What we need is more chivalry!

Modern_Knight_pull_chairBrendan/Novaseeker made an insightful comment a while back describing what he sees as the core disagreement between the manosphere and non manosphere “traditionalists”:

Actually I think the basis of it is that social conservatives and, to an even greater degree, traditionalists are interested in systemic solutions rather than personal/pragmatic ones. Take chivalry, for example. Social conservatives and traditionalists are generally extremely pro-chivalry, because they see it as a part of a social order they would like to restore/resurrect. The more pragmatic guys in the manosphere, whether “Gamers” or not, view chivalry as mostly self-defeating on the personal level, and so are skeptical of it. Socons and trads may realize that their preferred social order is not returning soon, but they don’t want any *more* steps taken away from it, such as men abandoning chivalry wholesale. This leaves men in a very bad spot in the meantime — acting according to the rules of a social order which no longer exists, and in the context of one which actively punishes men who engage in this behavior in many cases — the socons and trads answer is generally “suck it up, man up, men must lead us out of this, etc.”, where the manosphere typically sees this as futile and instead adapts practical approaches that deal with the current system that is in place, whether they think it is a good one or not.

To me, that is where the hate comes from — socons and trads hate it when more steps are taken away from their preferred order, even if these are pragmatic in light of the current existing order, and manospherians hate it when socons and trads insist on men opening themselves up for extreme risks simply for the ideological hope for a cultural restoration that seems a long way off rather than, you know, actually helping guys live with the system we’ve got currently.

Samson’s Jawbone liked this explanation so much he endorsed it from the other side of the intellectual divide:

This is a brilliant comment, and captures perfectly my frustration with the manosphites who are frustrated with traditionalist conservatives. I say this in case anyone doubted the truth of what Brendan offers here.

noshamingslutNovaseeker mentions chivalry, and this is arguably ground zero for the disagreement here.  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.

imaslutCore 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.

lgrobins has been describing this frame of mind by a group calling themselves Traditional Women’s Rights Activists (TWRAs) in two excellent posts here and here5798164816_bdab1a6f4b_o_cropTWRA Jesse Powell explains that chivalry must be extended by men to all women equally in On Chivalry (emphasis mine ):

…chivalry is not something that is “deserved” in the sense of it being earned or based on superior merit or it being an expression of preferential treatment due to the woman’s good conduct. Chivalry is a universal duty of the man towards all women indiscriminately; it is a principle of ethical conduct rather than it being in response to any particular behaviors or characteristics of the woman.  Chivalry is also universally desirable and a male duty regardless of the social system currently prevalent in a society and regardless of whether or not chivalry is culturally or legally sanctioned.

Jesse explains further in his coming out letter Why I am a TWRA:

I am a TWRA, a Traditional Women’s Rights Activist, because I strongly believe that women should be granted the rights and privileges of the Traditional Woman; the rights and privileges that women were commonly granted traditionally, before feminism came on the scene.  I will further add that the rights of Traditional Women should be granted to women generally simply on the basis of their being women whether a particular woman identifies as being a “Traditional Woman” or not.

349px-Italian_Soldier_Olypmic_Games_Turin_2006By Jesse’s view of the world, all men owe protection to all women, regardless of the woman’s own actions.  In Jesse’s world, a woman can pretend she is a kick ass member of an elite military unit, she can even provoke other men, and your job as a man is to underwrite her safety even if this means risking your own safety, wealth, and personal freedom. This is not only demanding that men enable feminism at great cost to themselves, this is men enabling feminism at great cost to their own families.  Intervening with violence on behalf of a stranger is generally a phenomenally bad idea, and men who make a practice of this are at great risk of ending up dead/injured, in prison, and/or destitute.  If you take on this asinine responsibility, you are exposing your own family to great risk.

The only rational response by a man is to be discriminating regarding whom he will and will not offer protection to.  Commenter Tspoon said it best:

…yes I’m prepared to underwrite their safety with mine, but like any entity which undertakes to underwrite the risks of another, I have expectations for the behaviour of those I must protect.
Which is where it breaks down somewhat. Outside of my two daughters, it’s been over 20 years since I met or knew a female of whom I knew, without reservation – That I would in fact guarantee her safety as far as I could. Outside of a minor miracle, I have no anticipation of meeting another…

Knight image modified from image licensed as creative commons by David Ball & PRA.  Slutwalk images modified from images licensed as creative commons by sahlgoodeItalian paratrooper photo licensed as creative commons by the Italian Army.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Chivalry, Foolishness, Slut, Traditional Conservatives. Bookmark the permalink.

321 Responses to What we need is more chivalry!

  1. Edita TWRA says:

    Your whole argument is irrelevant, as the TWRA’s are not Traditional Conservatives.

  2. Morticia says:

    Chivalry is what allows men of good will to act superior to women. Without chivalry you have the macho chauvinists who gloat in their superiority, and egalitarians. Chivalry is the happy medium.

    A woman should never be treated as an equal even as she demands it. She can either be treated with macho chauvinism or gentlemanly chauvinism …whichever her behavior calls for.

    If you treat a woman like an equal you encouraging her disordered mentality. Its like treating gays like they are married because they think they are. They are not and should not be treated like they are.

  3. Clarence says:

    Morticia:
    I treat people how they act. If she acts an equal ( a so-called ‘zeta female’ – hey, some females are good at responsibility and agency) she gets treated like one. If she acts like a traditional lady she gets treated like one. And if she acts like an entitled slut -well, she’ll get treated like that.

  4. lgrobins says:

    Thanks, Dalrock.

    “Your whole argument is irrelevant, as the TWRA’s are not Traditional Conservatives.”

    What are you then? That has yet to be answered.
    I heard Jesse Powell may be an Atheist.

  5. Clarence says:

    I don’t think the TWRA’s are for real.
    I think they are just a feminist ‘false flag’ operation.
    They sure give ‘traditionalist women’ a bad name as anyone can tell perusing their comment section and their policies thereof.

  6. Morticia says:

    Clarence-
    That is fine, because I know you are an agnostic/atheist. Christians must defend truth though, so Christian men must treat women like they are inferiors. That means chauvnism..either the polite kind or the no-so-polite kind.. But egalitarianism is not an option.

    She may have many lofty qualities that are on par with some men in the same area, but she must be thought of as talented “for a woman”.

    Status is not based on merit but on the ontological reality.

  7. WillBest says:

    Only behavior that is vital for the survival of the species can rise to the level of universal duty. Laying your life on the line for your tribal might be one of them but tribal survival requires merely a couple hundred. Its important to note in this regard that women do have a universal duty as the protected to use the protection to rear children. With fertility rates well below replacement level most places women are failing in their duty.

    Whats more these women have never been more protected yet they have been squandering that protection. It is not surprising then that men have been less likely to offer protection because it is being wasted.

  8. A Northern Observer says:

    In other words, gimmie the goodies, but don’t you dare tell me to act the part!

  9. Danger says:

    TWRA is essentially a large percentage of all women.

    We all know the saying “There are no feminists on a sinking ship”. So yes, they all expect deferential treament.

    This concept at it’s roots is a form of socialism, where it is your duty to provide something else to someone else for free. It is also part of the reason women vote so liberally, they really do feel entitled to being taken care of throughout their lives, regardless of the subject.

  10. TMG says:

    Traditionalists do not have the foundational standing to direct modern men on anything.

    The social contract that chivalry was based on got completely abandoned by women from ALL backgrounds. And traditionalists have bent over backwards for the last several decades giving them pretty much everything they want and browbeating their sons into “manning up.”

    Traditionalists like to pretend they’ve been valiantly fighting a culture war against the Left. This is nonsense. With the exception of abortion, traditionalists have drank fully of Feminism. They just put a Victorian spin on it and pretend like its in line with their religion.

    The time for Traditionalists and Conservatives to rise up and demand a return to the “old order” was about 25 years ago. You’re too late. It’s over. Wake the F up.

  11. Morticia says:

    I was 6years old 25 years ago, so forgive me for coming late to the party. The young(ish) Trad-Cons are a different breed than the baby boomers.

  12. Lyn87 says:

    I’ve been engaging on this topic for a few days on lgrobins site. I see that Edita has once again stepped in to offer a non-explanation (“TWRA isn’t…”). She never tell you what it IS, outside of a demand that all men be prepared to sacrifice for all women because… “Chivalry is Good!”… or something… I guess.

    She won’t be back to field questions (since she has nothing to stand on), and you cannot engage her on the TWRA site since she deletes anything that might stick.

    She’s a fraud.

  13. 5f76f says:

    Feminists (aka Modern liberals) vs. Liberal MRAs (aka The most modern liberals) vs. WASP Puritan Chilvarists (aka Classical liberals) are all missing the point.

    The point is that chivalry was only extended towards high-status noble women in the past from their dear husbands. That’s why chivalry is still strong in the upper-classes where full-time housewives predominate. That includes UMCs and big cities full of modern liberals.

    Everybody here is status whoring and cannot see that most women are not them. Most women were not wives of rich men. Most women were servants, slaves or illegal prostitutes. It’s kind of like the male apex fallacy, instead this is the female noblewoman apex fallacy.

    I think people ranging from MRA to WASP Puritan to Feminists are still stuck in the high-status noblewoman ideal. Which was about 1-10% of the population at most.

    Most men were married, to and had children with, servants and slaves. Most men weren’t that high-status either. Just slightly more high-status.

  14. Morticia says:

    I agree with Lyn87

    Her methodology is so ridiculously awful that I can’t accept that she is really a traditionalist. I think she is a thoroughbred feminist trying to turn men off of traditionalism..and (sadly) it is working.

  15. Anonymous Reader says:

    Jesse Powell’s position can be summed up simply:

    The maximum number of men must suffer the most pain possible for the longest time possible.

    Because he says so.

    Well, heck, who wouldn’t be convinced by that?

    I imagine that in the typical traditional, conservative / TWRA kitchen, no fire extinguishers exist.
    In case of a grease fire on the stove, or any other fire, the man of the house will simply tear off his clothing and hurl his naked body onto the flames, thereby causing himself the most pain with the least likelihood of success. Their notion of how to put a house fire out must be equally simple: line up all the men of the neighborhood, and have them run into the burning building & flop on the flames – given enough mens bodies, surely the fire will be extinguished. And if not, well, they have their honor intact,and what the heck – there’s always more men to expend. Just like livestock, robots, etc.

  16. Solomon says:

    “male duty” my ass. The audacity for her to suggest that she is the arbiter of what all male humans must do, implying that they are “bad” if they don’t.

    I wonder if she ever stopped for one second to consider if there might be any downside to the ideas she spews forth. Or if she has ever heard of the concept of “balance”. Maybe a bit of critical thinking would help?

    That photo “sluts for Jesus”

    I just don’t even know what to say about that.

  17. TMG says:

    Morticia-“I was 6years old 25 years ago, so forgive me for coming late to the party. The young(ish) Trad-Cons are a different breed than the baby boomers.”

    Fair enough. So why should men put themselves at risk for a social movement that has already proven a failure and a sellout to the Left?

  18. Stingray says:

    I am getting a definite “women are goddesses” vibe from this woman’s comments.

  19. lgrobins says:

    The TWRAs sure hate MRAs with the same zeal feminists do. Especially, with saying how if MRAs get their way every woman will be raped in the street and the periodic cussing from Edita is like something you would see on Jezebel. Something just is entirely off with them and I agree they are a fraud. I think the goal is to get more people to hate MRAs than it is to turn them off feminism or turn them to traditionalism. They even have a sister site called “Oppose the MRM”.

  20. Solomon says:

    wait- Jesse Powell is a dude?

  21. Natalie says:

    @Morticia

    Really? Women, as a class, are inferior to men? And this is the root of chivalry? I always figured it was the deference that strength and power showed to the weaker and disenfranchised. In other words, since men have historically been the stronger and more legally and socially empowered sex, deference to women was encoded as a means of symbolizing the strength and protection that should be hers since she existed in what essentially amounted to a protectorate governed by men. This is not a statement of equality or of value but rather a codification of two different ways of relating to each other and to the public sphere.

  22. Morticia says:

    TMG-
    Its hard to summarize, but my blog is my contribution to the new “trad-con” movement. One of my goals is to convince men that they are superior and should act like it..so that egalitarianism can finally die a quick and painful death.

    Whether they choose to be superior in a polite way or a macho way is up to them, but anything is better than egalitarianism.

  23. Morticia says:

    Natalie – Yes, men are superiors. If you go to my blog and click on the “Male Superiority” category you will see my thoughts on this issue elaborated a bit more.

  24. Solomon says:

    Chivalry is not deference.

  25. Clarence says:

    Well, if you believe a religion you have to believe it all the way. That’s why I respect you, Morticia, even as I wonder where you’d be with this stuff if you didn’t have the guidance of the Bible.

  26. Miserman says:

    I think one issue with male Christians is that there is a lack of separation between what is historical and what transcends history. There is a temptation to view biblical ideas on men and women and chivalry both as historical phenomenons. Going back to rediscover chivalry is the same as going back and rediscovering biblical teachings. However, while chivalry is something of the past, the biblical teachings on men and women are universal and hold true regardless of whether or not men and women live by them.

  27. Fist of Vulkan says:

    Believe the Church’s teachings and observe all the Church’s directions.
    Defend the Church.
    Respect and defend all weaknesses.
    Love your country.
    Do not recoil before an enemy.
    Show no mercy to the Infidel. Do not hesitate to make war with them.
    Perform all duties that agree with the laws of God.
    Never lie or go back on one’s word.
    Be generous to everyone.
    Always and everywhere be right and good against evil and injustice.

    Apparently people forgot this is essentially what chivalry was…

  28. Danger says:

    Ha, I will be glad to bring back the tradition of chivalry just as soon as I find an equally traditional lady.

  29. It annoys me that the title of “traditional conservative” has been co-opted by people whose concept of tradition goes back 50 years at most. It should have referred to people who want to conserve actual tradition — the idea that tested truths are more trustworthy than new ideas, and that our ancestors were more knowledgeable than us about many things. That ship seems to have sailed, though. Now I’m not sure what to call myself. Simply a traditionalist? An anti-modernist? (Traditional Catholic is still pretty safe, but only applies to the religious side of things.) A curmudgeon? I dunno.

  30. PPM says:

    It’s obvious what TWRA is – naked female self interest and nothing more. It is raw feminine imperative, without the intelligence or guile to disguise itself.

    I doubt this is a feminist false flag operation. Rather, it is an expression of unfettered entitlement and narcissism. Feminism may have unleashed these sins from their traditional constraints, but even feminism has some principles, as errant as they may be. TWRAs have none.

  31. slwerner says:

    Solomon – ”wait- Jesse Powell is a dude?”

    I used to wonder if Jesse Powell might be Laura Wood’s (The Thinking Housewife) sock puppet – a supposedly male voice to say those things which she new would not be taken well if presented by a women; like Jesse Powel’s infamous rant suggesting that it is a good thing that some innocent men be charged, tried, and imprisoned for rapes they did not commit because it was an important part of keeping all women safe from rape [I cannot say I ever understood how punishing non-rapists for non-rapes was suppose to protect any woman from real rapes by real rapists].

    I had a hard time imagining that any man could be so ready to throw his fellow men under the bus. And, Jesse Powell seemed to never come out from behind Laura Wood’s skirt tails to engage in commentary safe from her heavy censorship of anything negative directed towards him [prior to banning me outright, she used to excise anu challenge I made to Jesse before posting my comments].

    Curious that he’s finally left the protection of Laura, but his disdain for and lack of consideration for his fellow man remains consistent. Whether real or not, he’s truly a hard-core gynocentrist.

  32. Anonymous Reader says:

    Cail Corishev, you should try asking such people “What the heck is it that you want to conserve” and see how they respond. A lot of the time, it is some mishmash of what they imagine the 1950’s were like with some TV-series (“upstairs / downstairs” ) cartoon Victorianism.

    I frankly do not find the notion of “if we could just get back to (historical era)” really all that useful. Those past times came with a complete set of social and cultural structures – absent them, and people willing to be limited by them, ain’t gonna happen. Besides, any “past golden age” is part of the chain of events that led to the present day. It is how we got her.

    Some kind of synthesis is perhaps the best route. The US Founders crafted a government by studying a great deal of history, from ancient Greece and Rome to the Helvetican Confederation, to various city-states such as Venice, and so forth. They adapted from the past, to the polity that existed in their time. That’s going to happen in the future, one way or another, so doing that deliberately, with thought, would likely be a better plan than randomly.

    As for a label, it probably should have multiple words and “curmudgeon” certainly should be one of them. “Archaicist Catholic Curmudgeon”,for example.

  33. BC says:

    The TWRAs sure hate MRAs with the same zeal feminists do.

    Because TWRA is just another brand of feminism.
    As PPM wrote above, it is raw feminine imperative – unearned privilege/entitlement.

  34. ianironwood says:

    I covered chivalry in-depth on a post a while back, but it bears repeating (and since Dalrock inspired the post . . . ). In essence, it says that chivalry is a warrior’s code in which the protection of women is a secondary, minor issue. Chivalry must be practiced through strength — the weak are not eligible. And chivalry must be bestowed by grace, it cannot be compelled, obligated, or institutionalized. At its core is the power of men to destroy, a valuable power too many take too lightly in too many ways. If more people understood what “true chivalry” was, they might think twice about invoking it. Chivalry, properly practiced, denies blanket protection to women as women, now that the social rules have changed (and if the TWRAs don’t like that, they can take it up with their feminist sisters). Chivalry was a warrior’s code first and foremost regulating conduct between warriors. And while chivalry involves the protection of the helpless and innocent, feminism has exempted most adult women from that category. Grrl power!

    Men should be strong, but they should be strong in pursuit of their own interests. Be strong to defend your family or your community, or perhaps your nation, if you are so inclined. But chivalry is a high art, and while the pursuit of the chivalric ideal is noble and undeniably masculine, actually practicing chivalry is beyond most dudes these days. Maybe one man in a hundred has the depth of character to even attempt real chivalry, with the extensive devotion to strength and power it implies. Everything else is just manners, or stupidity.

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

  35. sunshinemary says:

    lgr wrote:

    What are you then? That has yet to be answered.
    I heard Jesse Powell may be an Atheist.

    Whatever they may be, they are neither conservatives nor Christians. This is not my assumption; it is from their own mouths.

    Jesse himself confirms that he is an atheist in many places. Here is one example:

    http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2012/03/why-are-atheists-angry/

    Edita, I believe is Jewish, as she usually writes G-d rather than God; I have tangled with Mrs. TWRA before. I wrote a post about a month ago entitled Is the division of labor in traditional marriage unfair to men, in which I quoted from EditaTWRA’s site some comments left there by Paul Elam. Although I was neither critical nor supportive of Edita (nor Elam for that matter), she showed up on my blog with guns blazing, rude as the day is long, and appeared not to have even understood my post.

    They are not Christians, not conservatives, and not even pleasant. I cannot imagine who would be attracted to their “movement” or why.

  36. sunshinemary says:

    Anonymous Reader wrote:

    As for a label, it probably should have multiple words and “curmudgeon” certainly should be one of them. “Archaicist Catholic Curmudgeon”,for example.

    LOL, I absolutely LOVE this!

  37. OliviaNoble says:

    Most Trad-con young men I know (virtually 95% of my male acquaintance) simply ignore or pity women who are not “chivalry-worthy”. I know few to none willing to give women who’ve compromised themselves the time of day outside of some restrainedly polite required work or social interactions. Of course, I’m Catholic, and we don’t really have the same issues Trad Protestants or evangelicals do with women who’ve slept around secretly infiltrating and poisoning society, because Trad Catholics who betray their principles typically end up pregnant pretty quickly.

    Additionally, a rhetorical question–how do you think you’re supposed to treat compromised women as an upright young man? Like dirt? Super-neg them all the time? That’s hilarious, because it’s the same advice PUAs give to attract women. Social exclusion is a much more powerful tool–so why bother with the effort of shaming or what-have-you when you can just avoid them and save yourselves the trouble, always being polite (not chivalrous, it’s not the same thing) when necessary. Unless you’re trying to get laid, or whatever. Ugh, have fun with that, boys. So glad I’m a woman…

  38. Mark Minter says:

    NO, NO. NO.

    The deal is off. It’s over. That’s it. What was, isn’t, and never will be again. If you can’t get it through your head that this is, now, a Zero Sum Game, then you do sop to own loss and your own disadvantage. The world is no longer in growth mode, with all boats rising. For each that gains, someone will loose.

    She doesn’t get to cherry pick in the supermarket of values. “I’ll some have this “equal pay for work” and this “woman’s right to slut”, but I keep this “A woman’s right to change her mind”;, “A men must pay”.

    There is a joke
    Q: :”How many feminists does it take to change a flat tire?”
    A: “There are never any feminists around when the tire is flat:”

    Spend a minute on Jezebel and get a clue as to what you are dealing with. If you a open a door, she will yank it closed behind her and leave you out there in the cold, and laugh at you that you were such a sucker, such a weak schmuck that she just played. Hear what they call you, what they say about you, and I have no problem returning the favor. If she wants a fight, then I will give it to her.

    Like my wife, after coming home from a business trip, dressed in that DKNY skirt and skin tight sweater, said to my 2 year old daughter as she sat her on the counter to put some socks on her,

    “Baby, men are such suckers. Just put a skirt on and they’ll do whatever you want.”

    I would argue that Chivalry was not just for women but was an extension of courtesy to other men, a form of empathy. We could not always take care of our own women so we extended the respect we had for each other, as men, to take care of women when their man was not there to do so. And in return the same courtesy was extended to us. All women were someone’s wife or someone daughter or someone’s sister.

    Now they are just another bitch that will step on our toes as they go through the door. By giving a woman a hand up, you enable her to keep another man down once she gets up there. Any chivalry you show aids her to get a leg up on you, AT YOUR EXPENSE and most importantly, AT THE EXPENSE OF YOUR SON.

    Pandora’s box is open; the genie is already out of the bottle.

    If you cannot see, cannot understand that you, that we, are in an entirely different epoch of human history, one that is leading an entirely new form of human organization, that women seek to be without men, that they do not seek equality, but advantage and domination, a form of domination that is not about leadership, but about gain and control, and will do whatever they can to further than aim, then that is your loss.

    When a man gains, he shares with women. When a woman gains, she shares with no one. When a man has power, he uses his power to protect and care for women because he loves them, they are the reason he sought power in the first place. When a woman has power, she cares for herself at the expense of others, especially men.

    And I won’t be taken for a fool any longer. I spent too long playing that game, listening to the world, to traditionalists, to feminists, to social re-engineers, and now I am listening to those Rational Voices that use direct data, direct experiences, and not about what “it could be” or “what is should be” but only to “what it is”. Their path, their way, their advice, these men with these rational voices, make far more sense to me and allow me and other men, especially my boy, to have a fighting chance in the world that is here and is coming.

  39. jaybeespancakes says:

    They must feel the tingle that they are “co-opting” or causing “definitional tension” or some such thing by their abuse of the word “traditional” to lure the gullible into believing they are somehow conservative; the sure sign of creatures of the Left, with or without takkiya like they are engaged in, is that they have gone to such great depths to try to silence any disagreement. From a quick perusal of their site, they also appear bent on recruiting useful idiots who just want to have doors opened for them/open doors. If this were Alpha Game, I’d expect somebody to call them Rabbit People.

  40. Em says:

    Chivalry isn’t ‘owed’ to anybody by anybody. Respect of others’ life, liberty, and property are all that’s ‘owed’ to our fellow human beings.

  41. lgrobins says:

    SSM,
    It sure is baffling. I always assumed the Thinking Housewife is Christian and if so why does she support Jesse Powell with such fervor. His comments bombarded her places. There is much more than meets the eye here.

  42. Mark Minter says:

    There is an old poem, a great black oral tradition called “Shine and the Titanic”. I heard it as a little boy from black men and I am surprised I still remember it, almost word for word, all these years later.

    In the poem, the Titanic is gonna sink, and Shine, a common nickname for black men back in those days, who worked below decks probably shoveling coal, reports the dire state of the ship to the captain and is rebuked “Get back you dirty black, we got 1000 pumps to keep that water back.”

    And he decides to save himself. He jumps overboard and as he swims away, various people who had nothing for him before, now plead with him to save them.

    And one of them is the Captain’s Daughter.

    “Captain’s daughter stepped on the deck sayin’,
    “Shine, Shine, please save me.”
    “I’m pregnant with a child, and I’ll name it after thee.”

    And Shine replies”

    “Bitch, you done messed around and got knocked up with a kid”
    “But your ass got to hit this water
    just like ol’ Shine did.”

    Gentlemen, We all Shine now.

  43. paniym says:

    Aren’t we missing the whole point. You can’t be chivalrous with your equal. Since women in our society have as much power as men and want equal treatment all chivalry breaks down. It doesn’t work and can’t work. So what’s the point of the argument. Only the greater (or more powerful) can be chivalrous for the weaker. All men that buy into the chivalrous romanticism are only going to end up chumps.

  44. kios says:

    Here are examples of women i open doors for: old women, disabled women, pregnant women, relatives and girls i’ve slept with, that’s

    The rest are on their own. I feel no obligation towards them.

  45. Tom says:

    PPM and Em: thank you, thank you, and thank you. I wish I had the talent of brevity you both displayed in so succinctly summing up the issue.

  46. Hos comment is insightful, though a debate around it is unnecessary and largely manufactured. I haven’t read the comments yet, will do so, but my first reaction is one of surprise. Pitting these groups against each other, regardless where they stand on chivalry, is a bad idea and yet more unnecessary digging of the wrong hole. It makes excellent fodder for leftists and liberals to further deride conservatives as the enemy while (not willfully) ignoring their synergies with the very worst and most extreme forms of feminism.
    If you separate feminism into the radical bunch (the cliche, slut walkers, etc) , and the churchian bunch, the radical bunch are the ones who get a pass when this debate ensues when they are the lowest fruit of all for any and all manosphere comments.
    Where is this preponderance of tradcons so pinched up about chivalry? Are they here? Are they on the blogs in the blog roil? Or is it the same morons we already hold in low regard for their lack of leadership in the churches? If so, isn’t this causing what few (if even a few) that are here in the sphere to have their actual voices amplified and poking at others who may blanch at being included just because they hold a conservative view whether they are pro chivalry or not?
    This topic indeed stirs the passions of the whole team; works every time like a coaches favorite locker room lecture

  47. Ah, TWRA as the focus…well, that IS a worthy one. Recently I left a comment there wondering how she can so boldly preach to women about being demure and be so incredibly bitchy about it. As I say/as I do/…..what?

  48. Chivalry is a code of conduct for aristocratic warriors. We don’t have these any more, haven’t for 500 years or so, so the concept is meaningless.

  49. sunshinemary says:

    @ lgr
    Mrs. Wood is very vocal about being Catholic. I agree; it seems odd that she would take an atheist under her wing like that.

    @ empath
    Yes, I have noticed the same thing about EditaTWRA. She is incredibly rude and aggressive; she attacks with little to no provocation in one breath and then extols the natural loveliness of feminine women in the next.

  50. Ton says:

    I’ve read the Bible a time or 2 dozen. I’ve not yet read the part requiring me to opening doors, etc for women.

    If you read the Book of Chivalry by Geoffroi de Charny, you will learn chivalry has nothing to do with opening doors and the like. It is a way of determining what is honorable behavior among fighting men, and what respect we owe to non combatants. Which is not much out side o basic humane treatment

    I spend way more time living up to that tradition then any number of socons etc

    As a practical matter what is the ROI for being chivalrous towards women? The stink eye? No second date? Sexless marriage and divorce? Expecting men to do something that doesn’t offer a return on his investment in time/ effort/ money is silly.

  51. Pingback: Is Chivalry Biblical | JayBee's Pancakes

  52. I confess its my generation who includes the worst offenders of this sort or defense of chivalry..though I don’t think its that simple. Its worse. Its us boomers who have one foot in at least 3 brackets of societal evolution. Its unfair however to suggest that one who is a traditionalist or conservative has picked for example the 1950’s and wants that as the new norm, again. That is awfully simplistic in its presumption. In fact those people, if they are aware enough of the world of gender discourse to have read or written on any of these blogs surely are not simpleton enough for that to be the case, but we can all go get that particular straw man with panache. Straw man in the sense that while yes he is out there, he is not so much in here.

    As one lists out whats at stake, the big picture, with the crumbed family detritus around us, the only reason chivalry should be on the radar at all should surely not be because it deserves its own front in the war. Its crazy making for sure, but petty in the scheme of things. Chivalry is one aspect of the behavior of Christian feminist men that if kept to simple social gestures is merely annoying. When it reaches white knighting, which springs from the same vine as chivalry, its fair to repel with disproportionate force.

    Im surprised frankly that the TWRA bunch have even managed to garner as much attention as they have. There are the “Ladies Against Feminism” and their site which is a clearinghouse of sorts that actually do land on some good things and I credit them at least with the spirit of what they are trying to do, far more than TWRA which is just as aggressive form of gynocentrism. That reminds me, she tries to deconstruct gynocentrism and show its a good thing verses some other gyno-somethingorother (I’m not going to look back). Maybe they can tie themselves into knots over terminology and its efficacy, um, kinda like we tend to do time to time over thinks like game and the feminine imperative.

  53. donalgraeme says:

    One of the things that I always thought that Islamic sub-cultures were clever about was requiring headscarves be worn by their women. It enabled Muslim men to recognize women that were part of their culture, and treat them accordingly. They certainly see no reason why non-Muslim women should be treated the same as Muslim women, and have no problems expressing this sentiment.

    The logical response to any desire to bring back chivalry amongst men should be to ask this question: how is a chivalrous men to know which women are deserving of his gracious sentiments? This question is why the writers of such pieces try and explain that chivalry requires that men treat all women equally, because otherwise it would require that women self-identify as “ladies.” That, of course, leads to lines of thought that no proper feminist women would ever want to contemplate.

    The question is still a good one though, and I think one worth answering. I would not mind showing some modicum of graciousness to a lady, even though it costs me some minor inconvenience. With what I know of some of the women in this part of the web, I would not begrudge them or their daughters such acts of courtesy. But I would sooner walk over coals than do so for an ungrateful wench.

    So what “tell” should there be to distinguish the ladies from the rest of their gender? Behaviors or mannerisms can only tell so much. Some sort of article of clothing, perhaps?

  54. Chris Nystrom says:

    The question is if the ship is going down is it still women and children first? Some are arguing that this should be the policy today despite the fact that some of the women might be feminist and not appreciate it, and some are arguing that feminism has made this policy obsolete and it is every man (person) for themselves and that is just the reality we live in. Do I understand the question correctly?

  55. Novaseeker says:

    Thanks, Dalrock, for this post.

    So, Jesse Powell is an atheist, eh? Well, that figures. He’s always been extremely doctrinaire in his views on these issues, and now that I understand that he’s an atheist, I can understand better why — he’s simply a naturalist gynocentrist. This is probably the “default setting” for someone without religion –although not the default setting for someone in a Christianesque society like our own, and who may happen to have a Christian(-esque or otherwise) background, personally, because such persons are already imbued with at least some aspects of the Christian patriarchal residue. I guess I can understand Powell’s many idiotic posts over the past several years better now that I see that he has outed himself openly as a gynocentrist. That makes sense. Although it makes no sense that Laura Wood would protect him to the extent that she has — more points lost there, I’m afraid.

    Empath, I used chivalry in my comment not because I think it is the main event issue but rather to highlight it as a common example of where the difference comes up. I don’t think it’s helpful to gloss over the differences. As I mentioned in the rest of that comment, the manosphere is a grab-bag of ideas. Some manospherians, such as those in the Christian manosphere, bump up against the traditionalist conservatives. The difference between them is one of temperament and pragmatic orientation, and it’s a real difference, I think. Some of them may be allies to traditional conservatives in some aspects of their lives — but clearly since the manosphere is a grab bag of ideas, there are many other aspects of the manosphere that the Christian manospherians will tolerate but which the trad-cons will not (and I have seen these aspects drive trad-cons on the internet bats –I’m sure you have as well). Again, the concept that the manosphere has is different than the concept that the trad con movement has — it’s both more broad and more narrow.

    Cail, I have always been something of a curmudgeon since I was in my 20s. I think that it’s more of a matter of temperament. In terms of articulating a perspective that is traditional and yet not under the rubric of “tradtionalist conservative”, as it generally defines itself, I think your definition works pretty well.

  56. dannyfrom504 says:

    unless she’s family, a GF, or a really good friend i’ll simply be polite, but won’t go out of my way or jump through hoops to pease her. if chivalry is dead, it’s because women killed it. and unfortunately- there’s no going back.

  57. HanSolo says:

    @dannyfrom504

    Here’s a great video on “Chivalry is Dead…and women killed it!”

    With some great quotes such as “if a man could F a woman in a cardboard box he wouldn’t buy a house!”

  58. mackPUA says:

    Actually we have feminism & these crazed amazonian TWRA’s, precisely because men arent macho chauvinists

    Racism & sexism are THE number one denominators in a successful society

    Racism is really protecting your country & culture safe from invaders … now thought of as not good … I wonder why

    Sexism prevents women from invading & destroying the family & traditional social structure

    Sexism also protects a society from the hysteria of lesbian led fanatics, ie nuns & nunneries

  59. mackPUA says:

    Feminism & these traditional male hating chicks wouldnt last a day in a true male chauvinist society …

  60. Johnycomelately says:

    It’s interesting the further society gets away from traditional Christianity the closer it gets to paganism and paganism is renowned for one thing, gynocentricism. Deference to women is simply paganism repackaged.

    Just take a stroll on the alternative side of the web and you’ll see feminine paganism being triumphed, replete with Gaia worship, spritism, astral planing, reiki, conversing with familiar spirits, witchcraft, magic, esotercism etc.

    No wonder the Lord severley admonished the worship of the Asherah poles and described the women crying over Tammuz as an abomination.

  61. freebird says:

    They’ve undermined and mostly destroyed the foundation under the house and yet insist men come and repair the first floor whilst they continue to remove foundation blocks.

    Talk about building a castle in the sky!

    Those houses built on sand are already fallen,those houses built on rock have the church using power washers for ‘cleansing’ but they are also eroding the foundation with over pressure.

    It’s wishful thinking,the more deluded men add to the building the quicker it’s gonna fall,because the fems insist the foundation be removed.

    I’m standing clear and eating popcorn.

    Bunch of busy beavers,half building,half setting dynamite.

  62. Sis says:

    I agree very much with Novaseeker and Morticia, it is definitely the reason I don’t visit Dalrock very often although I admire his devotion to his cause and his honor within his own marriage (actions speak loudly and he’s not divorced). The manosphere would reach a much wider audience if they said they believed in protecting women and being chivalrous. That doesn’t mean saying yes to women, it doesn’t mean giving up any of your rights, it just means taking your place as authority figure and telling women firmly when they need to leave because this is an area for men and you want to protect them and care of them. if men want women to give up feminism (protecting themselves and not leading) then men need to promise to protect because that is the duty of a king for his subjects. They obey him, he protects. Why would women ever obey a man who wouldn’t take care of her? You promise them chivalry and you’ve won most of the battle, because feminists base their goals on fear.

  63. Anonymous Reader says:

    The ironic thing about all this is painfully obvious: from things I was told years ago by men and women who actually lived through the 20’s and 30’s, there was a fairly clear line between “lady” and “tramp”, between “good woman” and “whore”. The last thing that a serious, sober married man would do was associate with a tramp or whore in any way. He knew where the whorehouse was, he just did not go there, ever. If some fool tried to bring a whore to polite society, he and his chippie got the bum’s rush out the door. No one was confused about the difference.

    There was no way serious men of those days deferred to all women; they deferred to good women, and to the ladies. They walked away from the tramps, sluts and whores.

  64. Sis says:

    @anonymous reader, another good reason for chivalry to separate the whores from the ladies.

  65. TFH says:

    Jesse Powell is part of the ‘third gender’ that is forming in the West, but his existence is crucial to the proper functioning of the present system.

    Women want to have sex with pickup artists.
    Pickup Artists want to have sex with women.
    Jesse Powell gets to pay the bills!

    Everybody reaches their full potential, so everybody wins! Yay!

  66. donalgraeme says:

    @ Sis

    I am one of those who see the value of “chivalry” or something like it, but it is simply not possible to reinstate the system. For one, it never existed as it is imaged by many. Second, that ideal system wasn’t not “designed” for a feminist culture, and is certainly not compatible with one.

    Instead, a new system must be designed. One that can accomplish the objectives of chivalry, but function inside a corrupted socio-sexual organization such as ours. That’s easier said than done.

  67. ballista74 says:

    On the elemental topic, there’s nothing to add that I haven’t already said here.

    The subject of the TWRA feminists, OTOH: From what I can tell all that’s there is just a childish, boorish, and immature attempt at reframing radical feminism with a traditionalist bent (and substantial MRA/MRM opposition). Their goal is simply to create a traditionalist sounding feministing – it’s just another feminist sewer. As for “The Thinking Housewife” I perceived it to be feminist long ago and pretty much stayed away – but I recognized that girl Jesse Powell from there.

    The manosphere would reach a much wider audience if they said they believed in protecting women and being chivalrous.

    In other words, being feminist. Yeah right.

  68. BC says:

    Sis, you have it bass-ackwards.

    The manosphere would reach a much wider audience if they said they believed in protecting women and being chivalrous.

    Yes, just like churchians reach a much wider audience by pandering to women. But that doesn’t make it Christianity, important parts of which, you might have noticed, are abhorrent to many modern women.

    That doesn’t mean saying yes to women, it doesn’t mean giving up any of your rights, it just means taking your place as authority figure and telling women firmly when they need to leave because this is an area for men and you want to protect them and care of them.

    And getting fired/sued/arrested for doing it. It isn’t difficult for men not to give up rights when so few of them exist in any real sense anymore.

    if men want women to give up feminism (protecting themselves and not leading) then men need to promise to protect because that is the duty of a king for his subjects. They obey him, he protects.

    Feminism was born, grew, and has thrived in a more-or-less traditional “protect the women” environment. The reason chivalry is dead is that men are figuring out that it doesn’t pay anymore, and the reciprocality it demands is anathema to them.

    He may protect, but them obey? Haha, that’s a good one.

    Why would women ever obey a man who wouldn’t take care of her?

    There are many men who can and want to take care of a woman/women, and are willing to literally sacrifice their lives to do so. That is to say, what men want really hasn’t changed much. But how many modern women want to follow and obey (submit to) the man in return, in the manner stated in the traditional wedding vows? Not many. Certainly not anywhere near enough to make it a decent bet.

    You promise them chivalry and you’ve won most of the battle, because feminists base their goals on fear.

    One of the worst ways to teach a child to behave is to give them something in advance in return for a promise of good behavior.

    Men have been more or less chivalrous since feminism reared its ugly head. Yes, chivalry has declined over the years in response to (dis)incentives, but even now there is still quite a bit of chivalry left in society. And how has it been rewarded? Not.

  69. ballista74 says:

    Feminism was born, grew, and has thrived in a more-or-less traditional “protect the women” environment. The reason chivalry is dead is that men are figuring out that it doesn’t pay anymore, and the reciprocality it demands is anathema to them.

    Not to mention that chivalry is the reason why we have feminism with the power that it holds today. Let’s not lose track too that there is nothing that is Biblical or Christian about the practice and is only about 400-500 years old with its popularization only coming into play about 200-300 years or so ago.

  70. Martian Bachelor says:

    Not archaic-something-curmudgeons, guys, but one of the Wandering Scapegoats.

    I’m a founding (and thus lifetime) member. There are no dues, no meetings, no newsletters, no officers, no nothing. Any man is free to join just by joining.

    You’ll be amazed at just how valuable your membership turns out to be!

  71. Random Angeleno says:

    @Sis, I’ll protect the women in MY life. My mother, my sisters, my sister-in-laws, my cousins, my gf. Maybe my best friend’s wife. And that’s it. Because women in general have failed, utterly failed to understand the truth of chivalry. Which is, that it is inherently in conflict with the egalitarianism they seek. Cannot have it both ways.

  72. an observer says:

    The contemporary understanding of chivalry as promoted by the feminists is that women were oppressed by the evil patriarchy and must special treatment to gain a nebulous ‘equality.’

    This is based on the apex fallacy that all men somehow benefit from their gender.

    The reality is that women can have either special treatment – chivalry – or ‘equality’.

    Since most women want the latter, they can have it. The same lousy jobs, the same unsatisfying career, the same soul sapping sameness that men suck up, every day.

    Open your own damn doors, change your own damn tyres.

  73. mackPUA says:

    Chivalry is emasculating men on a mass scale, for political repression

    Thats what chivalry was & is today

    The fact is its women who should be opening doors for men

    Chivalry was designed to displace men as the head of the family, in public

    There is nothing grand or traditional about it

    Theres nothing more demeaning then having to work as a busboy & porter for every chick in sight

    So wheres the chivalry from women for men?

    Is it there tight fisted refusal to give gifts, trying to pawn off sex as a gift, or even worse a quiet day for him … after years of expensive gifts to her?

    Again IF idiot women like SIS want chivalry, WHERES the chivalry from women for men?

    EVEN in marriage opening your legs & being feminine, you’re not exactly doing us any favours …

    Still need to game your ass … or you fall out of love … waaah …. lmao

    Women cant even make a relationship work, without their biology being stroked first ….

    & you women STILL want men to pedestalise your ass by opening doors & dying in the millions?

    How about you women OVERCOME your biology first, & quit being so god awful barbaric & feral … ?

    Pedestalising feral women, is like pedestalising a rottweiler for ripping a guys face off …

    Again IF idiot women like SIS want chivalry, WHERES the chivalry from women for men?

    BECAUSE women are feral … womens inability to put the greater good of society first, makes them a huge risk for men everywhere

  74. an observer says:

    Continuing…

    A woman that defers to her husbands authority, shows him respect and extends that deference to other associatec men deserves some degree of special treatment.

    A woman that coasted through college on the frat girl carousel, scores a job thanks to affirmative hiring policies, and gets promoted ahead of six more talented and experienced men deserves contempt.

    She is nothing but a rent seeking passenger on the state-sponsored feminist gravy train. All aboard!

  75. Apollo says:

    Chivalry? Nah.

    Not that this effort of slamming the gate after the horses have bolted isnt amusing though. Especially the part where men are supposed to be the ones to fix things by taking the first step of extending chivalry to women. If this is anyones mess to clean up, its yours ladies. We dont have a Feminism problem because men want it, its because women do. And its women who are going to have to say “no more” if they want rid of it. So come on ladies, undo all the legislative mess you agitated for. Maybe start with removing no fault divorce, rebalancing the ridiculously lop sided domestic violence and sexual assult laws, getting rid of affirmative action, restoring the military to a male only domain, allowing male only clubs again, and change child support and custody laws to benefit men. After thats done, start behaving like ladies again. Then we can talk about men taking up the chivalrous protector and provider role again. Maybe.

    If that doesnt appeal, then just continue on as you have been, so we can proceed with treating you as equals.

  76. TFH says:

    Sis wrongly claimed :

    The manosphere would reach a much wider audience if they said they believed in protecting women and being chivalrous.

    Dead wrong. You have absolutely no idea how women think. And no, being a woman does not mean you know how women think – quite the opposite in fact.

    Here is a clue – thousands of women write love letters to serial killers, especially if that serial killer killed women. The uselessness of chivalry is encapsulated in that one fact.

  77. JoeS says:

    Trad Catholics who betray their principles typically end up pregnant pretty quickly.

    That’s rather naive, although it’s certainly true many end up pregnant, I’m pretty sure a significant number of unmarried trad women use various methods, practices, to avoid pregnancy. Even ones that claim to be very devoutly Catholic. A lot of Traditionalists are engaged in a big game of pretending. They pretend their daughters are asexual, they pretend they’re raising their daughters to be wives and mothers when in reality they don’t want their daughters to be dependent on “abusive, controlling, lazy” religious men. They think 18 year old girls are “babies.” These late 20s trad women are generally not marriage material. There are perhaps a few exceptions.

    They want their daughters to follow the feminist merit badge track then to follow the have a minimum of half a dozen kids track. It’s a joke. They’re kidding themselves.

  78. KristianKP says:

    I have no problems with chivalry as a manly duty towards men, but I have a problem when Jesse Powell reconstructs this duty as a right for women. I may have the duty to be chivalrous towards women, but she has no right to expect it from me. This means a big difference.
    When chivalry is constructed as a woman’s right she gets no obligations from it. She is just entitled to it and no consequences for her follows from being the benefactor of chivalry.
    I find that chivalry is the duty of men, but as a consequence much heavier obligations are laid upon women. The purpose of chivalry is not that women should be able to live a good life at the costs of men. The purpose of chivalry is to make a society which will benefit everyone.

    We should abandon all talk about rights. There are none. We only have obligations and through the obligations I have to my fellow man he gets obligations towards me. Chivalry means that men have obligations specifically towards women, without women having obligations towards men. Thats OK, but then women gets obligations towards society which indirectly means obligations toward men.

    For example, as benefactors of chivalry women are obliged to let children live under the best possible conditions. That means that they live together with their father. A woman is therefore obliged to organize family life in such a way that the father is present. That means that when the man is chivalrous against her, providing for her and protecting her, she has no say in any matter concerning herself, her family and her children.

    When a woman becomes a single mother she has failed to organize her family life in such a way, and the failure is hers – not the father’s. She may have chosen to get pregnant by a man who is not able or willing to take on his chivalrous obligation, but she is still to blame. She has had sex with an unworthy man.

    Of course the man is also to blame, but the locus of control for society is still the woman. The reason for this is that the ability to be responsible to a large degree is hereditary. When women are not responsible for their choice of fathers they propagate the spreading of genes coding for irresponsible behavior in the next generation. Thereby every woman getting pregnant by an irresponsible male is contributing to the demise of society. As one irresponsible man can impregnate thousands of women it is impossible to make men the locus of control. We must force women to only accept responsible men as fathers.

    Therefore, any woman who have had sex with an irresponsible man, have failed her duties toward society, and men no longer owes her chivalry.

    Due to women’s behavior under the last 50 years there maybe very few men capable of being chivalrous. Maybe only a minority of women can find a men worthy of being fathers. The consequence of this is that very many women may be incapable of having children. That’s a pity but women lie as the have bedded.

    I don’t give anything for TWRA. They should not scream about their own rights. They should humbly specify their obligations to society and work for a society in which it is possible for as many men as possible to be chivalrous. (We should not forget that one of the main reasons for men not being chivalrous is the decline in men’s wages making it impossible for a man to provide for his family).

  79. KristianKP says:

    “manly duty towards men” = “manly duty towards women”

  80. Red says:

    You might have this all backwards. I believe that historic record indicates that treating your women well, protecting them, and taking care of them was the norm. What was also the norm is treating sluts and more importantly their bastard off spring as trash is also the norm. Sluts should be used and abused while chaste/faithful women should protected, loved, and cherished. Frankly if your local church hasn’t driven the sluts out yet, then your doing it wrong.

    A long time ago there was a simple standard: A women who acts in a promiscuous manner that either become pregnant or caught in the act of fornication would either be married off or expelled. Keeping her single with in the church only spreads the corruption.

  81. Chivalry and Feminism are like the Taco Bell food of the Feminine Imperative: the same ingredients just mixed up differently.

  82. greyghost says:

    You might have this all backwards. I believe that historic record indicates that treating your women well, protecting them, and taking care of them was the norm. What was also the norm is treating sluts and more importantly their bastard off spring as trash is also the norm. Sluts should be used and abused while chaste/faithful women should protected, loved, and cherished. Frankly if your local church hasn’t driven the sluts out yet, then your doing it wrong.

    A long time ago there was a simple standard: A women who acts in a promiscuous manner that either become pregnant or caught in the act of fornication would either be married off or expelled. Keeping her single with in the church only spreads the corruption.

    That is how it is done. No rings for sluts. “repent and go to heaven, but lthese good churchian men with game only see you as good enough to practice sexual techniques on for their future chaste young wives.” (how about that stuff christian ladies)
    Only women a man needs to concern himself with are his wife and children and someone that shows him respect. I don’t do shit for women in general. You have pleasy appearence and are polite maybe. My favorite line for a bitch, ” You look like you are sexually active, you need to get the last dick you had in your mouth to come do this for you,good luck honey” I have said this one time and has led to my healthy attitude about chivalry

  83. Ton says:

    Personally I don’t think women will give up feminism until they suffer enough pain, emotionally, physically, etc. Captain save ho, White knights and men engaging in chivalry spare women pain and extend the life of feminism

    Great comment about how racism and sexism protect cultures

  84. lgrobins says:

    ” The manosphere would reach a much wider audience if they said they believed in protecting women and being chivalrous.”

    Is is about getting a wider audience of about telling the truth? This is the mistake the modern church has fallen for–that the more “believers” they get the better the Word is spreading. But its not the truth–it is watered down gobbley-gook to make the masses (mainly women) feel good. Sure the manosphere could do the same thing, but it compromises the truth making it all void.

    In fact, probably the reason I hang around the manosphere so much is its one of the few places to find truth, no matter how harsh. Acutually, the harsher the better. Its the only place to get fire and brimstone..

  85. Novaseeker says:

    There was no way serious men of those days deferred to all women; they deferred to good women, and to the ladies. They walked away from the tramps, sluts and whores.

    And, even so, the concept as a whole is not Christian.

    As traditional Christian women remind us all the time, their duty of submission is not owed to all men, but to their husbands as an act of obedience of God. In parallel, a man’s duty of self-sacrificing love (which is really the essence of chivalry) is not owed to all women, but to wives only as an act of obedience to God.

    This tends to get confused with the fact that the NT also calls for men to hold leadership roles in churches, but of course those leadership roles are over other men as well as other women. And while it’s true that women are not “to speak” (generally taken to mean “to teach” traditionally, but now basically taken to mean “uh, Paul didn’t really mean that!!!”), but that isn’t out of submission to all men, but as Paul himself explains, because of Genesis.

    The concept of a universal male duty towards all persons lacking a Y chromosome is a cultural idea, not a Christian one. Its history relates, as has been stated in this thread, to the attempt to moralize military and martial duties — it later became denuded into a primarily romantic male/female aspect for courtly lords and ladies, but none of this had anything to do, per se, with the requirements of Christianity. See: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03691a.htm

  86. Looking Glass says:

    While I normally would also join in on the chorus of driving a stake through Sis’ misunderstanding of reality, I do want to actually address part of it from a logical point of view.

    Chivalry doesn’t “protect” women. A properly designed and functioning society protects women. Since modern “chivalry” is part and parcel of a system of for female supremacy, it can’t protect women, as a practical matter. Since the system it is used to support can’t survive.

    But, since a properly functional system would require “someone” pay the consequences for their bad choices, it’ll be denied until a worse system is forced upon society by necessity.

  87. Anonymous Reader says:

    Brendan/Novaseeker reminds me, indirectly, of another issue: the “golden age” myth. At any given time in history, there are people despising their current culture and yearning for some past, better, age. There is always some golden age that exists in the mists of memory, and if only society could just revert back to that time, all would be well. There is often a grain of truth – I’d rather listen to a composition by Bach or Mozart than anything Phil Glass has written – but only a grain. One way to test this notion is to go find writings from that “golden age”, and read them. For some periods of history, it is not difficult to discover men in the “golden age” bemoaning how corrupt their time is, and how it falls short of what should be. There are such writings abundant in the 20th century and 19th century, for example.

    The whole “golden age” approach to culture as a whole is pretty childish. It is bound up with another mistake, the idea that there is some perfect human government, and that ideal is attainable by fallible humans. People who claim the Bible as their guide should know better than to subscribe to such obviously false notions…

  88. Sis says:

    The way I understand chivalry, protecting your wife and close family members may be all that is required, then for women you don’t know very well, you are kind to them out of deference to their father or husband, not because you are lowering yourself as a savior for all women but as a sign of respect towards the man who is her protector. If you dishonor the woman, it is the husband or father who is insulted. His mantle of protection covers her even when he is absent.

  89. Sis says:

    “True leaders
    do not sugar-coat reality.
    engage the heart.
    refuse to accept the status quo.
    create a sense of urgency.
    call people to act in accord with their highest values.
    refuse to settle.
    acknowledge the sacrifice of their followers.
    paint a vivid picture of a better tomorrow.”
    -Michael Hyatt

  90. Morticia says:

    It is similar to how women had a social contract with other women that if they saw their children getting into trouble or doing something dangerous that they would intervene..hence children could run the neighborhoods and there was a sense that they were being watched over by other mothers.

    Now that social contract is gone because all the other mothers are at work, or they don’t have children at all and so the only children who are running the streets are the hoodlum latch-key kids who you don’t want your kids around at all.

    Understandably, society would have to change dramatically for chivalry to be seen as anything more than pedestalizing of women, but as a social contract it wasn’t a bad idea in the first place and the only reason it resulted in feminism is because the standards of femininity were lowered. Gentleman can be gentleman if women are not jockeying for masculine privilege.

  91. Paul says:

    M’kay, what’s really pissing me off in all of this is that I understood more about chivalry in 4th grade (from source historical material, not some 19th century romantic author) than this perverted version of chivalry these ‘traditional’ conservatives are espousing. In my eyes they are just simpering creatures grasping at form, completely ignorant of substance. They are women who want to remain firmly esconced on a pedestal, a fine, Victorian marble one, and the lick-spittle men who know no greater desire than to keep them there. But remember, there is no such thing as the feminine imperative.

    As a few have mentioned, chivalry developed as a code of honour among combatants of rank. The word chivalry itself comes from chevalier, the French word for knight. It did not apply to lesser folk, such as peasant levies, men-at-arms, low-born freemen. It was nothing at all like a general code of conduct, and had nothing to do with women at all. Much of it had to do with the treatment of fallen enemies, on the battlefield and as prisoners. Again, only enemies of rank, not everybody.

    Our concept of chivalry developed in a Christian/Christianizing Europe, and the early Church helped inform a lot of the concepts of chivalry relating to mercy for the fallen and magnanimity on behalf of the victor to the vanquished. Although none of these were completely original, chivalry codified something that was done more atomically in the Greek stories, for example.

    The concept of chivalry as starting to apply to females generally originated with females themselves, the same upper crust pampered-type females that later gave us Victorian pedestalization, suffragettes and feminists. With lords often away warring or on other affairs, the lady was responsible for running certain affairs of the household, including the entertainment.

    Entertainment at that time was generally your minstrel, wandering or otherwise, who had to play for his supper. As any good entertainer knows, you must please your patron. This lead eventually to the development of two separate traditions of song, chanson de geste (think action movies, guy stuff) and amour courtois (courtly love, think chick-flicks). Eleanor of Aquitaine commissioned many of the songs included among amour courtois, indeed it is rumoured she authored some. These songs generally praised heroes (who were still brave and strong and alpha) for how they treated women. In other words, coopting something from the male sphere, i.e. a warrior’s code, and using it to serve women. But remember, there’s no such thing as the female imperative.

    But even those ideas and songs bear no resemblance to what these ‘traditionalists’ use when discussing chivalry, which generally come from the 19th century romanticizing of medieval tales, for example the ‘modernizations’ of the tales of Arthur, starting with Tennyson. Even then, as others have mentioned, the notion of chivalry that the ‘traditionalists’ under discussion here practise bear more resemblance to something that you would find in a TV show from the 50s (or a 70s show about the 50s, like Happy Days), or for the more sophisticated, a Cary Grant movie.

  92. Novaseeker says:

    Understandably, society would have to change dramatically for chivalry to be seen as anything more than pedestalizing of women, but as a social contract it wasn’t a bad idea in the first place and the only reason it resulted in feminism is because the standards of femininity were lowered. Gentleman can be gentleman if women are not jockeying for masculine privilege.

    I’m skeptical of that, actually.

    On the one hand, the widespread *acceptance* of feminism by *men* undoubtedly has its roots in the mindset of chivalry, at least as the same was known since feminism has been ascendant (1850 and onward). That is, by empowering women, the men perceived themselves as actually protecting, honoring and and being kind to them — and, by extension, to their fathers and male relatives (as suggested above). It’s even Christianesque (but not really Christian) in that it involves the transition from bringing someone fish to teaching/empowering someone to fish for herself. Clearly the mindset was that the world had changed enough such that this was the next step in protecting, honoring and being kind to women in general — empowering them to follow their dreams, and to take their place alongside men in that great adventure as they may want to themselves. In effect, it’s kind of like chivalry’s ultimate act, when seen from this perspective — the act which makes the need for chivalry disappear, in the ultimate act of protection, honor and kindness in providing women the tools they would need to do this for themselves. This is undoubtedly the mindset that millions of men who supported feminism for the women in their lives had — their mothers, sisters, daughters, nieces and so on. It was something which arose from the instinct to protect and provide, and which was seen as the ultimate way to do that.

    Note that this doesn’t mean that these men were radical feminists — they clearly were not. This is also not the case today, either, as we can see from the “garden variety feminism supporting father” who is encouraging his daughters in athletic excellence (from the sidelines or as a coach), encouraging them to advance in education, careers and so on, encouraging wives and sisters in the same way, and actively helping them and the like. This isn’t behavior that stems from a mindset of “women good, men bad” or “Down with Patriarchy!”, but rather one which the natural outgrowth of protection/provision and, when it comes to non-relative women, the extension of that into the broader society, which can only be described as contemporary chivalry.

    Put another way — garden-variety day-to-day feminism as practiced and supported by men *is* chivalry — it’s simply the contemporary expression of chivalry in the present context. This is why, for most guys, their sideline/coach style feminism is not contradictory at all with more traditional forms of chivalry in their contemporary expression — it all flows from the same impulse and motivation. Again, this is a very different motivation from the ideologically-inspired radicals in the universities, think-tanks and activist groups, but it’s the core motivation that led to the majority of men supporting feminism — as practiced in a de facto way — and which supports it today. No doubt the ideologues took advantage of this to great effect, but the real story here isn’t that men have been “duped” by the ideologues, but rather in a poorly-thought-out idea that this kind of empowerment was/is actually provision, protection and kindness to women — something which a substantial majority of men support, regardless of where they are politically or religiously, and regardless of whether they regard this as openly “feminist” — surely, the garden-variety-married-suburban-father may often perceive himself as anything but a feminist, but is still de facto one when he empowers his daughters in every way possible (and his wife, his sisters and so on), because these are behaviors that are common to almost all men other than a traditionalist fringe.

  93. 8oxer says:

    Paul: Thanks for the explanation on chivalry. I’m a math type dude these days, but when I was a kid I studied history. This is one of the best discussions I’ve seen in a while, and your response reminded me of the old Joseph Campbell interview with Bill Moyers.

    Women were largely irrelevant in the old days, as they should be now. Respecting women of the warrior/priest caste was, as Dalrock and others point out, sublimated respect for their fathers and brothers and sons, who one needed to depend upon for an orderly society. That modern women have taken advantage of this is really not surprising in a historical context. If I were one of them, I’d find it almost impossible not to take advantage of chivalrous men for my own personal gain and amusement.

    The real end of chivalry will come as sanctions increase for vague “crimes” like sexual harassment. A boy I know of recently was disciplined for holding the door open for a girl. No doubt he thought he was being polite. She thought he was “creepy” and he got publicly humiliated for it. There are also a growing number of incidents of highway robbery in my area, where a woman will pose with a broken-down vehicle. The man who stops to help will find himself being accosted by her male friends who were hiding in the trees nearby, and he loses some money and perhaps his own car for his trouble.

  94. Morticia says:

    Novaseeker-
    I understand what you are saying and I agree.

    But this is why proper male chauvinism is so important. Chauvinism is what tells men that power in the hands of women is a terrible thing and is actually an *unloving* act, as it is ruins feminine soft-heartedness.

    In other words..proper ordering of society would see any sort of chivalry in the form of feminism as being actually bad for women, because it makes them bad mothers and bad wives…and ultimately corrupts them.

    But chauvinism has two forms- the polite variety (which includes a mild form of chivalry) and the no-so-polite variety (machoness) which is the kind that most men would not want to subject their daughters to.

    This is why I have become a hard-ass proponent of benevolent chauvinism…its the only way to get order back into society.

    Teaching women to fish has a huge opportunity cost, because as they are fishing they are not nursing their little babies …or even having babies.

    Society has a choice..it can have women as good mothers or as perpetual frat boys. Women will not rise to the level of gentleman (as we have seen)..and it wouldn’t really be good for society (or them) even if they could.

  95. Novaseeker says:

    Is this what is meant by Chivalry in today’s Churchian speak?

    http://mikedcosper.com/2012/11/25/dear-bob-abuse-and-the-complimentarian-christian-response/#comment-703

    No, that’s just outright stupidity coupled with a generic hatred of men that goes way beyond normal kinds of chivalry.

  96. Sis says:

    @Novaseeker,

    But there is no hope, no ideal future for MRA’s. Nothing for the general people to grab hold of. Just complaining about reality doesn’t bring life. Chivalry provides all of those things. Restoring men to their true authority, leadership and nobleness of character.

  97. lumberjack jones says:

    The idea that chivalry should be extended to all women from all men is laughable. I vowed my love and honor and protection to my wife when we got married, not to women at large. I extend the same love, honor and protection to my daughters until such time as they find a man willing to vow the same to them in marriage.

    I may choose to extend that protection to other women in my life as a need may arise and as requested (either explicitly or implicitly) by the woman’s husband or father.

    The idea that a woman who is not my wife, daughter, sister or mother should be held in the same regard by me or have equal value to me as those women that are my wife, daughters, sisters or mother seems quite silly to me.

  98. Novaseeker says:

    Chivalry provides all of those things. Restoring men to their true authority, leadership and nobleness of character.

    Not, it really doesn’t — not under the current circumstances. Chivalry as practiced today is men supporting feminism — that’s the most chivalric thing you can do, today, as a man.

    Trying to “restore” old school chivalry is a walk in the dark — it isn’t going to happen on a social scale without some kind of social reset, and that isn’t likely (and isn’t something to wish for either, as it would be very traumatic and unpredictable, as social resets generally are). There is no social solution, here, for these issues that is in any way realistic.

  99. Yea Novaseeker, did you see what he wrote at the bottom though. If you don’t do what he says and repent, you will burn in hell.

    A wife can do absolutely anything to you, including abusing you, cheating on you, I suppose trying to kill you as well, but just you dare raise a finger and you’ll burn in hell. It’s sick and twisted.

  100. Sorry Sis, read the above link I posted. That has to end completely before any real Chivalry can come about. No man should put himself through what the modern Churches demand men do. That’s not sacrifice for good, it’s sacrifice for evil, for Satan. I will not be part of that, nor condone it.

  101. Morticia says:

    Novaseeker- On a social-wide scale..I agree..only a restart will end feminism and that will also cause horrific suffering.

    But we can create little traditionalist communities…much like the pinko-commies do with their “intentional communities”. When something works, others want to imitate it..and then you have “movements”. Like the homeschool movement, and the slow-food movement, which have both caught on like wildfire.

  102. Novaseeker says:

    But we can create little traditionalist communities…much like the pinko-commies do with their “intentional communities”. When something works, others want to imitate it..and then you have “movements”. Like the homeschool movement, and the slow-food movement, which have both caught on like wildfire.

    You can do something like that, but that isn’t “chivalry” per se — chivalry per se would apply also outside the community in the general world, on an individual basis. If individual guys want to to “old school chivalry” while living in traditional cocoons, that’s fine, but they ought not expect to change the world by doing so.

  103. Novaseeker says:

    Yea Novaseeker, did you see what he wrote at the bottom though. If you don’t do what he says and repent, you will burn in hell.

    It’s just silly posturing, though. He’s pandering, and almost admits it at the beginning by mentioning the timing of why he published the post. He’s pandering. I wouldn’t give a guy like that — assistant pastor or no — the time of day. It’s not even worth the breath and blood circulation it took to read the words, to be honest.

  104. Morticia says:

    The bigger those cocoons grow the more impact they have on societal trends.

  105. Zippy says:

    According to the Catholic Encyclopedia published in 1917 Chivalry began to lose its relevance not long after the end of the Crusades, in what it calls the Third Period or “Secular Chivalry”. It speaks rather critically of the kind of chivalry in which a particular woman (not women in general) became the focus of a vowed knight’s (not Everyman’s) personal protection:

    Under the influence of the romances love now became the mainspring of chivalry. As a consequence there arose a new type of chevalier, vowed to the service of some noble lady, who could even be another man’s wife. This idol of his heart was to be worshipped at a distance. Unfortunately, notwithstanding the obligations imposed upon the knightly lover, these extravagant fancies often led to lamentable results.

    (Emphasis mine).

    So the idea that the immediate prefeminist “chivalry” people lament today is connected to the chivalry of Christendom is more than a little bit of a stretch.

    Now, to the extent people mean “by default, treat fellow human beings as ladies and gentlemen until they demonstrate themselves to be something else by their behaviour” it is probably a good thing, even though it isn’t “chivalry.” (These days that demonstration is rarely long in coming).

    But this notion of chivalry as “a universal duty of the man towards all women indiscriminately,” — where “indiscriminately” means not “by default as a fellow human being” but “no matter how she has behaved” — is, shall we say, not particularly historically accurate.

    Which is to say that it is not “traditionalist”. It is just whining about the consequences of feminism while still supporting feminism, attempting to coopt the label “traditionalist” simply because of opposition to feminism’s consequences.

    This is just the usual “conservative” compromise of opposing the consequences of liberalism without opposing liberalism per se. This is – perhaps not coincidentally – rather like being in favor of sex and opposed to reproduction: a form of intellectual sodomy.

  106. slwerner says:

    Sis – ”But there is no hope, no ideal future for MRA’s. Nothing for the general people to grab hold of. Just complaining about reality doesn’t bring life. Chivalry provides all of those things. Restoring men to their true authority, leadership and nobleness of character.”

    What is this “future” that (your) concept of Chivalry is supposed to bring about? Please do explain.

    Frankly, it seems like some sort of empty platitude to me. Maybe I jus need sum educatin’, eh?

    As for your perception of MRA’s, I think you’ve spent way too much time listening to outsiders (haters) like Zippy attempt to define and explain the MRM/MRA’s in ways meant only to discredit (never to enlighten).

    As an exercise in understanding, given the twisted logic Zippy, et. al which seeks only to undermine any honest efforts by denigrating the very idea of “rights” as some supposedly “liberal” ideal; try this instead:

    Replace the term “Rights” in MRM/MRA with the term “Restoration” – because, when you boil it all down, that would be a more apt way to define the designs and efforts of those you so arrogantly snub.

    In virtually every instance that MRA’s call for “right’s”, “equality” (or what ever other “dirty word” your ilk would chose to ridicule us for seeking), what is actually being sought IS the restoration of men’s proper place and role in family matters, and in society as a whole.

    Just for an example, the “right’s” men seek via the reform of Family Courts and the associated laws are absolutely intended to restore husbands and fathers.

    As it stands, a man can only lead as a pseudo-Patriarch tot eh extent that his legally empowered wife will allow. If she doesn’t wish to have him remain as the (figure-)Head, the laws are squarely with her in coup to over-throw and oust him.

    What MRA’s advocate for amounts to the defense of a man’s ability to be more of an effective Patriarch. For instance, as it is now, a woman need only claim that she was the victim of his emotional or verbal abuse, and he will be removed from the family home, and summarily jailed if he should even come too close to her of HER home.

    But, should a man claim that he suffered even actual physical abuse, a different standard WILL be applied – it will be demanded that he prove his allegations.

    When MRA’s speak of equality, they are typically meaning equality under the law (this claim that they wish to have equality of the genders and gender roles is a lie of the Orthosphere); which would require that a man and father accused of verbal or emotional violence would have the right (sorry to use that dirty word again) to mount a defense, and would have to be proven guilty prior to the punishment of being forced to leave his home and family.

    Hopefully, this will provide you with an example of how the MRM is actually seeking to restore men. I realize that being so deeply steeped in the lies of the Orthosphere, you may be highly resistant to such information which doesn’t line up with the claims you’ve been indoctrinated with. But, maybe, a seed can be planted….

  107. Zippy says:

    slwerner:
    As for your perception of MRA’s, I think you’ve spent way too much time listening to outsiders (haters) like Zippy attempt to define and explain the MRM/MRA’s in ways meant only to discredit (never to enlighten).

    Au contraire. The reason I speak against fighting liberalism with even more liberalism is because it will never work. MRA’s are – as near as I can tell, and with all the usual caveats associated with generalizing – outraged about genuine and terrible injustices.

    What they don’t seem to realize (again with all the usual caveats) is that they aren’t going to correct those injustices by planning a banquet and inviting in the trojan horse.

  108. slwerner says:

    Zippy – “The reason I speak against fighting liberalism with even more liberalism is because it will never work.”

    Just because you label something “liberalism” neither makes it “liberalism” (I’m assuming your attempting to apply the more traditional definition) nor does it prove that it is the wrong approach (doomed to fail).

    Seems to me the old “stick your head in the sand” approach you dinosaurs of the Orthosphere seem to be (preferentially) advocating is the approach doomed to fail, as it attempts to do nothing at all (just endorses the status quo, even if acknowledging that things are horrible amiss).

  109. Novaseeker says:

    The bigger those cocoons grow the more impact they have on societal trends.

    The idea has been tried, though. The Catholics tried it with Catholic schools and KofC and so on and that didn’t really lead to a cocoon lasting to withstand the general culture — yes, pockets remain, but they are pockets. The evangelicals have tried it as well with Christian schools and academies and colleges and so on, but the cocoon isn’t growing, and every generation it loses people to the broader culture.

    That doesn’t mean that people shouldn’t live and order their own lives as they think they should. Of course they should do so. What it means, though, is that the culture isn’t really determined from the bottom up. It’s set from the top down. That’s why the cocoon strategy works as a personal choice in terms of ordering one’s life in a counter-cultural way, but doesn’t succeed as a cultural changing method. The top-down driven culture is too strong for that, and takes too many of the offspring of the cocoons into its much stronger pull.

  110. Novaseeker says:

    I realize that description sounds rather lacking in hope, but the issue is that hope is properly placed in the power of the spirit to change and redeem you, personally, and that may have an impact on those around you (but it may not). Placing hope on changing the broader society is overloading the donkey — it’s a recipe for disappointment and is, in my view, misplaced. The culture is FUBAR, and previous iterations of it were FUBAR also in different ways — such is the nature of fallen humanity. The world is condemned, after all, and in need of redemption. Our hope lies in personal/collective redemption through the collective of the Church, but not in the idea that the world will be transformed other than by God Himself and in His time when He comes again. So I don’t think a realistic assessment of the social problem and its relative intractability reflects a lack of hope, but instead reflects a placement of hope in its proper context.

  111. Sis says:

    You know what I think is really sad about the MRA’s, they all say they are against protecting women but if you look at their lives, they are the ones who do it. You are the ones who are actually taking care of your wives and daughters, I think if you are doing it you should at least get the credit that goes along with being righteous and noble. The PUA’s on the other hand say they will protect women and then they use them up like trash. You’re offending women everywhere by saying you don’t want to protect them, but you are already doing it, you’re the good guys, you should own it and take credit for it.

  112. slwerner says:

    Sis – ”You know what I think is really sad about the MRA’s, they all say they are against protecting women but if you look at their lives, they are the ones who do it. You are the ones who are actually taking care of your wives and daughters”

    No Sis, what’s sad is your lack of reading comprehension.

    Okay, I take that back.

    What is sad is that you seem to be to arrogant to even bother to read what actual MRA’s have to say for themselves about their view of their duty to protect women.

    Multiple comments have specifically addressed men’s individual desire to protect their female family members.

    The questioning comes as to whether they ought to be “required” to provide such protections to all women, even those who seem unworthy of any man incurring any personal risk to provide such protection.

    Seriously, read the comments. Don’t assume you know what men are saying.

  113. These people who say men must treat women as ladies even when they’ve proven not to be are just being stupid. They sound desperate, frankly, as if their glimpse of the manosphere makes them afraid that their control over men is slipping away, so they’re trying to double-down on it.

    Men in the past, whether you mean 1950 or 1350, certainly didn’t treat known sluts like ladies. That would have been an insult to the ladies they knew. But they had a much easier time telling the ladies from the sluts. There weren’t nearly as many sluts in the first place, and they didn’t run in the same social circles as the ladies. A good man didn’t have to worry about how to treat sluts, because he didn’t encounter them on a regular basis — and if he did, say as a knight on the march visiting the camp followers — he knew what they were and treated them accordingly. (That’s not to say there was complete separation — surely there were slutty chambermaids living in the same castles with ladies — but the separation was much stronger.)

    Nowadays it’s not that simple. The girl sipping a martini at a bar could be a virgin, and the one you meet at church could be coming off the carousel with an N=30. If you’re holding the door for a woman, how do you tell? Say she’s dressed in some sort of pantsuit — not a feminine outfit that puts you in mind of a lady, but not skanky so that you suspect a slut. What’s your default mode with her? Our predecessors didn’t run into that situation much, but it’s a daily conundrum for us. When they met women in decent society, they could treat them as ladies and figure it was normally deserved. We can’t make that assumption.

  114. KristianKP says:

    I am also against the notion of “rights” because I don’t believe there are any rights. Rights is just a political construction and they can be taken away. Rights are worthless. I may have the right not to get murdered, but if someone do kill me, this right has no worth. The problems with rights are that one person’s right is always other person’s obligations. If they don’t wish to honor their obligation my rights will crumble.

    It is much better to start with obligations. I have some obligations towards society. Among them is the obligation to treat my fellow human beings as I would that they would treat me. My fellow human being has no right to demand from me that I treat them as I would they should treat med. As a consequence the get obligations towards society if I treat them according to what is demanded of society. Among those obligations are to at least reciprocate my way of treating them.

    As a man I have a certain obligation to treat women with special care. Especially if the woman is my wife, my daughter or mother. I do also have an obligation towards other women which goes beyond the obligations I have towards other men. But when I take on these obligations women are demanded to accept another set of obligations towards society, which include certain obligations towards me that goes beyond the obligations she has towards other women.

    If a woman is not reciprocating my honoring my obligations, I no longer need to be chivalrous towards her.

    Men are responsible beings and we have chivalrously agreed upon collectively helping out women and children if a man fails to live up to his obligation. This is what is called the welfare state. However, our collective chivalry are now abused in large numbers by women who are not sufficiently careful when they choose a man to impregnate them och who deliberately choose to have a child without involvement of a father. These women have failed to honor their obligations and should not be benefactors of chivalry. They should be condemned and abandoned forced to fend for themselves.

  115. Zippy says:

    slwerner:
    Just because you label something “liberalism” neither makes it “liberalism” (I’m assuming your attempting to apply the more traditional definition) nor does it prove that it is the wrong approach (doomed to fail).

    True. Me labeling it doesn’t make it what it is. In fact my entire existence is irrelevant to it. But anyone can look around and see it for what it is, if they have eyes to see and ears to hear. Some people prefer the label “modernity”; but ultimately the labels don’t matter.

    The thing of which we speak – which I call liberalism – is the belief that freedom and equal rights should represent the highest political authority. It is the political view which dominates all of modern first world societies, it is the wellspring of the injustices which have given birth to the MRM, and it is also integral to the world view of most MRAs.

    Seems to me the old “stick your head in the sand” approach you dinosaurs of the Orthosphere seem to be (preferentially) advocating is the approach doomed to fail, as it attempts to do nothing at all (just endorses the status quo, even if acknowledging that things are horrible amiss).

    I don’t know where you are getting your ideas about what I do and do not advocate. Perhaps you could cite my actual words, wherever they are, to which you object.

    From my POV the MRM/MRA approach is far more status quo than unequivocal rejection of liberalism. Doubling down on liberalism won’t get you what you want, even though you think it will. If you don’t believe me lets have this discussion again in a couple of decades. Reality is going to test the idea for you.

  116. Sis says:

    @slwerner, I apologize for the offense. I do respect MRA’s and support their cause, just with different reasons and methods it seems. Be courageous.

  117. slwerner says:

    KristianKP – ”I am also against the notion of “rights” because I don’t believe there are any rights. Rights is just a political construction and they can be taken away. Rights are worthless.”

    It seems to me that this is where so many anti-MRM types hang their hats in regards to their opposition.

    Please, though, do bear in mind that the use of the term “Rights” was merely a matter of convention – an attempt to use the “common language” to address a common issue of men being selectively denied such protections.

    Don’t get caught up in these devious attempts to smear the MRM (and, by extension, the MAndrosphere) via such mis-applied semantics. Use your own preferred term to fit the “R” – (legal) Reform, (governmental interference) Resistance, or, perhaps, Restoration, for example.

    Yes, as Zippy suggests (in his never-ending desire to discredit that which he cannot control), individual liberties are very much (traditionally) liberal – most would term them “libertarian” today, with “rights” balanced with “responsibilities”. Legally speaking, the individual liberties of individual men are being systematically assailed, in a variety of ways.

    I can accept that some people chose not to make an effort to fight against this happening. However, I do very much bristle at the outright lies which are being constantly repeated as to the motivations of those who would chose to fight. Resistance to this is not “feminist”, by any stretch of the imagination. By it’s very design and nature, it is anti-feminist.

  118. Morticia says:

    Novaseeker- I see what you are saying and I think I agree that modernism will not die in my lifetime even if the social movement grows. Likely, government will get bigger and better at smoldering the flames of rebellion to the zeitgeist.

    I am wary, however, of people not even putting up a fight. Its like with the gay marriage thing..it is inevitable, but I’m not going to go along pretending that it isn’t disordered. I’m not going to vote for it..I’m not going to refer to any gay “spouse” as such. It may make ma a social pariah..but that is the price you pay for defending truth.

  119. Anonymous Reader says:

    Sis
    You know what I think is really sad about the MRA’s, they all say they are against protecting women but if you look at their lives, they are the ones who do it.

    Perhaps you could look up the words “some” and “all” in a good dictionary, and thereby discover that they are not synonyms.Then you might be able to understand what men are actually saying.

  120. slwerner says:

    Zippy – “Perhaps you could cite my actual words, wherever they are, to which you object.”

    The problem here is that you carefully avoid detailing an alternative plan (at least as far as I am aware).

    To me, this is both clever and “slippery”.

    If seeking to redress injustice and restore men’s rightful place via legal reform is so terribly liberal and hopelessly misguide, do, please, suggest an alternative for those who might wish to attempt to slow the decline and make life more palatable and promising for our sons, grandsons, nephews, and other young men now facing a palpable anti-male Zeitgeist

  121. lzozozolzlozl

    when socons and tradcons and neocons and moroncons say “WHAT IS NEEDED I MORE CHIVALRY!!”

    it is like people
    who have taken the wheels
    and handlebars
    off a bike
    saying
    “WHAT IS NEEDED IS MOR BIKE RIDING!!!” lzozlzzozzl

    judeo-christian sexual chastity–the reservation of a woman’s sexuality for one man and one man alone, is the foundation, center, and circumference of chivalry.

    without a woman’s sexual fidelity, there can be no such thing as chivalry.

    because womenz naturally ebrbeeprpeafferz butethxteedandd servrieng gina and buette tintgelezz ofver over a dcofdee codde of fhroneornozzlzlozlolzlz code of horno moral code fo fr homrnro like da ten commaandnenemntz zlozlzlzz

  122. James Burchart says:

    I use “Chivalry” all the time to take power from feminists. It has nothing to do with with whether they deserve it or not. It’s all about power, and I suspect it always was. I work in a 90% woman environment with a woman as boss so I have to be shrewd.
    – Chivalry can easily be used like Game because so many woman/feminists have Daddy issues. In a nutshell, Chivalry (when used correctly) very subtly presents the female in question with a Father figure can be quite difficult to resist, especially if they are a bit older. They almost can’t help it.
    An example….I work in medicine. If a female “superior” or co-worker gets into trouble and their patient starts to deteriorate (this principle can transfer to any profession). The ensuing crisis ( and many female crisis ‘) by nature also creates a power vacuum. When I step in to save the damsel in question I also take complete control over the situation in fairly Alpha fashion. Checkmate.
    What do I get for it? Lots. 1. They are afraid to contradict me in the future. 2. By showing both the WK and the Alpha they gain a kind of confidence in me that makes them see me as a de facto authority figure – trusted, and having power over ‘threats and crisis”. Ergo, “He knows what he’s doing, listen to him or bad things might happen”. 3. Because I’m a little older and from an older generation I feel like a bit of a shit for not being polite and helpful to women so I don’t do it unless I have to. Makes me feel better.
    The thing about Chivalry is it’s a long game and is not for every situation, but it can be a great power grab. Think about it.

  123. frenchy says:

    @ Dalrock,

    great article. your video clip reminded me of this piece:

    hope this works.

  124. “Rollo Tomassi says:
    February 19, 2013 at 5:09 am
    Chivalry and Feminism are like the Taco Bell food of the Feminine Imperative: the same ingredients just mixed up differently.”

    Actually, they are polar opposites.

    The “chivalrous” story is firmly rooted in a woman’s sexual loyalty to one man, and thus to her family.

    In exchange for this, men placed her on a pedestal.

    Feminism promotes butethxting and gianantsteing o demand wheneever a owmanz butt or gina goes tinglzlzlzllzozzlolzozl. FEminism definesz sexual loyalty to a man and one’s family as “opression,” while yet demanding that men man up and act chivalrously.

    lzozlzlzlzlzlz

  125. frenchy says:

    oh well, guess it did not work.

  126. GBFM, they both serve the same master. You should probably read up on the history of chivalry:

    https://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2013/01/02/the-feminine-imperative-circa-1300/

  127. Hey Rollo,

    Chivalry is an inherently Christian phenomena.

    Two central tenets of Christianity are 1) A woman must honor and desire and obey her husband and 2) A woman cannot have sex with (nor buttehetxtxt zlozlzozzo) with any other man.

    Feminism teaches the exact opposite of this.

    How are they the same thing?

  128. Zippy says:

    slwerner:
    The problem here is that you carefully avoid detailing an alternative plan (at least as far as I am aware).

    I don’t carefully avoid the issue; I am quite open about the fact that I don’t have all the answers.

    But you are wrong in thinking that I don’t want to help. If you see a man with a gun that only fires when it is aimed at his foot, and you try to get him to understand the factual situation, you are in fact trying to help him. The fact that you may not have further answers for all of his life’s troubles doesn’t turn you into the bad guy in the scenario.

  129. MarcoP says:

    “you are kind to them out of deference to their father or husband, not because you are lowering yourself as a savior for all women but as a sign of respect towards the man who is her protector.”

    Jesus Christ, how can you women never, ever tire of reframing?

  130. ray says:

    “Johnycomelaty

    Just take a stroll on the alternative side of the web and you’ll see feminine paganism being triumphed, replete with Gaia worship, spritism, astral planing, reiki, conversing with familiar spirits, witchcraft, magic, esotercism etc.

    No wonder the Lord severley admonished the worship of the Asherah poles and described the women crying over Tammuz as an abomination.”

    the concept of “equality” and of interchangeability of the female and male was the central socio-cultural tenet of ancient Babylonian culture — that’s a major reason God called abraham out of that culture, and into something quite different

    “Asherah” is just another name for the “goddess” (ie a demon) and her worship anciently was similar to today . . . an excuse for women to worship themselves, and to prostitute themselves for money and power, and an excuse for men to go-along with this evil

    the postdiluvial goddess-cultures were always at war against God and God’s people, and it is no coincidence that their satanic system of “equality” is the foundation of the neo-pagan cultures of the modern west

    equality, as guys have discovered during the past half century, is a pretty code-word for disenfranchisement and persecution based on maleness

    what a concidence . . . the Equality System of satan just happens to have a side effect of annihilating fatherhood, separating boys from men, degrading masculinity, destroyng family, and setting women collectively (and weak men) in positions of absoulute authority and power over other men

    no gee cant understand why God and the prophets are agin it lol

    for this reason (tho there are many others) we can identify America as the biblical “Babylon-the-Great” whose (feminist/gynarchic) system already has conquered most of the world

  131. Pingback: Catholic Encyclopedia warns against being a “chivalrous” beta orbiter « Zippy Catholic

  132. TFH says:

    lgrobins said,

    Is is about getting a wider audience of about telling the truth?

    Bingo. (Most) women believe that something that is popular is good, and having a wide acceptance is the same as being true.

    Women don’t think. They can’t think. They can only plug into groupthink.

  133. TFH says:

    More ignorance from Sis :

    The PUA’s on the other hand say they will protect women and then they use them up like trash.

    Wrong. PUAs and MRAs are quite often the same people. The two views are highly complementary.

    Plus, a PUA does not ‘use up’ women. A woman is a consenting adult.

    Now, for one of my maxims :

    Anyone who makes a vastly off-base accusation, is essentially engaging in projection. The accusation is just a release of the projection.

    Sis would gladly use up a devoted man and take his earnings and children. She would coldly do so. Hence, her projection in stating this about PUAs, is obvious.

  134. slwerner says:

    Zippy – ” If you see a man with a gun that only fires when it is aimed at his foot, and you try to get him to understand the factual situation”

    So…exactly how is seeking legal reforms an act of shooting one’s self in the foot. You keep inferring that it cannot work, even calling self-immolation at one point; yet, nowhere can I recall you detailing how it is believe the MRM will self-destruct by trying.

    Personally, I feel as though you are mixing definitions of “liberal” in a disingenuous way; suggesting that countering results modern progress, permissive, left-wing, culturally-Marxist, feminist, top-down government-controlled, anti-male social restructuring with classical liberalisms design of individual liberty (freedoms) as being a true apples-to-apples comparison.

    I’d argue that reforming the laws so as to grant individual (men) the freedoms to live their lives, including how they’d like to head their family households free from government interference and threat as a decidedly positive ideal. I don’t see countering the results of modern liberalism with the design of classical liberalism as simply being countering liberalism with more liberalism, as one certainly encumbers men and prevents them from being able to fulfill their God-given roles as the head of their families, while the counter measures seek to provide the same men the freedoms which they so need in order to have the ability to fulfill their roles.

    You’re going to have to show your work to better explain how this is a negative, self-defeating goal. As a outsider to the highly esoteric beliefs of the Orthosphere, I’m as confused as much by your non-explanations as I am by, say, Mark Richardson’s tortured “Autonomy Theory” applies to anything outside of the relationship between God and man.

    And, BTW, the ultimate likelihood of failure vs. success does not compel me that no effort show be attempted. I’d prefer to go down fightin’… Yippee-ki-yay, MF (etc.)

  135. Morticia says:

    I think the difference between the reactionary trads (RT’s), and the MRA’s is that both want to fight the decay, but the RT’s believe the MRA’s are trying to use the enemies weapons against them. In other words, they are combating lies with a different set of lies.

    This is ..I think.. Zippy’s argument. Like with the marriage argument. Is getting government out of marriage to keep them from distorting it essentially just distorting marriage in a different way?

    If MRA’s are fighting for “true equality” they are using a lie (equality) to fight a lie (lopsided “equality”)… but since equality is a big fat lie…one should reject that lie in its totality.

    What the RT’s are saying isn’t that one should just accept the lopsided faux-equality, but should fight the very root of the problem..equality..rather than fight its particular manifestation in our current society.

  136. slwerner says:

    TFH – ”Wrong. PUAs and MRAs are quite often the same people. The two views are highly complementary.”

    These haters seem to tend to wish to view the entirety of the MAndrosphere as one homogeneous entity, with all the participants being carbon-copies who uniformly whine about the same issues. I think it helps the simple-minded to have an easier way to try to grasp something otherwise far to complex and diverse for them to ever “get their heads around”.

    It’s too hard for them to understand that any given guy who would seek to advocate for the rights/liberties of individual men may or may not also seek to take advantage of the debase state of the modern female populace, or that such an MRW could wish to have no entanglements with women (Men Going Their Own Way), or that an MRA maybe man who wishes to spare other men the trauma that they’ve been subjected or that an MRA could be a faithful and devoted family man who wish to have their interests protected. The idea that men with diverse personal goals could understand the need for the legal and social protection of all men simply escapes them. That men from different perspectives can share a disdain for injustices is beyond them (perhaps due to the emerging understanding that a sense of justice is a decidedly male thing).

    Anyway, I’m hoping that this Zippy fellow might take a moment from smoking his hookah and climb down off his mushroom long enough to engage me with some specifics as to why he believes it’s better to do nothing at all.

  137. Johnycomelately says:

    Modern chivalry is basically a call to be a pimp, protect promiscuous women, be at hand when they get in trouble and don’t judge their behaviour.

    Heck even pimps have it better, at least they get a percentage of the take and some free nooky, all the poor chivalrous schmuck gets is a pat on the head for respecting her life ‘choices’.

  138. Novaseeker says:

    What the RT’s are saying isn’t that one should just accept the lopsided faux-equality, but should fight the very root of the problem..equality..rather than fight its particular manifestation in our current society.

    Which is a nice fight, but pragmatically useless. Pragmatically useless religious ideas are fine, because we are told that righteousness is not of this world. Pragmatically useless social and political doctrines are just useless, period.

  139. Morticia says:

    I can’t speak for Zippy, but I lean RT more than MRA and I don’t think the RT’s are “doing nothing” they just won’t do a “something” that cooperates with the root cause of liberalism.

  140. Anonymous Reader says:

    Zippy
    If you see a man with a gun that only fires when it is aimed at his foot, and you try to get him to understand the factual situation, you are in fact trying to help him. The fact that you may not have further answers for all of his life’s troubles doesn’t turn you into the bad guy in the scenario.

    That is not the most tortured analogy I have ever seen, but it is close. I have a different view:

    A man is jumped by a gang as walks home from work. Two or three men are beating him with their fists, and a couple of women are screaming epithets and darting in to kick him. The man manages to pull his hands out of his pockets, and forms them into fists, raising them to finally fight back.

    Holy Joe runs up and yells, “Stop! Stop that! You there, man, stop trying to defend yourself! It can only make things worse!“. What do you suppose the man being beaten thinks of Holy Joe about this statement?

    By the way, the man’s neighbors and friends are coming up the street, and they are pretty angry about this crime. It’s not the first time this gang has beaten and robbed a man. Whose side do they think Holy Joe is on? Does he look like he is on the side of the crime victim, or just another gang member?

  141. Morticia says:

    Mr Novaseeker-

    What would you say are some ways that an RT can fight feminism without resorting to aiding liberalism?

  142. slwerner says:

    Morticia – ”If MRA’s are fighting for “true equality” they are using a lie (equality) to fight a lie (lopsided “equality”)… but since equality is a big fat lie…one should reject that lie in its totality.”

    I’m starting to consider this figment of “true equality” as an MRM goal to be more a matter of willful ignorance by those who are having a hard time justifying their opposition to reforms which might favor men.

    I’ve never heard any MRA who believed that there could ever be this “true equality”. The use of the term equality was never more than a means by which to use the common language to express an idea. What MRA’s wish is that men would not be unequally mistreated under the law. This is NOT the same as seeking gender equality, but rather a way of seeking individual liberty from the injustices selectively meted-out upon men.

    I tried to give a very simplistic example earlier of how a woman’s accusation of any form of domestic abuse would be treated entirely differently from a comparable accusation coming from a man. I though it would be easy enough to follow the salient points. MRA’s aren’t seeking to have male accusers taken at their word (the way women are), but rather to have men be given the appropriate protections which they should have – a presumption of innocence and the right to defend themselves via a fair and unbiased hearing of the evidence.

    Again, this is NOT seeking equality to what is incorrectly extended to women, but rather simple justice. The use of the term “equality” is used more as a way to highlight the current inequities, not as a demand to be given the exact same thing as women.

    I don’t know how to make it much plainer. Perhaps I simply cannot understand what some of you are not understanding.

  143. slwerner says:

    Morticia – “What would you say are some ways that an RT can fight feminism without resorting to aiding liberalism?”

    What, exactly, is your definition of liberalism? And, why is it necessarily a bad thing? Are you mistakenly conflating the term with the totalitarian dictates of leftists? Because, in the classical sense, liberalism has it’s emphasis on personal liberty (one’s right to chose – and I’m not talking about abortion rights).

    I believe people like Zippy fully understand the distinction, but while they dislike the totalitarianism of the left, they also fear the idea of individual liberty (which they seem to tend to equate with unGodliness, for some reason).

  144. Novaseeker says:

    What would you say are some ways that an RT can fight feminism without resorting to aiding liberalism?

    You can’t, because any practical activity in the current milieu, which is liberal from soup to nuts and head to toes, involves some collaboration with a system of laws, rules, procedures and institutions set up by liberalism to serve its interests.

    So RTs can either (1) abstain in their purity or (2) engage and get their hands dirty but try to reach low hanging fruit by working within the existing system.

    Trads, RTs among them, tend to want to opt for (1), because it keeps their ideological hand clean. In this sense, they are like Christian Scientists who refuse to administer a pharmaceutical that is virtually guaranteed to help the sick person because that would violate their principles and be a sell-out to the entire system. So their hands remain clean, while the sick person dies.

    Nice.

  145. Morticia says:

    Mr Slwerner.
    I think in your example an RT would see the criminilzation of “domestic violence” as absurd, because a man is responsible for his wife in marriage and is technically within his rights to use force to discipline her.
    Should the discipline endanger life and limb then that can fall under some other law like “brutal assault”.
    So the RT has the dilemma that if they try to change the domestic violence laws rather than eradicate them, then they are cooperating with the lie that a husband isn’t the head of his wife.

  146. Anonymous Reader says:

    Morticia
    If MRA’s are fighting for “true equality” they are using a lie (equality) to fight a lie (lopsided “equality”)… but since equality is a big fat lie…one should reject that lie in its totality.

    It has been pointed out several times that the “equality” in this case is equality before the law.

    What part of equality before the law for men are you opposed to, precisely?

  147. Morticia says:

    So I agree with Novaseeker…

    The degree by which one “gets their hands dirty” by playing with liberal laws is a moral dilemma for the RT.

  148. Novaseeker says:

    The degree by which one “gets their hands dirty” by playing with liberal laws is a moral dilemma for the RT.

    Right. I get that this is the issue, I really do. I just generally disagree with the way most trads come out on it, given my own prognostication about the likelihood of systemic change.

  149. Zippy says:

    slwerner:
    Personally, I feel as though you are mixing definitions of “liberal” in a disingenuous way; suggesting that countering results modern progress, permissive, left-wing, culturally-Marxist, feminist, top-down government-controlled, anti-male social restructuring with classical liberalisms design of individual liberty (freedoms) as being a true apples-to-apples comparison.

    Yes, well, when you get to the point where you see that some points of view different yours are not disingenuous, it might be possible to have a discussion.

    It is, of course, always possible that I am objectively wrong about this or that. People have to figure that out for themselves, naturally. I encourage it. Nobody should take anything in particular as true on my authority alone: all I can do is suggest directions for thought and intellectual exploration.

    But where there is no presumption of good faith there can be no real discussion; or certainly not discussion of the sort I find worthwhile.

    (I’m hardly the only person ever to see continuity from classical liberalism to modern liberalism. See Jim Kalb’s book The Tyranny of Liberalism, for example, or maybe Leftism Revisited by Erik Von Kuehnelt-Leddihin).

  150. Zippy says:

    AR:
    What part of equality before the law for men are you opposed to, precisely?

    “Equality before the law” – as something disconnected from a particular tradition which fleshes out in concrete which authoritative discriminations are legitimate – is not a coherent concept. “Equality before the law” abstracted away from a particular tradition – a particular tradition which necessarily has greater political authority than the concept of equality before the law, a tradition which trumps the principle of equality – is literally irrational.

  151. Anonymous Reader says:

    Morticia
    The degree by which one “gets their hands dirty” by playing with liberal laws is a moral dilemma for the RT.

    For some liberal laws, this is true. For other liberal laws, not so much. See “HHS Mandate” for one example of the latter.

    So we have established that the moral dilemma is, er, a relative thing…

  152. Zippy says:

    Novaseeker:
    Right. I get that this is the issue, I really do. I just generally disagree with the way most trads come out on it, given my own prognostication about the likelihood of systemic change.

    What you may not be crediting is that some of us genuinely believe that insisting on more equality and more freedom is not, as a practical matter, going to produce the results that people think it will produce.

    Now, those of us who think that might be wrong. I don’t think we are, but it is of course possible given that we are all finite and fallen human beings. But if we are right it isn’t quite the same as “… Christian Scientists who refuse to administer a pharmaceutical that is virtually guaranteed to help the sick person because that would violate their principles and be a sell-out to the entire system. So their hands remain clean, while the sick person dies.”

    Throwing more liberalism on the fire is not going to solve problems which have, as root cause, too much liberalism.

  153. Anonymous Reader says:

    Zippy
    “Equality before the law” – as something disconnected from a particular tradition which fleshes out in concrete which authoritative discriminations are legitimate – is not a coherent concept. “Equality before the law” abstracted away from a particular tradition – a particular tradition which necessarily has greater political authority than the concept of equality before the law, a tradition which trumps the principle of equality – is literally irrational.

    This discourse says nothing about the question I asked Morticia that is of any use. It looks a lot like bad-faith handwaving and goal-shifting.

    What part of equality before the law for men in the modern, current, legal system, as it exists right here, right now, are you opposed to?

  154. Ton says:

    The only way men and traditional masculinity will be valued again is if life gets real damn hard. Until then, we will live in a soft society, during soft times and there will be no need or call for valuing men/ traditional masculinity

    Don’t give rats bald behind if that sounds pessimists, or defeatist. It is reality played out in history time after time and played out in peoples personal life every day.

  155. Zippy says:

    AR:
    It looks a lot like bad-faith handwaving and goal-shifting.

    Yes, well, that’s why talking to you is a useless waste of time, snookums.

  156. slwerner says:

    Zippy – “Yes, well, when you get to the point where you see that some points of view different yours are not disingenuous, it might be possible to have a discussion.”

    Frankly, I do not need a presumption of “good faith” to engage. Plenty of others have tried to invade the MAndrosphere with the most obvious of ill-intent, and that’s never dissuaded me from wishing to debate with them. Maybe I’m just thicker-skinned.

    BTW, my sense that you might be a bit disingenuous stems largely from what I perceive as your tendency to merely criticize as opposed to offering up alternatives and explanations of your views.

    Perhaps you do see a continuity between classical and modern liberalism, but I see rather a general misunderstanding (with people, in general, that is) that the self-declared tolerant, yet highly totalitarian leftists are not a good example of even modern liberalism. They are only very selectively “liberal”, and actually rather illiberal overall. Wishing to counter their not-so-liberalism with the liberal application of personal freedom simply doesn’t strike me as fighting fire-with-fire.

    And, I certainly don’t see how it would be self-defeating (not to mention that you’ve never provided any explanation that particular notion anyway).

  157. Zippy says:

    slwerner:
    I do not need a presumption of “good faith” to engage.

    I don’t need it either. I just find it to be generally a waste of my time to talk to combox warriors who presume bad faith.

    Have a nice day.

  158. slwerner says:

    Zippy – “as something disconnected from a particular tradition which fleshes out in concrete which authoritative discriminations are legitimate”

    So, pick one particular issue to examine in detail, and do so. Explain why it is worse (more liberal) to try to reform any one particular set of laws related to any one issue that MRA’s typically express.

  159. Novaseeker says:

    For some liberal laws, this is true. For other liberal laws, not so much. See “HHS Mandate” for one example of the latter.

    So we have established that the moral dilemma is, er, a relative thing…

    Well, I think the objection is that the arguments one needs to make in order to defeat this within the current paradigm are compromising to one’s own ideological commitments, and therefore are not to be made, even if the result were to be “less worse” than the current one, it’s all bad, from their perspective, because the system is bad — and therefore tweaking with a bad system is a waste of effort. It’s Christian Scientism in the political context, and, yes, the analogy is quite apt because just as Christian Scientists object to measures that most others view as pragmatic, these people similarly object to measures that are similarly pragmatic, because all politics, in any system, is ultimately pragmatic and involves, yes, getting one’s hands dirty.

  160. Anonymous Reader says:

    AR:
    looks a lot like bad-faith handwaving and goal-shifting.

    Zippy
    Yes, well, that’s why talking to you is a useless waste of time, snookums.

    QED.

    It’s not often that I get confirmation of bad faith so quickly.

  161. Anonymous Reader says:

    ZippyCatholic
    I just find it to be generally a waste of my time to talk to combox warriors who presume bad faith.

    Irony of the day.

  162. Morticia says:

    The question is…
    Is cooperation with liberal systems a formal cooperation with evil? My general sense is “no”..so some level of “getting dirty” is probably allowable in the sense that we are allowed to render unto ceaser..and all that. The Bible tells us to pay our taxes even if we know our taxes are going to a bad man.
    It would just be nice to have some clear lines as to when one is starting to get too dirty, though.

  163. Anonymous REader says:

    Novaseeker: you may have missed my point. nd a pinky into the political arena in any attempt to reform divorce or family law, are all tooth and nail involved in fighting the HHS mandate on requring employers to provied abortion / contraception to employees. *

    So the moral dilemma of whether to get involved in the politicla process seems to depend on whose ox is gored. Men and families in general? “Oh, too ikky”. Catholic charities? “Where’s my sword?!”

    There is an old joke, the punchline goes: “We know what you are, lady, we’re just dickering about the price”. Again, the moral dilemma appears to be quite relative in nature.

    *This is not to endorse in any way the HHS mandate. I’m in opposition to it on many grounds, from the 1st Amendment on outwards. Perhaps if the RC church had not essentially signed a blank check in support of Obamacare, they would not now be expending energy and money to fight this one part of it.

  164. Novaseeker says:

    Novaseeker: you may have missed my point. nd a pinky into the political arena in any attempt to reform divorce or family law, are all tooth and nail involved in fighting the HHS mandate on requring employers to provied abortion / contraception to employees. *

    I think that is viewed as being different, because it doesn’t involve making arguments contrary to beliefs (the Catholic Church has official social teaching that can seem quite socialist), whereas arguing in favor of rights between men and women in marriage is a bit foreign, and not a part of Catholic social teaching. So to me, that’s an example of what I was talking about rather than a counter-example. In other words, that is engagement that can happen without hands getting dirty — it’s pure. Whereas saying “men should have the same rights as women” gets into the sex-based rights arena, and they don’t want to go there.

  165. Dalrock says:

    @Morticia

    It would just be nice to have some clear lines as to when one is starting to get too dirty, though.

    As I understand Zippy’s position the very act of voting is too much*. I disagree, and for example would support Slwerner’s suggestion upthread to allow men accused of domestic violence the basic presumption of innocence the rest of our system presumes. Likewise I would see it as an objective good to greatly dial back the state enforced cash incentive women now perceive to either avoid marriage prior to having children or kick the father of their children out of the home post marriage. The state has placed a cash bounty on every father in the land; removing that bounty or at least greatly limiting it is an objective good, even if we can’t fix the system in one fell swoop.

    *The link above is to a post by another blogger who quotes and references multiple posts of Zippy’s on the topic, but this should be a good start.

  166. Anonymous Reader says:

    Novaseeker, to me that looks a whole lot like “Injustice that does not affect us is too ikky to get involved with, but injustice that affects us is a serious matte we must oppose”.

    Given the number of causes that the RC church has poured money into in the name of “social justice” over the last 50 years, I do not find this argument convincing. Shall we discuss “LIberation Theology”, which was supported by plenty of RCC nuns, priests, laity, and bishops? I’m at a loss to understand how supporting Marxist-Leninist revolution is in harmony with RC church teachings, but allowing a man to receive due process of law is not. Or perhaps we could chat about the nuclear freeze of 30 years ago? RC bishop pronouncements on tax policy? The list of political causes that the RC church has chosen to meddle in just in the US is long…and if each and every one of them is somehow justified by a “teaching of the church”, but allowing a man to receive due process before he’s barred from seeing his children is not, then there needs to be some serious explaining done.

  167. Novaseeker says:

    Throwing more liberalism on the fire is not going to solve problems which have, as root cause, too much liberalism.

    That is an ideological statement, Zippy. It very well COULD help an individual man, or many men, to have the rules tweaked. But, no, they must not be tweaked, because that would make things worse — not for these guys, of course, but in an abstract sense. That’s placing abstractions ahead of people, and yes, that’s *exactly* how I see you Ortho folks, to be honest. The same attitude came up in the thread about paternity testing. You’re all just living in an abstract world, where abstractions in the long run matter more than the situation of people in the short and medium run.

  168. Novaseeker says:

    Given the number of causes that the RC church has poured money into in the name of “social justice” over the last 50 years, I do not find this argument convincing. Shall we discuss “LIberation Theology”, which was supported by plenty of RCC nuns, priests, laity, and bishops? I’m at a loss to understand how supporting Marxist-Leninist revolution is in harmony with RC church teachings, but allowing a man to receive due process of law is not. Or perhaps we could chat about the nuclear freeze of 30 years ago? RC bishop pronouncements on tax policy? The list of political causes that the RC church has chosen to meddle in just in the US is long…and if each and every one of them is somehow justified by a “teaching of the church”, but allowing a man to receive due process before he’s barred from seeing his children is not, then there needs to be some serious explaining done.

    Fair enough, AR, but these are not all “traditionalists” — hardly. The RCC in the US is not traditionalist, not in the least. There are many who are quite socialist leaning. It’s a mixed bag. Most of it is supported by a colorable interpretation of church teaching. The issue of “due process in divorce” isn’t dealt with by RC church teaching, because divorce is considered morally illegitimate. Yes, there are annulments available, but, yet again, that’s a case, as I explained above, where the pragmatic problem of people dealing with divorce law in the case of annulments is not something that the church wants to involve itself in because doing so would potentially undermine its teaching that all divorce is immoral per se.

  169. Lyn87 says:

    Feminist Hater says:
    February 19, 2013 at 10:26 am

    I followed your link. Unless there is a LOT more to the story than appears in his “open letter,” that pastor is a heretic, and he should tremble at the consequences of sitting in church leadership while encouraging a rebellious wife to abandon her husband when he tries to reel her in.
    James 3:1 – “Be ye not many masters, my brethren, knowing that you receive the greater judgment.”

  170. Zippy says:

    Novaseeker:
    You’re all just living in an abstract world, where abstractions in the long run matter more than the situation of people in the short and medium run.

    It is a good thing we’ve got you around to tell us what we think.

  171. Novaseeker says:

    It is a good thing we’ve got you around to tell us what we think.

    If you don’t care what I think, don’t read it — it’s not like I’m stalking you at your blog or at Ortho blogs.

  172. Frank says:

    I think for me the ideal is to be selectively chivalrous. There are those women to which chivalry is an absolutely pointless exercise, and then there are those worth ruining your coat for so they can walk over puddles. That’s why it’s important to be a studious observer of human behavior, so you expend your energy accordingly and feel better knowing you’re not wasting your chivalrous energy on real scum of the earth, accomplishing nothing but feeding their already bloated, blackened egos.

  173. UnicornHunter says:

    @Dalrock, here’s some more data from over at The Atlantic about how rough those college girls have it these days.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/02/the-worst-cities-for-college-educated-women-trying-to-find-a-decent-date/273158/

  174. Johnycomelately says:

    “Throwing more liberalism on the fire is not going to solve problems which have, as root cause, too much liberalism.”

    I eat cake while you can eat shit, it wouldn’t have any benefits for me to have to eat shit too, let’s keep it the way it is. That’s the premise of that argument.

    You know what, I want others to have to eat shit because it’s only when everyone is eating shit will the people become discontent with eating shit.

    Sometimes when you fight fires the best course of action is to let it burn out.

  175. Miserman says:

    I hate being cynical, but this verse really speaks me in our current feminazi time:

    These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb. – Revelation 14:4 KJV

    A hard way of holiness for men.

  176. Anonymous Reader says:

    Novaseeker:
    Fair enough, AR, but these are not all “traditionalists” — hardly. The RCC in the US is not traditionalist, not in the least. There are many who are quite socialist leaning. It’s a mixed bag. Most of it is supported by a colorable interpretation of church teaching.

    Ok, that’s fair enough. Note in passing, though, that this has some implications for Catholic “unity”. However, that’s beyond the scope of this topic.

    The issue of “due process in divorce” isn’t dealt with by RC church teaching, because divorce is considered morally illegitimate. Yes, there are annulments available, but, yet again, that’s a case, as I explained above, where the pragmatic problem of people dealing with divorce law in the case of annulments is not something that the church wants to involve itself in because doing so would potentially undermine its teaching that all divorce is immoral per se.

    Hold on, though, I’m certain that murder isn’t morally legitimate, either, in fact murder is immoral per se (10 Commandments) but I dare say that if anyone suggested that accused murderers don’t deserve a fair trial, there can just be an ex parte hearing and let the accused know of the judgement later on – maybe on the way to prison – in the US at least, nobody would agree with that. I’m certain that would fall into the bin of “social justice”, for all Catholics.

    Then we could work our way down the list of crimes – assault, arson, theft, and so forth – down to the case of a man shoplifting a $2 container of milk from a store, and in every case the argument would be for a fair trial, with opportunity for legal defense, and it doesn’t matter whether the accused is male or female. However, when we get to an accusation of DV in the course of a contested divorce, then all of a sudden there’s no need for a fair trial, or for any of that other claptrap, ex parte is just fine and dandy, no need for any of that “confront his accusers” nonsense.

    This would look rather prejudicial, would it not?

  177. Novaseeker says:

    If you want to get into a detailed discussion about Catholic social teaching, I’m not the best defender, as I am not a Catholic.

    Nevertheless, I’m sure that the position of the Catholic Church is that due process is required in all legal proceedings, but to be honest it isn’t a high point of emphasis in teaching in general (given that the church has existed, and does exist, in various contexts legally), and I’d hardly expect the Catholic Church to come out specifically in favor of due process in divorce proceedings given that it sees such proceedings as per se illegitimate. The bigger problem isn’t a lack of interest in due process in divorce proceedings, but rather not speaking up enough against the legitimacy of divorce per se openly, which is in fact what their moral teaching is, other than in a very pro forma way. That’s worthy of attack, much more so than a rather unsurprising disinterest in the due process of American divorce proceedings.

  178. infowarrior1 says:

    @slwerner

    Socialists have co-opted the term liberal. So liberalism is a term for statism and socialism. Therefore when people are bashing liberalism they are talking about statists. That’s my take.

  179. What are you then? That has yet to be answered.

    They’re nazbol misandrists.

  180. You’re all just living in an abstract world, where abstractions in the long run matter more than the situation of people in the short and medium run.

    They’re actually worse than that because their abstractions won’t help any men in the long term either. None of the tradcons has presented any alternative whatsoever, much less an actionable alternative. They have nothing that will actually help men whether it’s the short term, medium term, or even the long term.

    I suspect what is going on is that tradcons aren’t interested in improving the situation, but running a philosophical debating society. There way has been done for decades, and we have nothing to show for it.

  181. Novaseeker says:

    They’re nazbol misandrists.

    That’s a good term coining, to be honest. It seems to fit.

  182. Novaseeker says:

    Does anyone have any other 411 about the internet entity that describes itself as “Jesse Powell”? I am looking for research leads (other than the posts of the entity at TTH) for a proper well and good fisking that has been deserved for some time. Thanks in advance.

  183. Anonymous Reader says:

    Novaseeker
    If you want to get into a detailed discussion about Catholic social teaching, I’m not the best defender, as I am not a Catholic.

    Well, ok, but you were, and you have described becoming Orthodox as basically changing rooms, or some such analogy. However, I’ll agree that going much further into RC social teaching is not likely to be useful.

    Nevertheless, I’m sure that the position of the Catholic Church is that due process is required in all legal proceedings, but to be honest it isn’t a high point of emphasis in teaching in general (given that the church has existed, and does exist, in various contexts legally), and I’d hardly expect the Catholic Church to come out specifically in favor of due process in divorce proceedings given that it sees such proceedings as per se illegitimate.

    But that is still inconsistent. Suppose that an enraged husband sets fire to his wife’s car during a divorce. Who would argue that, well, his arson charge is involved with a divorce proceeding, so there’s no need for a jury trial? That would be absurd. However, when the issue is a charge of DV, and his immediate removal from the home courtesy of the “MInneapolis protocols” (if I have the name correctly), suddenly it’s just fine to punish a man without a trial. Sentence first, trial afterwards, as the Red Queen said…note well that this need not be part of the neutron bombing of divorce proceedings, either. All of this courtesy of VAWA , by the way. And where is the objection to this manifest injustice from the suspects in question? I hear crickets…

    So it isn’t just “Oooh, ikky divorce is involved, no touch!”, nope. It’s a lot more like the feminist hand putting on the traditionalist glove, to deal out another hand of “Men Bad, Women Good” .

    The bigger problem isn’t a lack of interest in due process in divorce proceedings, but rather not speaking up enough against the legitimacy of divorce per se openly, which is in fact what their moral teaching is, other than in a very pro forma way. That’s worthy of attack, much more so than a rather unsurprising disinterest in the due process of American divorce proceedings.

    I’ve pointed this discrepancy out before; self appointed Defenders of Marriage such as Maggie Gallagher can expend a huge amount of time and words on homogamy, and say essentially nothing about men’s-fault divorce. But what’s the difference, here? Men’s-fault divorce includes the anti-family court, the women-good-men-bad VAWA laws, the Bradley debtor’s prison – it’s all in one big tangled ball of yarn, in a sense. And none of the various flavors of T’s will come out and touch it, apparently because to do so would make them ritually unclean…

  184. Novaseeker says:

    The difference is that the essence of divorce is the proceeding itself. The essence of arson, murder, theft is not the proceeding, but the act. The act of the divorce *is* the proceeding.

    So on the case of murder, theft, arson and so on, the act is separate from the proceeding, and there can be a separate view on the proceeding itself, which must exist for justice to exist. In the case of divorce, the proceeding itself is viewed as unjust and illegitimate in all cases — again, in *all* cases. So there is no discourse about how to make an illegitimate proceeding more just, because it is illegitimate to begin with. Arson, murder, theft and so on, on the other hand, are immoral acts, but the legal procedure relating to them is not immoral — it is an act of justice relating to an immoral act. In divorce, the proceeding itself its the immoral act.

  185. Anonymous Reader says:

    In divorce, the proceeding itself its the immoral act.

    One more time, DV proceedings can and do go on independent of divorce. There is no objection to the inherently injust nature of those on the part of the “social justice” wing, or any other wing, of the RC. It appears they don’t see anything wrong…”men bad, women good”?

    And to echo your previous statement, and my own version of it, where is the full-throated Roman Catholic opposition to divorce in any form, at any level? Where are the “defenders of marriage” who publicly reject divorce as part of their platform? I don’t see them. It is a gross inconsistency to claim to “defend marriage” but to tacitly accept divorce as a regrettable fact of life, like a tornado or earthquake.

  186. all I can do is suggest directions for thought and intellectual exploration.

    Oh, thanks

  187. GKChesteron says:

    A couple of thoughts from your resident White Knight,

    First, I’m pro-chivalry as I’ve made clear here in the past and I think we discard it at our peril. This post also illustrates why I hate the term “white knighting”. I think it acts as a needless incendiary device that separates two groups that have many things in common.

    Second, chivalry is part of the Western Tradition. As part of the Western Tradition it descends in no small part from Christianity. A Christian is not bound to follow it, but I think he does himself a disservice in not understanding chivalry’s roots in his faith. There is something to be said for guarding the less fortunate, protecting society, not fighting endless and meaningless war (Just War theory being another useful part of the Western Tradition), and treating all humans as part of the Image of God. Chivalry is revolutionary and distinctly Christian in outlook. Nothing, not even the proponents of Bushido (a particularly brutal warrior code), can claim something as wonderful.

    Third, yes it is a warrior code and yes we still do have aristocrats. Anyone that says otherwise has their head stuck so far up their behind that all they see is their own bowels. I prefer my aristocrats (there will always be one that ranks higher than _you_ and I consider myself as part of the American “lower aristocracy”) to have some conditioned respect for those lower down the totem pole. It makes life easier and quite a bit safer. Well conditioned aristocrats are less likely to make you a target. Likewise they are less likely to inspire something like the French Reign of Terror which made everyone equally miserable.

    Fourth, having a de facto warrior tradition as the basis for male behavior _is good for us_. We are stronger when we strive and when we “man up” (another beef of mine). Reach for the moon, control yourself and your baser impulses, be solid and formidable. These are all good lessons. Fighting against the instilling of these virtues in our sons is not something we should be engaged in.

    Fifth, yes all good things can be corrupted toward evil ends. If we give up for that reason alone then we might as well give up on life; bad people after all happen. Evil is just good things used for ill purpose. It is not creative. By destroying chivalry on the chance that a good thing is made evil is defeatist in the extreme.

    Sixth, as Morticia notes it is impossible to separate chivalry from the concept that women are less than men in some way. They don’t need chivalry’s condescension (as some of the truer feminists note) if they are equal. And while some have noted here that “chivalry does not mean opening doors for women,” it is precisely chivalry’s insistence on seeing the Image of God in the lesser being that makes opening of doors a requirement. Every time a man opens a door, done in the right frame, he establishes a social order. This is why some bitter women complain about such a simple gesture and why I take no small joy in smiling extra big when I do it and comment about them removing the stick from their ass.

    And that brings us to the crux of the problem. If you engage in preserving the good of a social order, which all Christians should do in the face of whatever the odds, we also have to be “cautious as serpents”. We do have to fight the battle but the Church through the ages has taken a very dim view of suicide. If holding the door open will destroy the fortune of your family by God don’t do it and find another way to fight. If it won’t and you are faced with a hag, then the choice is yours. The woman has forsaken her obligation _to you and God_ so I will not fault you. I would however suggest that rubbing it in does more to pull down the house of cards than not doing it at all.

  188. GKChesteron says:

    @Anonymous,

    And to echo your previous statement, and my own version of it, where is the full-throated Roman Catholic opposition to divorce in any form, at any level?

    Given that the Catechism says, “Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery: ”

    I feel pretty safe in saying, “at the highest.”

  189. Anonymous Reader says:

    Novaseeker
    In divorce, the proceeding itself its the immoral act.

    DIvorce is a one-sided act. It can be an aggressive act by man or woman to harm the other party in a marriage (with well known and documented harm to innocent third parties). Women have a tremendous legal advantage in this immoral act. Yet if I understand correctly, there is no interest on the part of the RC church in aiding any innocent men being attacked by their soon to be ex wives, because divorce is an inherently immoral act.

    Well. Let’s consider something else for a moment. Men have a tremendous physical advantage over women, in the aggregate.

    Beating someone unconscious is an immoral act. I don’t see the RC church taking a stand that would make it more difficult for a woman to protect herself from her husband if he’s trying to beat her. Quite the contrary. So the RC church is willing to allow intervention into an immoral act in this case; to allow, or promote, etc. self defense of a wife vs. her husband.

    But again, it appears the reverse is not true. It’s at most regrettable that a woman chooses to engage in the immoral act of divorce theft (which increases the husband’s probability of suicide by a factor of 4 or more), but no intervention into that immoral act can even be considered.

    If someone were to attempt to use the legal system to commit a financial fraud, I’ve no doubt the usual suspects would be in favor of assisting the victim of that fraud to defend themselves, too.

    Again, I see the feminist hand pulling on the patent-leather glove with a nice T stitched into it, to deal out another hand of Men Bad Women Good.

  190. Anonymous Reader says:

    me
    And to echo your previous statement, and my own version of it, where is the full-throated Roman Catholic opposition to divorce in any form, at any level?

    GKChesterton
    Given that the Catechism says, “Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery: ”

    I feel pretty safe in saying, “at the highest.”

    Missing the point, perhaps. I shall explicate.

    I have heard or read words from RC authorities such as priests, bishops, nuns, and cardinals over the years on such topics as: abortion, immigration, Liberation Theology and support for guerrilla warfare in some Central American countries, nuclear weapons, nuclear power, tax policy, energy policy, mass transit, homosexual “marriage”, housing policy, juvenile crime policy, adult crime policy, the operation of prisons, pornography, employment policy, welfare policy, and some others that I have probably forgotten. Many, if not most, of these were full-court presses with public interviews, press conferences, appearances on TV shows, meetings with politicians, rallies in public places, and so forth. Pretty much in the public eye in multiple ways.

    I recall nothing like any of the above on the topic of divorce, not ever. So “at the highest” authority, but certainly not “at the highest” volume. Not even close.

    Soft talk, no action. Clearly not a priority. That’s the point.

  191. Novaseeker says:

    AR — That argument is not going to be relevant to a devout and traditional Catholic — the act of divorce itself, which is enacted by the proceeding, is itself immoral, in a grave sense. A theft is a theft, and demands a proceeding. There is no divorce apart from the proceeding itself. If you use the legal system to commit a theft, there is, again, a crime, and a *separate* proceeding to adjudicate that theft. In the case of divorce, the bad act is the filing and the proceeding itself — so the Church isn’t going to advise people as to how to go about committing a mortal sin in a more fair way. It makes no sense from the perspective of the church.

  192. Dear GKChesteron,

    Is abortion chivalrous?

    Over 50,000,000 harmless little babies have been aborted by woman’s choice alone.

    Just out of curiosity, why are you not criticizing them?

    Also, should a man feel obligated to hold the door open for someone who has aborted their baby?

    What about fornicators. Should a man hold the door open for fornicators, who get pregnant out of wedlock?

    Lastly, are you in your 70s?

  193. Dalrock says:

    On the RCC not taking a stand on divorce laws out of disagreement with the very idea of divorce, this shouldn’t prevent them from taking a stand against cash incentives for single motherhood in the form of child support. There should be no such reason not to oppose placing a cash bounty on the destruction of marriage and having children out of wedlock. This would seem to be the test case to see if AR’s suspicion is accurate, or if the silence really has to do with the stated reason.

  194. Anonymous Reader says:

    AR — That argument is not going to be relevant to a devout and traditional Catholic — the act of divorce itself, which is enacted by the proceeding, is itself immoral, in a grave sense.

    But so is the act of murder. Yet I’m pretty sure the RC church is OK with self defense against a would be murderer. Ditto against a thief – it would be OK for me to grab hold of a would-be pickpocket, yell for the police, and fight back if the thief attempted to harm me, right? I’m free to protect myself from an attack, even though the attack is an inherently immoral act?

    But let the thief be a wife, and the means of theft be a court, and it’s somehow prohibited to help the intended victim defend himself against attack? This seems quite legalistic.

    And one more time – DV accusations trigger immediate arrest and incarceration, in some jurisdictions, punishment before trial. It can happen totally independent of divorce. So you can’t claim that the indifference of the devout and traditional Catholic to this aspect of VAWA is due to the immoral nature of divorce. I really wish you’d address this, rather than ignore it.

  195. Dalrock says:

    @GKC

    Fourth, having a de facto warrior tradition as the basis for male behavior _is good for us_. We are stronger when we strive and when we “man up” (another beef of mine). Reach for the moon, control yourself and your baser impulses, be solid and formidable. These are all good lessons. Fighting against the instilling of these virtues in our sons is not something we should be engaged in.

    This denies the fact that our society has decided that having a male warrior ethos is not to be permitted. This is core to the issue. Pretending that we don’t live in a thoroughly feminized system doesn’t make it so. Taking it upon yourself to defend the honor of women who believe they have a right to have sex out of wedlock and/or serial marriage is nonsensical. Likewise taking it upon yourself to defend the safety of women who see themselves as having a right to serve on the front lines. In both cases this is the vast majority of women. This is the culture you and I live in. There is no social contract which would support chivalry. Offering the benefits of chivalry to women in general in this society is enabling feminism. The only sane option is to carefully choose whom you will offer your protection to.

  196. donalgraeme says:

    “The only sane option is to carefully choose whom you will offer your protection to.”

    That is what I think our real focus should be . How do we screen the ladies from the women?

  197. Zippy says:

    @Dalrock:
    *The link above is to a post by another blogger who quotes and references multiple posts of Zippy’s on the topic, but this should be a good start.

    My own “top level” post on voting in mass-market universal suffrage elections is here.

  198. Morticia says:

    Mr Dalrock,
    How should the typical woman be treated? They don’t want chivalry, they wanted to be treated like equals (or say they do). Should they be treated like equals? And if not, then how do you treat such women?
    I think men should make a general rule of acting chauvinistic towards all women (when it won’t get them in legal trouble such as on the job), and politely chauvinistic towards proven ladies. Do you disagree with that?

  199. Anonymous Reader says:

    GKC
    And that brings us to the crux of the problem. If you engage in preserving the good of a social order, which all Christians should do in the face of whatever the odds, we also have to be “cautious as serpents”. We do have to fight the battle but the Church through the ages has taken a very dim view of suicide.

    I believe that this is the point where some number of men would disagree; what appears to Mr. A as being cautious, or prudent, is sure to be denounced as “cowardly” by some traditionalist or other, from a safe location. What appears to another traditionalist to be low risk manliness could be something quite close to suicide to Mr. B (a skinny, middle aged nerd would find prison rather dangerous). Real men out in the world have to do real risk/threat analysis with skimpy data, and they don’t really need some male cheerleader with a virtual megaphone shouting “man UP! Don’t be a coward!” from a combox.

    All too often, traditionalist / conservative exhortation to men looks unhappily like “Let’s you and them fight! We’ll be over here, watching from a safe distance!”. I did not go along with that setup from the cute, blond, churchgoing cheerleader in high school and I surely don’t see any reason to accept it now.

  200. Anonymous Reader says:

    donalgraeme
    That is what I think our real focus should be . How do we screen the ladies from the women?

    An axiom of Game: Pay attention to what women do, not what they say.
    Or as my mother used to say: Pretty is as pretty does.

    Since I re-learned this truth a few years back I have been applying it more and more to all people around me. It is very illuminating in many ways.

  201. BC says:

    GKChesteron: Given that the Catechism says, “Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery: ”

    Theory, practice, and all that.

    It doesn’t matter what the RC states.
    You must look at what it is actually doing.

  202. Dear GKChesteron,

    How come you have never once criticized the legal system which encourages woman to divorce and allows them initiate divorce?

    Why do you spend all your time bashing Christian men?

    How come you never criticize the legal system which allows women to abort their babies, and rewards them with cash and prizes for destroying families?

    It seems to me that if you were a true Christian, you would speak out against the forces destroying Christianity, instead of berating Christian men?

  203. Anonymous Reader says:

    I should have included this text from GKC
    If holding the door open will destroy the fortune of your family by God don’t do it and find another way to fight. If it won’t and you are faced with a hag, then the choice is yours. The woman has forsaken her obligation _to you and God_ so I will not fault you. I would however suggest that rubbing it in does more to pull down the house of cards than not doing it at all.

    I appreciate that there is a serious intent here, but really, it’s far beyond holding doors. If I encounter a driver with a flat tire on a rural road, of course I should stop and offer aid – with caution. Probably it is safe. But maybe it is a setup for robbery. Women can be good bait for that. There are a variety of ways a man can be falsely accused of different forms of sexual misconduct – so in a professional setting, men must think carefully about being alone with any woman. A random person running down the street towards me screaming something I can’t quite make out – who is this, and what is really going on? Is it worth my life to find out?

    The game has to be worth the candle. I know some serious men whose general ROE is to defend relatives with any and all means necessary, as far as necessary, but for all others to be a very good witness, willing to testify at trial. They can articulate their reasons in depth and detail. I am not as tough, or trained, or experienced as they are…

  204. Schala says:

    “I think in your example an RT would see the criminilzation of “domestic violence” as absurd, because a man is responsible for his wife in marriage and is technically within his rights to use force to discipline her.
    Should the discipline endanger life and limb then that can fall under some other law like “brutal assault”.
    So the RT has the dilemma that if they try to change the domestic violence laws rather than eradicate them, then they are cooperating with the lie that a husband isn’t the head of his wife.”

    Hear, hear, male victims of domestic violence exist, they represent about 50% of victims (its pretty close anyways), 33% of the injured, their perpetrators 15% of the arrested (if that), and their services 0.0% of the government funding meant to help them. Plus there’s the Duluth Model meant to say it’s always male-on-female, always as a means of men controlling women to show them their superiority (as Morticia thinks should be, as radfems think actually is).

    It’s not only about having due process for perpetrators, but about recognizing the half of victims people would rather be ignored outright (just heard Indian women’s groups who say that having a gender-neutral rape law on the books means that, horror, a woman could be accused of raping a man – and we cannot ever have that – see their gynocentric bias showing?).

    Same for rape, it lacks services for male victims and presents the situation in an adversarial man-bad woman-victim stance. Even if we look at non-consensual sex acts (not groping or lesser acts, but actual rape) and end up with pretty much a parity of victims, the parroted line is that no man is raped, except as a kid, and women fear rape happening to them every awake second…and their risk is virtually equal (see CDC 2011 stats, and count made-to-penetrate as rape, because it is by feminism’s own definition of rape, even if not by the CDC’s gynocentric bias).

    Chivalry should remain dead, even if its biological in origin. If you want chivalry-like manners, applied to everyone (not just women) to come back, we need a culture that values kindness and altruism more than it values money and power – because apparently being altruist is code for “walk on me everyone, I’m a doormat”, and that creates assholes, more of them, who weren’t already impelled to be one by the dog-eats-man world we live in (because maybe they have more empathy than usual, what do I care).

    Want chivalry back (as unisex good manners), well, value the meek, or the meek will cease to exist (either exterminated or turned red pill asshole – not that I fault them).

    And why do I say it should be unisex good manners? Because I see no reason to favor one sex over the other that makes social sense. We’re not needing more reproduction, we can’t compel people to act like ladies and gentlemen as its a restriction of freedom (we should refrain from being assholes, but a lot of the etiquette of aristocracy is unneeded in this day and age). Also, I prefer using something called critical thinking to judge of the “goodness” of an idea, and the goodness of only favoring women is …well none. The goodness of only favoring men is equally bankrupt. No special treatment, just be respectful, courteous, etc with everyone you think merits it, not just vagina-owners.

    Oh and its nice to see people who recognize that women’s role has become aristocracy-like (thus showing off, fancy clothing, lots of choice of clothing, non-practical clothing, and vanity being overly valued, valuing intellectual pursuits, but not first for the income it could bring, maybe even as a hobby) 100 years ago. Though none of you seem to recognize that men’s role has become working-class rugged/dirty/manual-labor (practical clothing only, anything else makes him be perceived as too-weak to carry his role and thus he becomes a burden on society, valuing education only as far as income).

    As in, men are considered inferior to women, not superior. And since patriarchy died for good, the small trade-off (having respect for being a provider, as opposed to women’s respect for simply breathing and not being crazy) isn’t even there anymore.

    Before 100 years ago, women’s role who were not rich had it as bad as the men’s role. It was constant toiling in the shits, no colorful clothing, you’d be lucky to even get some quality. Both were working class (vast majority of people), and as thus wore mostly practical clothing, nothing fancy, and going too-fancy would be seen as shunning their duty. And aristocrats, well, male aristocrats would wear their plumage out just as women today, and it wasn’t considered remotely gay, feminine, or bad by other rich people. It was just a way to show off.

  205. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2013/02/20 « Free Northerner

  206. Apollo says:

    @donalgraeme

    “The only sane option is to carefully choose whom you will offer your protection to.”

    That is what I think our real focus should be . How do we screen the ladies from the women

    Assume that women are not ladies unless you have good evidence to the contrary. This will result in no chivalry towards any women until you get to know them AND determine that they are worthy of it. And thats the way it needs to be. Do you really think there is any reason to spread your preferential treatment wider than that?

  207. Beyond The Horizon says:

    “Mr Dalrock,
    How should the typical woman be treated? They don’t want chivalry, they wanted to be treated like equals (or say they do). Should they be treated like equals? And if not, then how do you treat such women?
    I think men should make a general rule of acting chauvinistic towards all women (when it won’t get them in legal trouble such as on the job), and politely chauvinistic towards proven ladies. Do you disagree with that?”

    My default posture towards western women is loathing and contempt. I ignore them as best I can, mock them and call them out aggressively when they throw their typical entitled feminist BS and, in general, hold them to the same standard as I do men.

    I am aware that you have admitted women are inferior to men and I agree with you. However, in my opinion the best way to make that very fact crystal clear to everyone is holding them to the same standards as men. Because when they then obviously and glaringly fail to meet these standards their inferiority is revealed to all.

    So by demanding equality you demonstrate womens inferiority.

    And for the record: I loathe chivalry and believe those men that still act chivalrious in this evil and misandric world are certifiably insane or at the very least utter fools.

    Apart from that I find Zippy’s gyrations laughable and share Welmer’s view that incremental improvements for men in the West are far preferable to nothing at all, which is what “christians” like Zippy are offering.

    As for longterm solutions: I believe in letting Rome burn. Only from the ashes of this Babylon can a new and better civilization rise. Personally speaking, any new civilization (including women) will have to reign in women (as Satan’s minions) to the utmost. Personally, I’d go further than Islam in that I would give a woman’s testament in court 1/3 of the value of a man’s. And that is still being generous.

    Men build civilisation, women destroy it. This is the cycle of history, endlessly repeated. The only way to defend civilisation is to place radical control on women and their evil agency.

    Or better still create a civilisation with only men, artificial wombs and sexbots.

    Woman is something that is to be surpassed. Women can then create their own “civilisation” or wallow in barbarism for all I care.

  208. Opus says:

    I have been puzzling about this thread for two days now and I think that I now have it: The answer to the question as to whether we need more chivalry or less chivalry is that it is best for men to avoid women whenever possible (and vica versa- vain hope there, I know, such as last Sunday when attending Choral Evensong I was approached – mid-Hymn – by a woman in the congregation pointing out that I had the wrong book, and if not, then probably the wrong page. All I wanted was to be left in peace to listen to the A Capella Motets). Of course, occasionally, even with the best will, I occasionally meet a woman whom I address, but whether I should then treat her with respect or assume that she is a slut not deserving thereof, I cannot quite decide.

  209. greyghost says:

    Opus
    default think of her as a slut. Assume she is unworthy. Indifference is a good frame.

  210. Opus says:

    O/T

    I have the saddest story to tell: I have received an E-mail from a friend who has been married for the last decade and has a son and this is what he tells me. An ex-gf has written to him to remind him that it is 27 years since they first went out – women never forget anniversaries. She is, and you had better take my word for it, and I would link her photo if someone explained how to do so, an age adjusted 9 possibly a 10 if that is possible and she married a Doctor a few years back. She is now 45 and with a job that guarantees a pension, but is she haaaaaaaaaapy? No, of course not, because she does not have even a child, at least that is what she says. This woman (as I know) spent her teens and twenties and most of her thirties driving men (including Roman Catholic priests) wild, but even though in, material terms she has nothing to complain of and is far better off than her parents she is miserable, envies my friend and will doubtless now try and rekindle the pointless relationship with my friend – and he regrettably is partial to trophy eye-candy. Of course my friend would doubtless have married her, but she played too hard to get, and so remained virgo intacta, eben though it went on for about twenty years; so hard that she once phoned me to complain that I had been suggesting to anyone who cared to listen that she was just a prick-tease, which is in fact what she was, but women dislike being called out either for sluttiness or prudery. This is surely a result of Patriarchal oppression – at any rate she is a victim of her own stupidity and narcissism.

  211. Chivalry is an inherently Christian phenomena.

    The Bushido Samurai of 12th century Japan would disagree with you.

  212. Mark Minter says:

    210 comments on this chivalry subject.
    Anyway, very late in the cycle. And very off topic. I just thought the Dalrock blog might be the place for this.

    On yahoo answers a woman had written that she had converted to Islam and was concerned that polygamy was allowed.

    A responder gave this answer

    “First, congratulations on becoming a Muslim.

    Second, in addition to what other answerers stated, I want to add something from my personal experience.

    After about 15 years of marriage, my husband and I stopped loving each other. Maybe we didn’t love each other before, but just were suitable for each other… you may say it was our minds’ decision to get married, not our hearts. Now we could have a divorce, but I am as sure as sure could be that this would have affected our kids. I was unable to fulfill my wifely duties towards my husband, but at the same time, I wanted to still be married to him, to keep the family together for the sake of my kids. Thank God, Islam has provided us with the solution .. my husband could get another wife without me leaving him. ”

    Can you imagine? Instead of divorcing for cash and prizes, she lets him get another wife.

  213. ukfred says:

    I notice that many folks have been mentioning the Roman Catholic Church’s attitude to divorce. We all have the same source documents for our Bibles. What about the other churches? Are they too not lacking in failing to condemn divorce. I know that I complain loudly about the Methodists in Britain not doing enough to strengthen marriage.

    I am perplexed by all the talk about chivalry. It seems that some people are suggesting that you go out to play American Football dressed as if you were going to play soccer. They are both called football, but the rules are quite different and they are totally different games. The social contract that existed between the sexes in the days of chivalry has been trashed by the nazbols/feminists/liberals/whatever they are. The rules have changed and people playing the modern game need proper protection for the game they are playing.

  214. UnicornHunter says:

    @ukfred, really good analogy. +1

  215. The Bushido Code and Chivalry are different, as the Bushido Code makes no mention of women, save for perhaps “filial” piety, and needless to say, this would apply to women too, meaning they couldn’t butehxt buettehxtx nor gianaa seenxth every time tehir butt or gina tinegelzlzlzl like modern western womenz are taught to do:

    The Bushidō code is typified by seven virtues:
    Rectitude (義 gi?)
    Courage (勇氣 yūki?)
    Benevolence (仁 jin?)
    Respect (禮 rei?)
    Honesty (誠 makoto?)
    Honour (名誉 meiyo?)
    Loyalty (忠義 chūgi?)
    [edit]Associated virtues
    Filial piety (孝 kō?)
    Wisdom (智 chi?)
    Care for the aged (悌 tei?)

    The Knights Code of Chivalry described in the Song of Roland and an excellent representation of the Knights Codes of Chivalry are as follows:

    To fear God and maintain His Church
    To serve the liege lord in valour and faith
    To protect the weak and defenceless
    To give succour to widows and orphans
    To refrain from the wanton giving of offence
    To live by honour and for glory
    To despise pecuniary reward
    To fight for the welfare of all
    To obey those placed in authority
    To guard the honour of fellow knights
    To eschew unfairness, meanness and deceit
    To keep faith
    At all times to speak the truth
    To persevere to the end in any enterprise begun
    To respect the honour of women
    Never to refuse a challenge from an equal
    Never to turn the back upon a foe

    Now again, when they write, “To respect the honour of women,” it is naturally assumed, that because this is a Christian context, that women are sharing none of their sexuality outside of Holy Matrimony. This means that women cannot butthext nor ginaesex nor even give a good olfd fashsianioed “Churchian BJ” to anyone they are not married to. Virtually no American nor Western Women live by this Code of Honor, and thus it is defunct.

    American Women, in fact, laud and applaud those like Tukker MAXX rhyems with GOLDMAN SAX who epiomize the very OPPOSITE of the CODE OF HONOR. Tucker MAx wheymesz wth Goldman sax sodomizes women and tapes it secreetly, and women in the “conservative: weekly standard repeat his lies about his height and succteheth catsing him has a six-foot tall Knight of Buttheeuxal Pleasure, while teh editor in chiref of simon and shustcer (sodom and scheistee) publishedss and porifftes and wires him a HUGE PECUNIARY REWARD for his sosodmizing and fornirncating and buttehxting.

    What the neocons have done is taken the handlebars and wheels off a bike, and then they berate men for not “being man enough” to pedal faster.

    They have taken the civil cords and common-law moral ropes off the parachutes they are handing men as they tell them to jump into marriage based on Christian Faith.

    They have taken the engines out of the familal car, let tehir daugehetrz be buttehxted and deosuled and impreeganted by douche semenz and abort and kill, and then the neocon/moroncon condescends to you, like GKC, “Son, when i was your age, we treetaed women like princeess and angelez. MAn up and marry the deosuled buttcocked aborting killing kinving slutzSZ!!!!!!!!”

  216. Note that the Chivalrous Code of Honor States:

    “To respect the honour of women.”

    The problem today is that women have no honor.

    Judeo-Christian “honor” demands that a woman share her sexuality with one man, and one man only, in the context of Holy Matrimony.

    I wonder, like many of you–I wonder why GKC never laments the fact that the vast majority of women these days buttcock at whim and give “Churchian BJs” outside of marriage. Why is that? Whose side is GKC on? Why does GKC never criticize women for the 50,000,000 abortions/murders of little babies? Why does GKC never wpak out against the women funding, financing, and promoting buttcocking and buttcokersz and sectrieve taperz of buttehxt without teh girlths contehet? Why, instead, does GKC spend all of his time berating and lashing out at Christian Men seeking the Truth that sets us free?

    G.K. Chesterton was a great man of wit and erudition.

    The GKC here is one of those blind, legalistic, soulless Pharisees who donnes the robes of the dead prophets, while crucifying the living ones, as Jesus spoke of in Matthew 23. A sepulchre whited on the outside, but filled with dried, dead bonzez bones boneeozzzlzlzlozzlzozlz

  217. Dalrock says:

    GBFM, you are in outstanding form this morning. The “almost forgot” followup really cracked me up.

    GKC, “Son, when i was your age, we treetaed women like princeess and angelez. MAn up and marry the deosuled buttcocked aborting killing kinving slutzSZ!!!!!!!!”

    In fairness to GKC, he was temporarily banned by Darwin Catholic for arguing against manning up and marrying sluts, including citation of appropriate Scripture.

  218. yes i too have faith that GKC will join us
    for yes there are two paths you can go down
    but in the long run
    there’s still time to change the road you’re on
    lzozlzlzzlzozl

  219. Dalrock says:

    GBFM,

    I didn’t see your 3rd and harsher comment to GKC when I wrote my reply. I should reinforce my statement above. GKC is firmly on the side of not manning up and marrying sluts, and he isn’t turning a blind eye to the issue. He in fact has a good deal of passion on it:

    @GKC

    Nor do you address the command, still present in the Eastern Christianity, that a priest must marry a virgin bride or _himself_ become unclean (cf. Lev 21:10-15). That you gloss over this is unconscionable. It represents a willful preference of the current culture over Biblical command. A following of, “the traditions of men”. I then close with:
    “There are a host of things that men get specifically punished for in the Law and the Gospel. We get called on the carpet for a host of things. However, the scriptures acknowledge an unequal approach to sex and stress the importance of virginal status prior to betrothment. This doesn’t let men off the hook sexually, our eyes can damn us, but it does place a special burden on women who think they want to ever marry and warns men against those who are “wanton” women.”

    But wait…where is that dichotomy? Not there? Nope. What is there is a preference for what the Bible and Tradition tells us are qualities to be highly valued and difficult to find. Qualities that real men should look for and not blindly overlook when they are missing. The men who _blindly_ overlook are following the cultre and not Tradition (there are cases for purposefully overlooking but we aren’t covering those now are we?). I even repeated in our corespondence my belief that women who have premarital sex can marry if both partners go in eyes wide open but that it was not a safe bet anymore than marrying a rake.

  220. Pingback: Don’t take your red pill with seawater « Zippy Catholic

  221. Thanks Dalrock,

    I was just curious as to why, in his rather voluminous postings, GKC criticized neither the legal nor cultural system which subverts marriage and holy matrimony and a Man’s Natural Rights to a Woman’s Sexuality in Christianity, and why, instead he criticized men. Nor did GKC criticize the 50,000,000 abortions which has influencd and eroded the soul of an entire generation, nor did he criticize the plethora of Church-sanctfied “Churchian BJs,” which go against th teachings of Moses and Christ.

    Perhaps I missed these things, as I have not read everything he wrote?

    Nor does he criticize a modern women-lead publishing industry which funds, finances, and actively promotes the secretive tapings of buttehxt without teh girtlths conthent. Such books become #1 NY Times bestsellers. Should not Christians worry about the greater culture, and the system of the butthetual Matrix, instead of bertaing, catsinging, and impuging the Neos who are just trying to find the Truth that sets them Free?

  222. Morticia says:

    Dearest Mr Dalrock-
    I was really hoping to get your perspective on how exactly men should treat women by default. Could I hope for a future post on this topic?

  223. Dear Morticia,

    Perhaps you could lead by offering a perspective on how exactly women should treat men by default?

    Personally I think Moses and Christ did a pretty good job of stating how exactly women should treat men by default. :)

    Genesis 3:16: “16Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”

    I know that most modern “Christians” scoff at this silly, antiquated teachings, as it teaches against teh joys of Churchian Butthetx and BJs, but instead of scoffing at it, Jesus embraced it.

    Jesus stated “I have come not to abolish the Law, but to Fulfill It,” and Jesus and Moses were sighted hanging in the clouds like two bros.

  224. Morticia says:

    I’m not talking about women you interact with in everyday life. Friends, acquaintances, co-workers, random passers-by.

    Should there be some distinction between how they are treated and how men are treated?

  225. Morticia says:

    Dang it..that was suppose to say I am not talking about family and wives. I’m talking about people you interact with but have no authority over.

  226. Dear Morticia,

    To treat women any differently from men could quickly get one fired in the workplace, or exiled from one’s own home–it could easily get one persecuted, castigated, impugned, and exiled from today’s Church.

    What would you do?

  227. Dalrock and GBFM
    Modes and Jesus
    and
    GBFM and HEartiste
    all had
    bromances goin’ on:

  228. slwerner says:

    Morticia – “Should there be some distinction between how they are treated and how men are treated?”

    Not so much, I’d have to say. I tend to treat people courteously (holding doors isn’t Chivalry, BTW, it’s just being courteous). What differential treatment do most women “need” anyway. Do they expect to be allowed to “cut” to the front of the line, etc?

    Why don’t you suggest ways in which you believe random men should treat random women differently than they would treat other men, and see what guys here have to say about particular examples.

  229. Lyn87 says:

    GBFM,

    I usually just skip your posts in this and other fora because I normally don’t have the slightest idea what you’re writing about, but you’ve been in fine form lately. (It’s like decoding cryptographic messages – the more examples of “scrambled” messages you see the more the patterns emerge, until eventually it is possible to glean the meanings: even if only partially.)

    You brought up an excellent point that many “man-o-spherians” miss, especially those ultra-strident pagans on sites like “Reddit/mensrights.” The only thing they hate more than feminism is Christianity.

    You wrote of a “Man’s Natural Rights to a Woman’s Sexuality in Christianity” within marriage. That seems to preclude the possibility of “marital rape.” I think we would all tell a man he should not tie his wife to the bedposts against her will, but with the definition of “rape” being expanded to such a ridiculous extent that “they both had two drinks so he goes to prison for 30 years,” the idea that a husband should ever be tried for raping his wife (or vice versa) is at best highly suspect, and at worst just crazy. Assault? Okay – if found guilty by a jury of twelve men. Rape? I don’t think so. I remember when the very thought of making it a crime was un-heard of. I also remember the rapidity with which it went from, “Not possible by definition!” to “Controversial” to “Only a woman-hater would believe that.”

    “I do” includes blanket and lifelong consent for both parties. I was talking to my parents the other day (my father is a retired pastor), and my mother snorted in derision at the very idea that there can be such a thing as “marital rape.” But she’s pretty old-school.

    lzozlzlzzlzozl

  230. Thanks Lynn87,

    Genesis 3:16: “16Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”

    Jesus stated “I have come not to abolish the Law, but to Fulfill It,” and Jesus and Moses were sighted hanging in the clouds like two bros.

    So the question becomes, should modern Christians honor Moses and Jesus, or defy them?

  231. Morticia says:

    Umm..you could require women to call you “sir” in order to get an answer from you (this might not work in the office because of SA laws). In the case of co-workers you can simply treat them with coldness unless they act deferential.

    Be friendly on default but the second she fails to be feminine you go cold.

    My thought is that women expect to be treated as equals and so they pal around with men. If this were treated with absolute contempt, meanwhile women who acted deferential and feminine were treated with gentlemanly conduct.

    Examples of non-feminine behavior
    -interrupting you
    -expecting you to provide some service for them (not to be confused with apologetic asking)
    -trying to participate in a conversation between men without invitation
    -arguing with you in public in a non-polite way
    -anything hinting at competitiveness or machoness from a female

    All of the above could be treated with coldness/scorn…no eye contact, no smiles, no acknowledgement that they are even there.

    This would have to be measured in the work environment for obvious reasons.

    But I think it would go a long long way to bringing back gender distinctions in society.

    Many of the men here say that the above should be the default but I think that hurts the cause. It shows women you disdain them, but it doesn’t communicate that there is a way they can present themselves that would not get your contempt.

  232. slwerner says:

    Morticia – “My thought is that women expect to be treated as equals and so they pal around with men. If this were treated with absolute contempt, meanwhile women who acted deferential and feminine were treated with gentlemanly conduct.”

    Well, you are a lot harsher than am I.

    I had a snarky thought that I was all prepared to drop, but now you’ve gone and ruined it for me

  233. Dear Morticia,

    The legal system is set up, by women, to persecute men for treating women any differently from men.

    Until women change the legal system, why should men risk their salaries and churchian perks?

  234. hurting says:

    GK

    Roman Catholic canon law (1154) has been interpreted, at least in the US, to allow for civil divorce in the cases where the separation of the spouses is eccliastically allowable so as to allow for the sustenance of one of the spouses and/or the children.

    The RCC teaches that a couple may not leave the conjugal life (yes, this means what you think it does) much less proceed with a civil divorce without the approval of the local ordinary (bishop). In the words of my bishop (and my pastor before him), “…we don’t do that anymore…”.

    Call me bitter, but of all the causes the RCC has chosen to champion, defense of the insitutuion of marriage – in practice – is not one of them. In my experience the clergy, including the higher levels of the hierarchy, are woefully and likely willfully ignorant of the machinations of the realities of domestic relations law.

  235. hurting says:

    Anonymous…

    Where are the defenders indeed from the RCC?

    To append to my previous post – the RCC to its credit still pretty staunchly opposes same-sex marriage. Where is the hue and cry for a return to fault-based divorce, for example?

    Crickets chirping…

  236. Dear Hurting,

    What does the Catholic Church think about 75%-85% of divorces being initiated by women? Do the church elders support or condone this? Or are they indifferent?

    What do the elders think about 100% of abortions being initiated by women’s choice alone? Is there any official statement on thi?

  237. ar10308 says:

    GBFM,
    Stellar work today.
    I’m now listening to some Led Zepplin after reading your reference above.

    And I like your idea of Jesus coming down to fulfill the law and essentially double down on the curse God placed on women.
    However, wouldn’t refusing to Man Up and Marry The Sluts be a vastly greater punishment to a woman than marrying a buttcocked whore and giving her children? I think the pain a childless spinster feels later in life is far greater than that of a woman with multiple bastard children.

  238. once upon a time,
    mothers told their duaghterz
    the fiary tale
    of kissing the frog
    and seing it beocme a prince
    as women gained happiness
    from being loyal to a good man
    in a devoutly
    judeo christan context
    but
    today’s vicious buttocked motherz teach
    their duaghterz
    the art of
    forniaatcyoozmzm and churchian BJs
    to take tae take take
    demand demand demand demand
    sue sue sue sue
    eat eat eat eta eat
    buttehxt butthetx butthext butthext
    persecutre persecute persecute
    suse sue sue sue
    bitch btch bitch bitch
    deconstruc deconstruc deconstruct
    butetx butthext butthext
    debase debase dabse debase
    debauch debauch debauch debauch
    demand demand dmeansd demand
    dishonor dishono dishonor dishonor
    take take take take
    butthext demand debase dbeuach
    take bitch moan sue compalin

    and then when they hit thirty
    the innocent little princess asks two questions:

    1. “Where have all the good menz gonez?”
    2. “Why is my butt sore?”

    lzozozlolzolzlzzzololzozlzolzoll

  239. UK Fred says:

    @hurting, @GBFM
    Why single out the Roman Catholic Church? All of the churches should be defending marriage. All of the churches should be arguing against ‘no-fault’ divorce. All of the churches should be supporting a plain interpretation of the Bible, and disbarring from preaching the heretics who think we can ignore the statement that the man is the head of the woman. Else they need to admit that they are not Christian organisations.

  240. I agree UK Fred. :)

    The ancients recognized a moral system which distributed risk and reward through sickness and health, and the modern Church has corrupted the classical codes of honor so as to transfer wealth from men to the corporate-state-church bureaucracy.

    lzozozooolzlz

  241. Dalrock says:

    @Morticia

    Dearest Mr Dalrock-
    I was really hoping to get your perspective on how exactly men should treat women by default. Could I hope for a future post on this topic?

    As the old joke goes, “very carefully”. The shredding of the social contract has greatly raised the risks for men interacting with women, and in general the benefit from such interactions has remained steady or declined (unless you are a player). So while I don’t think most men will make a conscious decision to limit their elective dealings with women they don’t have authority over, given the basic cost/benefit equation I think most men do this without giving it much thought. For this reason I don’t think your suggestion that men “train” women they don’t have authority over will fly. To the extent that pressure is exerted, it will be that difficult women are avoided while pleasant ones aren’t. The opposite of love isn’t hate, it is indifference.

    There is the obvious concern about the workplace, but in my personal experience this can actually be the least problematic area because the rules are at least generally clear and there is a compelling reason for engagement. Where I think this has the most impact is in the very kinds of “chivalrous” interactions under discussion in the OP. I’m very happy to go out and change a flat tire, jump-start or replace a dead battery, etc for my wife or another family member. I also was happy a year or so ago to come over and do a minor repair on a toilet for the wife of a couple we are friends with (her husband was overseas and my wife came along). I grew up watching and later helping my father assist stranded motorists, and still am happy to assist strangers where I deem it safe and prudent. I truly enjoy helping people solve problems (where I can). I’m not a mechanic but I have a basic working knowledge of cars, carry a fairly robust set of tools (by average standards) and since I also have a 4×4 truck and a tow strap/chain I’m fairly often in a position to help out where others can’t. However, what struck me when I first considered the question of chivalry as a manosphere blogger was that around 15 years ago I stopped helping women altogether. This wasn’t a conscious choice, but the aggregate of the sum of my individual offer/don’t offer help decision calculations informed by a good deal of experience. As I mentioned in that first post on the topic, my initial response was to mourn the loss of the concept. To a degree I still do mourn this, but the more I’ve considered it the more I’m convinced that my cost/benefit calculation has been right all along.

  242. Today men can easily be persecuted, castigated, and impugned
    for
    1. treating women like men
    or
    2. treating women like women

    What doesn’t change is that the woman has full say on whether the man is sinning or not in the neoeocn fmeineiststas butthextual contextth.

    For this reason, a man may profit by butthexting a woman in a porn film, from which matsercard visa and the major banks will also profit from (as well as many a church’s endownment, as they are all invested in the general stock market).

    But if a man working at a major bank which profits by processing porn transactions compliments a coworker and tells her that her hair looks nice, or if he asks her out on a Christian date, he can be fired and ruined for sexual harrassment.

    So you can see that it is safer and more secure to get paid to buttcockz womenz than it is to work in a modern corporate/churchian environment.

  243. Novaseeker says:

    But so is the act of murder. Yet I’m pretty sure the RC church is OK with self defense against a would be murderer. Ditto against a thief – it would be OK for me to grab hold of a would-be pickpocket, yell for the police, and fight back if the thief attempted to harm me, right? I’m free to protect myself from an attack, even though the attack is an inherently immoral act?

    But let the thief be a wife, and the means of theft be a court, and it’s somehow prohibited to help the intended victim defend himself against attack? This seems quite legalistic.

    Murder is not a legal proceeding — it is an act followed by a legal proceeding. The evil is in the act, and not merged into the legal proceeding which follows –> there is nothing intrinsically immoral about a murder trial, per se. Divorce is a situation where the legal proceeding itself is the evil act — the act and the procedure are merged. So expecting the Church to have moral ideas about the best way to conduct a divorce proceeding is like expecting the Church to have moral ideas about the best way to go about committing a murder. It’s all sin — no matter how you do it, it’s a sin. There is no “more ethical” or “more just” way to sin. It’s all sin. And for the Catholics at least this is why they don’t care very much about the nature of the procedures for divorces — divorce as an act is always sinful, so there is no “best way” to go about sinning. Of course, you can compound the sin by sinning in other, independent, ways while you are conducting your divorce — acting with meanness and vindictiveness are their own sins, quite separate and apart from the sin of divorce. But I don’t think that the Catholics will ever get very exercised about the niceties of divorce proceedings given that the whole entirety is viewed as sinful in any case.

    And one more time – DV accusations trigger immediate arrest and incarceration, in some jurisdictions, punishment before trial. It can happen totally independent of divorce. So you can’t claim that the indifference of the devout and traditional Catholic to this aspect of VAWA is due to the immoral nature of divorce. I really wish you’d address this, rather than ignore it.

    VAWA is a separate issue from divorce, that’s correct. The problem with attacking VAWA isn’t a moral one, but a practical one. That is — anyone who attacks VAWA on grounds other than its expense is going to be deemed to be the same as a Klan member. While I would think that some ground could be made with some Catholic clerics about this, fairly quickly you would run up against the same problems as we have in the rest of the culture here — that is, inherent bias in favor of women in any thinking about DV as a prophylactic way of dealing with the issue. That isn’t as much a moral problem in terms of Church teaching as it is a cultural one, but it’s a big problem all the same.

  244. Novaseeker says:

    I realize what you’re suggesting, AR — that the Catholics should view divorce proceeding rules as akin to self-defense against being killed. But because the entire proceeding is seen as sinful, it doesn’t work the same way as murder or theft — the proceeding itself, not just its instigation, is seen as sinful. That is — the act of filing for divorce is sin, the act of being in a divorce proceeding is sin, and so on — the whole thing is sinful, and the sin impacts both parties. Yes, if your wife divorces you involuntarily on your part, you still sin by virtue of having divorced. So, the Church doesn’t get into the niceties of the matter in terms of the procedures, when the entire thing is sin for both parties once it starts.

  245. deti says:

    and then when they hit thirty
    the innocent little princess asks two questions:

    1. “Where have all the good menz gonez?”
    2. “Why is my butt sore?”

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    Damn, that is funny, GBFM.

  246. Lyn87 says:

    @ hurting, you wrote:

    “Call me bitter, but of all the causes the RCC has chosen to champion, defense of the insitutuion of marriage – in practice – is not one of them. In my experience the clergy, including the higher levels of the hierarchy, are woefully and likely willfully ignorant of the machinations of the realities of domestic relations law.”

    I think that is due – in no small part – to the blatantly heretical RCC doctrine of priestly celibacy, which Paul equates with “doctrines of devils” in I Timothy 4: 1-3: Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

    Roman Catholic priests don’t get married, so they have 1) no dog in that fight, and 2) no freaking idea what it’s about. The RCC diddle-dorked around with mandatory priestly celibacy starting with the Council of Elvira in 304, but did not finally and permanently mandate it until the Second Lateral Council in 1139. It is not found anywhere in the Bible, and Peter – who Catholics insist was the first Pope – was himself married (Matthew 8:14 mentions Peter’s mother-in-law).

    There’s a reason why Paul declared that clergy must be monogamously-married men whose children who are not in rebellion (see Titus 1:6 and 1 Timothy 3:12). The original wording would not, of course, preclude widowers or men whose children had died or were adults.

    Few Protestant denominations even bother with that anymore, of course, but it’s in there for a reason. I suspect the reason is that, for a man to hold a position of ecclesiastical authority over other men, he must have proved by his own life that he can lead as a husband and father. I Timothy 3:5 says, “For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?”

    How indeed?

  247. Anonymous age 70 says:

    >>@Novaseeker: Yes, if your wife divorces you involuntarily on your part, you still sin by virtue of having divorced.

    I think that is wrong. If the man is involuntarily divorced he does not sin, UNTIL he takes another wife. If he does not take another wife, he does not sin. The RCC has been very clear on that for a very long time. Check it out.

    >>Assume that women are not ladies unless you have good evidence to the contrary.

    That isn’t bad. But, let me make it better.

    >>Assume that women who speak English are not ladies unless you have good evidence to the contrary.

    You may not know what I am talking about, but men who have lived outside the Anglosphere certainly do.

  248. Zippy says:

    Novaseeker:
    Yes, if your wife divorces you involuntarily on your part, you still sin by virtue of having divorced.

    False. In fact even initiation of divorce — which is merely a civil proceeding with no sacramental significance — is not always and everywhere immoral (in RCC theology and Canon law).

    Remarriage, OTOH, is adultery.

    In general, it is impossible to sin without choosing a sinful act. If something is done to you involuntarily it cannot, by definition, be sinful.

  249. Laddition says:

    “However, what struck me when I first considered the question of chivalry as a manosphere blogger was that around 15 years ago I stopped helping women altogether.”

    fifteen years ago! hell, how depressing is that?

    that long ago a Christian married man realised that being a good Samaritan to random women was not a good idea. damn, women, you’ve sunk a long way baby. and further since, in fact I’d say that it was accelerating

  250. Lyn87 says:

    Novaseeker says:
    February 20, 2013 at 1:38 pm

    … Yes, if your wife divorces you involuntarily on your part, you still sin by virtue of having divorced. So, the Church doesn’t get into the niceties of the matter in terms of the procedures, when the entire thing is sin for both parties once it starts.

    Thanks for pointing out the nonsensical doctrine: apparently in RCC doctrine divorce is a sin a wife can commit for her husband – since she can initiate divorce without her husband’s acquiescence or even his knowledge. Niiiiiiiiiice.

    According to the “Catholic Encyclopedia” the party who initiated the divorce would be guilty of a “formal” sin, while the victim would be guilty of a lesser, “material,” sin (although I fail to see how the actions of another that I opposed could possibly be counted against me personally as any kind of sin). Needless to say, the “Catholic Encyclopedia” offers no scripture upon which they base that doctrine – so basically somebody just made it up.

  251. Lyn87 says:

    Zippy, you are wrong when you assert that “in general, it is impossible to sin without choosing a sinful act. If something is done to you involuntarily it cannot, by definition, be sinful” within Catholic doctrine. I quote the following from the “Catholic Encyclopedia”:
    “…Thus, a person who takes the property of another while believing it to be his own commits a material sin; but the sin would be formal if he took the property in the belief that it belonged to another, whether his belief were correct or not.”

    Unless you’re a higher authority on RCC doctrine than the Catholic Encyclopedia”…

  252. Zippy says:

    Lyn87:
    Unless you’re a higher authority on RCC doctrine than the Catholic Encyclopedia”…

    Neither I nor the Catholic Encyclopedia have any magisterial authority. In any event though you don’t seem to know what the terms “material” and “formal” mean. I’d be happy to explain, if you ask sincerely and politely.

  253. Novaseeker says:

    Okay, so it’s not a sin for the defendant. You learn something every day, I suppose.

  254. mackPUA says:

    “the RCC to its credit still pretty staunchly opposes same-sex marriage”

    The RCC opposes same biologically sex confused ppl from marrying, precisely because only 0.01% actually marry

    Again gay live in couples only constitute less than 1% in in even pro-gay countries like the u.s

    The RCC like most religions, only staunchly opposes minor issues … like contraception …

    Gay marriage is a political distraction, its a none-issue as even cohabitating gays are statistically none-existent

    The RCC is a ruling class, they dont care about REAL social issues, as that would involve REAL activism

    Religions dont do real activism, theyre designed as population control mechanisms by institutions & corporations

    Which is WHY you dont see the pope in places like occupy wall twats …

    The RCC is a hilarious combination of old age mysticism & new age druidry …

  255. Where are the defenders indeed from the RCC?

    I’m not sure what you’re expecting us to defend; several of us have talked before about how the Church has done a seriously crappy job of teaching Catholics about marriage in recent years. That’s not exactly controversial. But this being the blog of a non-Catholic, I’m not sure why you expect us to go into great off-topic detail defending the Catholic Church’s actions on the topic here.

    [D: Agreed.]

  256. Unless you’re a higher authority on RCC doctrine than the Catholic Encyclopedia

    That wouldn’t be hard, since the Catholic Encyclopedia has no authority at all. You’d have to check the catechism, or ultimately canon law, for that.

  257. The RCC like most religions, only staunchly opposes minor issues … like contraception …

    Contraception is hardly a minor issue; it was the pin holding the floodgates of deviancy closed, and once it was pulled everything else was able to gush out. By the way, every Christian denomination condemned contraception until the Anglicans switched sides less than a century ago. The RCC just hasn’t forgotten what everyone else used to know, and hasn’t caved in to try to fit in with all the other kids.

  258. deti says:

    Mort, Dalrock:

    “I was really hoping to get your perspective on how exactly men should treat women by default. Could I hope for a future post on this topic? ….. I’m talking about people you interact with but have no authority over.”

    It is sad, and very telling, that such a question even needs to be discussed.

    You’re really talking about how men should treat the following women:

    1. Family members other than wife and daughters.
    2. Female coworkers.
    3. All other women.

    Dalrock’s suggestions are good for how a man should treat women in his family, other than wives and daughters. Sure, he can do favors for them and help them; so long as his wife and/or a woman he trusts is present. I myself am happy to do those things.

    For female coworkers, the rules of engagement are more or less clear. A man has to follow those rules or risk losing his job and/or being sued for sexual harassment. He can do nothing to risk creating a “hostile work environment”. The rules: Do not ever touch, date or screw a woman you work with. Do not ever refuse to help a woman with heavy lifting, because a failure to do so creates a “hostile work environment”. Do not ever make any comments about the appearance of any woman you work with. Do not ever talk about your personal life with any woman at work. Do not ever trust or confide in any woman you work with. Document and report every questionable interaction with a woman. NOTE: If you are an attractive man, these rules do not apply to you; and you can do anything you want with and/or to whomever you want.

    For all other women: No courtesies, no favors. Do not stop to help a woman. Do not respond to requests for assistance from women. Do not go anywhere alone with a woman. Do not enter an elevator or any other private place alone with a woman. Do not help a woman lift, move, carry, figure out, decipher or understand anything.

  259. Schala says:

    “Gay marriage is a political distraction, its a none-issue as even cohabitating gays are statistically none-existent”

    From June 2003 (date of the first legal same-sex marriages in Ontario) to October 2006, there were 12,438 same-sex marriages contracted in Canada.

    Canada has same-sex marriage legal in all provinces and territories.

    And that’s more than just cohabiting couples. See how its only 967 in the province of Quebec, vs over 6000 in Ontario, while the populations are not that different. It’s because religion has pretty much died in 1960 in Quebec province (only 3% are churchgoers, even if 80% are Catholic-baptized), people cohabitate instead of marrying here,

  260. Lyn87 says:

    ZIppy, No thanks – I don’t need anyone to explain Catholic doctrine to me: I get it just fine. And the “Catholic Encyclopedia” does, indeed, accurately speak for the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. It was formally submitted for approval on January 27, 1905, and was approved by both the Apostolic Delegate (delegati Sedis Apostolicæ) and Cardinal Farley. As nearly as I can tell, no pope or member of the Catholic clergy of any prominence has disavowed it in the 108 years it has been in publication and widespread use.

    Zippy and Cail: the “Catholic Encyclopedia” is not just some random works about “what Catholics believe.” Although the project was undertaken by laymen, the final product was approved at the highest levels of the Roman Catholic Church’s hierarchy.

    The authority of an Apostolic Delegate to act with the authority of the pope who sent him was firmly established by Pius VI in 1798, which declared in no uncertain terms that such delegates spoke with the voice and authority of the Pope. Since Pius X was pope in 1905, and his Apostolic Delegate approved the contents of the “Catholic Encyclopedia,” and no pope has ever renounced it, the “Catholic Encyclopedia” must be considered to represent official RCC doctrine…

    …and that doctrine states that you can commit a sin without intent. If you don’t like it, take it up with the next guy who sits in the big chair in the Vatican. If you can convince him that it is impossible to sin without intent, then he can go about absolving everyone who is divorced against their will.

  261. mackPUA says:

    Oh look its the usual amature google jockey …. 12,438 out of how many million?

    Again statistically insignificant … cherry picking picking figures is not proof of anything

    The same applies to most liberal propoganda, for example rape, only about 23,000 a year out of a population of over 2 million ppl

    Put it this way, 1 million & 998 thousand men avoid raping women … while feminists lie through their teeth about rape, to steal from men

    Statistically insignificant, used to push man hating laws, like the evil sexual harrassement in the workplace crap

    UNLESS a group is pushing the triple digits ie 100,000 that counts as MAYBE 0,5% out of a population of millions

    Making co-habitating gays let alone married … statistically insignificant

    co-habitating gays are less then a minority … even REAL minorities such as africans only consist about 5-10% in most european countries, ie 2-5% in britain

    Same as rape, same as DV etc.

    Never underestimate a womans or mangina’s to lie through their teeth

    Pushing criminal laws, under the disguise of none existent statistics, is THE m.o for feminists & the average facist judge & cop …. the REAL criminals

    Remember there is no law saying cops must protect the public, theyre for the most part ex-military mercenaries hired by your government to harass & if they cant be bothered to arrest you, ie chris dorner, execution squads

  262. Morticia says:

    It is a question of culpability.

  263. Martian Bachelor says:

    Chivalry 2.0 is like the Rules you might see posted in a bordello. There, it’s a woman’s right to be above what she demands men adhere to.

    That’s why it’s so much about attitude – like “respect”, “being supportive”, and other such abstractions – rather than much which is concrete.

  264. mackPUA says:

    @lgrobins

    “In fact, probably the reason I hang around the manosphere so much is its one of the few places to find truth, no matter how harsh. Acutually, the harsher the better. Its the only place to get fire and brimstone..”

    Fire & brimstone brilliantly put … the christian church used to preach brilliantly, compare that to what we have today …

    Limp wristed liberals grovelling to government not to speak the truth …

    While women want a piece of the action, by demanding men bow & scrape for them to open doors & carry their handbags …

    Wheres the chivalry from women to men?

    Fire & brimstone something most women need to relearn the importance of, in all its fiery fury & its retributive quality

  265. Opus says:

    May I make what I think is a rather important point – for I have been thinking further about the question of Chivalry, in relation to women, and I find that I am rarely called upon to excercise it, and then only by people known to me – neighbours usually, but when dealing with females – e.g. bank tellers, ticket sellers etc I am usually very wary. This is obviously a terrible indictment of the West. There is however something far worse, at least over here: Chivalry – if that is the right word – towards minors. I will not go out of my way to help a child in distress, in fact, if I have the opportunity to go somewhere where a child is likely to be I will not and do not go. Period – as you Americans say. As far as I am concerned, children wear Metaphorical Burkhas and I cannot see them. The witch-hunt in the U.K. against any male who has any interest or concern for children no matter the circumstances is such that one must expect (rather than merely fear) some allegation. In speaking with friends, they all have a similar attitude: one told me that on one occasion he observed a child alone in the middle of a buyt road, but he said that he had to think twice before deciding to take action to rescue the said child. This is appalling, and seems to be led by women who incalcate into children the attitude of suspicion against all single males.

  266. Schala says:

    “Oh look its the usual amature google jockey …. 12,438 out of how many million?

    Again statistically insignificant … cherry picking picking figures is not proof of anything”

    In 2001 there were 146,618 marriages in Canada, down 6.8% from 157,395 in 2000

    So for 2 entire years (about the 2004-2006 period), it would be something like 12,500 out of 300,000, or 1/24 of marriages. A bit more than 4% for same-sex marriage. And as I said, not everyone marries. Cohabitating couples are not counted.

    “The same applies to most liberal propoganda, for example rape, only about 23,000 a year out of a population of over 2 million ppl ”

    Over ~100 years they’d all been raped. But that’s an inexistant problem right?

    What I’d want is more services for *male* victims of rape and DV…as opposed to the current zero available. Then maybe the problem would diminish. Ignoring it because “its not big enough” won’t make it go away.

    Take male suicide rates, they’re measured in rates per 100,000, and probably won’t ever go above 100, but it’s still horribly high. In the US the 2005 rate of male suicide was 17.7 per 100k, the female one was 4.5 per 100k. Only China has a higher female suicide rate than the US. It’s the only country in the world that apparently has higher female expendability than male expendability in their gender roles. And they don’t use firearms to cause more suicide (being serious about it is the #1 indicator that it won’t be a failed attempt, lethal methods abound regardless of firearm access).

  267. Schala says:

    I mean higher female suicide rate than the male suicide rate for their country.

  268. craig says:

    Lyn87 says:
    “…Since Pius X was pope in 1905, and his Apostolic Delegate approved the contents of the “Catholic Encyclopedia,” and no pope has ever renounced it, the “Catholic Encyclopedia” must be considered to represent official RCC doctrine…”

    Approval of a lay work does not confer authority on that work. The Catholic Encyclopedia does not possess any more authority in this than “Catholicism for Dummies”, which also has an imprimatur (IIRC). The old nihil obstat and imprimatur (rarely sought or given anymore) are cursory declarations that nothing in a work is contrary to Church doctrine. But it is not an infallible declaration, and many heretical works have slipped past the system.

    If you want the Church’s official doctrine, read what the Holy See publishes itself. The Catechism *is* authoritative, and it states:

    “1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:
    – by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
    – by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
    – by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
    – by protecting evil-doers.”

    Based upon that, an unwilling defendant in a civil divorce cannot be said to sin by involuntary submission to the judgments of the court.

  269. Lyn87 says:

    Opus,

    I’m sad to have to agree with your assessment. I’m generally a nice guy and have the tendency to offer help to people who appear to need it. But children… that a tough one. Pedophilia hysteria means that a man must balance the risk of horrendous consequences against the possibility of preventing something bad from happening if he renders aid to someone else’s child. (Is it any wonder that the word hysteria derives from the Greek hysterikos – an unstable mental condition caused by dysfunction of the uterus?)

    I once got into an argument with a cop I used to know: I said that if I saw a uniformed policeman getting the crap kicked out of him I would not render aid – because I had no way of knowing who was in the wrong since too many years of police misconduct meant that the odds did not justify the assumption that I would be helping the “good guy”. Sure, the guy in street clothes is more likely than not to be a “bad guy,” but so many cops are “bad guys” themselves that the odds of being “right” were too low to choose sides with sufficient confidence. The same principle applies with kids in distress. Sure, if I render aid to a lone child it will probably be for the best, but the chances of being mistaken for a pedophile – and the horrendous consequences that can occur if somebody freaks out – means that my current tendency is to just go on about my business.

    Now we’re not talking about all cases, of course. I was in a car wreck once and unceremoniously yanked a little girl I didn’t know (from the other car) out of the path of oncoming traffic. But a lost kid wandering around Wal-Mart? Not going there.

  270. RedPillPaul says:

    Shrewd as snakes and innocent as doves….words straight from Gods mouth (Jesus). You think there is something to that?
    So to be shrewd as a snake, doesn’t that mean that we have to think like one? And just because we can and/or have the ability to think like a snake, does that mean innocence is compromised?
    If that is so, how can you both be shrewd as a snake and innocent as doves?

    Your mind can be “dirty”, as long as your hands and heart are clean.

    Conclusion?
    Think like the feminist/liberal/enemy but dont be guilty of what they do. Think like them to counter/parry/attack them.

  271. Reader says:

    Check this out:

    Reading List: Pro-Western Christianity

    http://prowesternchristianity.blogspot.com/2013/02/a-pro-western-christian-reading-list.html

    There’s quite an interesting debate in the comments of the above thread.

  272. Pingback: Nazbol Misandry Is Female Self Interest In It’s Most Pure Form » Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology

  273. Lyn87 says:

    Craig,

    Too clever by half. By granting the official imprimatur of an Apostolic Legate to the publication of the “Catholic Encyclopedia,” that put Pius X’s seal of approval on it. Period. The fact that neither he, nor any of the eight popes since then have spoken out against it, although it has been in widespread use for 108 years – and they have “corrected” countless things of far less consequence – says to any fair observer that the officially-sanctioned “Catholic Encyclopedia,” is indeed an accurate reflection of official Roman Catholic doctrine.

    Catholics have a long history of changing their doctrines (some popes have even excommunicated other popes – so much for the “unbroken” line of Apostolic Succession…), which is what you are trying to do here. But you have to own this one. NINE popes approved the “Catholic Encyclopedia” as being reflective of the official doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. Were all nine of those popes wrong about what constitutes Catholic doctrine? That seems a little far-fetched to me.

    If Rome doesn’t like it, all they need to do is say so. Nine popes and 108 years have gone by and I’m still waiting…

  274. imnobody says:

    OT

    Dalrock, I know you are always looking for scientific evidence. This seems a good one

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2170522

  275. kios says:

    Deti, rank also counts in the workplace. A friend of mine told me a story about a potential sexual harassment lawsuit at a major Australian bank he worked at that was avoided because the man was fired but he was married and trying to.court a younger woman in the office for years. when it all came out she acted like the victim, but if he was the same rank or lower than her he would have been reported immediately; it.went on for almost a year before she complained. and it wasn’t because she was ‘scared’ either; she clearly benefitted from the exchange. But the reason it is significant is due to the fact.that s He didn’t lose his job but he received he accused a beta friend of mine of being complicit because.she discussed it with him very shortly before an official complaint was made.

  276. kios says:

    Sorry about the incoherent nature of my last post.

    In short, beta friend was accused because.she.confided, and he didn’t want to break her trust, so he ended up being put through a month of stress and hell before it was eventually resolved. He didn’t lose his job but received no apology from her, even after he demanded it from management; he was told it ‘wasn’t going to happen’.

    Another reason not to trust women in the workplace, because they will fuck you over at a whim.

  277. Pingback: BD #7 – The Basic Concept Behind The Man-Up Rant. | The Society of Phineas

  278. Opus says:

    @Lyn 87

    I am sorry to hear that this Hysteria is prevalent in the U.S.A.

    In (re)reading your post, I assume that your Police Officer friend is a man and that your hypothetical Police Officer in difficulty is also a man. How would you react if that Police Officer were a woman? – I ask rhetorically.

  279. Lyn87 says:

    Opus,

    The cop I was talking to is male. He was a Non-Commisioned Officer in a Reserve Component unit in which I was a Captain (at the time) and his civilian job was as a cop. The Officer/Noncom relationship in Reserve Component units tends to be a good deal less formal than in the Active Component, so the two of us were just hanging out talking on a night shift in the middle of nowhere. He found my attitude pretty upsetting, but I told him it was the fault of LE people themselves. Since they refuse to police bad behavior within their own ranks, and there is so much of it, I have no choice but to conclude that the average cop is fine with it. So be it – actions (or in this case, inactions) have consequences. One way to get them to see how the rest of us see them is to ask them how many of their fellow cops THEY have arrested. Any cop who has been on the force for more than a few months has certainly seen another cop commit some sort of crime – if a cop has been on the force for years and never arrested a fellow cop HE/SHE is currupt.

    Female cops are as bad or worse. I have trouble thinking that I would throw myself into a fray to help any cop (male or female) unless the situation were utterly unambiguous.

  280. Pingback: Refusing the Red Pill Once Again « Delightful

  281. lozozlzzl

    hey dalrock you need to write a post about this:

    http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/12730

    “COLLEGE HOSTS SEX, MASTURBATION TUTORIAL – INSIDE A CHURCH”

    “In statements to The College Fix, the college’s chaplain defended the event’s location, calling its theme “responsible,” and a campus spokesperson said it offered a “great message.”

    While the chapel is hosting services in conjunction with Lent, on Wednesday the building turned into a sexual marketplace of sorts, as student groups sold buttons, t-shirts and hats bearing the program’s name inside the chapel itself after the event concluded. They also sold the book written by program coordinators Marshall Miller and Dorian Solot titled “I Heart Female Orgasm: An Extraordinary Orgasm Guide.””

    lzozozozozozozolzozoz

  282. Laddition says:

    “I am aware that you have admitted women are inferior to men and I agree with you. However, in my opinion the best way to make that very fact crystal clear to everyone is holding them to the same standards as men. Because when they then obviously and glaringly fail to meet these standards their inferiority is revealed to all.

    So by demanding equality you demonstrate womens inferiority.”

    I absolutely agree.

    I regularly surprise people by describing myself as a feminist – I demand equality of rights and responsibilities for the sexes, isn’t that what feminists claim to want?

    I see nothing wrong with calling people on their claimed demands. It’s only when that is done that many start back-pedaling – welcome to the real world, where what you say matters and has consequences. Oh, how I miss that place, but don’t worry it is coming back (as soon as they can’t hide the fact that the money is gone anymore)

  283. GKChesterton says:

    @Dalrock
    Pretending that we don’t live in a thoroughly feminized system doesn’t make it so. Taking it upon yourself to defend the honor of women who believe they have a right to have sex out of wedlock and/or serial marriage is nonsensical. Likewise taking it upon yourself to defend the safety of women who see themselves as having a right to serve on the front lines. In both cases this is the vast majority of women. This is the culture you and I live in. There is no social contract which would support chivalry. Offering the benefits of chivalry to women in general in this society is enabling feminism. The only sane option is to carefully choose whom you will offer your protection to.

    Being a Christian is always hard because we are pilgrims in a foreign land. Nor does your response address my claims. I did not propose defending women who have broken social mores. I don’t intend to do so. Chivalry makes no such demand. It _does_ imply a certain base set of behaviors towards women that I think are useful both for the social cues they provide and because they teach men to be civil, which benefits us all. To defend women is a good as much as it is good to defend a child. That some women ignore this good and imperil our entire society is besides the point. Basic moral law informs us that two wrongs don’t make a right.

    Also, whether or not the society accepts such a thing, ignores my central claim about whether it is good for the development of men. Some martial training in both combat and etiquette I argue is good for us. This “frame” everyone is so keen on is _enabled_ by knowing things like “a punch isn’t likely to kill me”.

    That being said let’s return to the point that you seem to be addressing. Is it social suicide to defend all women? On that I agree. That is why I discussed the concept of being “cautious as serpents” and the Church’s historic views on suicide. We aren’t to _make_ ourselves martyrs. There are plenty of people that will do that _for_ us. So be careful about your chivalric impulses. They can and will get you in trouble and they can and will be used by the Enemy (oh that most Martial and Christian of terms as we are all after all Christian _soldiers_) for the wrong ends. Don’t be a dumb knight. But be a White Knight all the same.

    @Rollo,
    The Bushido Samurai of 12th century Japan would disagree with you.

    I know quite a bit about Japanese history as it is a hobby of mine. Bushido has only a tenuous connection with Chivalry because it is informed by an entirely different set of social mores. While some have tried to tie “Benevolence”, for example, to Christian Charity it really isn’t. There is no sense of universal brotherhood in Bushido whereas it does exist in the Christianized Chivalry. Given a choice between a moderately faithful knight and a moderately faithful samurai in a dark alley I’ll chose the knight any day of the week.

    I also hold that centuries of repeated warfare between East and West has shown the Western Tradition to be superior..but that’s a different argument. In fact Bushido’s insistence on reckless solo aggrandizement compared to the West’s much more disciplined development of combined arms as required incidentally by true charity is one of those areas where the Western Tradition is superior. Infantry have worth!

    @UKfred,
    The social contract that existed between the sexes in the days of chivalry

    This presumes, and I think very wrongly, that chivalry was ever “in”. It wasn’t. There were _always_ social forces pushing away from it. After all it does proscribe behavior that _seems_ to limit what you can do on the battlefield. There have been “right minded” folks (I call them materialistic assholes) that have argued against it for near on twelve hundred years. I don’t blame the men’s movement so much for forgetting history though. Everyone it seems does it including the feminists that insist that women never received advanced training in the Middle Ages.

    @GB4Men,
    ” Why does GKC never criticize women for the 50,000,000 abortions/murders of little babies? ”

    That is over the top as I _have_. Repeatedly in fact. I’ve even lost friends for such things and a couple of times possibly imperiled my career (I live in a very liberal area). I _really_ hate the androsphere’s presumption that if you don’t agree on a given topic that you must condone the worst in women. It does nothing to grow the movement and makes the attackers look more than a little ignorant when in fact they aren’t.

    As to NY Times best sellers…I’m assuming you mean 50 Shades? If so I’ve regularly lampooned that to the point my non-androsphere friends are beginning to wonder if I’ve gone a bit soft for porn.

    @Dalrock,

    Thanks for reminding people I’m not into giving women a free pass. There is a bit of utopian/dystopian view in the androsphere. We came from utopia and are now in a perfect dystopia. I just don’t see that in my read of history and so while I agree to the broad brushstrokes here I can’t agree to the wholesale destruction of old good things because things are bad now. Things were always bad because we are fallen. I want to preserve the good things and destroy the bad things. I don’t want to destroy the good things because they are dangerous in a bad world.

    @GB4M,
    “To treat women any differently from men could quickly get one fired in the workplace, or exiled from one’s own home–it could easily get one persecuted, castigated, impugned, and exiled from today’s Church.”

    It could, depending on how you do it. I’ve said, in work, in one of the most liberal workplaces in the country as little as yesterday things like, “you sound like such a girl,” or, “if you wanted a five hundred dollar dinner for Valentine’s day I’d dump you.” You can get away with an enormous amount if you smile and sound confident. The one time I did get in trouble I was so young my social status caught me (I was eighteen at the time and didn’t understand the rules yet). Surrendering is in many ways worse because it makes you “targetable”. Be smart, don’t get involved in battles you can’t win but don’t surrender either. Nor am I a paragon of martial virtue. In fact quite the opposite.

    @Morticia,

    As to Morticia’s question. I do think and I am _known for_ treating women and men differently. An army Captain I know commented recently at dinner that, “[x], don’t take this wrong, but you are the most chauvinistic man I know” at which point I said, “thank-you”. I got an eye roll from both wives but they did giggle a bit. Women _should_ be treated differently. Either they are the same as us or they are not. If they are not then we MUST treat women differently. Anything else is a kind of lie. Chivalry does not require fawning, but it does require acknowledgement that women are the “weaker vessel”. So open doors not because you are worshiping, but there’s a little voice inside you that says, “some doors she just can’t open”.

    @GB4M,

    The legal system is set up, by women, to persecute men for treating women any differently from men.

    I’d like that proven. A quick look at just about every legislative body in America shows a large group of fawning men that need to grow a pair. Women don’t have (thank God) parity in any of these bodies. We made the law and may God have mercy on us for being so unbelievably stupid and modern. Most of those men probably don’t practice chivalry in any true sense and mouth endless platitudes about equality that chivalry would deny.

    @Dalrock,
    However, what struck me when I first considered the question of chivalry as a manosphere blogger was that around 15 years ago I stopped helping women altogether.

    There is a sadness about such things because we do receive great happiness from good women. I’m reminded that I recently started learning to drive stick (from the Captain mentioned above) and I manged (of course) to stall out the car quite a few times. I got a guy in a 4×4 who drove up to offer help assuming that the car had broken down…the women mostly scowled at the fact that I slowed them down. I wasn’t terribly surprised as I live in a ritzy area and there are plenty of entitled princesses around. I liked that guy immediately. I’d rather we all be like that guy.

    @macPUA,

    “minor issues”

    Uh-huh. I’m not Catholic but that is an amazingly ignorant comment.

  284. Cane Caldo says:

    @GKC

    “In fact Bushido’s insistence on reckless solo aggrandizement compared to the West’s much more disciplined development of combined arms as required incidentally by true charity is one of those areas where the Western Tradition is superior. Infantry have worth! ”

    Big ups to the phalanx, from the Defender of Men.

  285. GKChesterton says:

    The phalanx is a great example as it shows a Western tendency towards such things. Of course it was developed by a people that were, philosophically at least, in a civilizational search for God.

  286. Morticia says:

    @GK Chesterton
    Yes, you expressed exactly what I was trying to convey here and when I wrote this: http://likeinbooks.wordpress.com/2013/02/08/the-polite-condescension-of-the-gentleman/

  287. Dear GKC,

    Again, you tip your hand as to just how old and out of touch you are.

    This is from six years ago:

    http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/women-are-expected-to-be-the-majority-t1862.html

    “Women are expected to be the majority of student entering law school this fall, a trend ultimately placing more women in leadership position in politics and business. ”

    Dear GKC,

    Could you please link to the websites and organizations of these women who are spearheading law favoring men and men’s rights?

    Furthermore, I would again like to point out that GKC prefers to spend his time nit-picking here, rather than working for change, so as to stem the tide of abortion, illegitimacy, and broken families.

    Again, note how quick GKC is to attack men: “A quick look at just about every legislative body in America shows a large group of fawning men that need to grow a pair. Women don’t have (thank God) parity in any of these bodies.”

    Dear GKC,

    If women are the dominant players in law school (on law reviews/etc.), how is it that they have “no parity?”

    Dear GKC,

    When you say that “men need to grow a pair,” are you speaking for yourself? Have you ever spoken truth to power? What feminist organizations have you taken on? What have you done to exalt the culture or save the family?

    Or do you just get your “balless “jollies from lengthy, wordy condescensions on blogs, while hiding behind your bastardization of G.K. Chesterton’s good name?

  288. Dear GKC,

    “GKChesterton says:
    February 22, 2013 at 12:27 pm
    The phalanx is a great example as it shows a Western tendency towards such things. Of course it was developed by a people that were, philosophically at least, in a civilizational search for God.”

    Are you saying that the Greeks had not yet found God?

    In your opinion, did Homer or Socrates believe in God?

  289. Fred Mok says:

    I support GKC’s position. Chivalry matters and is meaningful even if we get persecuted for it. That’s what it means to be a follower of Jesus. Since women shaming us should not and cannot prevent us from doing what is good, it follows that we should not use shame as a tactic to coerce women either.

    In response to GBFM’s quote of Jesus’ on the Sermon on the Mount about not coming to abolish the law, he actually did come to abolish the law. He abolished it by fulfilling it. That’s what Jesus meant in the following verse in Matthew 5:18 ” I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. ” It was accomplished when he died on the cross and the curtain of the temple was torn from top to bottom. We follow Jesus not Moses. He is the second Adam (Romans 5:14) who breaks the power of the curse on man, woman, and creation. And yet we still leave in a world where sinful feminism is rampant.

  290. Fred Mok says,

    “We follow Jesus not Moses.” lzozozozozozozozozzlzozo

    So Fred, are you one of those activists who is against having the Ten Commandments (which came from Moses) displayed in courthouses?

    Also, how many other “Christians” here believe that Jesus came not to fulfill, but to abolish the Law of Moses–the Ten Commandments?

    Finally, are feminists generally for or against the Ten Commandments?

  291. Dear Fred Mok,

    Which Bible to you worship by? I can’t seem to find it? All I can find is this:

    Matthew 5:17 ►

    New International Version (©1984)
    “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
    New Living Translation (©2007)
    “Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose.

    English Standard Version (©2001)
    “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

    New American Standard Bible (©1995)
    “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.

    Holman Christian Standard Bible (©2009)
    “Don’t assume that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.

    International Standard Version (©2012)
    “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I didn’t come to destroy them, but to fulfill them,

    King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
    Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

    Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
    Do not think that I have come to revoke The Written Law or The Prophets; I am not come to revoke but to fulfill.

    GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
    “Don’t ever think that I came to set aside Moses’ Teachings or the Prophets. I didn’t come to set them aside but to make them come true.

    King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
    Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

    American King James Version
    Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

    American Standard Version
    Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil.

    Douay-Rheims Bible
    Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

    Darby Bible Translation
    Think not that I am come to make void the law or the prophets; I am not come to make void, but to fulfil.

    English Revised Version
    Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfill.

    Webster’s Bible Translation
    Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

    Weymouth New Testament
    “Do not for a moment suppose that I have come to abrogate the Law or the Prophets: I have not come to abrogate them but to give them their completion.

    World English Bible
    “Don’t think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I didn’t come to destroy, but to fulfill.

    Young’s Literal Translation
    ‘Do not suppose that I came to throw down the law or the prophets — I did not come to throw down, but to fulfil;

    Is there anyone here who really thinks that Jesus came to abolish the law? Are they feminists or something? zlolzlolzlolzlolzloz

  292. Dear Fred Mok,

    Which of Moses’ Ten Commandments do Chruchian “Christians” like you refuse to follow?

    1.

    Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

    2.

    Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

    3.

    Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

    4.

    Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
    5.

    Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.

    6.

    Thou shalt not kill.

    7.

    Thou shalt not commit adultery.

    8.

    Thou shalt not steal.

    9.

    Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

    10.

    Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.

    Are Churchian Christians allowed to buttehxt and covet their neighbor’s wife and her ass lzozlzlzozozlzl? Or steal? Where do you think that Jesus say this is OK?

  293. Pingback: Who Made This Lance Anyway? — Chivalry Part 2 | joeccombs2nd

  294. Fred Mok says:

    GBFM, this the law vs. gospel problem. It deals with questions like: How do you interpret Moses’ words in light of Jesus? How do we understand the Mosaic Covenant in light of the New Covenant.

    The short answer from me: I believe and uphold the Ten Commandments as they are re-interpreted, expanded, and understood by Jesus. His Sermon on the Mount has a three-fold purpose a) introduce a kingdom ethic that is far more about the heart than behavior (7:12) (adultery is redefined as including lustful thoughts – 5:28) b) demonstrates no one achieves this ethic (5:20) c) prepare people to discover righteousness and salvation through faith in him not adherence to the letter of a dead moral code (7:7-11)

    As for your fixation with 5:17, two thoughts:

    1) The “not but” is a Greek (me/mede) construction that means “not only but also” and places emphasis on the latter. Take 1 John 3:18 for example:

    “Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth. ”

    Of course John doesn’t mean we shouldn’t love with with words or tongue but to emphasize actions and truth.

    Also, earlier in Matthew 4:4, Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'” The “alone” obviously is the hinge word but the original text is from the Hebrew from Deuteronomy.

    2) If we read scripture as a unified, coherent whole, then how do you reconcile Matthew 5:17 with Paul’s understanding of what Jesus did with the Law (of Moses)?

    2 Corinthians 3:6-8 He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant– not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious?

    Galatians 2:19-20 For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

  295. Note how Fred Mok is crucifying me for quoting Jesus with his snarky, little comment, “As for your fixation with 5:17, two thoughts:”

    How is quoting Jesus Christ’s words a “fixation?” Christ warned us of the Fred Moks who would persecute us for agreeing with Jesus.

    Fred Mok then procedes to further bastardize Christ’s teachings, writing, “introduce a kingdom ethic that is far more about the heart than behavior.” What Fred is saying, which JEsus never said, is that it is OK to butthext and commit adultery and lie, and cheat, and murder, and divorce and destory families, as long as one has “a good heart.”

    If this sounds familiar, it is because Fred Mok is espousing the central tenets of the Country-Club Churhianity which has come to replace true Christianity, which allows womenz to buttehxt and exlats Game over the teahcings of Christ, as long as one has a good heart.

    Jesus was very specific–it is not enough to have a good heart, but one must also engage in EXALTED ACTIONS.

    I Never Knew You
    21Not every one that says unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
    22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in your name? and in your name have cast out demons? and in your name done many wonderful works?
    23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.

    Jesus states “Not every one that says unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that does the will of my Father who is in heaven.”

    Watch Fred Mok crucify me for again quoting Jesus, and throw some more Churchian Bastardizations our way.

    But Jesus says that only those that DO (TAKE ACTION) “the will of my Father who is in heaven,” are worthy of him.

    Of course, since this cuts down on the Churchian power and business of serving the buttehxteterz and divorceress and adulterteeresz and abotrrterz and detteryoyerts of da mfmfialeieiz, Fred Mok will again accuse me of sinning by “fixating” on Jesus’s words, on a Christian blog.

    You can’t make this stuff up, people.

    lolozzlozzzlzlzlzozlzozozozozozoozzozo

  296. Above Fred Mok declares that Jesus came not to fulfill the law, but to abolish it.

    When I quoted Christ’s words to Fred Mok, which state the exact opposite of what Mok states, Mok mocked me and dismissed Christ’s teachings, accusing me of “fixating” on the words of Jesus Christ on a Christian Blog, as if that is an unholy, carnal sin. Like your typical buttehxting and fornicating Churchian, Mok values his own words above the words of Jesus Christ and his good friend and mentor Moses.

    Just out of curiosity, are there any other Churchians here who agree with Fred that Jesus came not to fulfil the law of the prophets and Moses, but to abolish it? And if so, are you deleting the following passage from Matthew in your Churchian bibles?

    New International Version (©1984)
    “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
    New Living Translation (©2007)
    “Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose.

    English Standard Version (©2001)
    “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

    New American Standard Bible (©1995)
    “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.

    Holman Christian Standard Bible (©2009)
    “Don’t assume that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.

    International Standard Version (©2012)
    “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I didn’t come to destroy them, but to fulfill them,

    King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
    Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

    Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
    Do not think that I have come to revoke The Written Law or The Prophets; I am not come to revoke but to fulfill.

    GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
    “Don’t ever think that I came to set aside Moses’ Teachings or the Prophets. I didn’t come to set them aside but to make them come true.

    King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
    Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

    American King James Version
    Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

    American Standard Version
    Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil.

    Douay-Rheims Bible
    Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

    Darby Bible Translation
    Think not that I am come to make void the law or the prophets; I am not come to make void, but to fulfil.

    English Revised Version
    Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfill.

    Webster’s Bible Translation
    Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

    Weymouth New Testament
    “Do not for a moment suppose that I have come to abrogate the Law or the Prophets: I have not come to abrogate them but to give them their completion.

    World English Bible
    “Don’t think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I didn’t come to destroy, but to fulfill.

    Young’s Literal Translation
    ‘Do not suppose that I came to throw down the law or the prophets — I did not come to throw down, but to fulfil;

  297. Allow me to quote Jesus again,

    “Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. 12Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.”

    Now watch Fred Mok again accuse me of “fixating” on the teachings of Christ and Old Testament prophets, followed up with his own words, which he considers to be superior to the teachings of Christ and the prophets.

    lzlozlzlzlzlzozlzlzzloz

  298. A Northern Observer says:

    I would submit this isn’t the place for that kind of debate, so if you two want to get into that, then a different location would be appropriate.

  299. Fred Mok says:

    GBFM, I never declared that “Jesus did not come to fulfill the law but abolish it”. My words were “He abolished it by fulfilling it”. As I stated earlier, Jesus’ emphasis was on fulfilling the law through his righteous life and by focusing on the spirit of the law not the written code. It does not mean we are not culpable for our actions. Actions matter. Thought (heart) matter. Both our behavior and our thinking matters but it’s the heart that matters most. The heart is the root issue. You still haven’t responded to my other three arguments – 1) how do you read 5:18? 2) how do you deal with other instances in the bible where not/but cannot be exclusively so? 3) how do you reconcile other New Testament instances where the bible is negative on the law?

  300. Dear Fred Mock,

    These are your words, “In response to GBFM’s quote of Jesus’ on the Sermon on the Mount about not coming to abolish the law, he actually did come to abolish the law.”

    Fred Mock: “He (Jesus) actually did come to abolish the law.”

    Just out of curiosity, are there any other Churchians here who agree with Fred that Jesus came not to fulfil the law of the prophets and Moses, but to abolish it? And if so, are you deleting the following passage from Matthew in your Churchian bibles?

    New International Version (©1984)
    “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
    New Living Translation (©2007)
    “Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose.

    English Standard Version (©2001)
    “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

    New American Standard Bible (©1995)
    “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.

    Holman Christian Standard Bible (©2009)
    “Don’t assume that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.

    International Standard Version (©2012)
    “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I didn’t come to destroy them, but to fulfill them,

    King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
    Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

    Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
    Do not think that I have come to revoke The Written Law or The Prophets; I am not come to revoke but to fulfill.

    GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
    “Don’t ever think that I came to set aside Moses’ Teachings or the Prophets. I didn’t come to set them aside but to make them come true.

    King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
    Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

    American King James Version
    Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

    American Standard Version
    Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil.

    Douay-Rheims Bible
    Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

    Darby Bible Translation
    Think not that I am come to make void the law or the prophets; I am not come to make void, but to fulfil.

    English Revised Version
    Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfill.

    Webster’s Bible Translation
    Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

    Weymouth New Testament
    “Do not for a moment suppose that I have come to abrogate the Law or the Prophets: I have not come to abrogate them but to give them their completion.

    World English Bible
    “Don’t think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I didn’t come to destroy, but to fulfill.

    Young’s Literal Translation
    ‘Do not suppose that I came to throw down the law or the prophets — I did not come to throw down, but to fulfil;

  301. Fred Mok says:

    GBFM, I understand the point you’re making. And I certainly agree the straw man you’ve created is easy to tear down. What I don’t know how to do is get you to consider the point I’m driving at. Let’s go with what you’re saying, then how do you reconcile it with the negative view of the law in the New Testament?

  302. Fred Mock,

    Above you accused me of “fixating” on the words of Jesus Christ, as if that is some sort of a sin.

    When that failed to advance your “cause,” you wrongly accused me other things such as “creating straw men.” Moses teaches us that it is wrong to “bear false witness” like you are doing, and Jesus stated that he had come to fulfill this law, not to abolish it, as you suggest.

    Again, everyone can see what you are doing here. Have you no shame? Do you really believe that, in your words, Jesus came to abolish the law, so that you could bear false witness?

    These are your words, “In response to GBFM’s quote of Jesus’ on the Sermon on the Mount about not coming to abolish the law, he actually did come to abolish the law.”

    Fred Mock: “He (Jesus) actually did come to abolish the law.”

    Just out of curiosity, are there any other Churchians here who agree with Fred that Jesus came not to fulfil the law of the prophets and Moses, but to abolish it? And if so, are you deleting the following passage from Matthew in your Churchian bibles?

    New International Version (©1984)
    “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
    New Living Translation (©2007)
    “Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose.

    English Standard Version (©2001)
    “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

    New American Standard Bible (©1995)
    “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.

    Holman Christian Standard Bible (©2009)
    “Don’t assume that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.

    International Standard Version (©2012)
    “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I didn’t come to destroy them, but to fulfill them,

    King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
    Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

    Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
    Do not think that I have come to revoke The Written Law or The Prophets; I am not come to revoke but to fulfill.

    GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
    “Don’t ever think that I came to set aside Moses’ Teachings or the Prophets. I didn’t come to set them aside but to make them come true.

    King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
    Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

    American King James Version
    Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

    American Standard Version
    Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil.

    Douay-Rheims Bible
    Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

    Darby Bible Translation
    Think not that I am come to make void the law or the prophets; I am not come to make void, but to fulfil.

    English Revised Version
    Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfill.

    Webster’s Bible Translation
    Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

    Weymouth New Testament
    “Do not for a moment suppose that I have come to abrogate the Law or the Prophets: I have not come to abrogate them but to give them their completion.

    World English Bible
    “Don’t think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I didn’t come to destroy, but to fulfill.

    Young’s Literal Translation
    ‘Do not suppose that I came to throw down the law or the prophets — I did not come to throw down, but to fulfil;

  303. GKChesteron says:

    @GB4M,

    For the record I have not yet breached forty. So unless that’s ancient I’m not as old as you think I am. So let’s assume the law schools are at parity for a moment. They _just got_ that parity and law schools are a lagging indicator of legislative bodies where men still dominate. So my point holds, they got there because we let it happen; they didn’t vote themselves the vote. We can’t be, as Aquinas had it, the non “accidental” sex and still be pushed around like rag dolls. We as a class chose something. We were wrong.

    As to Homer and Socrates, they weren’t Christian but I hold to something like Dante’s view of them. They had _something_. I’m not sure how much or how that will work out though.

    Of course none of this addresses whether or not Chivalry is _good_ for us. As in metaphysically so.

    @Fred,

    I was with you till you got to shame. Women can and do shame us for our good. Debrorah and Barak is an example I’ve been citing recently. However such shame should be rare because we should be doing what we are supposed to do and women aren’t our ordinary superiors. Also as princeps in the earthly court we can, do, and should shame women where appropriate and where some pastoral good is achieved. I’m also probably not as comfortable on “abolition” as you are. The Law still instructs by way of example. It is the tutor that leads to Christ.

    I have to admit I didn’t read everything you wrote though because GB4M went from a moment of lucidity to a bunch of noise (the Bible is not noise, quoting thirty plus variations of the same verse is).

  304. Cane Caldo says:

    @Fred Mok

    My words were “He abolished it by fulfilling it”
    [...]
    [H]ow do you reconcile [a positive view of the law] with the negative view of the law in the New Testament?

    The law kills because the law is justice and the wages of sin is death. There is no escape from that. Christ fulfills but does not abolish because he died as if He had sinned; taking our just penalty onto Himself. This is unjust, right? God, who loves His Son, and loves justice, cannot stand for this. He has to reconcile Jesus back to Himself (the Father) from death. The door of Hades are thus thrown open, and anyone who follows Him (Jesus) back out enjoys the grace-beyond-justice and destroys injustice (LOVE) that God has shown the son.

    You, me, my children, everyone who would be sons of God will have to follow Christ through death because that is the path He blazed–had to blaze–to rescue us from sin, and yet not break justice. He broke injustice. He fulfilled the law, yet He did not abolish it. If He had, we would live in sin–separated from God–forever. It would be as if we ate the fruit of the tree of life while still sinful; thus frustrating God’s plan of reconciliation.

    Behold, how good and pleasant it is
    when brothers dwell in unity!
    [walking and living together]
    It is like the precious oil on the head [Christ over us],
    running down on the beard [us under Him],
    on the beard of Aaron,
    running down on the collar of his robes!
    It is like the dew of Hermon,
    which falls on the mountains of Zion!
    For there [the other side of death] the Lord has commanded the blessing,
    life forevermore.

  305. Awesomefest. GKChesteron states that quoting the bible is “Noise.”

    “I have to admit I didn’t read everything you wrote though because GB4M went from a moment of lucidity to a bunch of noise (the Bible is not noise, quoting thirty plus variations of the same verse is).”

    GKChesteron: “Quoting thirty plus variations of Christ’s words is noise.”

    GKC–did you actually count? Also, what is the limit on quoting Bible verse versions, according to the Law of GKC?

  306. Today my girlfriend said,

    “Forgive the Churchians, GBFM
    for teaching that Christ came to abolish the law
    for that is what they were taught
    by thier butthexting churchian elders
    who prefer material welath, divocre, adultery, hypergamy
    worldly pride, butthext, fornication, greed, sophistry,
    over the simple teahcings ahd truths of Christ
    and thus use and corrupt JEsus Christ
    so as to abolish the law he came to fulfill.”

  307. forgive the churchians
    for reviling and persecuting you
    for quoting jesus christ
    forgive the churchians
    for reviling and persecuting you
    for explaining that jesus came
    to fulfill
    the law
    as jesus
    stated
    thusly
    forgive the churchians
    for reviling and persecuting you
    for “fixating” on the teachings
    of jesus christ
    forgive the churchians
    for reviling and persecuting you
    and accusing you of creating “noise”
    for quoting multiple translations
    of the glorious words and ideals
    of jesus christ
    for it is not ye that they hate
    but jesus christ and the law
    He came to fulfill.

  308. hunter says:

    I feel like manhood101 dot com presents a happy medium between the traditionalists and the manosphere. They use a form of “game” that gradually transforms women from useless harlots into functional women. If this concept could be implemented on a global scale then eventually we WOULD be transformed into a more “traditional” society with proper gender roles, including chivalry.

  309. Pingback: Hey, That Feminist Gave Me Back My Lance — Chivalry Part 4 | joeccombs2nd

  310. Pingback: Is Morticia right? | David Collard

  311. Pingback: Chivalry | On the Rock

  312. Pingback: Babies of the Enlightenment | Alcestis Eshtemoa

  313. Pingback: On Man’s Role and Man’s Duty: a counterpoint guest post by Mr. Jesse Powell. | Sunshine Mary

  314. Pingback: I can not say much on chivalry but I agree with this quote. | the secular traditionalist

  315. Taylor says:

    You’re a little off-base in your estimation of what chivalry means in modern context. Or maybe that’s just affected by your quoted guy’s examples of traditionalism and chivalry.

    The modern social contract for chivalry (traditional) is the man initially, no questions asked, opens the door for the lady. In this same vein, pulls out the chair, stands when a lady enters the room while you’re seated at dinner, offers his arm, and compliments on perfume/dress. The modern traditional form for women is dress femininely, perfumed, long hair (or at least an attractive style of short hair, no pixie), show and say at least once thankfulness for the gesture, and polite assent to the lead of her man.

    Next, we come to violations of the social contract in modern times. The lady may use unladylike language–cussing out someone, insulting in a crude manner in the open, gossiping in the worst possible way to a group. She may also provoke fights as a game to her man, see him ‘defend her honor.’ Same in dress, she may choose to dress like a skank and exude the same in her posture and flirting.

    For the traditional gentlemanly conduct I identify with, these all rupture the contract as chivalry pertains to protection. If she’s going to figuratively get muddy and sling that around at others, she’s surrendered the protection. She’s brought on the dishonor by her own actions, dress, and conduct. The gentleman’s behavior is now more detached, perhaps limited to helping her home if drunk or not engaging in gossip against her (that will still sully your honor). As sexist as it sounds, think of it as the restraint shown towards a rebellious child … you choose to ignore what the vile tongue is saying or fists swinging, in the hopes that one day he/she changes his/her behavior. If it persists, you avoid her company and end conversations quickly.

    To sum up: Chivalry of the chair is not detached from Chivalry of the protection. You will and ought to behave as a gentleman, but acts that rip up the social contract shut down the protection of chivalry and leave only behavior with dignity.

  316. Luke says:

    Chris Nystrom says:
    February 18, 2013 at 8:26 pm

    “The question is if the ship is going down is it still women and children first? Some are arguing that this should be the policy today despite the fact that some of the women might be feminist and not appreciate it, and some are arguing that feminism has made this policy obsolete and it is every man (person) for themselves and that is just the reality we live in. Do I understand the question correctly?”

    No to “women and children first” (when they’re not MY wife/children/mother/sister) when ships are sinking.
    The choice was “votes or boats”.
    The chicks picked votes.
    Let them live or die by their choice.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2087585/Cruise-ship-Costa-Concordia-sinking-Whatever-happened-women-children-first.html

    http://www.ocregister.com/articles/ship-336602-titanic-concordia.html (a Mark Steyn piece)

    Great question from the latter link:

    “When Western civilization hits the iceberg, will the response be more like that of the crew on the Titanic or that on the Costa Concordia?”

  317. Zenu says:

    Even long before i knew anything about the Men’s movement I was MGTOW- and the more of these articles I read just only instills my going my own way philosophy. And not to mention the more ungodly hypergamous and selfishness of females has turned me more towards being an anti-romantic relationships person. I’m not bitter at all- just wide awake. i’ve got too many divorced friends who have had their money taken from them by ex-wives. I don’t plan on being another statistic. I love being single- i can’t imagine being shackled to a female and the government. My parents have been married over 50 years but i’ve never met a lady i could possibly consider marrying for a year let alone for 50 +! It is a different world today.

  318. Pingback: I Was Told I am a Bad Man by Pseudo Feminist White Knight Jesse Powell | The Reinvention of Man

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s