Contact

Email address: SecularPatriarchy@yandex.com

I welcome emails from those wishing to learn more about joining the TFAs. Also if you want to show support by submitting a guest post or pointing me to story ideas I might want to write about I welcome that to. I am particularly interested in websites with a secular orientation in support of traditional gender roles that I can link to.

Guidelines for guest posts: I am interested in guest posts consistent with the TFA message. I am anti-feminist, MRA, in favor of unconditional Chivalry by men on behalf of women, and support obedience to the Superior Power or to objective moral standards; I do not intend to publish guest posts contrary to this overall theme. I welcome guest posts from secular people and from people of religious faith. I ask however that the arguments presented be persuasive and understandable to all readers regardless of their religious belief or background. In addition to opinion pieces I also welcome research reports on issues related to the family or other social topics either current or historical. Research reports do not have to agree with my overall philosophy if they communicate valuable objective information. All guest posts should be original pieces.

Guidelines for comments: First of all be civil and intelligent. No personal attacks.  I will try to use an objective standard regarding which comments are allowed. Greater formality regarding the rules for comments may be introduced later.

Advertisements

6 Responses to Contact

  1. jawara says:


    I’d like you to watch this video. I did and I thought of TWRA movement. Anyway, you may have seen me post on Edita’s web site a while ago. I got into some decent debates with some of you, but it just didn’t seem like many of you were going point by point. Well regardless, I still think that traditional women are the best but you may need to work on your “sales pitch”. BTW: at one time I did consider myself to be an MRA. Now, I think of myself as just an anti-feminist.

  2. Welcome Jawara, I think I remember who you are. You are welcome to comment at my site. I won’t “hold against you” anything from the past; I will judge you according to what you say from this point going forward.

    The video you link to is pretty good. I especially liked the particular attack against daycare. I’m not a big fan of conspiracy theories though. The disruption caused by rapid economic growth due to rapid technological advances; most particularly industrialization; is a good enough explanation for me as to why feminism got started. Also, feminism got started around 1850, not 1960. Family breakdown was already pretty well advanced by the time 1960 came around. The 1950s was a time of peace and economic prosperity but it was much worse in terms of family indicators compared to say 1890. The 1960s is not when family breakdown got started; it is when family breakdown accelerated. On the good side a major deceleration in family breakdown started in 1995.

    You say that “traditional women are the best.” That is fine and good but what matters is your desire to be a traditional man; as a man you first need to become a traditional man and then you may seek the traditional woman you desire, the traditional woman you will have earned by being a traditional man first.

    Do you have a blog or a Youtube channel at the current time? I’d like to peruse it to see how well what you say fits with the TWRA message. Remember the TWRAs are opposed to equality between the sexes on principle; we advocate traditionally female privileges for women and traditionally male privileges for men.

  3. jawara says:

    http://www.youtube.com/user/jawara105
    Thats my Youtube Channel. I vlog about a lot of different things but I’m sure you can find my MRM/Anti-Feminist video by checking the titles.

  4. gynocentrism says:

    Hi Jesse,

    Your article on Gynocentrism was thoughtful. Your analysis of traditionalism and feminism as placing the agency to create gynocentrism in men’s vs women’s hands respectively is right on.

    “Gynocentrism is a part of both patriarchy and feminism…”

    We can also insert chivalry in place of gynocentrism there – in traditionalism men decide to be chivalrous, while under feminist guidance the State enforces chivalry on men according to women’s stated desires.

    Lastly, I don’t agree with your formula of reducing gynocentrism and “romance” to being all for the sake of children. That doesn’t bear out. If you go back prior to medieval times gynocentrism was not very strong, or at least was balanced and tempered with androcentrism… and the children were ok. So, I’d posit an alternative hypothesis for gynocentrism; it is female narcissism and greed being encouraged and socially instituted for the last 800 years as a non-beneficial distortion of the human relationships balance. We need to rid ourselves of it.

    Some more thoughts on gynocentrism here FWIW: http://gynocentrism.com/2013/07/14/about/

  5. You are aware I am opposed to MRAs, right? Gynocentrism is men’s love for women and there is nothing wrong with it. If you look through my archive you will find I am a great supporter of Chivalry; I have written many articles on it. Chivalry is foundational to relations between the sexes and a healthy society. To think that relations between men and women are not ultimately all about children is delusional; children are the whole point of relations between men and women. Also for you to say that gynocentrism and Chivalry go back 800 years but before then there was no (or very little) gynocentrism or Chivarly and things worked just fine is far fetched. 800 years is a good enough track record for me. Also the idea of male guardianship of women goes back more than 800 years whatever they called it. The Chivalric Codes of Knights may have had a particular starting point in a particular geographical location but the general principle that it is man’s duty to “provide for and protect” women goes back to the beginning of humanity. Deal with it.

    • gynocentrism says:

      Ok, didnt know you were a gynocentrist, having not read many posts here. Judging by your snarky reply you are very protective of woman-centeredness and chivalric service to women – clearly not something I would endorse.

      Nothing more to add here, obviously. 🙂

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