[Eds. note: This post explores how men and women have different spheres of authority and influence within society and the family, and how the respective sexes can exercise the most power by working within the confines of their natural spheres of influences.]
Right after I finished my last post, “Musings on Feminine Soft Power”, I browsed some of the other blogs in the Manosphere, and I was surprised to see that Power is a hot topic right now. Zippy Catholic has a post titled, “With great power comes great incontinence”, which discusses relevant abuses of power, and then Donal Graeme’s post, “Power and Control” which focuses on regulation practices.
The posts above contained the following axioms.
“The most primal power of men is violence.”
“The most primal power of women is sex.”
Looking through the comments, I saw that most everyone readily agreed to these statements without much doubt or criticism. However, I believe these definitions of power, although true, are rather simplistic and biased. I suggest they should be changed to read,
“Women perceive that the most primal power of men is violence.”
“Men perceive that the most primal power of women is sex.”
By composing this addendum, I am not merely playing with semantics, but rather, reframing the context. Let me briefly explain.
Women, who generally crave security, are fearful of the abuse of men’s power through violence.
Men, who explicitly crave sexual expression, are fearful of the abuse of women’s power through rejection.
As such, the original quote defines power as the ability to withhold that which the other needs, thereby allowing the provider to gain dominance in the transaction, and to generate a corresponding fear of scarcity in the beneficiary.
Withholding the material goods, emotional capital and spiritual needs of others in monopolistic style is truly an expression of power, but a more expansive and complete understanding of power must recognize that the locus of power does not lie within the objective assets themselves, i.e. security or sex, as implied in the quote, nor even in the dynamics of the exchange, as emphasized by PUA and feminists alike. Instead, power lies in the fact that each party has the ability to either grant the needs of the other, or else deprive them of the same.
Almost all characteristics that contribute towards one’s SMV and MMV could be described as indicators of an individual’s ability to deliver a physical, social, emotional or psychological resource, or to perform a desired service. To be straightforward, the benefits resulting from having these needs provided for, is a primary motivation for individuals to enter into a relationship in the first place, be it romantic, or even just strictly business. These needs are not limited to security and sex, but also include a myriad of other life-giving aspects of our respective natures, such as honor, loyalty, love and respect.
I postulate that true power is in the giving and enhancing of life, and less so in the disruption or destruction of it. Thus, when such benefits are not received, and the experience of life is not amplified, it is due to a failure, inability or irresponsibility on behalf of the provider, or else done as an act of operant conditioning, negative punishment in this case, to the receiver.
I’m not talking about Greene’s 48 Laws of Power, and I’m not digressing on the Dark Triad style of power, as is sublimely illustrated by Illimitable Men. Although these power modes can, and certainly do, play into the scheme of things, I’m simply describing a basic social exchange.
I don’t need to say that currently, there is a mass breakdown in the social exchange in western society, due to the sexual revolution, the advent and growth of third wave feminism, and the confluence of the protestant church with feministic ideologies and social movements (AKA “Churchianity”). Moreover, in the modern exchange, women are demanding more, and dispensing punishment, both positive and negative, when their demands are not met.
It would be beneficial for men to also demand more, and likewise administer operant conditioning as appropriate. However, the main trouble that men seem to face now, is that they lack the knowledge (e.g. the red pill), the tools (e.g. social acceptance and affirmation, legal recourse), the skills (e.g. Game), and the necessary level of organization (e.g. a common vision) to execute the much needed rebalancing of society (e.g. preserving the nuclear family).
Our recognition of what men offer to society, and to women, and also identifying exactly what men need from them, is the key to understanding our own power. It may be too hard for feminists and misandrogists to swallow enough of their pride to recognize the value that men possess. However, I would hope that borderline feminist sympathizers might be satisfied with the stability obtainable through a social exchange characterized by a spiritually healthy expression, which is beneficial to both men and women, families, children, and to society at large. Over time, we may see the restoration of the biblical institution of marriage and the transformation of our society back into a powerful Christian nation.