How chivalry (and mamma’s boys) brought us women’s suffrage and feminism.

On the Moral Superiority of Women explains how suffragists turned traditional conservatives’ chivalrous arguments against them.  Chivalry/courtly love teaches that women are the source of manners and morality, and that men are made moral by becoming enslaved by romantic love for their moral betters.  Traditional conservatives thought in the past just as they do now, that they can fight feminism with chivalry.  But chivalry is the foundation of feminism, so the move reliably backfires:

Traditionally suffragists based their case for the right to vote principally on equal rights and attempted to embarrass men into giving them the vote by pointing out how shameful it was for a purported democracy to deprive half of its citizens of the right to vote. In response, opponents of women’s suffrage often argued, among other things, that women were morally superior, finer beings, who would be debased and degraded by participating in the tough hurly-burly would of politics. In the progressive era, women now readily agreed. Women were indeed morally superior. Men had control of society for too long and had made a mess of it. America’s politicians were scoundrels and corruption was the order of the day. An infusion of moral superiority was just what was needed and it was women voters who would supply it.

The suffragettes’ argument was logically bulletproof.  If you assume women are more moral than men, then giving them the vote will clearly increase the nation’s virtue.  Better yet, if you care about virtue you should take the vote away from men and give it to their betters.

But despite the fact that fighting feminism with chivalry is a reliable way to empower feminism, traditional conservatives aren’t about to change tactics.  Thus we have complementarians who are convinced that women won’t rebel against headship and submission, if only men are chivalrous enough.

No amount of facts and logic will persuade the traditional conservative that chivalry (once deployed correctly) won’t defeat feminism.   Facts and logic don’t matter, because the love for chivalry doesn’t come from a logical place.  It comes from the beating heart of the mammas boy, way down inside.  If these men were to unchivalrously not enable feminism, their mothers might scold them!

As explains, this is how the 19th Amendment came to be ratified.  A legislator who had previously voted against the amendment received a note from his mother, imploring him to be a good boy and vote for it (emphasis mine):

The speaker called the measure to a ratification vote. To the dismay of the many suffragists who had packed into the capitol with their yellow roses, sashes and signs, it seemed certain that the final roll call would maintain the deadlock. But that morning, Harry Burn—who until that time had fallen squarely in the anti-suffrage camp—received a note from his mother, Phoebe Ensminger Burn, known to her family and friends as Miss Febb. In it, she had written, “Hurrah, and vote for suffrage! Don’t keep them in doubt. I notice some of the speeches against. They were bitter. I have been watching to see how you stood, but have not noticed anything yet.” She ended the missive with a rousing endorsement of the great suffragist leader Carrie Chapman Catt, imploring her son to “be a good boy and help Mrs. Catt put the ‘rat’ in ratification.”

Still sporting his red boutonniere but clutching his mother’s letter, Burn said “aye” so quickly that it took his fellow legislators a few moments to register his unexpected response. With that single syllable he extended the vote to the women of America and ended half a century of tireless campaigning by generations of suffragists…

Related: Tackling the patriarchy, holding the door open for trannies.

Posted in Chivalry, Complementarian, Courtly Love, Feminists, Suffrage, Traditional Conservatives, Wife worship | 39 Comments

Organized Female Nagging, Forever.


I happened to stumble upon this 1920 anti suffrage broadside while looking for something else (source).


Interestingly the broadside was created by a group of women who opposed suffrage, the Southern Women’s League.

The More a Politician Allows Himself to be Henpecked The More Henpecking We Will Have in Politics.

Indeed (H/T Instapundit):


Posted in Attacking headship, Feminists, Instapundit, Nagging, Suffrage, You can't make this stuff up | 144 Comments

If Christianity isn’t feminism and courtly love, what is it?

New commenter Tim asks:

I’ve come to really enjoy your writing since I first found it about six months ago. I appreciate how you’ve expanded my thinking on many issues.

However, although I’ve read many of your archived articles, I struggle to understand your actual positions on issues.

Because you’re so skilled with pointing out the various errors you see in modern Christian perspectives (such as the errors with complementarianism, courtly love, etc.) I think I understand your alternatives, but I’m never quite sure.

In short, you frequently oppose a position but I can rarely figure out what your actual position is. I’m interested in the positive principles and positions that you teach your children.

Will you please consider writing a series of positive articles, stating as clearly as you’re able what you actually believe and why? This would be very helpful for me as I consider your work.

I very much appreciate Tim’s kind words, and if he has a specific topic he wants me to provide more detail on I’ll do my best either via a comment, a reference to an existing post, or by writing a new post.

However, I think the question itself is telling.  If I’m reading Tim correctly, he agrees that modern Christians have unwittingly adopted courtly love in place of Christianity, and he agrees that courtly love is a perverse mockery of Christianity.  But (again, if I understand correctly) he struggles to imagine what Christianity would look like if we removed the adulterant.

While I think I get where he is coming from, the very fact that it is hard to imagine Christianity without courtly love (not to mention feminism) is the fundamental problem.  Imagine a time in the not too distant future where Christians have adopted homosexuality as if it were Christianity.  A blogger who regularly pointed this out might receive a similar question:

I’ve been reading your blog for some time, and have begun to see what you are getting at.  After reading here I can now see what a bad idea our monthly bathhouse night was, and that the unfortunate incidents we experienced there weren’t random as I had once believed.  I’ve even begun to accept that our church’s weekly beefcake review is likewise ill conceived.  I’m still grappling with whether or not we should continue our customary fruity dance during the offertory, although as some have pointed out you might be overly sensitive on this particular item.

But I struggle with your focus on what we should stop doing, and am looking for specific advice beyond things like “cancel the men’s naked hot-tub event” and “stop having gay sex”.   What would we be as Christians without homosexuality?  What could possibly be left once we rule all of these gay things out?  We need positive direction, not just warnings to stop being gay.

This hopefully seems absurd, because today at least Christianity doesn’t face the same widespread corruption regarding homosexuality that we do with feminism and courtly love.  The question is absurd because we don’t (yet) struggle to imagine Christianity without homosexuality.  However, this isn’t the case when it comes to Christianity and courtly love (or feminism).  The corruption is so endemic that we struggle to recall what was corrupted in the first place.

This isn’t a simple question to answer because the Bible and/or the church (if Orthodox or RCC) doesn’t always offer specific scripts we should follow on (for one example) how Christians should court for marriage.  We know that fornication is prohibited, and that if a person burns with passion they should marry and not deny each other sex.  Likewise the Bible tells us to honor our father and our mother, so adopting a secular holiday set aside to honor fathers and using that time to disparage fathers is a problem, but this doesn’t tell us exactly how we should go about honoring fathers.

Other times the Bible is quite clear on what we should do (for example headship and submission), but because of the corruption we are repulsed by what it clearly tells us we should do.  Either way, the crucial first step is to recognize the corruption both in general and in specific, and root out the specific false teachings we have unknowingly adopted.  As we do this, the specific expressions of non cucked Christianity will vary, but this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t bother working to root out the corruption in the first place.

Once you identify the corruption, follow this detailed plan:

Posted in Courtly Love, Feminists, Men's Sphere Humor | 149 Comments

It turns out they *both* want a tall man.

What are the odds?*

Update Sept 17:  The video was deleted some time yesterday evening, but the youtube channel is still available for context.  See also Larry Kummer’s slightly edited transcript snips in the discussion below.

This demonstrates the cruelty of Focus on the Family/Glenn Stanton’s message to Christian women looking to marry. Neither of the two women give any indication in the nine and a half minute video that they understand they aren’t the only ones choosing, that they are being silently rejected by men just as they are silently ruling nearly all men out. Clearly there is something wrong with men if these two young Christian women aren’t forced to choose from a long line of 6 ft 1 (or taller) sexy Christian men who declare their desire to court them for marriage.

H/T: Red Pill Latecomer

*Their shock when they realize they both are looking for a man 6 ft 1 and above reminds me of the line in idiocracy where the two men realize they share common interests: So you like money and sex? You’re trippin’ me out!

Posted in Focus on the Family, Glenn Stanton, Traditional Conservatives, Weak men screwing feminism up, You can't make this stuff up | 298 Comments

Kids these days

Several readers pointed out the anachronism in the Stanton quote I included in my last post:

Ask any young woman how she vets all the nice young men who approach to decide who will advance to the bonus round of an actual date. She will ask if you rewind your VHS tapes before returning them to Blockbuster, or just pay the fee.

The 1990s VHS/Blockbuster reference however is deliberate by Stanton.  Stanton is showing off how with the times he is, that he knows what is happening now.  He may as well have written:

Unlike you squares I know what the hep cats are doing today!  They aren’t going to the malt shop to sock hop like we did in the 1990s!

I write that because the 1950s dating norms Stanton assumes his audience will be shocked to find are no longer practiced weren’t practiced in the 1990s either.  Even worse than that, what he is describing wasn’t really what was going on in the 1950s.  Stanton’s dream of a world where unmarried women are queens holding court, deciding which gallant suitor to bestow her favors on exists only in his imagination.

Stanton knows this, but the lie is too tempting because by telling it he can puff himself up in comparison to the loser men of today.  The implication is that in his day, men were men and women were glad.  Something mysterious has happened to men, while women have only become more fabulous!  Stanton closes his essay with a claim that young men today are different than young men in the past, because older men have failed to mold them into real men (men like he was at their age):

Rest assured, our problem today is not raising toxic males. It’s raising passive males. Those are males who are not even sure what the right thing to do is, much less possess the courage and assertiveness to know when to demonstrate it or how. Masculinity can only be taught, encouraged, and even demanded by the previous generation of both men and women. Men teach and call younger boys up into it, and women set before the young male what he must do if he wants a shot at them.

The culture that says, “We don’t know how to turn these boys today into men” is tragically passive as well. We need to be men, all of us, to hitch up our collective trousers and teach our boys what manliness is and what it is not and demand they act on it. If nothing else, there’s a whole generation of young women hoping someone will step up and do so.

But Stanton isn’t consistent with this narrative.  In his lecture Marriage is a feminist institution Stanton claims that men have always been shiftless losers, and it is only due to women marrying shiftless losers and making them man up that anything ever got done in the world.  He offers the example of Jamestown in 1611, which he says was foundering until women came over and married the passive colonists and made them into men:

In Jamestown the mother country sent men over to start the colonies in America as an economic venture. They expected the colonizers to come over here and start creating and start growing stuff, making stuff, sending it back to the mother country, and riches would happen. Well they sent this guy Sir Thomas Dale in 1611 to go over to Jamestown because no checks were coming to the mother country from the colonies…

He reported back to the mother country: The men are involved in their usual daily work, which is bowling in the street…

What happened was the mother country said we know how we can get the men working.  We’re not going to send drivers, you know crack the whip and get them working, we’re going to send women. And the women, the men will be interested in the women, and the women will set the tone for what the men should do.  You know what, before you have access to me, I want a nice cabin, and I want to be able to cook stew, tomorrow. So the men have to start doing, and that’s what they did. And one thing led to another, the women got men to work, they got them to buckle down, and 200 years later, boom. We have America, one of the greatest nations, the greatest nation in the world. Why? Because women showed up, and got men doing what men are supposed to do. That is what marriage does.

So which is it?  Did something mysteriously happen to men in the last few decades that made them (in Stanton’s mind) shiftless losers?  Or have men always been shiftless losers, and Stanton’s recent screed is just a long winded way of yelling get off my lawn?

It gets worse, because Stanton offers himself as an example of a shiftless loser that had to be made into a man by his wife:

My situation, I grew up as a skateboarder in the panhandle of Florida. Surfer. I was a good kid, didn’t get involved in drugs, didn’t do bad things. But that was my life. School, I didn’t spend a whole lot of time in that. So I continued in that, after I got married and Jackie said, “you know what Glenn, here’s how it’s going to be” and what did I do? Okay, I guess I’m going to have to go to college. I was scared to death of college. Didn’t think I could survive there. Didn’t think I could compete there. But this woman was making me do something, this either or, so I went and did it and I became a better person.

Again, I would have never imagined that I get to do the things that I get to do today. Written a number of books, things like that. But I am who I am because Jackie said not you can do it, you will do it. And every man here knows that that’s true. So the bargaining chip for the man is, it’s going to work out better for me if I be what she wants me to be.

It’s quieter at home, she’s more likely to make the kind of food I like, I’m going to get physical access to her more often, and that sound simplistic, but there are those things. So the guy’s bargaining chip is to be a guy, and guess what he finds out it works pretty well for him. And that he’s happier than his “free” bachelor friends.

Here is the video segment the quote above is transcribed from:

Stanton regularly refers to himself as a passive loser in need of constant direction of his mommy-wife.  In his brief bio at Boundless Stanton says that he never picked out and bought an item of clothing for himself until he was 28.  This is one of the most important things Stanton wants you to know about himself:

Glenn T. Stanton is the director for family formation studies at Focus on the Family. He debates and lectures extensively on the issues of gender, sexuality, marriage and parenting at universities and churches around the country. Glenn is the author of four books and a contributor to nine others. He’s a huge Bob Dylan fan, loves quirky movies, and picked out and bought the first piece of clothing for himself when he was 28. Glenn and his wife, Jacqueline, have five children and live in Colorado Springs, Colo.

Although his narrative changes whenever expedient, there is at least some consistency to Stanton’s message.  While Stanton wants to pose as the only real man in the room, he clearly has deep feelings of inadequacy as a man, something he projects onto other men of all eras.

Related:  Stanton’s dilemma

Posted in Courtly Love, Death of courtship, Disrespecting Respectability, Finding a Spouse, Focus on the Family, Glenn Stanton, The only real man in the room, Traditional Conservatives, Turning a blind eye, Weak men screwing feminism up, Wife worship | 130 Comments