Author’s note: Today’s column is a slightly edited re-post of an article that I had penned over at my blog back in May. I wrote it after a decade or two of observing the modern female’s persistent affinity for the privileges as well as the rights that come with being a franchised citizen in an egalitarian society. This having-one’s-cake-and-eating-it-too phenomenon is dubbed “lifeboat feminism”, and it is part of my “Evils of Feminism” series. Enjoy!
**********
Back from the boats…the first man that touches a boat, I’ll brain. Women and children first, men
Quote from W.D. O’Connor’s Harrington, 1860.
I am not a wymmin’s studies major. Nor do I have much formal schooling in the theory and history of feminism. As such, I do not know with much certainty if the first wave feminists advocated true equality (equal rights and equal responsibilities) between men and women. They may very well have done so, but whether or not they did is irrelevant today because the successors to First Wave feminism most certainly do not strive for de jure and de facto equality between the sexes.
As the quote above indicates, the chivalrous among us–usually men, but women play a key supporting/reinforcing role–value women and children more than themselves. In this view, men are disposable, and men should sacrifice their time, wealth, comfort, even their very lives, so as to ensure that women, the women’s (note, not the man’s) children, even society in general, benefit from their gallantry.
As it so happens, women, feminist and non-feminist alike, generally are in agreement that that men should bear the brunt of boosting women onto a pedestal. The non-feminist thinks that this is just the natural “just so” order of things, and the second- and subsequent-wave feminist lobbies for the acquisition of political privileges over the disposable male because she knows that it isn’t. The result, then, is that feminism is not a political movement that seeks the legal and social equality of women in which women and men are legally equal in all respects, but is instead a political movement that seeks to accrue advantages to itself while attempting to bestow new disadvantages upon, or cement existing disadvantages for, men. It is a movement of, by, and for chauvinists, looking to make their position all the more superior, and no never-mind is paid to the male corpses left strewn in its wake. What’s more, to the disappointment of men searching for allies in this political death match, the non-feminist woman isn’t bothered much by the feminist’s agitations–in fact, while she may tut-tut at the methods, she herself gladly reaps the benefits from feminist jockeying for political power over men on her behalf, all while ignoring or rationalizing away the deleterious effect that such political acquisitiveness has had on the men around her.
I’ve commented upon this phenomenon before, in a post over at my blog entitled “Boats and Votes“. While I certainly understand how feminists can adhere to this hypocritical viewpoint, in that post, I sadly observed that even women that profess to be Believers, appear to have drunken the fembot kool-aid and demand entitlements and advantages over their brothers while simultaneously demanding that their brothers serve them, even die for them. And as far as I can tell, nothing has changed wrt women’s attitudes in this regard. The message is: serve us, placate us, cater to our neuroses, or we won’t bother with you. You are a fish to our bicycle.
These attitudes appear to be set in stone, anchored in the bedrock of our culture, immovable.
Or maybe not.
While it is possible that it is wishful thinking, perhaps I am detecting a minor foreschock on the cultural seismograph, in that this obtuse notion, this chivalrous hangover, of feminine entitlement to boats (a literal and euphemistic reference to the privileges afforded women in Western patriarchal cultures) and votes (privileges and advantages bestowed upon women by a government in transition to matriarchy) is now starting to be critiqued in in the wider media. As an example, I give you Kevin Myers, writing in the Irish publication the Independent, about the Lifeboat Feminism he witnesses in his own country:
So…we see what the official, government-sponsored version of Irish feminism has mutated into: the cry of the officers on the deck of the foundering Titanic — “Women and Children First”. But at least in those days there was a coherent moral order behind that command. Children were children, and women were seen to be weaker and inferior and thus voteless; gentlemen of all classes would naturally stand back and give them places in the lifeboats first.
If there is a coherent moral order to the present thoughts of the National Women’s Council, it is that words no longer mean what they used to. In the Council’s prospectus for the year 2009, the word “equality” is used 38 times. Yet clearly, in the sisters’ deviant vocabulary, “equality” does not mean equality of pain, or hardship or suffering or poverty. No: it means the opposite of equality. It means a protection from these conditions, regardless of what men are enduring. In other words, lifeboat-feminism, surely the most ignoble and unprincipled of all the many liberal political creeds which dominate our ethos today.
And no, the NCWI press release doesn’t mean “mothers”, it makes no mention of mothers, not even once. Though interestingly enough, it refers to “women and children” four times, and to “women” just three times. Psychologically, this is simply placing women at the protected level of children, just as was done on the Titanic: quite an achievement for a state-subsidised feminist body in 2009, if a largely unsurprising one.
One need only to look around to see that this sort of lifeboat feminism is all around us. In the USA, feminists consistently wrap their rhetoric in “women and children” terms, get pissed when programs are set up for the ostensible benefit of men while crowing about programs and government money spent for the exclusive benefit of women, and even have their own council on women and girls in the Executive Branch. They have multiple federal offices dedicated to improving their health. And they bray incessantly about the pay gap, which I have shown repeatedly works in favor of women instead of against them, and in any case is a direct result of their own choices.
All this while men die earlier at far higher rates from every class of disease, and spending on men’s health lags significantly lags spending on women’s health. In addition, women are routinely let off the hook for crimes (scroll to bottom) (also here)–that is, if they are even arrested at all–which send men to jail for comparatively longer terms. Furthermore, only men are required to register for the draft…interestingly enough, legislation that would probably have required women to register as well was defeated by a conservative woman–and cheered by her conservative sisters who didn’t want responsibilities to come with those rights–in 1973. And men are routinely evicted from their families for no other crime than allowing his wife to become unhappy, and have their children stripped from them with the full cooperation of the state (which takes its cut of the largess that women garner from the transaction). As Robert Franklin of Glenn Sacks’s blog writes, it is noteworthy that the biggest opponents to a father’s equal status in the family often hail from the feminist camp.
Fellow Spearhead author Novaseeker was absolutely spot on in his observation that feminism has operated to permit women to invade the male social and legal spaces, without ceding any territory of their own. As such, women are now able to vote and be breadwinners, soldiers, pilots, politicians, housewives, and play against men in sports. But men are rarely permitted female privileges such as being a homemaker, taking time off for family, or being exempt from military service on the basis of sex and / or young children at home, or, increasingly, to occupy the same floor as women in hotels or the same car in subways in several countries.
This is what feminism, a movement that, if one ignores its misbegotten nature, may have had some shred of well-intended nobility of egalitarian purpose, has boiled down to: the crass acquisition of privileges for women at the expense of children, particularly boys, but also the male half of society in general. Thinking more of themselves than the others in their midst, they embody the opposite of love as they heave their corpulent solipsistic (thanks FB!) egos into the lifeboats while snickering at everyone else’s misfortune.
About the author: EW is a well-trained monkey charged with operating heavier-than-air machinery. His interests outside of being an opinionated rabble-rouser are hunting, working out, motorcycling, spending time with his family, and flying. He is a father to three, a husband to one, and is a sometime contributor here at Spearhead. More of his intolerable drivel is available at the blog The Elusive Wapiti.
Subscribe to The Spearhead Newsletter for a free copy of the Book of Zed
{ 36 comments… read them below or add one }
Power corrupts, inner and outer groups, dehumanization and so forth. That’s human nature for you.
As long as we accept female equality in any form we will be shooting ourselves in the foot.
Legally we need an iron curtain between men and women, a de facto ‘apartheid’, while we stand firm on ‘all men are created equal’!
All the arguments are here and there and everywhere, so I’m just recapitulating the points.
This is 100% true. It’s there for all to see. I happens daily before our very eyes and yet most men won’t see.
How often must men be warned to stay away from what have become demons. The women of today have become more than totally unlovable and still men worship them.
I can’t help but compare the men of today with lemmings.
***
Maybe the solution will become visible to men when true persecution begins and men get disposed of in a military way and in huge number. That day WILL come sooner than we think.
Western society, and the Anglosphere in particular, have become rotten to the core. It’s a toxic society that we must run away from, just to stay alive.
I believe that there is no other way out but either to expat (BEFORE it is too late) or to become gay.
At least, gays have organized and now they can not be persecuted anymore. There are laws that protect them.
Heterosexual males will get persecuted at an ever increasing pace. Women’s hatred of men is now ingrained. It is in their genes now.
It must be said again and again and again that men must steer away from Anglo women.
It just can’t go on like this or we shall all become slaves.
Our society has been given the kiss of death. (men have) and we are now engaging into raging madness.
Men must wake up before they are put in chains. We have NO IDEA how far this hatred will go. Remember the Jews in nazi Germany and the inhumane treatment they received. We are now in the same position the Jews were during WWII: those who left survived the holocaust, those who stayed died.
The similarities are too obvious to ignore. During the war, nobody knew about the Jews but everybody was applauding the mass murdering of innocent citizens just because they were Jews. Look around you and you will see ample proof of what I say.
The same process is being followed here. Males are on the eve of being slaughtered “en masse”, I fear.
The luckiest men today are those who have chosen to go and live elsewhere. And those who will stay will be sorry they didn’t leave before the government came down at them and destroyed them with women’s blessings.
(perhaps even upon women’s request)
The more I observe and read, the more I see that women are pure evil, unlovable creatures, a curse to men.
The question will soon be: “Who will survive the massacre when it happens”. Never forget Daschau and other such marvels. Who knows: maybe YOUR head will be on the chopping block next.
Don’t expect any sympathy from women when your head comes off…as you will hear their laughter of joy the moment you die.
Like Irlandes has said so many times: YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED. The signs are now unmistakable.
There is a third way and it is to destroy this sick society: 911 it.
Either that or slavery. Now chose.
A good modern-day example of Lifeboat Feminism in action is the Marc Lepine shooting.
Following the incident, feminists complained vociferously that the male students present just ‘let the women die’. The implication seems to be that the males present should have risked their own lives to take down Lepine, or even sacrificed themselves to save the women – so essentially, women’s lives are worth more than men’s. That is the message promoted by this so-called ‘equality’ movement: you will die for us.
Quite frankly, I do not accept ‘ladies first’.
If I find myself in a modern-day Titanic tragedy, I will make a point of pushing women aside to reach the lifeboat myself; I will then declare ‘men first’, and let my brothers on alongside me, while keeping the women out. Perhaps if there is enough room once all men have a seat, then we can let women on. I think it’s only fair that women should die for men for a change.
And any woman who tries to board the lifeboat, in whom I detect the slightest feminist sympathy, will find herself launched straight into the icy waters.
Chivalry is dead, LONG LIVE BROTHERHOOD.
Oh … but I’m sure we can make room on the lifeboats for those women sympathetic to the MRM.
Anyone who has read any of my comments will readily appreciate that I have no good words for women. So I believe Rebel is correct in what he writes. But I think there is more.
Everywhere you look in society you will see that we are being systematically looted. It is not just the bankers who are doping this, though they perhaps are the most obvious and easy example. At ever level of society those in a position to grab are doing so. The entire managerial class together with politicians are all busy creaming off whatever they can get their hands on. Public funds are really just a cash cow for the greedy. The fate for the rest of us is as Rebel says slavery.
Actually this really should be no surprise. For most of history slavery or near slavery has been the norm. This could take the form of actual slavery that all would recognize, or it might be through a feudal system.
May be in the last 200 years things have looked a little better. But this is only a short period as far as what went before is concerned.
I have always considered myself just a better off peasant. For sure it is an improvement to be a better off peasant than a poverty stricken one. But nothing is for certain and all that may be about to change.
I think that it is through women that our total slavery will return with a vengeance.
Just make sure that there are no men slave to the chivalrous nature nearby. But your principle is a good one…why should women get any benefit from their possession of vaginas when (a) we are all supposedly equal, and (b) we have more than 60 breeding pairs, the minimum required to sustain a population without danger from interbreeding?
Paul, it is through our women that slavery has indeed returned to our society . Putting aside the Looting Class for a moment, women have very effectively used the mutilated beggar argument to hold men “responsible” for their children…and presto, we have chilimony, modern-day slavery.
Phyllis Schlafly wrote:
“Demanding more of a group of people than they are able to physically give is not liberation but a grotesque oppression”
Tell that to all the feminists that send unemployed fathers to jail because they can’t afford to pay child support.
Check this out, it looks like lesbian couples are finally getting a taste of the corrupt Family Court system:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34661539/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
Lisa Miller has ran off with the child, which is exactly what so many heterosexual women do to men every year. We already know that no politicians actually care about mothers abducting children from their fathers within the US. But homosexuals have a lot of political power these days. Maybe they could be used to change abduction laws.
Or maybe that’s just wishful thinking.
Talking about the Ecole Polytechnique incident, the papers here were full of that statement about the boys leaving the classroom and let M Lepine murder 14 women.
Many have said that the boys in our community (Quebec) had been thoroughly brainwashed into believing that they were not supposed to come to the rescue of women: such a gesture being interpreted as male oppression.
BTW, one of the male students committed suicide shortly after the killing. That was hardly ever commented in the newspapers.
So, they (feminists) have emasculated our boys to the point where they would not dare come to the rescue of a woman, even if she was being murdered, only to blame the boys for being cowards.
It’s the usual “damned if you do, damned if you don’t”.
Seems to be that the Polytechnique boys were smart enough not to get in the way of bullets..
They did EXACTLY what they had to do. Same thing happened in other North American cities.
But in cases like these, boys are not the losers: women are. Still, the feminists will not accept men’s help or assistance: they would rather die.
I say: “Let them die”.
I have come to the conclusion that the feminists would rather sacrifice the life of women, just to prove how bad men are. Now, who are the real victims of feminism?
Women.
I agree with this, rather than what came after. First, this part: it’s a cultural pincer movement. The idea isn’t, specifically, to get men to protect women, or to get women to protect themselves. It’s neither of those. The idea is to make men self-conscious, self-loathing, unsure of what to do, unsure of what their place is, and open to pain (in one form or another) regardless of their actions.
That’s why I disagree with:
Because I am convinced that feminists would have preferred those men to have jumped in front of the women and to have acted as human shields.
And THEN, feminists could have absolved women of all guilt, by saying that it is because men are trained to be so chivalrous (oppressive) that they caused their own deaths.
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. It is a pincer movement. You can’t run left nor right; you will be attacked either way.
There is a third option, however, which may have been the motivation of many of these boys to stand aside: stop considering what women want altogether.
Quite frankly, if you’re wrong either way, what does it matter what you do? It’s not like you could ever be RIGHT, so you might as well ignore what THEY want, and do what YOU want to do; minimise your losses.
And so, when a crazed gunman breaks into your school, seeking to kill all women present, you might just recognise that, whatever your course of action, you will be deemed wrong; and thus you might well ignore the plight of women altogether and focus on your own survival, which means stepping aside and letting that gunman go about his business.
I challenge anyone who thinks this is ‘wrong’ to tell me what ‘right’ would be.
Excellent writing.
I am pretty encouraged by the comments. I think one of the greatest benefits of the internet is that it creates a space for men that women can be drummed, pushed or harassed out of at the will of the group. Not that the men actually do that, so much as the fact that they can.
The other, even more important factor is that forums like these create an environment where men can reject chivalry without shame and indeed get support for it. To my knowledge there has never been that space for men in western history. I know that in my youth if I had said that any woman in between me and a life boat would be in peril of being thrown overboard, it would have been met with shock and derision. I would have likely had to defend my thoughts with my fists.
And after that I would have been regarded as less than a man; further proof that the world has always measured the extent of my worth by my willingness to see myself as worthless and my own life as expendable.
But now I have the opportunity to say, with a largely sympathetic audience, that whoever cries “Women and children first!” while the ship is going down should be the first one to have their ass tossed in the water.
And now I get to envision the day that I see the tone of the more intellectual writings of this genre turn even more toward the understanding that feminism is nothing more than state enforced chivalry.
Pieces like this one are great to that end.
When that plane went down on the Hudson, apparently women were given preference to get off the plane first. I told one feminist writer in Toronto I would have stepped on her throat to get out first while chanting “chivalry is dead”.
@ Snark
“The idea isn’t, specifically, to get men to protect women, or to get women to protect themselves. It’s neither of those. The idea is to make men self-conscious, self-loathing, unsure of what to do, unsure of what their place is, and open to pain (in one form or another) regardless of their actions.”
What you are describing, essentially, is classic Narcissistic Personality Disorder / Borderline Personality Disorder end of the Cluster B spectrum.
What you are saying, essentially, is that feminism is in fact a mass psychosis.
I’m not disagreeing with you, just observing.
Is the remedy / reaction different, if you treat the woman in question as;
a/ feminazi bitch
b/ Cluster B Personality Disorder
?
I enjoyed this post when I first read it on your blog, EW, and enjoyed seeing them again here.
The post that was the dramatic event of fireworks that compelled me to end my own blog was an anti-chivalry post titled “Why is My Husband Worth Less Than Me”. This post earned me 60+ hate mails and the title of “feminist” and “not feminine” so it seems “lifeboat feminism” and female entitlement is alive and well. In this post I discussed my bafflement at why a man who does not know me should be expected to risk his life for me and the fact that should my husband and I ever face the proverbial burglar inside our house at night, the most efficient way to clear a house of danger would be teamwork. He picks up his weapon, I pick up mine, and we cover each other’s backs in the process. And the same principle of partnership should hold true in the rest of our lives as well. Teamwork is often better than one person working on their own. Also, I’ll be darned if something is going to happen to my husband and/or our daughter while I stand by like a helpless fool and DO NOTHING. Maybe I couldn’t stop something but I’d try the best I could.
I also highlighted the irresponsibility promoted by feminists and socons when it comes to a woman protecting herself. Instead of taking action for herself and her children, a woman is supposed to wait around for somebody else, oftentimes a man who is a stranger, to come help her. I find this outrageous as should somebody really want to harm me, they are going to come after me (and most likely my daughter as well) when I am alone and appear to be most vulnerable. Some evil person wouldn’t come when my military husband is around, but when he’s deployed or at the very least at work. In light of this, I must have the training, foresight, awareness, and equipment necessary to protect myself, my family, and even other people should (God forbid) the need ever arise.
What a world we live in! Men are “not necessary” until they are needed to die or do the dirty work of women. Women are “strong and independent” until they need to take true responsibility for themselves and perhaps even save their own selves from danger of some kind.
Guys,
Here are my thoughts: if women can do anything a man can do and do it better, then THEY can give their lives like we always used to do; after all, they can do what we do, and do it better, right? I say let’s have the bitches put their money where their mouths are.
MarkyMark
You know, the interesting thing is that in some cultures, such as Italian and Chinese, women cannot expect to get on the lifeboats first. Interestingly, both are very old cultures that have withstood the test of time.
Welmer-You know, the interesting thing is that in some cultures, such as Italian and Chinese, women cannot expect to get on the lifeboats first. Interestingly, both are very old cultures that have withstood the test of time.
Interesting indeed. Do these cultures expect more of women as a result of not placing them up on pedestals? Raising the bar on what is acceptable behavior and what makes a “good woman” I mean?
In “Home Economics”, F. Roger Devlin discusses the high status given to women in the West, some of the reasons why this has occurred, and the effects on culture today as a result of this high status pairing with feminism. Very interesting reading if you haven’t done so already: http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/devlin_home_ec_01.htm
@Hestia
The Chinese sure expect a lot from women. I’m not as familiar with Italian culture (I’ve lived in China, but only visited Italy), but it certainly seems that Italian women bore a pretty heavy family burden — we’ve all heard those “Italian mother” stories. As far as acceptable behavior, I think Chinese women are held to higher, but not unrealistic standards. They are also a lot more capable of standing up for themselves, sometimes to the point of really asking for it! I’ve seen Chinese women challenge men to a fight in public before. This is very different from feminist women in the US, though, because they wouldn’t expect men to come running to their aid. If you don’t stand up to a Chinese woman, she’ll walk all over you. I imagine Italian women are somewhat similar.
One thing that always gives me a laugh is how a lot of opportunistic Chinese women, upon discovering the nature of Anglo culture, begin telling people sob stories about how “oppressed” they were in China, because they’ve learned that Americans are far more sympathetic to female hardship of any kind. Amy Tan books come to mind (I know she was born here, but she was basically telling her female relatives’ stories). Chinese-born women are definitely tougher and more capable, but I’m afraid that’s changing rapidly as they modernize and their daddies spoil them.
Thanks for the Devlin link. Don’t think I’ve seen that one yet.
Why are mens rights activists so morbidly obsessed with feminism and the attitudes of women to men ?
Why do they bring for a second time the question of femaleness into discussions focused on mans standing; thus only extending and amplifying the subtefuge of inveiglers and usurpers of males, whom also introduced femaleness to the question in the first place to diminish and exploit mankind.
Because if they are not aware, such matters to do with females are of little to no consequence in regards to the securing rights, conditions and a better status for males.
What is of grave importance to the question of the rights and status of men is the attitude of males to males. Period.
Thanks Hestia. I enjoy reading what you right as well. You appear to be a blessing to your husband. You are certainly a blessing to us guys here. *Doffs hat*.
I can’t speak for other fellows, but (a) I recognize that any MRA solution will have to account for women, lest we go the way of the fembots in our advocacy, and (b) we humans were not made to be male and female and never the twain shall meet, but male and female with the intent that both shall come together for the betterment of each other.
The thing to note about “lifeboat feminism” is that it presumes that men have built the ship and kept it running in the first place. But what happens when men decide there is no reason for them to bother keeping the ship running?
Indeed, Tarl.
Perhaps ‘MGTOW’ are those who are already clamboring for the lifeboats.
Paul Elam said…
“I know that in my youth if I had said that any woman in between me and a life boat would be in peril of being thrown overboard, it would have been met with shock and derision. I would have likely had to defend my thoughts with my fists.
And after that I would have been regarded as less than a man; further proof that the world has always measured the extent of my worth by my willingness to see myself as worthless and my own life as expendable.”
Well, this is what Nietzsche refers to as Slave Morality. Your worth is measured by your usefulness to others. You are not supposed to value your own life and seek your own interests – that is “selfish”. You are encouraged to be self-sacrificing, humble, willing to serve, because these are useful attributes in a slave.
If you seek to be master of your own destiny, if you value your own life on the same level as any other life, if you no longer believe you have an obligation to live in order to make somebody else happy, then you are a rebellious slave.
Paul Elam January 2, 2010 at 09:28
The other, even more important factor is that forums like these create an environment where men can reject chivalry without shame and indeed get support for it. To my knowledge there has never been that space for men in western history. I know that in my youth if I had said that any woman in between me and a life boat would be in peril of being thrown overboard, it would have been met with shock and derision. I would have likely had to defend my thoughts with my fists.
And after that I would have been regarded as less than a man; further proof that the world has always measured the extent of my worth by my willingness to see myself as worthless and my own life as expendable.
I keep telling people I know how revolutionary the internet really is. Most don’t understand what that means, and I get a “yeah sure, whatever you say” look from them. For the first time in history, anyone who can afford a computer, and an internet connection, can access the information they choose, and converse with like minded individuals. It allows you to bypass the spoon fed, social engineering, infotainment bullshit that’s called news these days.
Guys, I spotted this letter in the Washington Times. How about this for an example of a modern wife?
My husband is refusing to re-enlist in the Army in March. I think he has lost his mind. He claims that he is tired of all the deployments.
I’m not buying it. I told him he should man up and stop acting like a scared little boy. The economy is too bad. Where does the think he will find employment? I keep telling him there are no jobs anywhere in our country and he needs to stay in the Army.
Besides, Ms. Vicki, he could get a $20,000 bonus if he re-enlists. Doesn’t he know what we could do with all that money? We could pay off bills and maybe even take a vacation.
I’ve learned to cope with deployments, and he has, too. There’s nothing to it…
Ms. Vicki, I’ve been an Army wife now for six years, and I like it. Help me persuade my husband to stay in the Army. We need a retirement check!
- He Doesn’t Get It!
Imagine being married to that!
Says it all. Me, me, me, me, me.
Welmer- Thank you for sharing that info. Very interesting!
Jules- That letter is deeply upsetting and enraging. A man not wanting to continue his military career is understandable. He has to miss out on much of his life, including meaningful time with his children if he has them, in addition to the real risks that come with war. For this reason the decision to continue his military career must be left up to him with financial decisions made that can allow him a real choice in the matter despite the economic times.
This wife expresses a cavalier attitude not only about her husband’s feelings, but also his life as well. it’s no secret somebody can come home from war gravely injured, psychologically wounded, or in a body bag. This is NOT worth a vacation or re-enlistment bonuses nor is it worth pushing a husband to continue if he doesn’t want to. And who likes deployments as this wife seems to?! I’m more than happy to support my husband’s career and keep at this for as long as he likes, but deployments are lousy and hard as my husband is greatly missed in his absence, by both our daughter and myself. “Nothing to it”,that’s outrageous!
Furthermore, it’s disturbing this woman has never heard of retirement investing and other means to provide financial security for the future. Even if her husband did wish to stay in, relying on the military benefits is foolish and there are many programs that can help a military family make wise financial decisions that can help them build wealth. Of course they require a family to SAVE the bonuses and invest them, not go on vacations.
Good for Ms. Vicki for offering the advice she did. My thoughts had already wandered there before reading her response. And I say that as an army wife of six years.
Apologies for the rant. That letter is just….don’t even know the words.
Regarding female social privilege, I live in DC and I am roughly built like an average NFL offensive lineman without as much fat. Back in the day I was a total stereotypical modern Southern gentleman (i.e. a sucker with delusions of grandeur), but over the last decade of watching and learning what passes for sexual equality I have willingly and joyfully become a total bastard. And it is without a doubt one of the best decisions I’ve ever made.
For instance, I used to open doors for women, get out of their way on crowded city streets, give up my seat on a crowded train, etc. But now I absolutely refuse to do anything to help a women in public unless she is blood kin, disabled, elderly or there’s some other serious reason that I need to help. And just having a pussy is not a serious reason.
For example, in a “happening” part of DC one recent Friday night I watched a young out-of-state woman driver almost hit two male pedestrians due to her own carelessness, after which they both proceeded to kick the shit out of her nice car while she was still in it trapped in traffic and generally scare some of the bullshit bluster out of her.
To be honest watching this happen was nice atavistic fun and it only added to my glee that she was a stereotypical bespectacled young white chick in a VW and they were hoodish looking black dudes. I like to imagine that her nerfed sheltered worldview was shattered that night but that’s probably just wishful thinking.
Initially my male companions wanted to help her out, but I talked them out of it. That bitch caused her own problem and consequently she had an opportunity to learn a lesson about life that isn’t taught in a classroom or mandated by corporate mores or government regulations. So who were we to interfere in a potential culling of the herd?
Wherever she works I have no doubt that she would be the first to yell about rights – but never her responsibilities – when it suited her purposes. But that night I imagine she would have appreciated being treated like an old-fashioned helpless damsel who needed a big strong male defender to protect her from the hordes at the gate. Too bad for her then that I was there.
Anyone who has worked in a professional environment in the imperial capital understands the type that this place attracts. DC is essentially like Hollywood for ugly fat chicks and gutless beta pussies who both have a starfucker mentality to the corporate political whores who “run” the country. In other words it’s a company town full of weak-minded followers. That’s why it’s so much fun to fuck with the entitled young women who arrive in new waves every year for federal government welfare jobs. They’re all the same and there’s always someone new to play with, and when you’re done you simply dispose of them like used facial tissue.
Similarly, I’ve also nearly knocked down women on the street who refused to make any room for me while passing on crowded sidewalks. This is not because I am a big tough Billy Baddass who’s down for whatever. Nope. It’s just because I have decided that I will not bind myself by social rules for an outdated game invented for a world that no longer exists. Therefore I act accordingly and I accept all of the potential consequences: let the chips fall where they may.
Look, I will go half-way for anyone under damn near any circumstances and I will bend over backwards for a good faith request for help, but if some bitch presumes that she is entitled to 51% of my effort just because I have a set of balls and she doesn’t than all bets are off and she gets treated like a man disrespecting me by trying to run bullshit. And if any sucker white knight has a problem with that then I am ready to have a frank exchange of views if necessary.
My point is that given the cultural and economic situation in the US, I have totally abandoned all constraints on my behavior that I once allowed due to outdated and sexist notions like chivalry and some inherent male obligation to all women. Back when I studied shit that did not make me money I wrote a thesis on Southern honor codes, and modern American men have no idea what traditional chivalry was and how it operated in society.
There were responsibilities and obligations sure, but there were also rights. If you wanted to be a gentleman or you were a gentleman, you not only acted like a gentleman but you demanded to be treated as a gentleman. That’s why men dueled at the higher social levels, or engaged in no-hold-barred brawls at the lower social levels: it was all about enforcing public displays of respect. Modern men forget the reciprocal nature of notions of honor and chivalry, which helps the feminist brainwashing continue.
At any rate, totally abandoning this mental virus liberated my life in so many ways that I cannot begin to list them all. But more importantly it was the only rational response to a changed environment and I seriously doubt that I am the only man who’s made that calculation.
So if some occasion arises where I need to get on a metaphorical or real lifeboat and a white knight tries to keep me off in favor of some fatass sweaty scandalous hambeast that’s emblematic of what modern western woman has degenerated into, then he better bring some fucking fellow weak-minded friends because it’s going to be a fight. I might loose but I refuse to be treated disrespectfully or socially manipulated by women without exacting consequences. Period.
Back to work.
Great post Too Late For Romance.
Agreed! TLFR, I would very much enjoy reading more of what you have to say … perhaps in blog form
Too Late For Romance.
Your cool!
And you’ve got the right idea.
I love it!
Rod.
Dude, she’s not used to running over black hoods, just fucking them.
MarkyMark January 2, 2010 at 10:58
Absolutely on the ‘mark’ if you will excuse the pun. When women are:
51% of war dead (over the history of the world)
51% of workplace dead
51% of incarcerated
51% of homeless
AND it is just as acceptable to hit a woman as it is a man THEN I might start listening to how women are ‘equal’. Until then I consider ANY woman my inferior and ANY man who claims women as equal my inferior.
ANY man claiming women are equal is nothing but a mangina apologist and deserves no respect because he is not paying due respect to those men who gave their lives for his benefit, whereas almost NO WOMEN gave their lives for his benefit.
HL..great writing as per usual. Not much to comment because you say it so well.
Jules January 3, 2010 at 10:26
That is the ‘modern wife’. My husband should risk his life for me and I have no obligations at all. This is what you are marrying if you marry today.
Only a complete idiot would get married today. I have no respect for men marrying today.
Chivalry was based on a practice of protection, not oppression (as some feminists used to complain). It came about because women were seen, legally and morally, as being under the protection of the men in their lives (yes, until death) and this “protective” influence began to spill over to other women in their lives. After all, each woman was someone else’s daughter/mother/sister/wife.
This works the same way with women discovering the current system of injustices against men. Their interest stems from projection: that man could have been my son/father/brother/husband. The problem men have is that in the current society, women are often estranged from most of the men in their lives to whom they have, or should have, an emotional attachment. Even their sons and husbands spend most of the day away from them, even on the weekends. If families were more closely tied, then a lot of this nonsense would die off on its own.
In reference to the wife above….
My cynical side believes that she, in some sick manor, wishes he would indeed re-enlist, and hopefully come back in a body bag – with a widdows check attached of course…
TMOTS
{ 2 trackbacks }