By: MonkeyWerks
I was directly criticized by Jesse Powell in this article on Secular Patriarchy concerning an essay I wrote explaining how women never fully appreciate the sacrifices we make for them as men and how a man living a simpler life free from the obligations and insistent demands of a woman might be something worth working towards. Because of the issues he raised, I think a response was warranted if for no other reason but to point out he is an uber white knight beta and to expose the movement as one that promotes beliefs that are really quite harmful. Plus I wanted to stretch my legs, ok my fingers, a bit before I wrote about more important topics.
I have never had one of my essays ripped apart by a pseudo feminism writer before. Maybe I’m finally getting to the big time. I actually had to read some of his articles to see what this person or movement was all about because I do try to be intellectually honest. I was bit shocked at what I read, although I probably shouldn’t have been. When I first started reading I thought a woman wrote it. I now know the article criticizing me came from a man although the writing sounded very female-eqe at first. The shaming language was as such that I normally expect from a female writer who have nothing more substantial to say than for me to “man up” and give everything that I own now and in the future to my ex wife or to any other woman who blesses me access to their warm and moist nether regions.
Apparently the ideology Secular Patriarchy promotes is nothing more than feminism in sexy panties where the woman benefits from the sweat, labors and protection of the man while having to give very little in return. Actually this is what mainstream feminism and most American say women really want, however they usually only respond sexually to the skittles man. The only differences between regular feminism and SP are that the woman stays at home and does not contribute to the household finances and the man must somehow “protect” the woman even up to needlessly putting his own life in danger. As one commentator pointed out that Powell made a grand pretense that no (male) expense should be spared for women’s (supposed) protections. This assertion goes along with a really disturbing statement I found that Powell made in that he promotes the idea that men SHOULD be so against rape that even in the case of a false rape accusations he believes that men should still be willing to be imprisoned, to serve the greater good, which is serving women at ANY cost (to men). Powell believes that men should simply put all women on pedestals, worship them, and for men to serve all women, and as the woman sees fit mind you. He goes on to explain that men should work their tails off to provide for woman’s lifestyles and all of the woman’s wants, desires and comforts without requiring them to contribute or even reciprocate. He calls this unconditional chivalry. He actually states that women are superior to men in many ways. His value of men is so low that his beliefs do not even spare men from being falsely accused of crimes. Personally, I would rather 1000 alleged rapist go free instead of even 1 man be falsely accused or imprisoned.
Sunshine Mary invited him to debate his beliefs on her site in April of 2013. The comments there were lively and tended to destroy the assertions he was attempting to make. Powell claims to be an atheist and states that he loves women and serves God, but it’s obvious that his god is really women the feminine imperative, and the ideology he promotes. He further elaborates this point, but it becomes clear that his beliefs that what he states is unbiblical and goes against the natural order of things. It’s interesting that even atheists try to distance themselves from him. He does seem very schizophrenic in his theology. Seeing as he is a ardent supporter of Mark Driscoll’s incessant “man up” and white knightery sermons its no surprise that many of his beliefs promote the feminine imperative in such a grotesque fashion.
Although it became pretty painful to read because he had genuine problems common with nice guys and beta males but he just took the wrong road in trying to fix the problems. I was able to learn a good bit about him by reading several of his articles.
He admits to being a feminist since a very young age and being raised by a domineering feminist mother who likely subjected his father to never ending belittlement. I am sure the example his father set for him growing up was that of a passive and submissive man. He states that he was a feminist until his mid 20’s when he started believing in Secular Patriarchy.
He apparently had a rough time in high school where he did not have many friends, and that he also had difficulty meeting girls and getting them to go out with him. He also stated that he was afraid of the girls in school reacting adversely to him expressing his “strong” feeling the girls “inspired” in him. He goes on to explain he never had a girlfriend until he was 17 years old and failed with women until he became involved in the patriarchy movement in his mid 20’s. I think it should be noted that his experiences with women in 11th and 12th grade influences his belief system today so much so he dedicates an entire essay to it. Below are a few excerpts that illuminate why Powell thinks the way that he does:
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.
More from his essay:
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….
…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.
(Emphasis mine)
He explains how until his “conversion” he would “do anything to get whatever woman he liked to like him and be his girlfriend” and admits that there was a “shield” that prohibited him in getting too close to his love interests. He speaks about how he thinks he could not compete with the other boys because “he was not good enough” or did not have enough to offer women. He goes on explaining that after high school any relationships he did find himself in “fizzled” very quickly and his ability to meet women was even weaker than when he was in high school.
His conversion to this belief system is based on his inner conversations of what he THOUGHT he had to offer a woman (and what he incorrectly thought women wanted) in any relationship with him. He ended up having “strong desires” to take care of and provide for a few particular women he had strong feelings for, which he ends up admitting was idealistic. He then decided that he wanted his future wife to stay home, raise children and take care of the home while he worked. In his words he wanted to “take care of” and “give a good life” to the woman he loved.
He explained that he “kept an eye on“and “noticed” the girls he was interested in. The way he explained it gave me the stalker creepy feeling. I can just imagine how he makes the women who are the target of his attentions feel. The biggest thing I noticed in his essay about how high school girls shaped his current belief system concerning women in general is that it is an internal dialogue he has had with himself over the years and yet he still remains perplexed that reality does not follow his internal thoughts and desires on how women SHOULD act towards him. Instead of having a different and more positive dialogue with himself he essentially states that he has determined that if he just serves women enough, is a nice enough guy they might just like him…someday.
What happened is Powell was an Incel and instead of learning game and the other related skills to improve his success with women he modified his lifelong indoctrination of the feminist belief system he was exposed too to include “taking care of” and overtly worshiping at the altar of the feminine goddess, thinking that maybe that will get him what he wants, a woman to love him. He became an uber white knight and now promotes an ideology he called “unconditional chivalry”. I just cannot see him actually engaging with real women and testing his theories out. It seems that instead of going out in the world, learning new skills and adapting one’s own personality in such a way as to get some success with women he turned his belief system into his own personal religion.
My Response to Him
I figured I would respond to him because the beliefs he espouses are potentially harmful as to how they sound pretty good on the surface with the woman staying at home, raising children, doing yoga to stay hot and sexy and supposedly making sammiches, but the underlying theme of his beliefs are quite sinister indeed as they are nothing but pretty lies covering up how feminism and all of its different denominations have perverted what should be the natural order to how men and women interact and relate in successful and happy relationships and in a successful society. Another reason I was compelled to respond is that far too many men believe in this nonsense to one degree or another. It should be clear by now, at least to readers of the sphere’ that in order for men to attract women they need to adopt a certain set of behaviors. We call this Game. Powell’s romanticized view of chivalry and men’s servitude towards women will do nothing for men (and in fact women) but lead them to heart break.
Women in general have an attitude of what’s yours is mine and what’s mine is mine. I have noticed this in not only my relationships, but in the relationships of other couples I know as well. Sometimes it is overt and sometimes this attitude is quite subtle but it is always there.
As one of my oft repeated saying from an ex states “you are just not doing what I want you to be doing”, women demand from us our resources and will often use every trick and deception to acquire them. The woman in question wanted me to make a six figure income again even though at the time it would have had adverse health consequences for me and of course taken up all of my time. The issue with her was not that she was lazy and wouldn’t help. She was a very motivated and ambitious woman, which I happen to like. The issue was the amount of income I would need to generate to pay for discretionary expenses such as her 2 horses. Also she was adamant about have a large amount of money in saving right away (within 24 months). It’s good to have a large savings but if you read my other essays where I described parts of our relationship you will see that there was already assets and cash set aside, it was just disproportionally hers. She didn’t want to invest HER assets in our future plans as much as she wanted me to invest mine. In this day and age I have no problem letting a woman do half the work, nor am I concerned if a woman makes more money than me. I brought more than enough to the table in many other ways to more than make up for my lesser income. In the end she wanted me to provide her a lifestyle that would have enslaved me. It takes more than big tits and a nice ass. Thanks but no thanks.
The woman that Powell speaks of is the proverbial Proverbs 31 woman who, by and large, do not exist in any discernibly large numbers in today’s society. To give proper credit where due, I would say my ex wife tried hard to be that woman but her feminized church and feminist beliefs prohibited her from realizing her potential greatness. The modern woman will always desire more and more stuff, which necessitates her husband producing more and more resources so she can have more stuff. She will also demand through her action that her husband Game her hard at all times. It sounds like a bad deal for any man in any marital or cohabitation environment.
Powell was unable to grasp the basic understanding of my essay in that women as a gender do not understand the sacrifices we make for them and our children, nor do they appreciate the amount of work required to generate the substantial resources required to keep them fed, clothed and reasonably happy. That’s ok though, we have, as men, been under appreciated for a few generations now. However, we as men do have the choice to either give of ourselves to worthy women or not give anything to unworthy women. We have no duty in either case. I realized some time ago I am no longer obligated to give my resources to any particular woman. Once a woman decided she no longer wanted to part of a man’s life (read have sex with the man) she no longer gets to enjoy the fruits of his labor. I think it’s best for the majority of men to just be single and have sex with various women, or even in a committed monogamous relationship while not having to pay for women’s shit, or taking it for that matter. If the man desires children than its best to raise the child(ren) in an intact family structure and live with the children’s mother, but still remain unmarried and protect his assets and freedom.
The main crux of my original essay was, as I will now explain Barney Style, is that instead of men working so hard they cannot enjoy their lives and have the time to pursue their other interests while still relatively young, why not consider living such a lifestyle where a man needs to only work part of the time (or as little as reasonably necessary) to provide adequate resources for himself and in my case my children only. As in my experiences I have found a man can be quite happy doing this.
It may take some actual work at home if so inclined, such as growing your own food in a large garden, raising some livestock, learning to can and preserve food, learn another skilled trade that you always wanted to learn, etc, it is work that a man CHOOSES to do that benefits him and him alone and work that he really enjoys. If a man has a wife or SO and she assists him in HIS mission, goals and endeavors, great! Make it a family affair I say, so much the better, four hands are better than 2. However in many circumstances the woman desires material goods that are unnecessary and from my observations these women have zero desire to assist the man in creating the resources. In many cases it takes a man working so much more than necessary in order to acquire the resources to purchase the material goods, which were as originally stated, unnecessary in order to satisfy the woman.
Seeing as I do not rely on any particular woman to assist me, nor would I ever do so, I do these things myself and with my children. I have friends that often assist and they share in production and the bounty of our activities.
The important thing is that my essay was primarily about how women today do not appreciate men’s sacrifices. They demand the men in their lives to produce in ever increasing increments so that they may live a life of ease and comfort, all the while sacrificing the man, his health in many cases and the mans time. Why would a man give his agency, his production, resources and his leisure time to a woman who will in the end not fully appreciate it? Some men do choose to do this to their detriment; however I choose to live for me instead. My children obviously benefit from my works by learning valuable skills they can use in the future if they so choose to emulate their fathers quest for personal independence. They also have the coolest pets and eat natural foods. Powell criticizes me for “squandering” my time instead of directing all of my time to activities that would always benefit a woman. He states that it is somehow a theft of the woman’s provisioning and it is immoral. In response, it is the highest form of morality for a man to live foremost for himself and his mission. In this case selfishness is the higher form of nobility.
I do have to point out that the basis of his morality is unclear and spurious seeing as he is an atheist and the moral teaching he propagates conflicts with traditional Christian beliefs.
Entropy is my God said it best in his comment on SSM’s site:
@MR JESSE POWELL
I hear a lot of blather about chivalry from a man who is too cowardly to find and dedicate himself to pure atheism, and too sure of himself and his ideas to subsume himself in a belief system with concrete tenets. Both paths take fortitude. It takes zero fortitude to stand up for what you feel (You are a special snowflake) is right. Proof is evident in all women; they worship their feelings as a god unto themselves. And for the mathematically vigilant when I say all, I say all in the statistically relevant all. By this I mean at least 95% of all women, two standard deviations from mean, all worship their feelings as divine. Begin Screeching NAWALT now.
I hereby call you a coward and would if possible, challenge you to a duel. Our pedantic and homosexualized country does not allow that though so I will curtail my response to your blatant hatred of men, and by proxy me, to this post.
Allow me to destroy your milquetoast ode to romance novels via two ways.
1. If you were man enough to embrace Christianity, first by believing that the bible isn’t the inherent and unflawed word of the ONLY God, then you would have a solid foundation upon which to base some claims on men toward women. They would not be “Chivalry” though as it is a recent addition to the lexicon and was never mentioned in any version of the bible. So if you were a Christian your thesis fails, falls flat on disbelief, and is mired in Phariseeism.
2. This is far more exciting, you fail as an atheist. You have no god, you have no moral code of absolutes. Everything is relative, nothing is wrong, nothing is right. Many so called intellectuals claim to be atheists and wonder around in a dazed myopic trance of legalism while surfing a sea of moral ambiguity. Some claim to be hedonists and do whatever it takes to feel good. All of these are abominations to the true atheist, to the one who doesn’t worship anything, to the one who literally worships nothing. Your panacea of good will and chivalry will crumble like a house of dried feces in the winds of changes that prepare to sweep this nation.
Our country for certain, but perhaps the entire world, is about to face the consequnces of our actions. We have bankrupted the entire planet. As system dynamics teaches, the more complex a system the greater the change to the system outputs when any one input is removed. We may be about to lose several. When moral codes run into the unbreakable wall of real hunger, of thirst, of sickness, and real cruelty, we will see how long your “Chivalry”, brought about only due to an unprecedented surplus of wealth, can survive. We have all been living like hogs in a vat of moral detritus. I long for the punishment to arrive, if nothing else so that the iron bar of reality comes crashing down on the paper mache you and those like you have built.
I despise your sanctimony when you have no backing for any of it. If you are an atheist then there is nothing upon which to assert any beliefs at all, ever. You prefer what you prefer and I prefer what I prefer. You prefer that men owe a never ending debt to women for all time. What you fail to take into account is the fact that no one who shares your belief system (no moral absolutes) has any, repeat, any reason to abide by this. Your silent and heartfelt prayer, to the spongy pink god of your own feminized soul, is that you can leverage the power of the state to enforce your baseless beliefs. Let me say that again, your only hope, and greatest joy, just like all other cowardly statists, is to enforce your putrid will through the leviathan of the state. You are Stalin, you are Mao, you are Hitler. You pray for an ever powerful, never-ending government body that will continue to enforce your petulant feminized whims.
(Emphasis mine)
Continuing, he goes on to point out that a woman would not have to trade her sexual intimacy or as I also put it “her cleverly disguised feigned interest in the man’s mission” in order to secure a man’s resources if I just accepted his shaming criticisms and gave freely to the woman without any expectations of positive reciprocal actions on her part. He believes it is ALL men’s duty to do this even in light of today’s social constructs with promote frivolous divorces, divorce theft of men’s wealth and his children and the far too numerous social programs that only benefit women and harm men. He turns the whole issue on its head when he states that a woman’s immoral behaviors in a relationship are in fact the fault of the man because he does not give freely of his time and resources to the woman and because he does not act in what Powell would define as chivalrous. He then goes on and on about men serving women and that by serving women he hopes that they will be romantically interested in him. As for his mission in life he believes that a woman should be a significant part of the man’s mission and that men succeed through and only because the help of a woman. However, he then changes his mind and criticizes me because I expected my wife to assist in our family business. He seemed to miss the part in the bible that states very clearly that a woman is a man’s helpmeet. She was created to assist the man in his mission, not become it.
Apparently he believes that somehow by working and assisting men a woman harms herself. He misconstrues the reality of the situation. Both my ex wife (T) and ex girlfriend (C) worked very hard. In fact I set up (T) in her own business once it became clear that she was unwilling to assist me in my business. As for (C), this is a woman who reroofed her own house. Her biggest complaint and attraction to me is that most men are incapable of doing what is historically men’s work and she fell in love with me because not only can I do all of these things I have awesome tools to do it with. I think she loved my tools more than me, and me with my tool belt. I do believe she would find Powell’s remarks particularly offensive. Both woman agreed with me that woman are generally ill suited to do some types of work such as firefighting, combat roles in the military and law enforcement for example, but that does not preclude woman from swing a hammer or turning a wrench. I suppose he would also object to a woman being a secretary or receptionist jobs well suited to women especially if she is attractive.
One thing to consider is that in my line of work I do not need to work 40 + hours per week to generate the necessary income that would support a simpler lifestyle. This is a choice that Powell takes issue with because it challenges the feminine imperative necessitating that a man work at his maximum rate until he keels over from exhaustion in order to provide a life of relative ease and comfort for his wife and children without any help from her.
The woman being frugal in Powell’s example is indicative of a woman being responsible with resources she was entrusted with. Furthermore her responsible handling of her husband’s resources benefits the family unit as a whole and is a good show of proper submission and discipline. The family as a whole benefits from the wife’s responsible actions. In general this woman would be part of a small minority of women in today’s society.
Powell strongly believes that a woman has no obligation to assist a man in his mission and insists that a man makes the woman his mission. He tells us that a woman should EXPECT a man to work for her and if he refuses to do so or asks for her assistance he is shameful and somehow less than a man. He ambiguously states that men should support a woman’s “heroic mission”, whatever that may entail. Maybe he doesn’t know either.
So in closing, yes women are generally selfish, although a minority may not be overtly and will try to control their worst impulses. However a woman basic hypergamy will always compel her to seek out the best deal at all times. The games rigged so men can choose not to play, or they can play it on their own terms. What Powell does not like is that men have the right to choose what they do with their time and resources. Although happening slowly, men are becoming aware that most women simply do not deserve, regardless of however entitled women may feel that they do, all that a man used to be willing to do for them.
It is abundantly clear that Powell has no understanding of how a woman’s mind (or her gina tingle generator)really works. He seems smart enough and its obvious he has least been exposed to the written works of Dalrock, The Rational Male and Heartiste, but he is blinded by his ideology and upbringing to the truth. It is not surprising he had, and I am only speculating here, still has problems relating to most women. It is an unassailable fact that bowing down to women will not get you laid or married for life. The best thing for him to do would be for him to honestly convert to Christianity and find a good marriage believing church to attend in a small town. He will probable still suck his wife’s ass in the end. Alternatively, he can shuck off his ideological Blue Pill upbringing as so many of us have done and learn Game. Normally I will not promote or prescribe such things such as marriage and cohabitation in this modern anti-marriage and anti-family climate but in his case I do not think he would be able to fully expunge his feminist beliefs and romanticized views of woman from his mind. Because of this, it is unlikely that he could handle the Red Pill truths we oft discuss here. Not all men are meant to be alphas and not all men can handle the truth and reality.
Related Articles:
On Man’s Role and Man’s Duty: a counterpoint guest post by Mr. Jesse Powell. – Sunshine Mary The Cart Before the Chevalier – Alpha is Assumed Tradcon Arch-Mangina Jesse Powell Gets Rejected By The TWRAs Hail to the V What we need is more chivalry! Chivalry: Falling In Love With Shame Can Nazbol Misandrists Really Be This Stupid The gift transformed into a debt.Rejecting outmoded responsibility Men, You Are A Husband To All Women WHAT A REAL GENTLEMAN DOES Chivalry only comes from a position of strength.
The Reinvention of Man 