Several months ago, I wrote a brief piece on chivalry. In it, I proposed that chivalry is really not compatible with gender equality. We can have one or the other, but not both. And ultimately, it may be best if the sexes tried to help each other, rather than expecting that men be the protectors and benefactors of women.
A contrary opinion comes from “Let’s Give Chivalry Another Chance” by Emily Esfahani Smith. In it, she declares that women deserve both equality and chivalry at the same time, and men should obediently get with the program.
Esfahani Smith writes:
“This past spring marked the 100th anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic…In Washington DC, there is a memorial to these men. The inscription on it reads: ‘To the brave men who perished in the wreck of the Titanic…They gave their lives that women and children might be saved.’”
Fair enough. This is historically accurate.
“About a year ago, a group of today’s men were tested the way that the men on board the Titanic were. When the cruise ship Costa Concordia hit a rock and capsized off the coast of Isola del Giglio, Tuscany, last January, men pushed women and children out of the way to save themselves.”
Yes. Men and women are equal. At least, that’s what I’ve been told since I was old enough to understand human speech. This is what Feminism pushes for, right? No?
“This contrast is indicative of a larger trend—the decline of chivalry and the rise of boorish behavior among men. According to a 2010 Harris poll, 80 percent of Americans say that women are treated with less chivalry today than in the past. This is a problem that all women—especially feminists—should push back against.”
The absence of chivalry does not = boorish behavior. Chivalry is the expectation that men will protect and provide for women because they are women. A man is not being a boor simply because he refuses to pursue traditional gender roles. Men can be nice, professional, and polite to women without displaying one bit of chivalrous behavior.
After the women’s liberation movement of the 1960s, which insisted on the equal treatment of women in all domains of life, feminists dismissed chivalry as sexist. They still do. A new study, published in the feminist journal Psychology of Women Quarterly, questions the entire enterprise of male chivalry, which, in an Orwellian flourish, it calls “benevolent sexism.”
I find it far more Orwellian to demand that men and women are equals AND women deserve special treatment, at the same time. In my opinion, the referenced journal article is simply being honest that chivalry and equality really aren’t compatible.
“Chivalrous behavior is benevolent because it flatters women and leads to their preferential treatment. But it is sexist because it relies on the “gendered premise” that women are weak and in need of protection while men are strong. “Benevolent sexism,” Kathleen Connelly and Martin Heesacker of the University of Florida write in the study, ‘is an ideology that perpetuates gender inequality.’”
I agree in part. My proposition is that chivalry is justified only if either of these things were true: 1. Women are objectively superior to men, and it should be the natural role of the male to selflessly sacrifice on their behalf. 2. Women are weak and helpless, and men need to be on constant alert to save them.
In my opinion, anyone who believes in chivalry has to believe in one or the other. Otherwise there is no rational reason to argue for chivalry.
Charles Murray, the libertarian social scientist at the American Enterprise Institute, summed up the study with tongue-in-cheek, writing “the bad news is that gentlemanly behavior makes people happy.”
I am sure the hundreds of millions of men who have sacrificed and died for the protection of women over the centuries would be delighted to know their corpses make people happy.
Perhaps because of women’s ambivalence about chivalry, men have grown confused about how to treat women. Will holding doors open for them or paying for the first date be interpreted as sexist? Does carrying their groceries imply they’re weak? The breakdown in the old rules, which at one extreme has given rise to the hookup culture, has killed dating and is leaving a lot of well-meaning men and women at a loss.
Well, yes. The “old rules” should be discarded. This is precisely what feminist-supporting men and women have been fighting for. No?
Historically, the chivalry ideal and the practices that it gave rise to were never about putting women down, as Connelly and other feminists argue. Chivalry, as a social idea, was about respecting and aggrandizing women, and recognizing that their attention was worth seeking, competing for, and holding. If there is a victim of “benevolent sexism,” it is not the career-oriented single college-aged feminist. Rather, it is unconstrained masculinity.
If men and women are equal, then for what reason should men need to “aggrandize and hold” women? And what’s all this about “holding” women, anyway? Sounds coercive and violent. I think Esfahani Smith needs to attend a seminar about violence against women.
And again, she implies that the absence of chivalry = boorish “unconstrained masculinity.” Not so. Men who reject chivalry are simply evolving their expression of gender roles. What feminist would have a problem with that?
“We should have a clear notion of what chivalry is,” argues Pier Massimo Forni, an award-winning professor of Italian literature and the founder of the Civility Institute at Johns Hopkins. “It was a form of preferential treatment that men once accorded to women generations ago, inspired by the sense that there was something special about women, that they deserve added respect, and that not doing so was uncouth, cowardly and essentially despicable.”
Fair enough. But we are conveniently forgetting that generations ago, women were not perceived as fully-functioning adults. They had limited agency over their lives and their choices. They were generally expected to be chaste, behave with temperance, and defer to male authority. Do women want to go back to that culture? Doubtful.
As the author and self-described “equity feminist” Christina Hoff Sommers tells me in an interview, “Masculinity with morality and civility is a very powerful force for good. But masculinity without these virtues is dangerous—even lethal.” Chivalry is grounded in a fundamental reality that defines the relationship between the sexes, she explains. Given that most men are physically stronger than most women, men can overpower women at any time to get what they want. Gentlemen developed symbolic practices to communicate to women that they would not inflict harm upon them and would even protect them against harm.
Well, I happen to have read Dr. Hoff Sommers a great deal. Her overall argument is not represented here, because she acknowledges that the Feminist movement has deliberately inflicted a great deal of harm on men and women. I will listen to Hoff Sommers on this issue, even if I may disagree about chivalry, because she is far more honest and fair than most writers on gender issues.
“Some women are trying to bring back chivalry. Since 2009, for instance, a group of women at Arizona State University have devoted themselves to resuscitating gentlemanly behavior and chivalry on a campus whose social life is overwhelmingly defined by partying, frat life, and casual sex. The event has spread to campuses nationwide. Its goal is “to encourage mutual respect between the sexes,” Karin Agness tells me in an interview. Agness is the founder and president of the Network of Enlightened Women, the organization that hosts Gentlemen’s Showcases at colleges each spring….Women, she said, ‘want to be treated like ladies.’”
Do you know why campuses are “overwhelmingly defined by partying, frat life, and casual sex?” Because the guys who behave in such a way are also the guys who get attention from a lot of women. I could walk on the campus of any major university and find thousands of chivalrous, polite, gentlemanly men who are lucky to get a handful of dates in the entirety of their undergraduate careers. Meanwhile, the “frat life” guys need an electronic organizer to keep their “friends with benefits” straight. If you want men on college campuses to reform, you have to start by looking at the behavior of both sexes.
“Bennett and her fellow chivalry advocates have the right idea. “If women give up on chivalry, it will be gone,” Sommers tells me. “If boys can get away with being boorish, they will, happily. Women will pay the price.”
This is outright misandry. Men are not naturally inclined to boorish behavior. Imagine the cries of misogyny if I wrote something like “If girls can get away with being manipulative gold diggers, they will happily. Men will pay the price.” Boorish behavior is no more central to the male identity than gold digging is to female identity. Some people are inclined to behave poorly, and when they are rewarded for it, it encourages them.
If feminists want to level the playing field between men and women, they should find common cause with traditionalist women, like those at ASU, on the issue of chivalry. Both groups are concerned with how men treat women. They just differ in what that means: Feminists want men to treat women as equals; traditionalists want men to treat women like ladies. Are the two mutually exclusive?
Yes. The two are mutually exclusive, by definition.
“Chivalry is about respect. It is about not harming or hurting others, especially those who are more vulnerable than you. It is about putting other people first and serving others often in a heroic or courageous manner. It is about being polite and courteous. In other words, chivalry in the age of post-feminism is another name we give to civility. When we give up on civility, understood in this way, we can never have relationships that are as meaningful as they could be.”
No, chivalry is not civility. Civility is a positive thing that we should encourage. Civility does not conflict with equality, either. Chivalry is not compatible with equality, as it is the expectation that men will sacrifice and die for the women under their care.
“If women today—feminists and non-feminists alike—encouraged both men and women to adopt the principles of civil and chivalrous conduct, then the standards of behavior for the two sexes would be the same, fostering the equality that feminists desire. Moreover, the relations between the sexes would be once again based on mutual respect, as the traditionalists want. Men and women may end up being civil and well-mannered in different ways, but at least they would be civil and well-mannered, an improvement on the current situation.”
I guess we’re all just supposed to wonder how women can treat men with civility and respect, because Esfahani Smith spends this entire article criticizing men for not meeting her expectations.
During a screening of the Dark Knight, a deranged gunman opened fire in an Aurora, Colorado, theater, murdering twelve innocent people. Three men, all in their twenties, were in the audience that day with their girlfriends. When the shots rang out across the theater, these men threw themselves over their girlfriends, saving the women’s lives. All three of the men died. At the time, Hanna Rosin noted that what these men did was “deeper” than chivalry. It was heroic. I agree. But heroism and chivalry share a basic feature in common—the recognition, a transcendent one, that there is something greater than the self worth protecting, and that there is something greater than the self worth sacrificing your own needs, desires, and even life for.
Well, no. That’s not what happened. What happened is men followed their traditional gender role programming and behaved chivalrously. If it demonstrated that something “greater than the self is worth protecting” then we should have seen some women throwing themselves in front of bullets to save their boyfriends, too.
If we can all agree that the kind of culture we should aspire to live in is one in which men and women protect and honor each other in the ways that they can—and not one in which men are pushing past women and children to save their own lives—then that is progress that women everywhere should support.
We can’t agree to this, because Esfahani Smith does not offer one word on what women’s reciprocal obligations to men should be. This entire article is about some women wanting to have it both ways. “Women are equal AND special. Women should be free from their traditional expectations, while men are forced to toe the line on theirs. Man Up!!!!”
I think Esfahani Smith, and other women who think likewise, need to decide what they want. Equality, or special treatment. Choose one.
For a female opinion on why men aren’t doing as they’re told, watch this video:
Transcript of that video is right here, by the way. –DE
5 Posts in Total
donations either one-time or on a monthly subscription basis.
If you don't have paypal, check out the other options.
If you want to get some merchandise and sponsor us at the same time, consider the AVfM store.
Dean Esmay:
Tom (cough) Martin:
greg:
Suzanne McCarley:
Rick Westlake:
harrywoodape:
I don’t want to live in a world where no one runs into a burning building to save a person who is trapped. I also no longer want to live in a world where men are ordered, through social pressure, to enter that burning building by women who stand safely on the curb out front.
Maybe men should value themselves a little more than they do and women should value themselves a little less than they do. We should meet in the middle.
I’ve seen men go way out of their way to do things for women and get no appreciation for it in the end, because that’s what’s expected of him because he’s a man. That’s a shame.
I want to agree with you; however, I don’t think the staunchest proponent of feminism would be offended if her male arch nemesis came bursting through the door to save her in a burning building.
Although, I do hope he asks her if he should save her, or the children first?
If I could be a fly on the wall for a moment; I might actually favor burning alive to hear that conversation laughing my arse off in pain.
I up voted you but I say to each his own.
I very rarely lift a finger for a woman except certain members of my family and not all. Heck, all the women who post on AVFM are quite capable of taking care of themselves online. I may back their position and debate/attack the person attacking but I will not come to their defense. As I will never meet them in person that point is moot. If I did well if they were behind me I would hold the door as I would expect them to hold it for me. If I don’t know you and you’re not close enough I just let it go. I am a busy man. Who do you think is going to do the ironing. Geesh.
I was thinking about this subject recently, and I came to same conclusion you did. women can’t be expected to be treated as equals and get special treatment at the same time.
People love to throw that word “equality” around a lot, but I realize that very few understand what it actually means. And even fewer are willing to make the sacrifices necessary to be truly equal.
Some women like to show you how independent they are and that they don’t need a man to take care of them, but if you ever date that woman, you can bet your ass she’s expecting you to pay for it, even if she makes more money than you do. I’ve heard women say that them having to pay for stuff is a deal breaker. So their money is for them and my money is for them. Pretty sweet deal they got there.
I think the reason chivalry is dead is because women killed it. I know from personal experience that being the nice polite guy gets you nowhere with a lot women. The nice guy is looked down on (if he’s ever looked at at all) and taken advantage of. I agree with the authour completely, you got to pick one, ladies.
It’s self-evident that Esfahani Smith regards objective reality as an evil construct of the Patriarchy.
Schroedinger’s Cat Lives!
Oppressed and empowered by traditional gender roles, AT THE SAME TIME!
That pu55y will never die!
Darn feline enslaves women, while making them feel good everywhere.
It is akin to an evil yet patriarchal Cheshire Cat.
Time to observe Schroedinger’s Feminist, and collapse the probability function.
Over on the “Why feminism is poisoning Atheism” comment thread, feminist “not-all-man-are-like-that” appeared and DEMANDED that men and MRAs offer protection to twits like Rebecca Watson, whose abject stupidity has supposedly caused her to receive numerous soul-destroying threats via the internet.
This chivalrous expectation is just another way for women to enslave men, and take men’s lives and labor for free.
If feminist women want a protective, contrite, chivalrous man to hold open doors and absorb bullets for them, then they should stop raping men’s wallets and save up some of their own shoe money in order to hire a fucking bodyguard instead.
Women have become failed investments for men. Until the relearn how to appreciate men as valuable, I’d rather spend my time and money on beer and videogames.
So Amanda’s defenders believe men have a chivalrous obligation to protect her delicate sensibilities? Yet somehow I doubt they would want the same for a man who was being angrily criticized and denounced online, which is something I’ve gone through far too many times to count.
I despise mindreading, but I really think these people have no idea of the double standards they embrace.
Speaking of men’s chivalrous obligation to protect delicate female sensitivities, has this particular pinnacle of white knighting been covered here at AVfM?
It’s kind of on-topic with the theme of Trueblood’s article as well as raising a bunch of other issues, such as the colonization of male spaces, and ties in to that Sarkeesian Kickstarter debacle (which I’ve been catching up on recently).
I’ve been thinking about maybe writing a response to it, because it really, really pissed me off – as it would anyone with a working bullshit detector who so much as skimmed through it. Honestly, as a work of monumental codswallop, it’s right up there with the article by whatshername being dissected here.
I think it should be a sub movement in the MRM to ensure women make it into combat!
It is sad that women have to die; but they demanded “their fair share” after all. I guess sometimes death and destruction in tragedy can be funny after all.
Feminism, its HIGH-larious!
This is one of the topics I’ve had major arguements with people of the blue pill world. When I tell others, even family, that I have no interest in willingly laying down my life for some hypothetical adult female I am immediately accused of cowardice. Some of these critics I do not believe value my life as lessor value compared to this hypothetical female, at least not consciously.
What I think is the major misunderstanding is the difference in the certain death of giving up a seat in a lifeboat versus attempting to save someone but dying in the process.
Without getting into “what I would do scenerios”, I do not think it is wrong to aspire to risking life and limb to save someone else, man or woman. But at the end of the day what chivilry requires is not the risk but the certainty of death, at least at it s furthest point. I do not see how one can ask this of men while maintaining that their lives are as valuble as those they are expected to sacrifice for.
Personally, I think that traditionalists, much like the feminists in the above article, willingly engage in a form of cognitive dissonance because they are much more interested in keeping men expendable and do not want to think too much about the topic.
That being the case you can imagine how much I care when words like coward are used by such people.
Maybe men do owe a level of protection to their family members and children. But in turn, they have reciprocal obligations to him.
But in no way, shape, or form do men (as a group) owe provision and sacrifice to women (as a group) and expectations of it are aggressively anti-equality.
I totally feel you Mark, great article by the way.
However, I had a brief comment from Professor Mentu from the now defunct UofMan blog when he got the snip a few months back.
http://gloriusbastard.com/?p=832
It was September I think? Anywho, Mentu did it without telling what he claims to be his uber conservative family in Texas.
Honestly, I had no qualms with him. Just a very sad thing to see a young, very capable guy like that taking such a drastic step; when all these incompetent assholes seem to breed like mice.
Also, I think he was the last male of his family? That means his family died out in September of last year quite likely.
Our family are responsible to us; and we to our family in my opinion. With that being said; I still could not bring myself to tell a man he should not do that. To be very real; if he does have a kid, it is absolutely no guarantee that his family won’t suffer the loss of the kid anyways. Their finances also in helping him fight his legal battles.
However, at least their genes pass on.
The blue pill is bitter your whole life. And yet when it was all you knew how do you tell the difference?
I do understand his desire to never have children, but I can’t help but think that this decision, if more men were to follow it, will ultimately help the feminists win. If men stop breeding, we’ll slowly die out. Women already outnumber us. I say we have to stand and fight. Not just for ourselves but for future children, male and female, to grow up in a better world.
Men and women are the same species. Men wont die out if Men stop breeding. Women wont just keep breeding and then out number Men.
It takes two to tango.
In my opinion the view “pass on the genes” is a very reductive view of what it means to be a human being. I assumes the only legacy we have to pass on to the future is our DNA soup mixed with the DNA soup of another person. Is the chance to be roughly 1/2 the DNA soup in a couple of babies worth potentially sacrificing one’s health and happiness? Not in my view.
Great post. Objectifying the current culturally accepted definition of equality isn’t something that gender feminists will ever allow. If that ever happens they are done and they know it which is why they have institutionalized their misandry in academia, government and the law.
That video is one of the best ever. Thank You.
The interesting thing when femminists demand chivilaric behaviour from men, they overlook the _obligations_ women have under the same code.
Chivilary was a code of coduct for nobles and other members of the kings court (in itself this blows equality out the window as feudalism doesn’t equal equality).
All members of the court were expected to behave with decorum, propriety and discretion – the word ‘courteous’ derives from ‘courtly’, as in behaviour appropriate of a courtier/noble.
While women had some small obligations under the chivilaric code, the big one was _chivilary only applied to ladies of the court_.
Now while the term ‘Lady’ has turned into an honourfic for all women as opposed to a noble title (‘Gentlemen’ has a well, as originally ‘Gentleman’ was a bestowed title), if they want to use chivilary’s rules and claim the privlidges of the original meaning of Lady, they have to act their part of the role – ie: courtly/courteous behaviour.
Now lets take a quick peek at say….Toronto U for evidence of courtly behaviour….
Awesome first article, Mark. Congratulations.
Thanks!
Outstanding article, Mr Trueblood.
Esfahani Smith is not the only woman who openly laments what she perceives as a lack of chivalry among men these days. It is difficult to understand what any of them are talking about, because I see chivalry everywhere.
It seems that women like Ms Smith yearn for a nostalgic form of chivalry – the kind they first read about in fairytales. Women sigh over this kind of chivalry in the movies – and not just the classics on TCM either. The entire ‘Twilight’ saga is basically just two dudes trying to out-white-knight each other in a variety of chivalrous acts in order to impress a pasty nonentity for no other reason than her possession of a vagina.
In order to achieve power, feminists harnessed chivalry to ensure maximum input from male enablers. This was done so surreptitiously, that many women actually thought that chivalry had disappeared. Not at all – it was busy passing misandrist laws and building women-only DV shelters.
Esfahani Smith got to have her cake and has been eating it all her life. She got her precious equality and all the chivalry a damsel could ever want. She just misses the sense of romance that had to be stripped from it in order to be utilized by feminism.
That is something she’ll just have to live with.
Yeah I think some quite enjoy the traditionalism/equality hybrid and they’re none too happy the ground is shifting.
Very true.
The thing is, most of the fairy tales presented in the past were anything but chivalric. Brothers Grimm anyone?
Disney took most of these and turned them into some sort of ridiculous gynocentric misandry feast for little girls; setting them up like Smith for a lifetime of impossible expectations and incessant disappointment.
Now that Disney has the rights to Star Wars and Marvel; I am not sure to be happy, or very afraid that even more things that making growing up a boy wonderful are not going to become even more overtly feminized at their expense.
The difference between government mandated feminism and Disney; is that Disney has a bottom line and stock brokers. If they buy these franchises, and then bomb them to where men like me refuse to watch it let alone condone our sons watching it; they don’t have tax payer money they can count on to “chivalrously” prop them up.
Smith should have been an Infantry Officer In the Marines. Too bad for her they actually have standards.
I feel sorry for you mate.
You are the only person on this site that cannot be “Andybobbed.”
That is something you’ll just have to live with I guess.
This is one area where I think some modern feminists (male and female) do deserve credit, because they are happy to acknowledge the disparity between expectations of chivalry and notions of equality. Whereas questioning chivalry in a room full of traditionalists could start a riot.
With that said, the unspoken traditionalism at the heart of some Feminist ideals is still a taboo.
Feminism whipped the chivalry right out of me.
I heard a single mom chastising her 5 year old boy, “Little boys are supposed to protect their mothers.”…after he accidentally hit her with a water balloon at a splash park.
Says it all right there to me. They evict Daddy from the boys life then try to harvest the boy as their “protector” rather than …protect the child. She is a weather lady with the CBC. Disgusting. She even wanders off topic on her weather forecast occasionally and shows pictures of mother ducks with their young and says its like the new family. Creep.
local CBC or national.
It isn’t Colleen Jones is it?
I would not be surprised if it is.
She creeps me out.
Yeah…the CBC news in general creeps me out. It isn’t Colleen. I don’t want to disclose otherwise at this time.
I grew up with that … it isn’t easy to be ‘the man of the house’ when you’re five.
No it isn’t is it? No child should have those pressures put on them….but too many do, too many do.
I consider it a form of child abuse.
In a society this well off to rob a child of a normal childhood is reprehensible.
If Hyenas and jungle cats were snacking on us regularly a short childhood is understandable. Living in the wealthiest era recorded there is no excuse.
This is one for the feminists who I know are watching.
How does one become strong. It is the same with the mind, as it is with the body, the same with everything in nature, with every living thing that is capable of adaption. The strength of the body will be proportionate to the stress and strain that is placed upon it. Somebody that sits all day, and has everything done for them, will grow weak and incapable. The mind is the same, intellectually, and emotionally. If you are protected and shielded from every little thing that can cause you discomfort, you grow weak and unable to cope with the slightest thing.
You grow strong by doing for yourself, by subjecting yourself to stresses, discomfort, etc. This is the only way to be strong. Avoiding everything makes you weak. The man who goes to the gym and works out, increasing the weight he handles, straining to lift more….always more….forces his body to grow stronger. It is the same with the mind. Exposing yourself to things that hurt your feelings, and tolerating them, makes you gradually stronger, and immune to these things.
I put it to you, that feminism makes women weak, because it demands the removal or protection from all the upsets, or challenges women. It demands that they be given everything just for being women. Respect, jobs, support, money, etc etc. The no longer have to earn anything. So feminism makes women weak. But feminism actually makes men stronger, because for everything extra that men must shoulder for the benefit of women, the man must adapt by growing stronger, more capable. So the future of women under feminist rule, will be helpless cripples, physically and emotionally, while men will be virtually supermen…..able to withstand any loads placed upon them.
Have a nice day.
Men and women deserve the equality that Feminism has aggressively resisted.
Now imagine if both horses were pulling the cart instead of just one.
Hell, instead of just one pulling the cart _and_ the other horse.
I assume that Emily Esfahani Smith was in good will, as well as the other looking for a com back of chivalry.
I understand it, because chivalry is nice, and only a man can make a woman feel that good, with those special behaviors that men tend to reserve for women they love or at least respect.
But none is entitled to chivalry, you have to earn it.
To earn it you have to get rid of feminism, it is a matter of choices. There is no grey area.
Expecting that the average man that every 15 minutes has to listen or watch a news with contents demeaning the value of manhood, that every other week has to see established a new law that reduces his chances of find an employment, that every 3 months has to make telephone call to a friend or a brother or colleague thrown in the bin or in jail by the wife….well…expecting that the average man dealing with these little existential issues, has still the blindness needed to smile and open the door or steal a flower for some woman…well, everyone loves fables…
Yes women still love chivalry, but they prefer to dress Prada.
Great article and highlights in detail the logical inconsistencies that feminists have when trying to address male chivalry.
There is another aspect of chivalry which has even more import for feminism esp. the victim feminism which has become mainstream and this is what I call “institutional chivalry”. This is the form that gives women far more lenient sentences for the same crimes that men commit. The same form that spends far more on women healthcare than men’s. That favours mothers over fathers in family courts. That favours girls style of learning over boys in education. The day I see feminists @ N.O.W. arguing against that kind of chivalry is the day that hell just froze over.
It was once argued to me that it is not hypocritical for feminists to call for chivalrous behaviors because they “observe that men desire to provide it to them.”
One notes the hypoagency inherent in that statement.
Well there is a half truth there as SOME men do indeed desire to give it to them. Those are vote pandering wankers like Joe Biden – just the kind of patriarch that the radfems @ N.O.W. get all tingly about. The hypocrisy is truly breathtaking!
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
NOT taking the brief moment to hold the door or w/e signals(falsly) to the subgroup of women who are just as fed up with feminism as you are, that you’re on board with the ideals you both despise.
NOT a mind reader.
So you feel the need to “test” their worthiness, and to “prove” your own worthiness?
Assessing another’s politics, and displaying your own, have never been the purpose of chivalry. Looks to me like you’re allowing The Gender War to dictate your behavior.
You can be as polite as you want, but please don’t conflate individual generosity with chivalry. That’s what feminists do.
You missed the point entirely Raykyn as I was talking about institutional chivalry not personal chivalry – in this case how an elected official uses his institutional power to pander to feminists supposedly representing women’s interests in order to attract votes.
As for my treatment of others I am usually polite, courteous and helpful as the feeling takes me. I don’t discriminate by sex as I would be just as likely to hold a door open for a bloke with his hands full say as I would for a woman.
In reply to Suz;
“don’t conflate individual generosity with chivalry”
What is it, if not individual generosity/courtesy?
What you’re talking about is civility and heroism. It’s just plain polite to hold the door for somebody. It’s polite to offer help to somebody who seems to be struggling. It’s heroic to risk your life to save somebody else.
Chivalry removes the choice. You’re expected to do all of those things and you’d better fucking smile while you do it. Don’t expect any gratitude either, since you’re simply expected to do these things so the women won’t take any notice. Once you get inside, she’ll probably rant at you about how you’re a rapist and you’d better take that smiling if you know what’s good for you.
I enjoy being polite to people (honest!) and I hope that I’m the kind of person capable of heroics, but demanding it of me? Open your own door then, at least servants get paid.
“What is it, if not individual generosity/courtesy?”
It is an exchange, with an expectation of reciprocity. Feminist culture forbids reciprocity and wants you to forget it ever existed.
Chivalry is extended to “ladies” who return the courtesy by acting like “ladies;” it is not arbitrary male self sacrifice. It is male *protection,* of the weak, within the context of a social contract wherein the protected are grateful for their protection, not entitled to it.
To Suz, again:
“It is male *protection,* of the weak, within the context of a social contract wherein the protected are grateful for their protection, not entitled to it.”
I agree, of course, but the ‘social contract’ is binding even if not reciprocated. That is to say, if you behave courteously, and some entitled ass treats you like a doormat, they have violated the terms of the contract, not you, and as such they alone are redefining chivalry under the feminist paradigm.
Maybe I’m just nostalgic, but this smacks of letting feminists redefine chivalry, and us refusing to take part as tacitly endorsing the new definition. It seems to me we should behave with courtesy, honor, and generosity, and let ingratitude and gross entitlement be it’s own advertisement, much as that young man did in Toronto in the face of hatred/violence.
By practicing chivalry in the absence of reciprocity, it is no longer chivalry, it is self sacrifice. Being generous and polite is moral and honorable, but again, it’s not chivalry. Society has reached the point where feminists are no longer breaking the contract, because by now most of them have never agreed to the contract in the first place. They don’t know that such a contract once existed.
It’s like serving tennis balls over the net, to someone who not only doesn’t hit them back, but didn’t bring a racquet. All the other party does is collect the balls and keep them for her own use, although she will occasionally toss one back to keep you on the court. Women no longer even know the rules of the game, and couldn’t care less.
To be chivalrous without reciprocity, is to be merely useful. If a woman happens to be gracious about your chivalry, it’s not because she’s participating in chivalry, it’s simply because she’s a nice person, or because she knows it’s an effective way to keep the goodies coming.
By all means, be a compassionate and generous person; this world needs more such people, not fewer. Calling yourself chivalrous however, is an ego trip, and feminists will happily pat you on the head and tell you what a “nice guy” you are, so long as your compassion and generosity are useful to them. Encouraging men to be “chivalrous,” is a perfect example of feminism using traditionalism to hold men hostage – for ransom.
Suz nailed it. Raykyn appears to be operating under the illusion that the social contract between men and women still exists. It doesn’t. Feminism tore it up. What’s more, as Suz so insightfully pointed out, what the social contract once was has been reframed by the fembots as a system of oppression (except when they’re lobbying to bring it back, as per the article – say what you like about feminists, you can’t accuse them of consistency).
Chivalry – as it applies to men – is about granting special consideration and entitlements to women, simply because they’re women. Of course, the corollary to that is that men are accorded less consideration than women – simply because they’re men – and in practice means that they’re (often literally) left to swim for themselves. Male disposability, in other words.
Back to the classic door-opening scenario: I’ll hold the door open for anyone. That’s just good manners and helps us all rub along in our day-to-day lives with the minimum of friction. In other words, I try to treat everyone equally, with equal amounts of basic civility and respect, regardless of gender. There’s a world of difference between that and chivalry.
Anyone else seeing the following error message appear on their comment posts?
“Warning: Missing argument 2 for wpdb::prepare(), called in /home/paulelam/public_html/portal/wp-content/plugins/wp-ajax-edit-comments/lib/class.core.php on line 470 and defined in /home/paulelam/public_html/portal/wp-includes/wp-db.php on line 990″
I have tried loading AVFM in both Chrome and Firefox and I get the same problem in both but oddly the error messages only appear if I am logged in otherwise all the comments are displayed normally!
yes, since a couple of days…it must be some wordpress stuff gone wrong…
Weird shit as my last two messages both had the error just after posting them but now both a displayed normally after restarting browser!
Lets hope wordpress get a grip quickly as it is most distracting.
Yes. Not on all comments, but many.
Apparently Mr . Novy has been working on it for a few days. I am patient as I know he volunteers his time.
Yes, again, not on all comments but about 40% of them. It’s something which has happened since the icons for upvote/downvote were changed, about a week ago.
If women want chivalry, I demand the other side of the social equation upon which chivalry was created…Submission.
Otherwise ladies, pay for your own meals, open your own doors and get in line with the men when the ship is going down.
But-but-but Submissive = Doormat!!!
Nooooooooo…..
Except it wasn’t submission, exactly. Or it was submission of the “lead from the bottom” variety. The chivalrous man bows to the lady and bends the knee for her.
There are traditionalist women who’ve known this all along: chivalry makes men their servants, in exchange for them being delicate and “virtuous” at least by surface appearance. It was always self-serving for all parties involved.
Excellent article Mark. Great logic, great distillation, well-organized thoughts. Please write more.
“I guess we’re all just supposed to wonder how women can treat men with civility and respect, because Esfahani Smith spends this entire article criticizing men for not meeting her expectations.”
This is why I’m an MRA. The abject blindness to female responsibility on a culture-wide scale is so demoralizing for men interested in settling down like their parents/grandparents. Even in an era where men and women are choosing in droves to remain single, the chances of a successful partnership are abysmal.
If the chances of a college degree netting an increase in earnings potential, rather than just a massive debt load, were anywhere near the chances of a marriage netting a successful union, economists would be shamelessly arguing against attending college.
No one would be complaining that young people aren’t “owning up” to their responsibility to keep universities in business.
I would be more open to marriage if I had a reasonable chance to find a partner who wanted to stand back to back with me.
That’s not what’s in the cards these days. It’s more about the desire for a bigger, better deal with minimal reciprocity.
I usually compare it to taking a bet, where you know right away that you only have less than 25% chance of winning, no matter how hard you to try to even the odds.
And when you lose, you lose everything.
The blatant misandry of that women’s position is obnoxious and gross. It is the height of conceit and hypocrisy to demand equal treatment and then call men “boorish” for aquiescing to the demand. The truth is that women want to enjoy the perks of patriarchy (provision and protection) without adhering to the traditional standards of behavior under that system, namely female submission to male authority. Unfortunately, like you said, they can’t have it both ways. Either you pay the price of admission (submission) or you don’t get to enjoy the show (chivalry). Personally, as a woman, I weep for patriarchy. I’m embarrassed by the antics of my gender. It’s like feminists are having buyer’s remorse, basically saying, “Well, I know this is exactly what I ordered, but I had no idea it would be quite so heavy!”
Chivalry is grounded in a fundamental reality that defines the relationship between the sexes, she explains.
Nope.
What defines the relationship between the sexes is that women get pregnant, reproduce our young, and men do not. A woman’s fertility is limited in time, a man’s is not. This makes women “less expendable”.
This is why half the men of a peoples and/or land can die in war defending said peoples and/or land and the tribe will still survive. (And also men are better at shooting weapons and wielding axes and spears.) You couldn’t send half your women into war and still survive long term, because a) the other side wouldn’t be as “equality minded” and they’d kick your women’s asses and b) you’d have less women to get pregnant and bring forth new soldiers to fight another day.
For a $150 I can have a vile of frozen sperm from some transient named Dave Fed-exed to my house, but to pro-create another human I’ll need a woman, preferrably one with a womb. As much as the “Male Disposability” MRA’s might feel uncomfortable in accepting this, its a biological fact, women are more valuable, and precious and sweet and exhalted beyond measure. (might as well lay it on while I’m on a roll)
If they couldn’t get preganant, they would not be equal to men. Pregnancy is their EDGE. It’s their trump card. It get’s them almost everything they want, including, IRONICALLY, reproductive rights and “more equal than men” legislation and deference.
I know it’s sexist to say pregnancy advantages women over men, but it does. They’re special because they can do that. We’ve been treating them this way since the dawn of civilization. It won’t ever change. They’ll get whatever they want including the right to NOT be pregnant. Women of yore had no such “right”.
It might change. For the first time in history, the big gun that women carry is becoming dangerous for the whole planet. That danger will likely be factored in the biological equation somehow.
What it means is huge (and dangerous) global demographic shifts. The society whose women are actively engaged in reproduction (men will never be a limiting factor), will flourish and look towards resources other less reproductive societies have that they don’t.
It will be in the form of insidious migration, if not war.
You are probably right about insidious migration, if not war. I was thinking China with it’s one child policy and the practice of aborting girls because boys produce more. But it’s unlikely that all nations will choose to limit female reproduction as one.
HUGE can of worms here, but two responses to the statement:
“It will be in the form of insidious migration, if not war.”
1. Is there – ultimately – a difference? And,
2. I’d question the use of the future tense.
keyster raises some disturbing issues deserving of a response, but that’s as far as I want to veer into that potential quagmire, so I’ll leave it at that.
The ability to become pregnant, thus giving women an edge, is flawed logic.
It’s men that keep a newborn alive (protect and provide food/shelter) so the value of men is just as important.
Yes but there needs to be a child to begin with doesn’t there? 47% of births are now out of wedlock in the USA, much higher for minorities.
Men are no longer directly protecting and providing for children, government is…and most often through forced financial servitude VIA the government.
Artificial womb/uterus is coming…….!! 30 yrs people … !! Just hold your breath … !!
Historically, chivalry has been a species driven survival instinct (imperative) as much as anything.
Since we have had over 50, 000, 000 abortions in America alone over the past four decades, why, oh why, would we ever consider women as priorities for preservation in any life threatening situation?
Considering the perils that over-population creates for the human species, maybe it’s time we require women to not only start serving in front line ground combat, but start drafting them and exempting men in all future military conflicts. :-/
…and as far as you chivalrous male dinosaurs who still pay for a woman’s meal, a woman’s drink, a woman’s ticket to the movie, etc., consider this you are setting a “legal” precedent for your relationship that is enshrined in divorce law so that when the little woman gets bored and decides to divorce you, you shall continue to pay, and pay, and pay, with no consideration for any quid pro quo of any kind. That’s right, no exchange of services, or sex of any kind is required from the little female, since as you clearly know, “it’s a woman’s right to choose” not only in areas of reproductive rights but in all areas of life, especially those areas where they’re in any kind of a relationship with a male. :-/
“But, but, but I was expecting her to reciprocate, to make an exchange “‘in-kind,’” you say. Well, not only has it never worked like that (equality), Western societies expectations for privileged, pampered princesses is lower than ever to the point that “taking responsibility” and “assuming accountability” is just not something you’re ever going to find equitably expected of a female by any court in the Western world – especially family law courts, where “Witch-Hunting Males” (as shown at Youtube) is not only enshrined in law, it’s deified and worshiped by misandrist, Stalinist, black-robed priests of law who expect worship from all who are required to appear and figuratively kneel before their self-sanctified, self-glorified sanctuaries. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-SC0a1_Vjs
The best way to manage pest populations, is to cull the females right before the breeding cycles begin. Makes no difference what one does about the males. In today’s world, the human ‘pest’ population is the most important one to manage first. I’d vote to force FEMINIST women into combat first, of course. We can’t afford to lose GirlWritesWhat or other truly intelligent women but we can afford to lose feminists.
So feminazis want women to be treated as equals and still expect men to act as human shields for said women?
They don’t really know WHAT they want these days, do they?
I want chocolate, all that chocolate I can eat.
And I want to be thin.
Me too. Unfortunately, I have a solid grasp on cause and effect and I know that it isn’t possible to do both
Chivalry treats females as superior to men, and more helpless and therefore in need of protection. That’s the flimsy justification for chivalry. But there’s a third, more fundamental assumption that justifies chivalry: it’s the sanctified currency given in exchange for female attentions.
The whole thing started in 12th century France. Before that worldwide “chivalry” always referred to a military code, the code of the warrior, that had absolutely nothing to do with women, love and sex.
In the 12th century the chivalric military code was infected with principles of courtly love to produce the bastard child we might call chivalric love. The hybrid version spread to the masses throughout Europe and eventually to the entire world on the back of popular fictions about knights and ladies, and troubadours, culminating today in movies such as Twilight.
These early fictions responsible for popularising chivalry + courtly love were remarkably similar in tone to today’s women’s magazines that spill out of the racks of any newsagent… stories about women getting married, men fighting for thier love, stories of jealousy, tragedy, longing, and male sacrifices. Literature was, and still is the main way this propoganda has gotten into our culture and into our heads.
The basic theme of chivalric love emulates the feudal relationship between a vassal and his overlord: the man swore an oath of allegiance to his lady, and made a pledge to obey her and abide by certain rules, such as secrecy, patience, duty and moderation. The woman was always to be considered the moral and social superior to her suitor.
And nothing has changed.
Last week I was talking with my sister, a school teacher of young boys, who proudly told me how she had been teaching the boys all about chivalry and it’s importance as a code of respect. She relayed with considerable pride that in the lunch break when the boys were playing with the girls, she overheard the boys chastising one of the other boys by saying, “That’s not very chivalrous behavior!”. She also tells me that this is a State-wide teaching module for girls and boys- the chivalry module… apparently it is the new way to get kids to learn about “respectful relationships”.
I agree with Andybob’s comment above, chivalry and romantic love -lets just shorten that to chivalric love- is ubiquitous. It is spread as thickly today as it ever was throughout the last 800 yrs. The good news is that we here at AVfM are beginning to deconstruct it, and undermine it with new narratives and literature…. a task the feminists have been unsurprisingly sheepish about following-through on.
I never bought the “superior sex” argument favoring chivalry. When one looks at the sexes from a purely objective matter, it’s quite clear who the superior sex is; they are larger, faster, more durable and can spread their seed much more easily than the other.
How can it possibly be argued that we must protect the “superior sex” in the name of moral virtue? By that logic, the more you do for the most capable person, the more noble you are; which is logical hogwash. If you are more capable than the next person; the less likely you are to require aid from the next person.
Now, one *could* argue that there is nobility in helping those less fortunate than you, which I would tend to agree. But that has everything to do with basic humanity more than attempting to appeal to someone perfectly capable of handling their own lives with little assistance from others. Help someone because it might be tough to carry a heavy load with a broken arm, and you’re a decent human being. Not because you think it will reflect well on your character to a total stranger you hope to nail.
I’m still surprised we don’t see more arguments against chivalry considering how one could twist the intentions and equate the female to be some kind of sex object. Or is the difference purely in attraction? If she likes you; you’re a chivalrous gentlemen. If she doesn’t, you’re just a Nice Guy (TM) trying to get into her pants.
Ah, just another dilemma on how they can have their cake and eat it too.
Chivalry (white knighting) leads to becoming the enforcer class for the status quo and feminism. This is why MRAs are despised by the warrior class of young men. Because MRAs are generally older with much more life experience. it is easy to pump young mens heads full of hatred towards MRAs. which is exactly what feminism and the system dies. at the Edmonton YWCA fundraiser – called “Walk a Mile in Her Shoes” the front rank was Canadian Armed Forces soldiers and Highschool football players. So feminists are directly targeting the white knight class to help protect their racket. hey…they know how to ‘play’ men. I recommend that we help save our young men…who appreciate bravery…by having their fathers come and tell them what s crock of shit it is. I used to be a white knight and part of that class. But while I was, I couldn’t help but notice that I also developed a sense of brotherhood with my fellow white knights and I saw and went through enough suffering up begin to question what it was all about. As a white knight, I believed in chivalry but also as a soldier in the infantry…there were no women anywhere near the areas where me and my brothers suffered. We suffered for each other. That is where I saw guys stick their necks out…for each other…out of brotherly love.
It struck a cord with me that women had no interest in anything but saving them and rolled their eyes at any talk of men saving men or men helping men. Then I began to question if these women were worth saving…I mean I saw my brothers suffering and I knew they would save me or at least try. At least they wouldn’t let md help them, yawn, expect it, then discard me later on.
So to me…men were more worth saving on a moral level. Also, my brothers wouldn’t call for help unless they were in real danger. Some women continually need to be rescues from their own stupidity…I suspect they are just shit testing.
That behaviour and my thought process completely fucked up my white knight and chivalry instincts. I find this is pretty normal cycle for men. Many white knights become disillusioned or turn into manginas by the time they are forty. White knighting and chivalry are for the young that haven’t learned any better yet. There are a few grey (as in old) white knights for sure. Usually if they father a daughter…they are white knights till death…poor bastards. Especially today, because honestly if you look at female arrogance and excessively boorish female behaviour it is one thing…but couple in the belittling of all things masculine and the direct disrespect
Make sure you get the required enthusiastic consent before you save them.
Antioch College is holding committees on writing a guide as we speak.
Beautiful
Off Topic – please note that in the comments section about half the comments have this in them:
“Warning: Missing argument 2 for wpdb::prepare(), called in /home/paulelam/public_html/portal/wp-content/plugins/wp-ajax-edit-comments/lib/class.core.php on line 470 and defined in /home/paulelam/public_html/portal/wp-includes/wp-db.php on line 990″
However this only occurs on Firefox (using V13.0.1), and this error does not appear when using Explorer. Is anyone else experiencing this problem? It only started occurring about one week ago, when the comment upvoting/downvoting icons were changed.
Can we please get this fixed? Thanks.
I am having this problem on Safari!
I’m having this problem in Chrome browser as well as Firefox. Internet Explorer isn’t an option for me as I’m using Linux.
Well, kinda off topic, but I just read this and had to share:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/female-teachers-accused-of-giving-boys-lower-marks-6943928.html
I guess the feminist plans on ruining boys were underway for some time now!
Here’s Peter Kay as Steve Edge an icecream man demonstrating what equality looks like (sans chivalry of course) – please put your coffee down before viewing. Not to be taken seriously – just a bit of light relief!
Ha! May I also recommend for your viewing pleasure: Matt Berry’s ‘Snuff Box’.
Damn, I don’t know how you Posters keep your temper, with your reasonable and moderate language when writing about this shit.
What I’ve seen over 60 years is that women, qua Women, *have no principles*, no consistent standards of morality, hence very little sense of justice. They are shifty and tactical, and girls fight dirty.
This is why we hear all this cowshit about there being “many feminisms” – this is just an euphemism for the traditional “a woman has a right to change her mind”.
Meanwhile, what I’ve also seen is that men react to feminism with logic, concepts, a basic sense of liberty, equity and justice. Alas, such is now too rigid and static to survive a world on women’s “terms”. For Women have none they simply wait passively to be “mastered”: but of course there is no such animal as a “surrendered” woman, not anymore, anyway; for they are always in flux, constantly running shit-tests that no man of flesh and blood can pass all the time.
This is why a world on women’s terms is government by hysteria.
Feminism has been one long shit test.
It comes down to a question of whether you let the anger kill you or you let the anger die.
Chivalry according to Wikipedia has been an evolving process, I regard it as more universal in application today. I will hold the door open for women and men and offer assistance freely to both genders when I think it warrants …
And should be a social norm applicable to children and elders ..
If I had a Titanic experience my criteria would have included fathers with children, mothers with children at the head of the que …
Not saying this is a perfect criterion but that is how I would call that one …
As for the video …. a few more reasons why men are not marrying ….
If we go by age, then the reasons could include being marriage averse from previous negative experience(s) if the man is older in years. Or it could mean generational changes in parenting quality, say 17-30 year old group. This age group could also have witnesses the trauma (say 50%) of seeing a father booted from the role of parenting and diminished in the very role of being a valuable member of society. Perhaps for a boy or a young man seeing their closest attachment being treated like a piece of shit has had some unforseen consequences on how he regards society and women within society? Perhaps the impunity of seeing his father being treated so badly along with having only one care giver having control over his life, or having this care giver constantly berate the absent caregiver (father) has led to some deep-seated anxieties or feelings of inferiority about his gender? Perhaps this is a paradox of the wealth in numbers of manginas today, perhaps they have this insatiable need to please a woman because they know the consequences of getting on her wrong side? Perhaps it stems from inadequate care giving that equates to parental abuse, resulting in a lack of trust for women if the primary care giver was the mother? Perhaps for some young men the attachment to their mother was superficial because the mother was superficial in her care giving? Motherhood is not what it used to be, men should be wary of marriage and bringing children into the world for many reasons especially when women in this country are three times more likely to be imprisoned for child abuse … the chickens are coming home to roost with this one!!
Some women prefer a rude boor as a partner. They expect him to be chivalrous, beating other men to a pulp at her whim.
Chivalry is not civility. The academic studies presume without question that men live only to serve the needs of women.
The fantasy of the brute that only she can harness.
An example of chivalry on the Costa Concordia:
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/01/14/world/europe/italy-cruise-scene/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
[quote] The worst part came when a lifeboat crew member told everyone, “Women and children first,” Smith said. “All these families who were clinging to each other had to be separated,” he added.
http://blogs.theprovince.com/2012/01/16/province-letters-costa-concordia-woman-and-children-b-c-ferries-smart-meters-nasty-neighbour-sfu-gondola-translink-fare-hike-peeing-soldiers/
[quote] Apparently during the chaos of the evacuation of the Costa Concordia off the island of Giglio, Italy, a crew member shouted, “Women and children first!”
Heard another story of chivalry on the Costa Concordia when listening to the radio today. Apparently a male waiter helped lots of women and children into life boats and then was unable to save himself, and went down with the ship.
Its amazing that the press refused to run with all these stories of chivalry on the Concordia, and in thier place we got the unanimous lie that males were rushing ahead of women to get in lifeboats and that chivalry was dead.
At least on the Titanic chivalry was praised. Nowadays any examples of chivalry-unto-death are suppressed… even while chivalry is still called for.
To that waiter, I have not forgotten you!
Well done Mark, enjoyed the piece.
Just another example of the pigs on the animal farm wanting their equality to be a bit more equal than everyone else.
Can you believe the arrogance of these entitled princesses.
“Women, she said, “want to be treated like ladies.”
Bennett and her fellow chivalry advocates have the right idea. “If women give up on chivalry, it will be gone,” Sommers tells me. “If boys can get away with being boorish, they will, happily. Women will pay the price.”"
So the default state for boys is to be happily boorish, so women should not give up on chivalry to stop that boorish behavior.
What? Like women have any say in whether a man is chivalrous.
Message for you princesses
1. Chivalry is not yours to take, it is for a man to give if he sees fit to do so.
2. If you ask men to act with chivalry towards you it is always a good idea not to treat them like a pet that needs training in the same breath.
3. The word boorish is not defined by “men aren’t doing enough shit for me”
Also note the condescending attitude, referring to themselves as “Women and Ladies”, whilst referring to the men as “boys”.
Unfortunately the attitude is really common among traditionalists who are our “allies” on some issues.
Quite well done! Congrats!
Thank you for differentiating civility and chivalry. I have to admit that until this was discussed on the forums, I had equated the two. However, that assumption has now been reassesed, and I thank you for the clarity.
Perhaps it is just me, but it seems like feminists wanted to get into the ring, but then hide behind their cut man. If you’re going to get in the fight, you must be prepared to take a few hits, and incur a few injuries. Luckily for women, the wounds are superficially bruised egos.
With that said, I still have yet to meet my male oppressors
I keep running into nice, kind men…perhaps the patriarchy didn’t get my change of address form? Perhaps one of you could give me the name and contact info for my oppression case worker, since apparently all of you are involved…
;P
Goddam those nice kind men, they seem to be everywhere, shit.
It is bloody hard to oppress all these women when all these bloody nice blokes wont do as they are told.
Welcome motherx
Yeah I agree the difference is hard to suss out. I think it’s a common misunderstanding. And to be honest, I have not studied the history of chivalry, I’m just looking at it as it seems like it operates at this point in time.
As I mentioned above in another reply, I think a “hybrid” of traditionalism and equality has been available to women for a few decades. And to say the least, it is seriously unfair to men. It may be fun for the woman, but it is not helping her reach her full potential.
What a coincidence, since I seem to have missed out on my patriarchy membership card (without which I can’t gain entry to all those secret meetings held to plot the subjugation of teh wimminz) as well as my male privilege entitlement vouchers (to be cashed in for preferential treatment in education and fast track promotions at work) even though they’re supposed to be issued at birth.
Nor did I receive my licence to rape, for that matter, which the fembots insist that I carry at all times. Bloody rape culture bureaucracy. Probably just an administrative blunder and they’ll arrive any day now…
Mark, love the way you logically survey the notion of chivalry as it appears in contemporary voices, is the most cogent and incisive analysis of the problem I’ve seen. Also agree with you that Hoff-Sommers championing of chivalry, with its roots in male subservience to women, and her assumptions that without chivalry males would be rendered “lethal,” “overpowering,” and “boorish” is unfortunate to say the least.
If we marry your analysis with a larger history of where chivalry first took root and how spread, we have a complete picture of why we are here today on AVfM.
Unfortunately Hoff Sommers’ attitude is really common among our traditionalist “allies.”
Yep, no mention anywhere on what obligations women have to men if men are expected to be chivalrous.
Thus the rules are :
Men doing stuff for women = chivalry.
Women doing stuff for men = oppression.
Thanks, but I think I’ll go my own way.
because Esfahani Smith does not offer one word on what women’s reciprocal obligations to men should be. This entire article is about some women wanting to have it both ways. “Women are equal AND special. Women should be free from their traditional expectations, while men are forced to toe the line on theirs. Man Up!!!!”
Would be good to ask Smith, how many of the women at Network of enlightened Women are dating or married to the men they are training into chivalry? I bet they want be be “just friends” with the nice guys and gentlemen while they are probability having sex with the bad boys and frat boys they say to hate so mush.
She’s certainly not the only one I’ve seen displaying this selective indignation at boorish college boys, while conveniently ignoring their plentiful female counterparts.
I think it’s another hypoagency schtick- “Boys are boors, girls have boorishness happen to them.”
I think the most chivalrous thing a modern man can do today is to stand up in the face of feminism and put an end to it and whoever is behind it. Real men are MRAs.
It’s pretty obvious to me the status quo is hurting both sexes, though not to the same degree of course.
The boldness and rotten sense of entitlement this c**t -please don’t tell me I shouldn’t use this language here- has is nauseating. Her words are so infuriating I feel my chest is tightening like it always does when I read sexist garbage (towards men) like this.
You people keep saying chivalry is dead when it isn’t, but I wish it were. It is however dead in the minds of SOME self-respecting men. And to that I say GOOD, and I dream of a day when this ugly word is completely taken out of the dictionary and forgotten but I doubt that will happen.
I can’t believe we insist on calling ourselves “civilized” – I don’t actually believe we are or will ever be- and then not only allow such a revolting and sickening sexist practice (chivalry) to exist, but to actually have people among us who promote it and even have the gall to say that men have an obligation to be “chivalrous”.
This really makes my blood boil. We claim to be a society where both men and women are supposedly “equal” and have the same rights and obligations -of course we all know women have much more rights and special privileges and NO obligations- and we claim to have abolished slavery yet we still expect men to be “chivalrous”, which to me is nothing but another form of slavery though it might look mild and less obvious. It is also a caste system that is as bad if not even worse than the one that exists in India. After all, chivalry is about one sex (males) bending over backward, putting all women on the pedestal and of course giving their (men’s)lives shall the “need” arise to save those earthly goddesses for having those holy vaginas.
Imagine if blacks or chinese or whatever minorities happened to be on a sinking ship and were told to stay on the ship until all whites have been evacuated first. Imagine the same thing in a burning building. Imagine if blacks were told they were expected -or at least it would be a polite gesture on their part- to open and hold doors open so a white person could enter or exit. Well, basically take all those scenarios where those sexist entitled goddesses expect the special treatment that they think they deserve and are entitled to just because they happen to have the holy vagina and replace ‘women’ with ‘whites’ for example and let me know how many people will still say it’s acceptable let alone promote it or even expect it (for themselves if they happen to be whites). Well, that’s what chivalry is about except that instead of minorities being treated as a third class humans unworthy of anything, it is men, while at the same time treating women as first class citizens…
This is the way I look at it. You’re at a maternity ward and there are two newborns. One with a sign that says “boy” and the other with one that says “girl”. Obviously, neither one had a say in being born and neither had any choice in being the sex it was born into. What chivalry -and society- tells us is that this poor baby (boy) is lesser of a value than the one next to him (because he happens to be born with the wrong genitals) and in the future he will have to put her on the pedestal. He will be expected to always come to her rescue and always take her side. He will be expected to remove his hat for her, kiss her hand, bow to her when he sees her, stand up when she enters a room, give up his seat for her…and of course GIVE UP HIS LIFE for her so she can live…. All that and she’s just a stranger (to him)! And those bastards (pro-chivalry) don’t see anything wrong with this ? This isn’t the worst kind of discrimination and sexism? Is it?
This bitch has the gall to trash men who dare to refuse to be slaves and to be treated as third class citizens and refuse to be looked at as disposable things but I’m sure no one would point the finger at her and say you’re one sick sexist misandrist bitch. Imagine if a man wrote an article asking and expecting his own wife, not all women but only his wife to fulfill her traditional duties and just cook for him or do his laundry. Imagine the outrage that would’ve followed. You all know he would’ve been accused of being sexist, misogynist, oppressive, wife beater, cave man…. This hypocrite here however is demanding that all men should basically be no more than slaves (to all women) just happy to serve their goddesses and die for them.
This lying hypocrite wants us to believe that chivalry is really about helping others or the weak or whatever other things she wants us to believe chivalry as she thinks of it is about. But unless you really are one big fool you know what this hypocrite and all her likes really mean by “chivalry”. When women talk about chivalry they ALWAYS mean the one that benefits women and women ONLY, not the elderly, the weak, or others in general.
I guarantee you this hypocrite would never expect any chivalry from women towards those who are even weaker than them – the elderly and children. I’m sure if a boat was full of only women and children and the boat was taking on water, not only wouldn’t the women try to save the children but they would happily throw them into the sea so the wimyn can survive with their so valuable lives. I also guarantee you this SEXIST hypocrite pig and all those who supports her views on chivalry would NEVER blame the women for not giving their lives to try to save those children and no one would call them cowards like they always do when the genders are reversed.
Chivalry and all those who want this sick twisted disgusting discriminatory sexist archaic practice can go and rot in hell. I have nothing against all of us helping one another but women can rely on me NOT treating them any differently than I would any one else. I’m not going to open doors for them, give up my seat and certainly not going to put my life at risk let alone give my life so some entitled vagina can survive.
“Do you want chivalry or equality ? Yes ?”. As mad as I was reading those offensive paragraphs by Ms. entitled hypocrite, the title made me laugh. Isn’t this how women are? Always vague (about the kind of “equality” they want), vacillating back and forth depending on the situation and what’s in their interest and what’s not.
Yeah jinbottle. I don’t know how the men here can keep their cool reading such degrading sexist shit directed at us. I was seething with anger and was so close to a full blown panic attack.
CHIVALRY = MISANDRY.
Men and women of good character need to find a new path for how to relate to each other. All we can really do is send out our signal and hope it reaches some through the noise.
A PERFECT example of “having it both ways”? Next time you hear a group of women talking about marraige proposals, of course, the MAIN part of it is the size (cost) of the ring……Feel free to interject the fact that as equals- She should buy HIM a ring!
Watch and see how fast “equality” goes out the window!!!!!!!!!
This is both on topic AND entertaining – a win grin!
Spot on.
+1000
Time to coin a new phrase: “buffet feminism”.
Old as the hills, just a woman trying to concoct a veil of reasonableness around the essential demand: ”Treat me equally in all the ways it benefits me to treated equally and tradionally in all the ways it benefits me to be treated traditionally”. That’s all she’s really saying and her reasons are obvous, ah, the eternal solipsism of the female mind.
I think at least some women understand deep down that if they were actually forced to live in men’s world, to endure men’s lives and have the rules of life enforced upon them with as little pity as men do, they would be utterly and absolutely screwed. Women wouldn’t survive in a world as unsympathetic and unsentimental as the one men inhabit.
“I think at least some women understand deep down that if they were actually forced to live in men’s world, to endure men’s lives and have the rules of life enforced upon them with as little pity as men do, they would be utterly and absolutely screwed.”
Well, a couple of women have tried so far, and they all end up needing psychiatric help for an extended period of time afterwards.
What i find most amazing about the women that can’t recognize this difference in demands, are actually the level of denial of reality it takes to live in a world of make believe like that.
It mostly surfaces when I hear the statement that women can do everything a man can, when you know perfectly well yourself, that the majority of them couldn’t walk 30 feet in a man’s shoes.
Exactly _because_ they end up in a mental hospital, whenever one of them tries it for a longer period of time, as witnessed on numerous occasions. You don’t even have to bring size or strength into the equation.
Civilization has really turned out to be a bitch to some women’s connection with reality. Evidently men shot themselves in the foot, making it a world where women can survive on state benefits alone. We should have stayed in the caves. Life would have been a lot simpler, and women would still be living in the real world.
Great write-up and takedown of this revolting hypocrite.
I think it’s been pointed out before but I’ll say it again, feminism is – among other things – institutionalized chivalry. That is, chivalry is now obligatory (for men only, anyway) and enforced by law, rather than what it once was – a more or less voluntary mindset and set of behaviours, dependent on an individual man’s sense of ‘honour’.
“Not so!” you say? To give just one example, think about the taxes that you’re obliged to pay, then think about where much of that money goes: exclusively female health programs, VAWA funding for damsels in distress, benefits for single moms – who’re paragons of both victimhood and empowerment simultaneously…
That’s you, good sir knight, stepping in to protect all the fair maidens. And you’ve got no fucking choice in the matter.
The list could go on and on and on (and the likes of divorce theft and paternity fraud would be prominent on it). At least they’re kind of getting closer to admitting it, in articles like these, in a round about sort of way. Kinda, sorta, almost.
One other thing which jumped out at me was this quote, addressing the Aurora shooting:
“…It was heroic. I agree. But heroism and chivalry share a basic feature in common—the recognition, a transcendent one, that there is something greater than the self worth protecting, and that there is something greater than the self worth sacrificing your own needs, desires, and even life for.”
Yeah, and that “something” is “women”. That’s the message she’s sending. To men. And to men only.
Fuck. That.
In many respects this shows how desperate feminists are, they are attempting to grab a hold of traditionalists as they fall off the cliff, or extend an olive branch to survive a few seconds longer.
I almost wrote a different comment until I realized one key factoid: Feminists rarely use the term traditionalist as it was being used. That is a term more so used in that fashion by certain segments of the MRM and myself. More common terms is conservative women, SAHM, and/or Christian women.
The term traditionalist as it was used in the article, is the right wing branch of the matriarchy/social female supremacy(with feminism composing the left wing). I personally think this has to do with MAD(Mutual Assured Destruction), then anything serious. The reaction of men and MRA is beyond predictable in instances like this. By having a public “girls conversation”, they are spreading any ill-will that exists towards feminism and spreading it to traditionalism as well.
Traditionalism’s main goal has been to simply outlast feminism. Maybe feminists realized and remembered the true nature of the gender war, but more likely their psychopathic, vindictive nature has more to do with this Trojan horse article.
Chivalry is not respect for women. That is a myth. What it is is competition for females, either for sex, or at least to stay in the good graces of women.
Perhaps it bolsters the false-manliness self-images of men, aka, inflated egos. It may have had a purpose in yesteryear, but in contemporary times, it is kerosene in the whiskey!
I agree with the author. It is equality OR chivalry, because special, preferential treatment in any form for women dictates that they cannot be equal to men. As long as women continue to accept things like general chivalry, affirmative action, VAWA, favoring by “family courts”, slaps on the wrists for crimes that should carry much stiffer penalties, etc, then while on paper, in policy, and in pretend-land, women may APPEAR equal according to the law, but in reality, they will never be equal.
This is so because, like it or not, believe it or not, know it or not, when we repeatedly see women get the upper treatment at the expense of men and boys, all it does is remind and reinforce that women can’t be equal—else why so much help. It is women in my life that keep reminding me and others of this undeniable commonsense.
Another example is when women are allowed to physically, emotionally, and financially abuse men, but never the other way around—not even to protect men themselves.
You can bet your bottom dollar that men, even if they do not realize it, have this notion tucked away in their psyches. Thus, in the long run, women hurt themselves by taking the extra help and protection.
And it SHOULD backfire on women (mostly feminists) because given the natural dynamics between men and women, it is exploitation and hijacking of social institutions and behaviors in order to let women have it both ways…thus, have their way all the time.
The solution is to educate boys on alternatives to repeating the same old mistakes that got men where they are today. Change men and boys, (stop the stagnation) and you change the world. That should be the concerted goal of all MRAs. It is not impossible to accomplish. I wish I could see more writing on changing men and boys because that is the ultimate, underlying solution to stopping bad feminism.
When men do not “have to” anymore, then most of them won’t! We’ll surely see that “hard-wiring” plays a minimal role in why men behave as they do. Males do what they do mostly because they think they are “supposed to” in order to be accepted, thus, being part of the “manhood herd.”
I say, manhood is not group-owned. At least I, and some others I know are diligent to make certain that no other men (or women) own, power and operate my/our own control panel(s)…manhood behavior included! I/we will determine all of that for ourselves …period!
Too, I agree that Emily Smith completely blew it when she conveniently “forgot” to include reciprocal treatment of men by women. How do women EVER expect to achieve equality with men if, when given the opportunities to actually BE our equals, they defer? Shouldn’t they set the example they want men to follow? You know…be EQUAL!? …more proof that feminists and many women do not want TRUE equality. In fact, they are scared of it and detest it, because there is truth contained within it which is their number one enemy!
Thanks for another helpful article that is characteristic of AVfM.
Chivalry is the social institutionalization of natural male subsidiary behavior towards women.
You state that there are two situations that would justify chivalry, one being that women are superior and thus deserve it, the other one being that women are inferior and need it.
I think both are true in a certain way:
In a survivalist past women were more valuable than men since a single man could impregnate several women in the case a population was decimated. Also for the evident fact that women are physically weaker than men they also were in need of protection.
All this troubles people who see men and women as equivalent social actors which they are not.
I can be chivalrous towards women which I really care for and for whom I feel a protective impulse: my wife, family and close friends. The rest of women can expect a very kind and neutral treatment from me.
India’s young people want equality. Our elders keep forcing chivalry on us. I explain some confusing aspects of our culture to the readers of this blog at the bottom of the comments section here;
http://www.avoiceformen.com/misandry/a-passage-from-india/#comments
I’m hoping this will give the non-Indian readers here some insight into the very deep and widespread sexual awkwardness of our culture.
I thought of an approach to women who believe they are feminists: be mildly complimentary in a chivalrous way. If they overlook it or even act/behave complimentary, apologize. Explain how, after reflecting upon your actions, you realized its actually degrading to her. Walk away/leave/shut up. Kind of a “Tao of Steve”: Be desireless. Be excellent. Be gone.
I showed my soon-to-be 13 year old son this article and some of the comments and he told me there is a girl at his school who pushes boys out of the way when they approach a door while saying ‘thank you for being gallant’ – !!! Doesn’t that just summarise the modern feminist?
He gets all this stuff immediately. He’s had that much less programming to undo. I’m glad I discovered the MRM this early in his life – maybe he can avoid a whole load of the pitfalls I’ve had with women.