Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Rejecting outmoded responsibility

Dalrock has a good post on the defenders of what, for lack of a better term, can be reasonably described as "modern chivalry":
To many traditionalists, chivalry is something women deserve from men even when they aren’t acting like ladies.  This is why Lydia’s response to my pointing out that large numbers of modern women are acting like harlots was to decry my loss of chivalry.  We saw the same frame of mind from the traditional blogger I referenced in Trad Con Tourette’s:
[good men are] kindly respectful of women, regardless of whether or not the woman is acting like a lady.  They would never think of using the crude terms flung around the manosphere.
Core to this mindset is a profound denial of the shredding of the social contract by decades of unchecked feminism.  In a move which can only be described as enabling feminism, they most fear and object to anything which would allow feminist women to experience the costs and responsibilities which should naturally come from what they are demanding.  In an era where sluts are literally marching down the street they tell us sluts must be treated like ladies, and modern career women must be treated with the deference reserved for traditional ladies in the Victorian era.
My opinion is that it is absolutely absurd to attempt to play by rules that are no longer in effect.  The traditionalists are playing the role of an NFL coach who is unaware that the forward pass is now legal, and is wondering why his team keeps losing so badly when he has coached them so diligently in how to run the ball.

Chivalry is totally irrelevant with regard's to modern intersexual relations.  Once more we see the Female Imperative in place, inserting itself as a priority where it doesn't even belong in the first place.  Consider what are described as the Ten Commandments of Chivalry:
  1. Believe the Church's teachings and observe all the Church's directions.
  2. Defend the Church.
  3. Respect and defend all weaknesses.
  4. Love your country.
  5. Do not recoil before an enemy.
  6. Show no mercy to the Infidel. Do not hesitate to make war with them.
  7. Perform all duties that agree with the laws of God.
  8. Never lie or go back on one's word.
  9. Be generous to everyone.
  10. Always and everywhere be right and good against evil and injustice.
As is so often the case, the modern form of chivalry is a twisted and evil perversion that is the direct opposite of actual chivalry.  It is dependent upon a fundamental lie of an equality that is explicitly rejected by the concept of chivalry itself.  If a man has no chivalric duty to make war on the infidel or defend the Churhc, he certainly has no duty to treat a woman any differently than her behavior happens to merit.

33 comments:

Toby Temple said...

Chivalry or Equality.

CHOOSE!!!

DC said...

Pointedly, this implies that the "Victorian" deference to women is a result of their perceived weakness (aka "weaker vessel"). I doubt this is what our feminist friends had in mind.

tz said...

Reading #6 above, I'd say we need more chivalry.

Women want "chivalry" on demand, to turn it off when it means protecting them from going into difficult areas. They want it when they are losing or find it convenient. Under a real chivalry, all sex outside of marriage would be adultery or rape - the weak must be protected from themselves.

In this modern real-life fairy tail, instead of being immediately eaten by the dragon named leviathan, women have a symbiotic relationship. The government provides enough so they don't need family, and can sic the dragon on men when they want something.

This is the same kind of distortion - we used to respect the helpful servant constable that kept the peace and used violence only as a last resort. Now we have a federalized army of occupation that literally considers citizens and the constitution as an enemy and care nothing for help or safety, but how many notches - arrests or citations - and enjoy using their tasers. And these too still demand respect as if they were a peace officer.

The afterglow of honor only lasts so long, and weakens faster when the person is clearly dishonorable.

Even things like the rape shield laws. They were passed back when virginity was still honored and unmarried women were like nuns and spouses were faithful. Today they detract since I would have to statistically consider the plaintiff a slut who would and probably has consented to nearly anything. She probably would have read 50 shades of grey more than once.

A society doesn't reject God all at once. It starts with a small but inconvenient commandment first by labeling it an outmoded tradition. Attempting to break just one half - our/my half of the covenant. But then you have to dismiss more and more.

We could return to it at any time, but it would be the prodigal son returning to his father. Unfortunately, most people these days prefer to stay in the sty, and it is a democratic sty.


tz said...

One other myth - Victorian women, at least some, were strong, but in character. Victoria was the queen, but we has poineer women here. They had earned respect, and cheap shots were dishonorable anywhere.

Showing respect to the respectable is proper. Honoring trash is evil, insane, stupid, or all three.

Or simply use MLKjr's standard - judge on the content of their character.

taterearl said...

5. Do not recoil before an enemy.

Another one that should be brought back. Nice guys can't wait to recoil before women or anybody that shows the slightest bit of conflict.

Bob Wallace said...

The original tenets of chivalry were good things. They involved being armed and willing to do violence to enforce justice. At the minimum, then, modern-day chivalrous men are armed, which, of course, means concealed carry.

That is one of the reasons I point out that liberals cannot be manly.

Jimmy said...

So is Lydia the defender of chivalry? A woman doing a man's work. How lovely.

This is not an example of chivalry gone wrong, but a woman who wants to have her priviledges.

If there are some men who are chivalrous, I really don't fault them. They were raised correctly; however, there are caveats. They should not be raised to not have a brain. Such chivalrous behavior does not deserve to be abused. Neither is it proper for Christian behavior to be abused for liberal immoral advantage.

I think this discussion is a bit of a distraction. Chivalry is hardly practiced.

First, most men are not alphas. As such, such polite behavior can be mistaken for social ackwardness.

Second, men who have behaved chivalrously have to contend with mistaken signals. Unless you want the women to think you have the hots for her, you just don't do it. It is just inappropriate in most circumstances especially work environments.

Third, how many men are in the company of women. Outside of some specific circumstances like work, school, or church, it isn't much.

This is a solution looking for a problem.

Mystery Man said...

I wonder if there's a reason for putting 1 and 2 first--or a reason why nobody ever focuses on them?

alphamission said...

@Mystery Man, read Rollo's article on Chivalry (and courtly love which was added later.) Your question will be answered.

Orion said...

I've made clear to my wife a couple of times that her version of "being a gentleman" is askew. She insists it is a one way street, where no mater what a woman (and this generally means her) does she is to be treated like a lady. I indicated that being a "lady" requires acting like one. She was unhappy with the answer and stopped discussing it. When we have children I will make clear to them my thoughts on the mater and expect them to act in accord with me and not her.

Cryan Ryan said...

We've had an interesting situation at the local rec center.

It's a typical basketball oriented gym, with 6 hoops. A large curtain can be pulled across the middle, to allow two activities to occur without stray balls wreaking havoc.

The yoga ladies could go to the far end away from the main doors and do their thing, if they wanted.

Nope.

They want to hang out in the front, so everyone who goes through the main doors must walk through their class. And they want silence.

The men & boys just want to be able to shoot baskets. Either end of the gym is fine.

The landwhales want to flop around on their mats in total silence. And they want to be in the center of all the action. In other words, they want to displace the men, and to force the men into sitting and waiting (an hour) or to leave the gym or do something quiet.

Well after a few months of tension, the shit hit the fan and now the men are doing what they want, and the fatties are flopping around to the sound of basketballs bouncing, and angry about it.

They'll probably sue the city.

It's hard to be chivalrous anymore.

Stickwick said...

Dr. Laura frequently shuts down callers by telling them it's unreasonable to expect traditional things when you're behaving non-traditionally. This is usually in response to a woman who's been shacking up with a guy and producing illegitimate children, and is now in a huff because her parents refuse to pay for a big, lavish white-dress wedding. She's spit in the face of tradition, but now she wants the perks. Such women tacitly acknowledge the meaning of the ceremony, because they desire it so much, but they are unwilling to endow it with meaning through their own behavior. It's the same with any tradition, especially the way women are treated by men. There are always two parts to any tradition: duty (behave like a lady) and fulfillment (cherished/protected by men). You can't deny the former and expect the latter.

The thing is, to treat an unladylike woman in a chivalrous manner constitutes a violation of her freedom of choice. By her own free will, she has chosen to act unladylike. For a man to insist on treating her in a fashion that is not a reflection of her choice is actually disrespectful.

Mystery Man said...

@Mystery Man, read Rollo's article on Chivalry (and courtly love which was added later.) Your question will be answered.

My question is rhetorical. I'm more remarking on people's expectation that heathen will behave like Christians--male or female.

whoism3 said...

"Once more we see the Female Imperative in place, inserting itself as a priority where it doesn't even belong in the first place."

Vox, i notice you subscribe to the female imperative model. Was wondering what your take is on the discussion at Leaps?

http://stagedreality.wordpress.com/2013/02/13/the-feminine-imperative-an-emotional-thus-feminine-term/

whoism3 said...

As for me, i am still chivalrous to the elderly, and the public in general. However, when a woman goes out of her way to show me her stripes as a feminist and that she feels herself superior, i make it my mission to let the door close behind me quickly.

Treated like an equal or a lady. Pick one.

Ian Ironwood said...

See also my older post commenting on chivalry and the Manosphere:

http://theredpillroom.blogspot.com/2012/04/our-masculine-power-part-two-power-to.html

Res Ipsa said...

Chivalry is by definition a standard of MANS behavior. Women are of course free to observe it and comment on it as they choose. It’s not a subject they participate in. If they wish to be on the receiving end of chivlrous behavior, they should attract and reward men who treat them that way. The same applies with the “gentleman” and “lady” concepts.

Men are simple creatures if you reward us with what we want and need, we will be more than willing to open your doors, pull out your seat, rise when you enter the room, etc. Treat us with respect, a friendly smile and some social graces of your own and we are more than happy to be semi-sophisticated and domestic.

Mike M. said...

It's interesting that everybody, including myself, is taking the position that chivalry is a two-way street. Men will behave like "Chavaliers sans peur et sans reproche" - to the death, if required - PROVIDED women behave like ladies of the court.

Mike M. said...

Chevaliers, that is....my touch-typing in French is screwy. Je me regrette.

Martel said...

Chivalry was designed by men to regulate the behavior of men. when a woman tells me I need to be chivalrous, she's butting into business that's not hers.

Doctors have agreed to help whomever they can through the hipocratic oath. As a non-doctor, if a doc goes out of his way to help you when he's not required to, the correct response is gratitude. If you get in some doctor's face and tell him "You HAVE to help me" you become a spoiled brat and violate the code.

If your moral code is being used to hold you, and hence your moral code back, it's no longer moral.

Heh said...

when a woman tells me I need to be chivalrous, she's butting into business that's not hers.

I simply smirk and say, "Chivalry is dead - feminism killed it."

It is also amusing to hear the term "gentleman" applied very inappropriately, e.g. to street bums.

Jestin Ernest said...

Bob Wallace said...
At the minimum, then, modern-day chivalrous men are armed, which, of course, means concealed carry.




uhhhh, NO.

it means OPEN carry. unless you mean to imply that knights were wandering around with 'short' swords so they could hide the weapon under their tunics.



Bob Wallace said...
That is one of the reasons I point out that liberals cannot be manly.



which, oddly enough, is the whole point of concealed carry laws in the first place ... that liberals can't tolerate men displaying the ability to take care of themselves or others.

Axe Head said...

Women's and White Knight's definition of chivalry today is what you find in "Man of la Mancha." Don Quixote treats Aldonza the whore like a Lady, and she is positively transformed. I guess she had a golden heart!

This play came out in 1965, just in time for the sexual revolution.

Duke of Earl said...

If a woman demands equality, then she has the right to be punched in the face under the same circumstances that would see a man punched in the face.

Chivalry or equality, make your choice and live with the consequences.

SarahsDaughter said...

I've made clear to my wife a couple of times that her version of "being a gentleman" is askew. She insists it is a one way street, where no mater what a woman (and this generally means her) does she is to be treated like a lady. I indicated that being a "lady" requires acting like one. She was unhappy with the answer and stopped discussing it. When we have children I will make clear to them my thoughts on the mater and expect them to act in accord with me and not her.

"When we have children"

With all due respect sir, please consider this carefully. And please keep reading at Dalrock's place!

mmaier2112 said...

Orion: your woman needs proper training posthaste.

Stickwick: your Dr. Laura comments are dead on target. I quoted Dr. Laura in saying something like if a woman cuts her husband from sex, "Do you want him to get a mistress or a prostitute?".... mind you, this was in front of but not directed at a woman whose husband had recently cheated on her... after years of apparent denial to him. I had very little sympathy for her pain.

The funny thing is that I don't think it even pissed her off very much.

I have had it with women and deferring to them. I used to believe in chivalry as a matter of course. Now it takes a LADY to make me treat her like one.

And I am actually not sure I know a single one.

Maximo Macaroni said...

Nobody knows who anyone is any more. Police call street thugs and crack whores "Sir" and "Madame". Those titles need to be earned. So do "Lady" and "Gentleman". It's all part of the "prizes for everyone" ethic: The end of value and character.

Only we can bring it back, one achievement at a time.

Jack Amok said...

A gentleman is required to treat a lady like a lady. He is not required to treat a slut like a lady. In fact, a real code of chivalry would find an awful lot of fault with a "gentleman" who treated a slut like anything other than a slut.

The whole point of manners, decorum, social graces, et al is to reward proper behavior with better treatment. Rewarding crappy behavior the same way you reward decent behavior defeats the whole purpose.

Carlotta said...

Ok, I will say it. This is horrifying to hear. I am a women, I have daughters, I don't want to hear this. Lalalalalalalal

I have behaved myself, raising my daughters well. I don't want to be subject to the same treatment as these other women. This is scary to hear that even good men see it this way.

So, the burka it is for our own protection.

dalrock said...

Thanks Vox.

@Martel
Doctors have agreed to help whomever they can through the hipocratic oath. As a non-doctor, if a doc goes out of his way to help you when he's not required to, the correct response is gratitude. If you get in some doctor's face and tell him "You HAVE to help me" you become a spoiled brat and violate the code.

Exactly. I made the same case here. Someone demanding graciousness makes graciousness impossible. This was especially bad after Costa Concordia when women were complaining that they weren't treated to the "full Titanic experience" they felt due. Where was the romantic gesture of over a thousand men electing to die for them? Sure less than 1% of the souls perished, but they were cheated out of the chance to gruesomely feast on the drama of men dying. How dare those men choose to protect their own families instead of protecting sluts and single career women they had no connection to? Sheila Gregoire accused men of being selfish for protecting their own families, instead of thinking of women like her. Her commenters explained that men have a duty to offer to die because their lives are worth less than women's. One did graciously offer to allow a man to live in the corner case where he was escorting a child and the child's mother wasn't available. This kind of thinking is grotesque, but many women say these things without a second thought, all the while scolding men. It is obscene.

Beau said...

Of what value is being a gentleman? Etiquette, courtesy and poise under pressure have been a bulwark and defense in awkward moments and times of temptation. Kindness chosen and graciousness have saved me from folly, and, opened many doors previously barred by suspicion and fear. Demonstrated conduct as a gentleman in everyday circumstances has given many degraded people in my path hope of a far better life because they see the reality of the character of Christ stamped onto the raw material of Adam's nature.

Toby Temple said...

There was a time when men were kind
When their voices were soft
And their words inviting
There was a time when love was blind
And the world was a song
And the song was exciting
There was a time
Then it all went wrong

- Fantine, I Dreamed a Dream

I wonder when it all went wrong?

AuricTech said...

When we have children I will make clear to them my thoughts on the mater and expect them to act in accord with me and not her.

Interesting typo, that...

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.