support his wife like in the 1950s, I did not view patriarchy as meaning that men should be dominant over women until much later. The thought I had in my head regarding my favorite girl that “You have value!” was definitely a traditionalist thought but it took a long time for this traditionalist impulse to develop into at first a rudimentary traditionalist belief system and then later a complete or thorough traditionalist belief system.
Lori continued “This is clear from the fact that it was a revelation to you in your late teens that women have value and that you only recognized our value in response to your romantic attraction to one of us. This solipsism is mind boggling even for a teenager.”
The revelation was not that women have value, it was that I as a man owed a duty to women as a consequence of women’s value as women, that my masculinity as a man owed a duty to women’s femininity as women. In regards to whether this indicates a retarded social development; my inclination is to say that this is actually a forbidden thought, that it is an intrinsically anti-feminist recognition and so most people deny this reality regardless of how old they are.
Lori continued “And yet even now you seem to view our value only in very narrow terms that you define.” Women’s highest value is when they fulfill the traditional role of a woman where women’s femininity is in service to others. I will add likewise that men’s highest value as men is when men fulfill their traditional role in service to others. Both men and women should be obedient to what it means to be a man or a woman. Obedience to God is a duty both sexes share.
Lori continued “You do not love women as we are. You only love an ideal of what you think we are or what you think we should be. This controlling mindset is not love.”
The concept of what it means to love a particular woman or women as a class is interesting. You might love as a romantic feeling, you might love as an expression of moral duty, and you might love an individual woman or women as a group or women or femininity as a concept. I would say I love women in general or women as a class as a moral duty; it is my duty to love and to serve women. This doesn’t mean it is my duty to do what women want me to do or what women tell me to do, it means it is my duty to do what is best on women’s behalf; it is my duty to serve women’s objective interests, not women’s desires or preferences.
The true nature of women is who God created women to be so I love a woman who exemplifies or embodies the feminine ideal; I love such a woman emotionally and I have a duty to such a woman morally and I am willing to enter into a romantic relationship with such a woman practically.
A woman might send me emotional signals of being feminine and be physically beautiful but in terms of her values and her behavior she acts and believes contrary to the feminine ideal; in this kind of situation I might feel love and attraction towards such a woman emotionally because emotionally I respond to her feminine demeanor and her physical beauty but in reaction to her aggressive and hostile values and behavior I would not enter into an actual romantic relationship with such a woman.
I owe a general duty of care and consideration for all women simply because they are women; this being a general moral principle of what men owe to women, what I refer to as unconditional Chivalry.
It is definitely true; I will only enter into an actual romantic relationship with a woman on the condition that she follows the general principles and the general guidelines of what it means to be a traditional woman.
My controlling mindset is my duty on behalf of women and it is my duty towards God; it is central to my masculine identity and my masculine purpose as a man. It is my natural feeling and my natural inclination towards women, in particular towards a woman I have romantic feelings towards. Indeed, it is the organizing principle and the foundation of how I love as a man both abstractly and personally.
Related articles:My Beloved from High School
My Debt to the Women of High School