Good thoughts! In my experience, there's a lot of leverage in simply rearranging the subjective interpretations of power dynamics surrounding "chivalrous" actions without even much change in role-standard behaviors (although there's no shortage of room for negotiation there too).
Picking up a check could make me a chauvinistic pig, a loser simp, or just a normal guy doing a mildly decent thing before she gets the next one. Having my favorite beverage waiting in the fridge when I get off a flight to come visit can make her a subordinate homemaker, an overly domineering mother to everything within reach, or just a sweet, thoughtful woman who wanted to make sure I felt welcome.
All in the eye of the beholder; good faith goes a long way.
Those are all really good points. I think good faith is rarer and rarer these days, which is one of the big problems. The thing redpillers and many feminists have in common is a genuine hatred of the other gender, and with relationships becoming less common among young people the problem is likely to increase.
I'm pretty paranoid myself, which lets me see the problem but prevents me from having any good advice on how to fix it.
Great article, but I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion here. You describe two functions of chivalry, one as dominance play, and another as a system of norms which make it easy for both sides to know what they are “supposed” to do.
But your proposed system of consent-based chivalry can provide the former but not the latter, it leaves the girl still having to make decisions and the guy in a state of ambiguity. This isn't at all like dancing, it would be as if the guy sends a cue and then the girl can respond with completely different options - that actually sounds really cool, but it would probably be really hard for most people. And this is supposed to be system you can use with strangers.
I agree that everything is still in a state of ambiguity, and it is confusing for sure. What I'm proposing is The leader decides what to do and gives clear enough direction that it's obvious what the follower should do. In any dance the follower can disengage and do their own moves if they want to, everyone should have agency. In this article I didn't want to prescribe what the new social norms should be bc that feels like me going too far. We have to do that together over time.
Feminists are obsessed with power. That guy was annoyed at you because tradition is about putting the relationship and children before yourself not power. You were taking advantage of him, in that relationship you weren't reciprocating and wanted to be a dom. You said it yourself: a queen.
In trad relationships you take steps to avoid temptations that could weaken the relationship.
You're making a lot of assumptions about a relationship that you have very few details about. But I agree that feminism and conservastism are both very obsessed with power. Anyone trying to change or sustain a social system needs to be concerned with it.
I think you'd have to actually talk to some traditionalists like Orthodox, Muslims or even Amish families. You can't really understand their mindset from internet memes and feminists. At them moment you seem to want all the benefits of chivalry and tradition while putting in none of your obligations.
As she says, any political movement has to be concerned with power.
I still think some sort of lead/follow dynamic (basically, dom/sub without the whips and leather) would make the most people happy. The 25-50% of the population who wants the old values can have them, the 10% who want an inverted dynamic can have that, and everyone else aiming for egalitarianism can opt out. But, eh, I'm just a guy on the Internet wandering to random Substacks through links. ;)
Good thoughts! In my experience, there's a lot of leverage in simply rearranging the subjective interpretations of power dynamics surrounding "chivalrous" actions without even much change in role-standard behaviors (although there's no shortage of room for negotiation there too).
Picking up a check could make me a chauvinistic pig, a loser simp, or just a normal guy doing a mildly decent thing before she gets the next one. Having my favorite beverage waiting in the fridge when I get off a flight to come visit can make her a subordinate homemaker, an overly domineering mother to everything within reach, or just a sweet, thoughtful woman who wanted to make sure I felt welcome.
All in the eye of the beholder; good faith goes a long way.
Incredible advice that applies across all relationship dynamics! so rich ty Stedman
Those are all really good points. I think good faith is rarer and rarer these days, which is one of the big problems. The thing redpillers and many feminists have in common is a genuine hatred of the other gender, and with relationships becoming less common among young people the problem is likely to increase.
I'm pretty paranoid myself, which lets me see the problem but prevents me from having any good advice on how to fix it.
Great insights here, thanks!
Great article, but I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion here. You describe two functions of chivalry, one as dominance play, and another as a system of norms which make it easy for both sides to know what they are “supposed” to do.
But your proposed system of consent-based chivalry can provide the former but not the latter, it leaves the girl still having to make decisions and the guy in a state of ambiguity. This isn't at all like dancing, it would be as if the guy sends a cue and then the girl can respond with completely different options - that actually sounds really cool, but it would probably be really hard for most people. And this is supposed to be system you can use with strangers.
I agree that everything is still in a state of ambiguity, and it is confusing for sure. What I'm proposing is The leader decides what to do and gives clear enough direction that it's obvious what the follower should do. In any dance the follower can disengage and do their own moves if they want to, everyone should have agency. In this article I didn't want to prescribe what the new social norms should be bc that feels like me going too far. We have to do that together over time.
Feminists are obsessed with power. That guy was annoyed at you because tradition is about putting the relationship and children before yourself not power. You were taking advantage of him, in that relationship you weren't reciprocating and wanted to be a dom. You said it yourself: a queen.
In trad relationships you take steps to avoid temptations that could weaken the relationship.
Putting sub/dom onto it is your own projection.
You're making a lot of assumptions about a relationship that you have very few details about. But I agree that feminism and conservastism are both very obsessed with power. Anyone trying to change or sustain a social system needs to be concerned with it.
I think you'd have to actually talk to some traditionalists like Orthodox, Muslims or even Amish families. You can't really understand their mindset from internet memes and feminists. At them moment you seem to want all the benefits of chivalry and tradition while putting in none of your obligations.
As she says, any political movement has to be concerned with power.
I still think some sort of lead/follow dynamic (basically, dom/sub without the whips and leather) would make the most people happy. The 25-50% of the population who wants the old values can have them, the 10% who want an inverted dynamic can have that, and everyone else aiming for egalitarianism can opt out. But, eh, I'm just a guy on the Internet wandering to random Substacks through links. ;)