Chivalry—Whether or not it’s dead, it’s not for us regular men.

by Davd on March 24, 2012

Chivalry is not dead—well, i doubt it is—but it is rare, and not for the ordinary man; it is for the rich and warlike. This will probably be welcome news to most regular men, who find it more burdensome than fun to do all that chivalry-stuff. If it is less welcome news to most women, i won’t apologize: Better to tell the truth—and Lady, it’s not my task on this earth, to make you happy. It’s your happiness, so make it yourself… and if you help me with my happiness, then i’ll reciprocate1, as good neighbours ought to do.

The reason chivalry is and should be rare, is right there in the dictionary: Chivalry derives “from chevalier, a knight or horseman [which derives] from cheval, a horse.” (Thatcher and McQueen, 1971: 144). The definition reads: “Knighthood; the system to which knighthood with all its laws and usages belonged; the qualifications of a knight, as courtesy, valor, and dexterity in arms ….” (ibid.)

A man with courtesy, valor, and dexterity in arms, today, is a military officer—or perhaps a “classy” gangster2.  Leslie Charteris’ fictional character “The Saint” comes to mind. Skilled combat soldiers don’t tend to be courteous, nor do the police on occasions when they make working use of their dexterity in arms. Men whose social circumstances support chivalry, in the 21st Century, are a very small fraction of the adult male population.

Chivalry tends to “go with” patriarchy, but not all patriarchal cultures have chivalry: While i don’t happen to have a book on my shelf that documents this all-in-one-place, i have read in a variety of sources over the years, that patriarchy is common in three kinds of social conditions:

  • The upper and ruling classes of agricultural and industrial societies;

  • Herding societies (Lenski, Lenski, and Nolan, 1991: 205-7); and

  • Farming communities in climates where soils dry out frequently (Harris, 1969: 217-8, 328-331).

Chivalry can be found mainly among those upper and ruling classes, and occasionally among the more warlike in the herding societies. Of ploughmen whose families defer to them because only they can plow straight furrows in hard ground, probably fewer than 1% are chivalrous.

I grew up in the working class of an industrial society. As a boy, i had hundreds of hours each year—a few thousand hours over ten years—to walk from home to school, from home to my friends’ homes, to the store and elsewhere on errands for my parents, even to get some exercise for me and my dog; and while i was walking, i saw thousands of glimpses of working-class household power relationships. I saw men bossing their wives, women bossing their husbands, and more than either of those, i saw husbands and wives working out differences and just discussing things, as equals. Between 1949 and 1959, i saw gender-equality on average in working-class North America; and nothing i later learned from others who grew up about the same time, conflicted with what i observed “on the West Coast”.

My boyhood neighbourhoods were neither “upscale” nor impoverished. Most of the men were tradesmen; most of the women were housewives or occasionally schoolteachers, nurses, nurses-helpers, cooks—they followed the trades suitable to women’s strength, and the junior professions. In the poor neighbourhoods, i later learned, women were more often dominant than men, and some places had more matriarchal households than gender-equal. (Consistently with extrapolating from upper classes being patriarchal through skilled-labour classes averaging egalitarian, the lower classes were mostly matriarchal.)

So where did the notions of patriarchy and chivalry “get all that traction”?—if the middle majority, the skilled blue- and white-collar workers and their families, were gender-equal on average? A blogger who uses the pen-name “Futurist”, in a famous essay entitled “The Misandry Bubble”, explains it this way: “feminists compar[e] the plight of average women to the topmost men (the monarch and other aristocrats), rather than to the average man. This practice is known as apex fallacy,, and whether accidental or deliberate, entirely misrepresents reality.

It is difficult to decide if the misrepresentation be fraudulent or innate: From Cinderella to the little girls in many advertisements, there is some kind of “Princess syndrome” far more prevalent among girls, than any kind of elite pretensions are among boys. The ritual language of “Good Manners” places women one or perhaps two classes above men with its “Ladies and Gentlemen”: Ladies are the social equals of “Lords”,as is explicit in the courtroom rituals of Canada and the U.K, where a judge is conventionally addressed as “Your Ladyship” or “Your Lordship”: and referred-to as “Her Ladyship” or “His Lordship”. (The social equal of a “gentleman” is, by a very simple transformation, a “gentlewoman”. We do not see that word often—because English-language social ritual places women above men. We do not see nor hear the judiciary addressed nor referred to as mere gentlefolk.)

“Futurist” states, “women are not monogamous, as is popularly assumed, but hypergamous. … a woman may be attracted to only one man at any given time, but as the status and fortune of various men fluctuates, a woman’s attention may shift from a declining man to an ascendant man.” So women may plausibly be committing the “apex fallacy” because they think of themselves as princesses and—unless they are actually in the ruling class—men of their own social rank are almost invisible to them.

There was a popular television show dacades ago, “Queen for a Day”, that catered to the princess syndrome; but no “King for a Day”. Mothers often referred to their daughters as “my little Princess”, but almost never to their sons as “my little Prince”.

When i read, over-and-over again, that women initiate divorce between twice and ten times as often as men, it’s consistent with the Princess Syndrome and the absence of a parallel boys’ syndrome: A boy grows up, learns a trade, meets a woman of his approximate age and occupational status, and if he marries her, is content: He’s married to a social equal. A girl grows up, learns a trade, meets a man of her approximate age and occupational status, and if she marries him, is relatively disappointed: She’s not a princess any longer. If he puts on prince-like manners for her, he looks and feels silly; if he doesn’t, she resents his lack of chivalry.

In this 21st Century, boys and young men have apparently noticed this problem—that there are more wanna-be princesses than there are princes for them to marry. More and more young men are choosing not to marry. And as “Futurist” noted, [hyperlinks in original]

By many accounts, 22% of men have decided to avoid marriage. So what happens to a society that makes it unattractive for even just 20% of men to marry?

Women are far more interested in marriage than men. Simple logic of supply and demand tells us that the institution of monogamous marriage requires at least 80% male participation in order to be viable. When male participation drops below 80%, all women are in serious trouble, since there are now 100 women competing for every 80 men, compounded with the reality that women age out of
fertility much quicker than men.

Expecting chivalry of men who lack the wealth and title of true knights, leads to a surplus of princess-aspirants and eventually, to a large number of frustrated spinsters.

I don’t know a gentle, effective way to break this news to the Princesses; but to mothers and fathers whose daughters are still young, i would suggest you teach them the following lessons:

  • What fraction of the young men of your country are able to keep a Princess in the style that the title implies;

  • What fraction of the young women of your country are ambitious to be a Princess; and

  • the alternatives to Princess that she might wisely consider, given her personality and talents.

We’ll assume that they learn subtraction in school, and can work out “as an exercise for the student,” how far the number of would-be princesses exceeds the number of princes.

If i think of the 20th Century women i admired, they include Simone Weil, Mother Theresa, my preacher grandmother, two nuns i knew as individuals, and two scientists. The princess i can most readily name, i didn’t admire; she divorced her husband, ran around with playboys, and died violently while fleeing the paparazzi. She probably saw more chivalry than the women i do admire. In my humble opinion, apart from the husband she divorced, that “chivalry” did her more harm than good.

Many readers on this and other men’s-interest sites have lamented the recent prevalence of “I’m not haaaaappy” as an excuse too many women use for destructive behaviour—divorce especially. Expecting chivalry from ordinary workingmen, and expecting to find a handsome prince to marry, are both unrealistic for most women who reached puberty with neither a title of nobility nor a million dollars. Unrealistic expectations lead to unhaaappiness—in social psychology we call the process “relative deprivation.”

Expecting that you will be in love for the rest of your life, when the best-known book on the subject (Alberoni, 1980) states that two months is a much more realistic estimate of how long people typically remain “in love”, also leads to unrealism and relative deprivation. Me-thinks many women who aren’t “haaaaappy” might be happy with the normal number of vowels, and do far less damage, if they could get their expectations aligned with reality.

My preacher-grandmother didn’t expect much chivalry from those around her. Modesty, yes. Truthfulness, definitely! Polite conduct, even to the extent of eating soup with a spoon and salad with a fork, and wearing clean clothes to church, yes. But chivalry?—she preferred honesty and keeping one’s word; and if she got that from her parishioners, she didn’t insist on fancy trimmings. My engineer-grandfather, same basic story. And those two, though they each had their moments of less than total satisfaction, those two i remember as happy people, in a serene and disciplined way.

Don’t worry about chivalry, fellows; we don’t need it—nor do we need to entangle ourselves with women who think they do.

References not hyperlinked:

Alberoni, Francesco 1979. Falling in Love and Loving Milano, Garz. Widely translated.

Harris, Marvin, 1989. Our Kind. NY: Harper and Row.

Lenski, Gerhard, Jean Lenski, and Patrick Nolan, 1991. Human Societies: An Introduction to Macrosociology. 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Thatcher, Virginia S. and Alexander McQueen, eds. 1971. The Webster Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language. Chicago: Consolidated Book Publishers.

Notes:

1. In my case, this is not a sexual innuendo. I doubt that sexual innuendo is anywhere-near as common in most men’s treatment of women, as it is in [for instance] advertisements for women’s clothing.

2. I’m not going to make a separate category for the present-day analogues of James Bond. Seems more accurate to say that some gangs are technically legal.

{ 69 comments… read them below or add one }

James March 24, 2012 at 12:14

Great article. American women think they are all princesses, when in reality they are simply spoiled little brats. Therefore, you should NEVER marry them.

BOYCOTT AMERICAN WOMEN!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 99 Thumb down 5
Uncle Elmer March 24, 2012 at 12:24

This is great. MadMen is “trending right now” and Spearhead needs to get more essays like this out to harvest “page views”.

The Mad Men Effect: What’s The Deal With Other-Era Sexism?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/meghancasserly/2012/03/24/the-mad-men-effect-whats-the-deal-with-other-era-sexism/

elmer knows :

I only needed to watch 12 seconds of it to understand what it is all about : modern women’s longing for a return the Patriarchal 50′s, with all the new benefits and none of the old responsibilities.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 88 Thumb down 6
Steve_85 March 24, 2012 at 13:05

Elmer:
“with all the new benefits and none of the old responsibilities.”

Why would they need to go back to the 50s for that? They have that now.

Great article David. Good read, well reasoned. A+

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 49 Thumb down 1
AAvictim March 24, 2012 at 13:09

Chivalry implies that women are helpless or at least inferior to men. If you ask a woman if she believe in sexual equality she will say yes. If you ask her if she expects a man to act chivalrous you will probably get the same answer. Of course this is not really sinister. It is a lack of thinking, having their mind molded over the years that they are victims. The thinking is I am a victim so when I see a woman screw over a guy it is a “you go grrrl!” Women are trained to be sexist from an early age, and many have single mothers. The whole women are victims, helpless, and innocent notion in society is quite harmful because it effects implementation of law.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 61 Thumb down 1
Eric March 24, 2012 at 13:12

David,

What is often forgotten (because it’s no longer taught, just like most of the facts about Western Civilization) is that, in the old days, the Code of Chivalry implied reciprocal obligations on the part of women. Women actually had to earn all those priviledges they enjoyed. The women who didn’t earn them ended up as the subject of a lot Mediaeval tragedies and comedies.

The difference between then and now is that, thanks to feminist radicalism, women are taught simultaneously that they are entitled to the priviledges of Chivalry (without any corresponding effort on their own part); while at the same time they’re taught to despise men who actually practice it (because such men are depicted as ‘patronizing’).

Feminism is an inherently illogical system and women educated under it exhibit this kind of schizophrenia continually. The main point is that there is no way to a stable, realistic relationship with a feminized Anglo-American female since her entire educational upbringing and philosophical outlook is completely geared to irrationality in relationships with men.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 90 Thumb down 1
Avenger March 24, 2012 at 13:49

Elmer-Yes, that’s true. I happened to watch this show on the Net when it first came out and kept watching because I recognised that Don was based on my friend’s father. In fact Don and his blonde wife look a lot like the real people, just a bit younger. Females had it even easier back then than today if they had a prosperous husband. None of them worked and I can never recall his wife ever doing anything except playing tennis once in awhile. The man worked all the time and sometimes would not get home until 10-11. In the Summer the wife and kids would go to the Hamptons or Fire Is. while he was working and perhaps he’d spend the wekkend. She’s still alive but he died before the age of 70.
Of course females want to go back to the “good” old days where they’re not really expected to work.

In Madmen there’s an episode where the wife divorces Don and then remarries.She’s living in the house with the new husband and her kid but it appears that Don still owns the house and is charging the new husband rent until the guy can find a place of his own so then he can sell his house.
I had spoken to Weiner (he’s the show’s main writer) and told him this wasn’t really believable because the wife at that time would have got the home outright and that’s not even consideriong that the wife knew something about Don’s past to blackmail him with.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 2
Opus March 24, 2012 at 13:57

Although I cannot account for the Dominion of Canada, and as Davd has not provided a footnote to his assertion, I would just like to make a minor correction – as to the way members of the Judiciary are referred to in Court in England and Wales (what the Scots do is no concern of mine).

In the Magistrates Court: both men and women are referred to as Your Worship(s) – (they may sit either singly [the Stipendiary Magisrate] or [non-stipendiary] as three together) but Counsel usually refer to them as either Sir or Madam – a bit of a put-down really.

Circuit Court Judges are referred to as Your Honour – whether male or female.

High Court Judges, and Appeal Court Judges are referred to as My Lord (M’Lud).

Sometimes one forgets where one is and gets it wrong.;)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4
Avenger March 24, 2012 at 14:02

Opus-I was going to correct him on this too but didn’t think it mattered since most of the stuff on here is factually incorrect anyway.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 14
LastCrucible March 24, 2012 at 14:05

We men have become far to focused on women and their whims, opinions, activities, etc. We fail to acknowledge that men hold all the cards. Even though men are the ‘hunters’ in terms of dating, it’s women who stand to gain the most by establishing a monogamous relationship and having children. A man’s foremost priority in life will be discovering and fulfilling his purpose (which doesn’t revolve around women). A man need only stay focused on his purpose in life and the rest (including women) will fall into place. Women follow US. A woman’s pussy gives the ILLUSION that she’s something to follow. I like (and need) to discuss and give and receive feedback concerning the shitty situation that feminism has created, but let us remember that the antidote to feminism lies in the mirror of every man, not in over-analyzing pea-brained bitches and their stupid, childish delusions.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 81 Thumb down 6
NWOslave March 24, 2012 at 14:10

Chivalry as it’s interpreted in the modern world, is a form of self imposed servitude and defference to women with the reward of being acknowledged by that particular woman for your servitude.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 39 Thumb down 2
DelTaco March 24, 2012 at 14:12

@Elmer, nicely said and very interesting link.

Women seem to really love Mad Men. They tell themselves they’d hate to live back then but deep down the really would love to be Betty Draper or any of these women.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 1
Avenger March 24, 2012 at 14:18

Crucible-the female problem will be solved after the male birth control pill is introduced and the power shifts back to the male the way Nature intended.
Females have a subconcious compulsion to get knocked up because it is there primary purpose in Nature. We’ll frustrate that desire and force them to accept our terms. They will need a man’s permission to have kids. And they can forget sperm banks because in this day of DNA only a moron would expose himself to child support payments by donating.
The feminist reign or terror will end.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 50 Thumb down 6
LastCrucible March 24, 2012 at 14:22

It’s a trap to become concerned with what goes on in a woman’s head. She isn’t the shepherd of society. Man is the shepherd of society. Shepherds don’t concern themselves with the whims of the sheep. They simply lead them. We only need women to breed. They’re far too emotionally unstable and unprincipled to provide a genuine friendship. They’re meant to be looked after when you get one, bred with when/if you want a child and led if you decide to keep the heifer around. The alternative is to become concerned with her petty whims and opinions, lose sight of your mission and purpose, become a hapless sheep like her and, incidentally, lose her.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 65 Thumb down 10
LastCrucible March 24, 2012 at 14:27

@Avenger

I hear you. I got a vasectomy about a year ago, but not before shooting myself in the foot and impregnating one of these abominations.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 9
Opus March 24, 2012 at 15:02

@Avenger

Well I don’t know, but your comment gives me the chance to correct my own sloppiness:

In addition to addressing Magistrates as Sir or Madam, one likewise addresses (other) District Judge (which is what ‘Stipes’ are) , Coroners and Chairmen of Tribunals in the same manner.

Recorders are also addressed as Your Honour, being Circuit Judges – Circuit Judges (the Purple Judges as opposed to High Court Judges who wear Red and Black) sit in both the Crown Court and The County Court.

Doubtless I have forgotten some other Judicial category.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2
Atlas March 24, 2012 at 15:03

I have told my wife a number of times that I know of no ladies in my circle of friends or acquaintances. She actually agrees with me, but then again, she understands what a lady is.

Of course, I am expected by my mother to treat all women as if they were a Lady. It is the old “I didn’t raise my son that way!” thing.

It is amazing how quickly a divorce will open your eyes to what women really are – immature, narcissistic, 2 year old little girls.

For the most part, I now treat them as if they were exactly that. It sure makes life easier.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 75 Thumb down 5
Ethical March 24, 2012 at 15:06

David said:
“Expecting chivalry of men who lack the wealth and title of true knights, leads to a surplus of princess-aspirants and eventually, to a large number of frustrated spinsters”.

David quoted “Futurist” as saying:
“women are not monogamous, as is popularly assumed, but hypergamous. … a woman may be attracted to only one man at any given time, but as the status and fortune of various men fluctuates, a woman’s attention may shift from a declining man to an ascendant man.”

Mainstream American men are slowly adapting to life in a world where ruthless hypergamous women are as loyal as Judas puckering up to snitch Jesus out with the “Judas kiss”.

Peeling back the older generation women’s facade of “having your back”, in this new world women openly celebrate their freedom to even sleep with your boss or rival without the expectation of a well deserved beating. They take pride in refusing to cook or clean for a man or being “pressured” into putting out, and they’re ready to drop even the most long-standing commitments without a second thought, turning on their man and enslaving him to support payments in a heartbeat when it becomes more advantageous.

From the perspective of men in this world a “husband” is a fool having no rights to demand anything from his wife, and a “father” is a “baby dad” having no real rights over his child. It’s a world in which both “husband” and “father” are synonymous with being held hostage under the threat of the family law courts to garnish wages or impose jail sentences.

That world is coming all across America. How did the men in that world adapt?

We don’t luv them hoes

Though it’s dying elsewhere chivalry still plays well with the self-hating manginas over at “Good Men Project”. Perhaps it’s fitting that they be the first to be catch a case of its rewards.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 44 Thumb down 2
Annonymous March 24, 2012 at 15:07

I grew up scrubbing down and cleaning out the family household every single day, alongside my siblings. Friends and neighbours across the street did the same too.

Alongside my siblings I washed, starched, aired and ironed linen and garments, all by hand, for my parents whom were out at work doing 14 hour middle class professional jobs. Friends and neighbours across the street did the same too.

I sat down to learn numeracy, literacey and science from my parents at their return from work, alongside my siblings. Friends and neighbours across the street did the same things too.

Weekends, alongside my siblings and parents, I weeded, tilled, planted crops and brought in produce from the family smallholding. Friends and neighbours across the street did the same things too.

As a parent alongside my siblings whom are also parents, our children are being brought up with the same values we were brought up with. Values that have served us well.

God-damn forever anybody or any society that thinks we ordinary folks dont know the actual and inner meaning of rights, responsibilities, mutuality, equality, thrift, sincerity, civilisation, virtues or values.

God-damn forever that person or society that thinks the above qualities are too good for us ordinary folks to be able to come to them on our own understanding, without assistance of a political party or police machine.

God-damn the eternal white knight whom impoverishes, pillages and plunders his own people, of their culture, their traditions and their herritage. All in the name of women and children.

If there ever was a devil, it is the white knight and his insatiable bitch, for whom nothing at all is ever too holy to steal, but always only exists as new subject matter for their appropriation.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 44 Thumb down 3
Avenger March 24, 2012 at 15:10

Opus-I wasn’t referring to your post and just commenting in general.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
Innocent Bystander March 24, 2012 at 15:22

If you think “Mother” Theresa is a paragon of virtue, you are a few facts short of the full story.

Read Christopher Hitchens’ book on her “The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice”. In summary she

1. Deprived the people in her hospices of pain killers and other medical treatment because she thought suffering brought them closer to Jesus. In other words she did not care about people, she only cared about gathering souls for Jesus.

2. Fraudulently diverted funds raised for the hospices into funding convents and other denominational religious causes.

3. Associated with criminals and dictators and gave them publicity and character references in return for money.

4. And when she herself got ill, she chose to be not close to Jesus but close to effective medical treatment and pain killers in the best Swiss clinics.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 58 Thumb down 10
Davd March 24, 2012 at 15:29

I’ve been in Canadian (BC, Ontario) courtrooms observing various actions and heard judges addressed [and referred to] as [His] Your Lordship and [Her] Your Ladyship. Haven’t been in a courtroom in the UK; i made two visits of about a week each.

I did infer that this usage had been adopted from the same source as the monarchy. If the subservience is less over there, well and good. (Louis Riel, Evangeline, et votre deux Gabriels, je vous souviens.)

Attila March 24, 2012 at 15:30

No respect for those who can’t give any – drop dead Ameriskanks!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 3
Rebel March 24, 2012 at 15:38

“Simple logic of supply and demand tells us that the institution of monogamous marriage requires at least 80% male participation in order to be viable. When male participation drops below 80%, all women are in serious trouble”

With all due respect, I believe that this is a fallacy.
Where I live, most people cohabit rather than marry. Fewer than 30% of the people are married: all others simply cohabit on a temporary basis.

One can even say that married people also live together on a temporary basis.

I think that the very notion of marriage is totally obsolete, as it was made obsolete in the USSR.

What has been done cannot be undone. Marriage is either dead or dying. I’m not sure it’s a bad thing. Freedom is still the greatest wealth one can have. All else is…well, illusion.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 4
Opus March 24, 2012 at 16:05

@Davd

Clearly it must be a bit different in BC and Ontario. As you see, over here, unless you look, you cannot tell whether the Judge is (apart from at the lowest Judicial level) male or female -but if you look its easy! – the women are the ones with the Mascara, vibrant lips-stick, painted finger-nails, and beautifully coiffured dyed-hair – so necessary for that definitve legal judgement. Any similarity between the female Judge and a motorway- whore is of course entirely coincidental.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 4
American March 24, 2012 at 19:20

I believe there is chivalry, and then there is “Perverse Chivalry”. “Perverse Chivalry” is the kind of warped and perverted chivalry that American Law enforcement are now engaged in that serves to arrest innocent men on domestic violence charges, while enabling violent women to go on a beat and abuse other women and children.
“Perverse Chivalry” by American law enforcement, just because its being funded by federal pervert dollars, does not make it right.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 14
freebird March 24, 2012 at 19:34

Give them the husband they deserve:none.
Now if only big daddy gov would quit payin those harlots..

Cops really love the VAWA laws,they bypass pesky things like the Bill of Rights,due process,and the Constitution of The United States of America.

The first step to being a first class citizen:Do not have a woman who can call the courts on you.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 1
Ethical March 24, 2012 at 20:05

Woman complains that feminists killed chivalry:

“Back before the Women’s Rights Movement, chivalry was still alive. Men opened the door for ladies, stood up when they entered or left a room, and ceased to use foul language in front of them. Many women today find themselves asking why guys don’t act this way anymore. What happened to chivalry? Well, guess what ladies, we killed it. That’s right, we absolutely are the cause of the death of chivalry. When a man goes out of his way to act chivalrous for a woman, he is expressing his love and respect for her as a whole. By trying to be like men, and therefore rejecting his chivalrous charities, we have rejected men’s love.”

Read the full article here:
http://www.stthomasstandard.com/article/april-may-2008/where-feminism-went-wrong

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 1
masculist man March 24, 2012 at 20:13

but let us remember that the antidote to feminism lies in the mirror of every man, not in over-analyzing pea-brained bitches and their stupid, childish delusions.

Thanks Crucible.

Speakimg of crucible anyone ever see “the last crucible”? That movie fits into today.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2
masculist man March 24, 2012 at 20:21

Of course, I am expected by my mother to treat all women as if they were a Lady. It is the old “I didn’t raise my son that way!” thing.

My mom volunteered me to help her girlfriends move furniture or other crap. I hated it.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 4
masculist man March 24, 2012 at 20:58
Uncle Elmer March 24, 2012 at 21:05

Why are High School Teachers Convinced that White Girls Can’t Do Math?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddisalvo/2012/03/24/why-are-high-school-teachers-convinced-that-white-girls-cant-do-math

“If we continue to send young women the message that they aren’t as good at math it’s unlikely we’ll be able to increase the number of women working in STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) fields,” says Riegle-Crumb.

Elmer tries to make it add up :

Fascinating. I’ll bet the authors used “math” to analyze the data showing that white females were oppressed. Looks like a rigorous journal, that Gender&Society.

Some other Gender&Society gems I can’t wait to read :

Grinding On the Dance Floor
Gendered Scripts and Sexualized Dancing at College Parties

Casual Hookups to Formal Dates: Refining the Boundaries of the Sexual Double Standard

The Gender Revolution: Uneven and Stalled

Hetero-Romantic Love and Heterosexiness in Children’s G-Rated Films

Gendered Sexuality in Young Adulthood: Double Binds and Flawed Options

Inequality Regimes: Gender, Class, and Race in Organizations

WOMEN AND THEIR HAIR: Seeking Power through Resistance and Accommodation

Racializing the Glass Escalator: Reconsidering Men’s Experiences with Women’s Work

Doing, Undoing, or Redoing Gender?: Learning from the Workplace Experiences of Transpeople

Gender in Context, Content, and Approach: Comparing Gender Messages in Girl Scout and Boy Scout Handbooks

Trading On Heterosexuality: College Women’s Gender Strategies and Homophobia

“Keeping The Dancers In Check”: The Gendered Organization of Stripping Work in The Lion’s Den

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 4
W.F. Price March 24, 2012 at 21:06

@LastCrucible

Hey, your comments are still being held up. I think it’s because you aren’t putting in an email (a fake email will do fine).

Anyway, I’d be interested in a piece about your struggles to be a father to your kid. We need more personal stories about the difficulties divorced/unmarried fathers face, and I’d be willing to publish one or send it along to another publication — whatever works. Just keep the readers in mind and try to be cool-headed about it. Telling a story is more effective if you can keep your passions muted and under the surface. That way people can relate to your emotions without feeling threatened by them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0
Bizzman662 March 24, 2012 at 21:19

Totally off topic. Just watching the late news and had a thought:

Thomas Ball sets himself on FIRE and DIES in front of a courthouse to protest the injustices in family court and NOTHING.

A Black Kid get’s shot to death in Florida and all hell breaks loose.

(Thomas Ball was black)

Just a thought.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 2
Bizzman662 March 24, 2012 at 21:22

Nope….he was a white guy.

Now I get it.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 0
Bryan March 24, 2012 at 21:35

We might accurately describe the situation as one where the overwhelming majority of Western/Anglophone women have had their heads filled with a sewer hose. They are toxic and void of anything useful or pleasant. Why even try to have a relationship with a self-entitled self-styled princess that is nothing more than an uppity prissy arrogant bitch that needs a fork-lift to get out of bed in the morning?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 3
keyster March 24, 2012 at 22:38

Chivalry died with modesty, shame and manners.
Secularism and moral relativism had much to do with this.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 10
JFinn March 25, 2012 at 00:37

The passionate willingness to tend to female victimhood. The exaggerated notion of male power. The mocking of male victimhood. The blind eye towards female power. The subsequent constant demonizing of men and excusing female bad behavior.

I see chivalry everywhere.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 2
JFinn March 25, 2012 at 00:38

Feminism is chivalry on steroids.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2
Nico March 25, 2012 at 01:11

OT: In France, battered woman slits the throat of her husband with whom she had four kids, she then doctors the crime scene to make it look like it was self-defense, but still gets acquitted.

In my opinion, she simply stabbed him in the throat when he wasn’t expecting it, because there was no indication of fight. One single hit and the man had a 13,5 cm right in the throat.

First time ever that a woman gets away with murdering her husband in our country. The case should lead the way for further acquittals of murderous wives (it’s pretty obvious that no man will ever get away with killing his wife).

The man was apparently an asshole. But she knew it from the start, when she decided to drop out of school to marry him (he already slapped her), and she knew it all the way when she had baby after baby to be raised by the taxpayer.

The prosecutor, who has become famous in the last decade championing battered women, acted as if he was the accused’s lawyer, using lots of poetic bullshit to make the murderous woman look like the incarnation of sainthood. A pathetic white-knight who received a lot of praise for his chivalrous stance.

The husband also had two kids with another wife.

Women are never accountable for their reproductive choices.

I couldn’t find any english report of the story, but here is a link to Le Figaro:

http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2012/03/24/97001-20120324FILWWW00286-mari-tue-une-femme-battue-acquittee.php

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 1
Oddsock March 25, 2012 at 01:13

JFinn

“I see chivalry everywhere.”

I suspect what you see is not chivalry but rampant mangina white knight pussy beggars that give away their power for the hint of female praise or the slightest sniff of pussy. The two are easily confused.

We even have a few of these brainwashed numpties pretending to be MRA’s, still to steal the golden key from beneath their mothers pillow.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 5
Oddsock March 25, 2012 at 01:17

“The prosecutor, who has become famous in the last decade championing battered women, acted as if he was the accused’s lawyer, using lots of poetic bullshit to make the murderous woman look like the incarnation of sainthood. A pathetic white-knight who received a lot of praise for his chivalrous stance.”

Hey Keyster. You have relatives in France ?

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 13
migu March 25, 2012 at 02:42

What’s so hard about treating unknowns with respect until they demonstrate it is undeserved?

Ill open a door for a date, if she gives me a lecture about it, I’ll smile and politely slam it in her face before she finishes.

Seems easy enough.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 4
stonelifter March 25, 2012 at 03:03

I’ve read the Book of Chivalry, written by a French knight in the mid 1300′s. He spends almost no time discussing women, and never mentions groveling etc over them. My guess is women of that time, including the upper class, didn’t expect men to cater to them. The men would have been doing things that require a mans strength.

And he speaks highly of men without money but who strive to live with honor. It’s about fighting men and what brings them glory and honor and about a mans relationship to God.

That more men don’t have a martial spirit is a shame, and it’s a bummer a system worked out for men and about men has been degraded to ass kissery towards chicks

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 4
Ode March 25, 2012 at 03:25

What does Rocky Balboa, Luke Skywalker, and Harry Potter have in common? Well let’s see here, one got punched in the face repeatedly, another got his arm cut off by a light saber, and the last survived a powerful magic attack that left a permanent scar on his forehead. They all went through some serious adversity but managed to succeed through sheer determination. This is the “hero’s tale” and it has been retold over and over again.

Notice that these are all male characters? If feminists want equality perhaps they should write stories of women getting bruised and beaten up badly but through persistence and fortitude they succeeded. I doubt women would be interested in reading such stories. It’s so much more hot and sexy to read about a Cinderella getting the attention of a prince charming. For example the Twillight series today is just a rehash of the same old princess story that never gets old.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1
American March 25, 2012 at 04:41

People have the god given right to not be persecuted by false witness, that transends any nations constitution.
The peversions that have become rooted in American law enforcement, that enable violent beast women to scratch themselves in the face, and point to any man on the street and say ” He hit Me”, is not only perverse; its unconstitutional.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 12
Atlas March 25, 2012 at 06:34

@American

Do you really believe that the Constitution is even relevant in this country? Or perhaps you are thinking of a different Constitution?

If you need a few examples of why I think this is the case: federal firearms laws, VAWA, federal drug laws, hate speech codes, EPA, Obamacare, Afganistan, Iraq, Libya, soon to be Iran, foreign aid, family courts, etc. etc. etc.

The Constitution for the united States died its final death during the Civil War.

Time to think of a new strategy as “it’s unconstitutional” is as old as that Botoxed golem Nancy Pelosi.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2
Uncle Elmer March 25, 2012 at 07:28

Boilerplate response to “elmer” :

Catherine B Miller 59 minutes ago

“I was born in the early fifties and lived through many of the ordeals the women on the show do.

No, elmer, most women do not want a return to patriarchy. If most women had really liked it , the women’s movement would not have taken place and we would be happily baking cookies in our kitchens, like any good Stepford Wife.

The nice thing about today is that, if a woman is baking in a kitchen, it is her choice to do so–not anatomical predestination.

I like working, I like being able to have my own money and not have to ask for an “allowance”, I like being able to buy a car and a house without having to have a male co-signer. I like the fact that I don’t have to endure sexual harassment or sleep with someone as a condition of continued employment.

Having to pay my own bills seems like a fair trade to me because I can earn money to buy what I want and don’t have to settle for what someone is willing to give me. No one will care about my financial well-being as much as I do myself.

Also, you imply that all the men in “the good ole days” were responsible. Sorry, not so. There have always been responsible men and women–and there have always been men and women who were not. Personality traits are not gender-specific.

Women have not gotten a free ride throughout history, and if more women were housewives without pating jobs outside the home, please reflect on the circumstances of the times: birth contol was limited or nonexistent and the types of jobs available to women were extremely limited. Not to mention the fact that men of the time were likely to comment that they wouldn’t LET their wives work.

I rejoice to see the bluuring of strict gender roles. I would think that men would find this liberating if they can get past their fears. If women are no longer confined to one fate–neither are they. This is a good thing.”

elmer’s got his own boilerplate :

A Man Wants a Wife, Not a “Co-Worker”

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/02/20/a-man-wants-a-wife-not-a-co-worker

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 6
Ray Manta March 25, 2012 at 07:40

Innocent Bystander wrote:
If you think “Mother” Theresa is a paragon of virtue, you are a few facts short of the full story.

No argument there – she was a glory hound looking for the fast track to canonization. In the military glory hounds have a reputation for causing the unnecessary deaths of their subordinates. In the hospice her policies contributed to unnecessary death and suffering by denying people there medication and painkillers that they needed.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0
Anonymous March 25, 2012 at 08:01

“Thomas Ball sets himself on FIRE and DIES in front of a courthouse to protest the injustices in family court and NOTHING.

A Black Kid get’s shot to death in Florida and all hell breaks loose. ”

Thomas Ball ended his own life. That was a choice he made. The media by and large is only going to get overly upset about a suicide if it’s a child or a celebrity who is committing it.

17-year-old Trayvon Martin was allegedly murdered as he walked to his father’s fiance’s house while carrying a bag of skittles and a drink. As far as has been speculated, he did not in any way choose to die or cause his own death.

The two incidents you’re comparing are not even relevant to one another, save for that both of them concern untimely demises.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 6
Lovekraft March 25, 2012 at 08:04

Youtuber girlwriteswhat with a profoundly insightful analysis of the plight of the disenfranchised Western male.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlvMAS_20K4

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 6
dhanu March 25, 2012 at 08:05

Off-topic. And this article (linked below) conveniently blames the drugs for the unprecedented level of imprisonment in the US: http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/22/zakaria-incarceration-nation/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Davd March 25, 2012 at 08:17

I sit corrected.* i learn i didn’t know the full range of courtroom ritual, and am mildly surprised to read how many different rituals “obtain”. So i ask the Webmaster to edit the text as i would do if i still had that kind of access, from

“… as is explicit in the courtroom rituals of Canada and the U.K, where a judge is …”
to
“… as is explicit in the Canadian courtroom rituals where a judge is …”
.. or
“… as is explicit in those Canadian courtroom rituals where a judge is …”

My apologies for the error; i recall hearing someone who studied in the U.K., having come back to Canada, saying that judges were addressed as nobility and generalized from that to judges- generally being addressed as nobility _with correct social gender_, because in the Canadian courtrooms i recall observing, they were.

Opus tells us that U.K. [High and Appellate?] court judges are addressed as “My Lord”; i wonder if “counsel” really do address judges “with the Mascara, vibrant lips-stick, painted finger-nails, and beautifully coiffured dyed-hair” in the masculine. Grammatically as well as politically incorrect, ‘t seems to me.

* Trying to type standing-up doesn’t work with my desk.

joeb March 25, 2012 at 09:28

The thought always comes back the same way , ” when have you guys ever won an argument with a women . ?
As long as men are bound by chivalry and made to fight on a lessor plain . You will always lose the words are fixed and the results are always the same .
Action is what is needed , action is always the end of the conversation for any male that’s done trying to explain .

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
LastCrucible March 25, 2012 at 09:29

I’ll get on it, Price.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
Bryan March 25, 2012 at 10:57

Chivalry is dead and needs to stay dead!

When women do something it is fine, when men do it, it is a crime…

http://now.msn.com/living/0324-sperm-hunters.aspx

When women rape men they are “sperm hunters” when men rape women they are “rapists.”

You cannot treat women with respect when society has freed them from all restrictions on personal conduct/behavior.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 3
Avenger March 25, 2012 at 16:03

The sperm is allegedly used in traditional rituals “enhancing good fortune, boosting business or preventing a criminal from being detected.”

Well at least sperm has a positive connotation in their cuntry :)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
Avenger March 25, 2012 at 16:15

Those African females must be smarter than western females because at least they know that sperm is that magical ingredient that activates the dormant useless egg into dividing and ultimately producing a child.And btw, no scientist has been able to do this. Even that nazi doctor and anthropologist, Dr. Mengele, didn’t figure out how the egg divides and produces twins (it’s still not understood) and he had a large captive number of subjects to experiment with. He was trying to double the birth rate of German females.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4
Aharon March 25, 2012 at 21:48

“It is amazing how quickly a divorce will open your eyes to what women really are – immature, narcissistic, 2 year old little girls”.

Damn glad that I learned that lesson by observing my guy friends suffering and making fools out of themselves in their roles of pursuing courting dating marrying divorcing grrls/womyn just to get some pussy so that they can then convince themselves they are living a man’s life.

Do womyn ever grow out of that emotionalized belief that they really are a princess deep down? Wait a minute, I once did know a womyn who knew that she was a reincarnated Priestess of the Goddess Religion. I mean she just knew it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4
Ode March 26, 2012 at 00:39

Elmer says
A Man Wants a Wife, Not a “Co-Worker”

Add on
I’m going to explain this mathematically (1+1 )/2=1
What this means is if you marry somebody who is “equal” to you then if you add up what both of you can put together and then share it equally then you are no better off than before, so why the hell get married you might as well stay single.
But…
If men are
superior in A but inferior in B while women are
inferior in A but superior in B
Then the union of a man and woman in marriage would be advantageous.
But…
Whatever it is that women are superior in, feminists have destroyed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0
American March 26, 2012 at 03:02

Interesting freebird. I believe 50 years ago, the hetero-relationship, hetero-marraige was a protected relationship (in the best interests of the children).
Now, perversions in American law enforcement, by fostering and enabling women to make false accusations of rape and domestic violence with complete immunity, have turned the hetero-relationship into an extreme legal liability for the hetero-male.
The perversions that American law enforcement have found themselves engaged in, are a stain on the concept of law enforcement.
Truth needs to be returned as a fundemental factor in law enforcement, but the lawyers and all the pork bloaters that feed off the train wrecks that these perversions cause, are going to want to keep their perverted missinformation Alliances intact.
Only after near complete collapse into matriarchal anarchy (which we are there allready in some areas of the country), will the boldest of academics start to question the Gender-feminist perverted “constructions”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 6
Anonymous March 26, 2012 at 03:36

Western women continue headlong into the gutter. Ladies? I think not.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/men-women/sex-and-the-modern-girl-are-we-witnessing-a-new-age-of-female-sexual-assertiveness-1727304.html#

“Tonight, it transpires, is something of an initiation for Claire, who, at 32, is the oldest of the four. For the first time, she will join the rest of her friends at what has become one of the most important nights in their social diary: a Killing Kittens party, an unusual private-members’ event where, in the words of its organisers, “the sole aim is the pursuit of female sexual pleasure”. According to Paloma, who is something of an old-timer (this will be her fifth party), if the event is a success, after an hour or two of cocktails and outrageous flirting, the gathering will turn into an orgy.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
greyghost March 26, 2012 at 06:17

I thought chivalry was a code men used to handle each others wifes. An honor code men lived by. Like today you have your crew of boys you hang with each girlfriend or wife is part of the crew though your boys He’s mad at her we’re mad at. He dumps the bitch we dump the bitch.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
Bryan March 26, 2012 at 08:56

Here’s what I’ve started telling men who are interested in marriage (basically marriage to an America femi-skank, I encourage men to explore the possibility of marrying a woman from Eastern Europe, although I have a criteria I intend to adhere to when I go over there in a few years… The divorce rate should be below 20%, ideally 10% or lower, but many of those countries have had massive social upheaval and have ongoing issues, which might explain a 10-20% divorce rate, which even still is about 1/3rd to 1/4th the American/Western rate… Anyway, if the woman in those countries cannot keep their oath to their men, they won’t keep their oath/vow to you… My second major point, make sure the GDP per capita is no more than $15,000 with below $10,000 being better. Women who have not been raised on a diet of western materialism and decadent capitalism are less likely to be materialistic bitches and are less likely to suddenly morph into materialistic bitches)…

Anyway, what do I tell young men considering marriage?

I’ve taken to telling them this, “just give me ten thousand dollars and then stick your thumb into your left eye socket and hold it there for about ten seconds… You’ll be ahead of the game in terms of money lost and pain suffered.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
AAvictim March 26, 2012 at 08:56

Domestic violence if anything should be less of a crime than violence from a random person. If the woman CHOOSES to be with an abusive husband or boyfriend then she has part of the responsibility. If she is assaulted on the street it is a different story. Some women choose to be with criminals.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
HeligKo March 26, 2012 at 09:46

Dead on…The moment women got to vote in the US is when chivalry started dying. Its when the power was equalized across our society. Now the power is shifting, and men are losing their place in society. I expect more doors opened for me, and more dinners paid for.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
universe March 26, 2012 at 10:43

Great writing Davd.
I see the other David, the original writer and publisher for Everyman, chose his successor well.

This article, including the resulting commentary from faithful and regular Spearhead readers, as well as the many thought provoking articles found in the paperback “Everyman”, will be saved for future reading.
This is the place to be.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Cecil March 27, 2012 at 11:35

Chivalry is how some men tell women, and other men, that women are more valuable than men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Butthole April 25, 2012 at 23:38

Chivalry is just part of good manners, and of letting other people know you care about them. A man holds open a car door, a woman brings homemade cookies to his office. A man buys a woman dinner, she invites him over for a home cooked meal. It’s a two way street, when done correctly. It shows the other person you like them and want to see them again.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
DrewBaas May 19, 2012 at 23:20

Brilliant! I have been saying the same for years..

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: