(cache) Jesse Powell, Secular Patriarchy

Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 102148

Almost always when I talk about how things “should” be I am describing a kind of ideal model of how society should work and I am furthermore trying to recreate how society actually did work in the past. My proposed model of how “things should be done” is always based on the assumption of how a society that is already healthy and high functioning would work.

So I am not saying that women should not have the right to vote today right now; I am saying that in the distant future when things are “good” women not having the right to vote would help to maintain a positive social order and good relations between the sexes.

As far as Afghanistan? I don’t know about Afghanistan. I live in the United States and more broadly the Western World. I am advocating for what would work and what would be good in reference to the environment that I actually live in and know something about.

As far as punishing women. I am saying that in principle it is legitimate for a husband to “punish” his wife to enforce his rules regarding the wife’s relationship with him or the wife’s responsibilities and behavior regarding the family. Likewise it is legitimate for the male community to punish the husband for the husband’s misdeeds regarding his wife or his family.

As for how exactly a husband should punish his wife? I would say how he chooses to or according to what the husband thinks is the best approach assuming the husband is following community standards of what types of “punishment” are preferred and what types of “punishment” are considered too dangerous or too prone to abuse or too damaging to be acceptable.

I would say the basic rule should be that a punishment against the wife should be minimally harmful to the relationship in itself while still accomplishing the goal of correcting the woman’s harmful behavior. In addition punishment based on the withdrawal of a reward is better than punishment based on the infliction of a harm as punishing through the withdrawal of a reward is less prone to abuse and requires that a man be providing a benefit to the woman before he would be in a position to punish the woman. In this way the woman’s obedience would be motivated by her desire to continue to benefit from the man rather than her fear of being harmed by the man. Obedience motivated by continued access to rewards is clearly more ethical than obedience motivated by avoiding harm.

Jesse Powell, Secular Patriarchy 50 Comments [7/17/2014 3:56:07 AM]
Fundie Index: 28

WTF?! || meh

Username:
Comment:

Check here

1 2

#1687091

Reynardine

I don't even treat my dog like that.

7/17/2014 4:03:16 AM

#1687095

Mister Spak

"In addition punishment based on the withdrawal of a reward is better than punishment based on the infliction of a harm as punishing through the withdrawal of a reward is less prone to abuse and requires that a man be providing a benefit to the woman before he would be in a position to punish the woman. "

Also a woman can punish a man by witholding sex.

Didn't see that coming didja?

7/17/2014 4:06:39 AM

#1687097

Skide

I`d correct you with a rusty gaspipe, abuse advocating asshole.

7/17/2014 4:08:44 AM

#1687099

Reynardine

This is the guy who thought he wanted to live in the 1950's. Women not only voted in the 1950's, if husbands acted the way this guy wants to act, their wives often divorced them and got lifelong alimony, the house, and custody of the children.

7/17/2014 4:11:17 AM

#1687106

MockAE

People are people first, everything else second. Nothing I keep in my underwear justifies unequal treatment, idiot.

7/17/2014 4:18:22 AM

#1687113

In the past, contrary to what you think, if a man punished a woman that way, he was arrested. AMD women votes. So?

7/17/2014 4:33:57 AM

#1687118

Pule Thamx

In fairness to Jesse, he obviously has thought long and hard about punishing women, but you need to put up a brolly when reading it. The spittle and drool and other airborne projections are so far reaching, they're intercontinental.

7/17/2014 4:39:21 AM

#1687127

Swede

All healthy and high functioning societies on Earth has human rights for women. All societies that refuse human rights for women are un-healthy and low-functioning. In Afghanistan, a non-healthy and low-functioning society, they treat women even worse than you want to treat them.

How the f**k would robbing women of their hard-earned human rights "maintain a positive social order and good relations between the sexes"? Would you feel positive about being oppressed and/or enslaved?

In principle, it is legitimate for women to punish you to enforce their rules regarding your relationship with them or your responsibility and behavior regarding society, as your behavior is actually harmful to society.

I would say that you're insanely stupid and misogynistic. Ever hear about or read Lysistrata? Women withdraw the possibility of s-e-x from you, to correct your harmful behavior, ya know. Will that make you motivated to obey? Or is it making you angry with them, and wanting to rebel or punish them? The latter, I’d guess. That is exactly why women DO have human rights now; they did rebel in the past and fought for the same rights that men had. We are not going to willingly rescind those rights, just cause you're too immature to handle treating people as equal human beings. The problem is YOURS, not ours, you silly little boy.

7/17/2014 4:46:15 AM

#1687130

HEIL SATAN

I have a better idea. How about you not voting? I am pretty sure that insane, 50s loving, filthy, retarded mysogynist like you not voting would CERTAINLY help to ´´maintain a positive social order and good relations between the sexes.´´

Ohhhhh. So you want to PUNISH WOMEN? You think you have a RIGHT TO DO IT? Well, I have a better idea once again. How about we punish you? With a roundhouse kick RIGHT TO YOUR FACE? To use your words, I am saying that in principle it is legitimate for anyone to punish you to enforce rules of healthy society upon you and to protect innocent people from you, using whatever they think is the best approach to it.

But of course, it should be as damaging to you as possible, because mysogynistic arseholes like you don´t understand anything else than excessive force and neither do they deserve anything else.

7/17/2014 4:52:15 AM

#1687133

dionysus

I am furthermore trying to recreate how society actually did work in the past

You know what else they did in the past? Slavery, genocide, and giving only white property owners the right to vote. And that's just America's past. Western history is full of tyranny. I realize you might actually like that, except you aren't likely to be the one on top.

I am saying that in the distant future when things are “good” women not having the right to vote would help to maintain a positive social order and good relations between the sexes.

One group completely dominating another and not giving them even a voice to object with is positive social order? How about we take away men's right to vote? Would you consider it positive then? Or what if we turned you into a woman? Would you willingly follow your own orders?

As far as Afghanistan? I don’t know about Afghanistan. I live in the United States and more broadly the Western World. I am advocating for what would work and what would be good in reference to the environment that I actually live in and know something about.

Clearly you don't know much about Afghanistan because then you'd see how stupid and destructive what you're pushing is. I guess it's true: those that don't know history are doomed to repeat it.

7/17/2014 4:56:54 AM

#1687135

dionysus

I would say the basic rule should be that a punishment against the wife should be minimally harmful to the relationship in itself while still accomplishing the goal of correcting the woman’s harmful behavior. In addition punishment based on the withdrawal of a reward is better than punishment based on the infliction of a harm as punishing through the withdrawal of a reward is less prone to abuse and requires that a man be providing a benefit to the woman before he would be in a position to punish the woman. In this way the woman’s obedience would be motivated by her desire to continue to benefit from the man rather than her fear of being harmed by the man. Obedience motivated by continued access to rewards is clearly more ethical than obedience motivated by avoiding harm.

What is she, a fucking dog? It sounds like you want a pet, not a relationship.

As for how exactly a husband should punish his wife? I would say how he chooses to or according to what the husband thinks is the best approach assuming the husband is following community standards of what types of “punishment” are preferred and what types of “punishment” are considered too dangerous or too prone to abuse or too damaging to be acceptable.

The community used to think that killing native Americans was a good punishment for the crime of living on their own land. Certain communities thought lynching was a good punishment for the crime of being uppity while black. The community isn't always right.

7/17/2014 5:01:46 AM

#1687137

dionysus

@HEIL SATAN

I second that motion. And since we're members of a community that means Jesse needs to submit to our standards for punishment.

7/17/2014 5:04:00 AM

#1687139

Danarth

Any community that thinks a husband should punish a wife in any manner like this needs to die out, quickly.

7/17/2014 5:06:17 AM

#1687144

Mark Poe

Someone please ship this bastard off to Gor, he doesn't fit in our modern society.

7/17/2014 5:14:10 AM

#1687150

Indicible

So, this guy is a dead-beat who can't make a relationship work. Duly noted.

7/17/2014 5:17:36 AM

#1687162

Hasan Prishtina

Even in the 19th century, such behavior would have been punished in many states and in Britain. You know squat about the past and your idea of the future is equally senseless.

7/17/2014 5:30:25 AM

#1687173

SpukiKitty

I haven't even read this whole thing in detail (cuz I'll barf) but, Mr. Bowells has grown women confused with small children.

7/17/2014 5:40:38 AM

#1687176

whatever

Afghanistan in a nutshell. And this Powell individual lives in the country that fought the Taliban!

7/17/2014 5:44:36 AM

#1687186

Passerby

Your idea of how things "should" work does not take into account how things do work, did work, or could possibly work.

In the rose tinted past you reference while it was far more socially acceptable to belittle or backhand your wife doing so systematically as a matter of course did constitute enough of an offense to successfully file for divorce. If a wife lives in constant fear of harm by their husband that's abuse by anyone's societal standards.

In today's society both men and women need to work to survive and that's not likely to change any time soon. Treating women as brainless cattle doesn't do much to foster valuable skills nor does it inspire any particular loyalty to an employer or a husband. Nobody with an ounce of self-respect would long stand for being marginalized when facing and living up to the same responsibilities as someone given preferrential status. Having to work for a living during WWII to support the war effort and their families (again in your rosy view of the good old days) is what kicked off the equality movement for women. If women never stepped up and started working in factories men would be trying to fight the war unarmed and would have returned to the shambles of a destitute home if they returned at all.

Attempting to reinstate this attitude - even if you somehow managed to surmount the financial hurdles and opposition by less demented men - would likely result in full blown revolution in short order, if not immediately. It would be like trying to take the vote away from anyone who didn't own a certain acreage of land. That is to say everyone directly affected and a fairly large number of those who aren't would immediately recognize it as a pointless stripping of their rights with no justifiable reasoning or benefit and flip their shit. Attempting to regress to an even worse attitude like the one you're suggesting would quite predictably end up even worse and rather than attempting to return things to what is normal by current standards or equitable it would end in overcompensational vengeance that shapes future politics for generations just like any other revolution against a callous, disconnected, tyrannical upper class. You'd be hitting the reset button on the last hundred years of socio-political development and relive the growing pains that come with them.

7/17/2014 6:06:56 AM

#1687205

Musicalbookworm

Let me clear something up for you asshole. Oppression can never be ethical!

7/17/2014 6:47:45 AM

#1687208

Doubting Thomas

So tell me how taking the right to vote away from women and having them submit to a man's discipline is promoting good will between the sexes?

I wish idiots like this would have a Twilight Zone-esque experience where they wake up as a women in the world they created in their mind.

7/17/2014 6:57:02 AM

#1687233

Deep Search

So, basically treat women like they're toddlers. That's nice. Forget the 1950s, we'd have to go way back past the 1920s. Sure the ladies would love to return to a time when they were at the mercy of menfolk and couldn't even vote or own property or get an education or have a career or file for divorce or report abuse, rape, and sexual harassment. Just looove it to bits.

Here's a tip: If you disenfranchise and oppress half the population... You're gonna have a bad time.

7/17/2014 7:50:42 AM

#1687253

Thinking Allowed

While I think Mr. Powell is a chauvinistic pig, the sad thing is there are women out there who would support what he's saying.

7/17/2014 8:40:13 AM

#1687265

rubber chicken

In my version of society, Jesse would be dragged through the streets and pelted with dogshit until he died.

I prefer my version.

7/17/2014 9:09:07 AM

#1687269

freako104

If you treated women with respect and dignity you'd have far more luck.

7/17/2014 9:30:34 AM

1 2