Feminism is the parasitic passenger chivalry longs for.

In my previous post I noted that it took me many years of blogging before I recognized that chivalry and not feminism is the primary corrupter of modern conservative Christianity.  This understanding is essential, because conservative Christians are laboring under the assumption that chivalry is a tool to fight feminism.  Part of what makes this so confusing is that chivalry and feminism are often quite difficult to tease apart.  Feminism is fundamentally an appeal to chivalry, which is the essential truth of Dalrock’s Law of Feminism:

Feminism is the assertion that men are evil and naturally want to harm women, followed by pleas to men to solve all of women’s problems.

The fatal conservative error is to assume that doing feminists’ bidding will eventually lead to feminist gratitude.  Conservatives foolishly believe that one more act of valiant chivalry will finally win the feminists over.  Chivalry is a way to strike a heroic pose while cravenly avoiding the terrifying prospect of opposing feminism.  It is cowardice posing as bravery.

Even worse, in the chivalrous mindset feminist expressions of ingratitude are only proof that the chivalrous man is on the right and heroic path.  Persistence in the face of cruel scorning by his lady is the very essence of chivalrous manhood.  As Roger Boase explained (summarizing Gaston Paris, the man who coined the term courtly love):

…the lover continually fears lest he should, by some misfortune, displease his mistress or cease to be worthy of her; the lover’s position is one of inferiority; even the hardened warrior trembles in his lady’s presence; she, on her part, makes her suitor acutely aware of his insecurity by deliberately acting in a capricious and haughty manner; love is a source of courage and refinement; the lady’s apparent cruelty serves to test her lover’s valour

Feminist tantrums are in the mind of conservative men actually positive signs that everything is in order.  Professor Laura Ashe explains in Love and chivalry in the Middle Ages that the chivalrous man’s only response to women expressing ingratitude and irrational demands is to do his lady’s bidding (emphasis mine):

Malory’s ideal of chivalry has love at its heart: ‘thy quarrel must come of thy lady’, he says, ‘and such love I call virtuous love’. Each knight is to fight for the sake of his lady; with his victories he earns her love, and defends her honour. He is absolutely loyal to her and will follow her every command, whatever happens – whether she sends him on an impossible quest, banishes him from her company, or stands accused of some terrible crime, in desperate need of his help.

The pattern for chivalrous manhood was set in the epic that introduced us to Sir Lancelot, the original White Knight.  As the title suggests, central to the plot of Lancelot, the Knight of the Cart is the symbolism of the cart.  Early in his quest Lancelot is forced to ride in a cart of shame in order rescue the kidnapped Queen Guinevere.  Lancelot’s noble romantic love for another man’s wife was so strong that he chose humiliation after only the briefest hesitation. From C.S. Lewis in  The Allegory of Love:

[Lancelot] hesitates for a moment before mounting the cart of shame and thus appearing as a common criminal; a moment later he obeys. He is driven through the streets where the rabble cry out upon him and ask what he has done and whether he is to be flayed or hanged. He is brought to a castle where he is shown a bed that he must not lie in because he is a knight disgraced. He comes to the bridge that crosses into the land of Gorre–the sword-bridge, made of a single blade of steel–and is warned that the high enterprise of crossing it is not for one so dishonored as he. ‘Remember your ride on the cart’, says the keeper of the bridge. Even his friends acknowledge that he will never be rid of the disgrace.

But the moral of Lancelot, the Knight of the Cart isn’t just that the noblest of knights would gladly humiliate himself in the service of adultery.   This kind of debasement is essential for chivalry, but not sufficient.  A true chivalrous man will not only gladly dishonor himself for his lady, he will do so expecting not gratitude but scorn in return.  Lewis continues:

When he has crossed the bridge, wounded in hands, knees, and feet, he comes at last into the presence of the Queen.  She will not speak to him. An old king, moved with pity, presses on her the merits of his service…

It is only later that [Lancelot] learns the cause of all this cruelty. The Queen has heard of his momentary hesitation in stepping on to the trumbril, and his lukewarmness in the service of love has been held by her sufficient to annihilate all the merit of his subsequent labours and humiliations.

This is merely the beginning, setting the stage for the right and appropriate relationship between the chivalrous man and his lady.  Lancelot further humiliates himself when she instructs him to do so, and then fights valiantly when she demands valiance.   Our hero’s eagerness to bear his lady’s capriciousness is eventually rewarded with glorious adultery (purified by romantic love).  When Guinevere is then rightly accused of being an adulteress, Lancelot gladly fights for her honor.

This is chivalry’s lesson of virtuous manhood, modeled by the original Whight Knight himself, and it is why every round of feminist demands is so eagerly accepted by conservative men.  Chivalrous men know in their hearts that they are secretly winning.  Sure they are currently humiliated at every turn, but they know that with just a bit more chivalry they will ultimately triumph and finally become recognized as the epitome of virtuous manhood.

Related:

Advertisements
This entry was posted in C.S. Lewis, Chivalry, Courtly Love, Dalrock’s Law of Feminism, Feminists, Sir Lancelot, Traditional Conservatives, Ugly Feminists. Bookmark the permalink.

61 Responses to Feminism is the parasitic passenger chivalry longs for.

  1. 7817 says:

    Are chivalrous men, as enforcers of feminism, the real problem?

  2. Anon says:

    Are chivalrous men, as enforcers of feminism, the real problem?

    Yes. Next Question.

    ‘Feminism’ would not exist if not for the majority of men willing to do anything to avoid disagreeing with it. Note that ‘feminism’ is the end result of any democracy. At the moment, 70-80% of all government spending is a net transfer from men to women.

  3. Damn Crackers says:

    How many writers/authors wrote against Courtly Love? Were they considered reactionary religious nutters?

  4. ChristianCool says:

    @Dalrock said: “….it took me many years of blogging before I recognized that chivalry and not feminism is the primary corrupter of modern conservative Christianity”.

    I am starting to agree as well. Men allow FemiNazism to flourish and the continuation of things like Marriage 2.0, divorce-rape laws, unfair policing practices to abuse of men, and men who defend sluthood and whoredom.

    Feminism, as a form of fear-enforced public policy, is simply the toolkit used by leftwing women (and enjoyed by ALL women) to alter laws, societal norms, and public perception of reality to destroy and enslave men.

    Feminists organize and push for changes that MEN AGREE, even though such things are going to harm men tremendously. 😡 Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) is a perfect example of a White Knight Beta cuck that has enabled and championed radical feminist policies and laws for 20 years.

    Feminism is an enemy, just as white knight Beta men are the enemy. They feed off each other.

    The problem as long as men refuse to take the “Red pill” and see reality for what it is (feminism relies on white knights and that feminists are NEVER grateful and work tirelessly to destroy men through prison or court-ordered slavery), this will never change.

    MGTOW is helpful in this struggle, as MGTOW men refuse to obey feminist orders/protocols, only the Red Pill can truly fix this.

    When men see chivalry and feminism for what they are [takes red pill and see ugly truth of life] and change their behavior based on the understanding of this new reality, we can actually fix this problem. Otherwise, get ready for a cold, endless winter in The West.

  5. Lexet Blog says:

    It’s not surprising that “$hit testing” developed in the era of chivalry. Peasants and the merchants married for basic and economic reasons. Royalty married for political reasons. A smaller class of nobles had the luxury of choosing- and demonstrations of valor, wealth, etc. had to be used to scope out the “measure” of a man, as rising class ranks was impassive (for men, save for the rarest occasion). It was highly likely that many of the women would have been forced to marry men who held less property and $$$ than her father, but possessed a title and nominal power.

  6. Anonymous Reader says:

    The fatal conservative error is to assume that doing feminists’ bidding will eventually lead to feminist gratitude. Conservatives foolishly believe that one more act of valiant chivalry will finally win the feminists over.

    This is the macro version of the micro version. Just as an individual man tries to woo his angry wife with more acts of service; more choreplay, more child care,etc. only to find that it doesn’t work, the traditional conservatives continually act as sockpuppets for Feminism, Inc. only to find yet another demand.

    It is a fitness test, and tradcons consistently fail such tests at the macro level.

    Lexis
    It’s not surprising that “$hit testing” developed in the era of chivalry.

    Fitness testing appears to be inherent in the female brain. It’s a feature, not a bug, and it predates agriculture. That’s why it can be such a surprise to both men and women alike.

  7. earl says:

    ‘The fatal conservative error is to assume that doing feminists’ bidding will eventually lead to feminist gratitude. ‘

    Which isn’t even close to what Scripture says. It doesn’t lead to gratitude but domination.

    ‘Do not put yourself in a woman’s hands or she may come to dominate you completely.’ (Sirach 9:2)

  8. “I am starting to agree as well. Men allow FemiNazism to flourish and the continuation of things like Marriage 2.0, divorce-rape laws, unfair policing practices to abuse of men, and men who defend sluthood and whoredom.

    Feminism, as a form of fear-enforced public policy, is simply the toolkit used by leftwing women (and enjoyed by ALL women) to alter laws, societal norms, and public perception of reality to destroy and enslave men.

    Feminists organize and push for changes that MEN AGREE, even though such things are going to harm men tremendously. 😡 Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) is a perfect example of a White Knight Beta cuck that has enabled and championed radical feminist policies and laws for 20 years.

    Feminism is an enemy, just as white knight Beta men are the enemy. They feed off each other.”

    @ChristianCool

    Great points Christian. But I think the worst enemy we have is not even the radical leftist feminist. But the weak soyboys that defend those crazy chicks with false hopes, that doing so will lead them to sleep with them.

    It’s a quite sad to see men so weak and desperate to find a girl to the point that they become sellouts to this toxic ideology. They truly deserve to be looked down upon. I hope these kind of men only find the worst types of girl to date until they man up and stop defending these self-destructive ideologies.

  9. Damn Crackers says:

    @Earl – Sirach and the other Wisdom books should be adopted as Scripture for all Christians! I’m not sure if it would change any of the “androphobia” in the Church, however.

  10. Lexet Blog says:

    True, but I think it can be fostered to unhealthy levels by social norms, which the chivalry era did (through its tales that lasted until today).

    Biology plays a role, and culture/norms/values play a role. I believe parental intervention in relationships of yesteryear served as a dam to minimize this behavior, and outsource testing to authority figures.

    We live in a society where this testing is at an extreme form.

  11. Lexet Blog says:

    When we have fags like piper, chandler, and Keller speak on behalf of modern day reformed theology, this is not surprising.

    And I say that because those men are effeminate and sometimes flamboyant, which is disgraceful.

  12. anonymous_ng says:

    @The Question –
    This one was pretty interesting as well – https://www.patheos.com/blogs/gloryseed/2018/06/is-this-evangelicalisms-red-pill-moment/

  13. ChristianCool says:

    @Captain Roark says: “I think the worst enemy we have is not even the radical leftist feminist. But the weak soyboys that defend those crazy chicks with false hopes, that doing so will lead them to sleep with them.”

    True that! I went to a comedy club to see a stand-up rockstar. This soyboy was trying to impress this one girl and they BOTH kept yelling “shut up!” and “fu#k you!” to the comedian! This went on for about 20 minutes and to my great amazement, the club staff did NOTHING, even though the club was “heckle free”. 😮

    Despite being a cool-headed guy, I just had it. I turned around, stood up, looked straight at this soyboy beta and said “hey, shut the fu#k up both you lil’ bitches!”. The girl he was trying to impress looked at me with shock and horror and couple minutes later, they both got up while show was still going, said nothing, and left. The audience sitting around this rude couple clapped and said “go, go, don’t come back”.

    You should see here at my campus (I am 2nd year law student). It is SoyBoyVille, USA here. The dudes, even the straight ones, are extremely beat and weak. I am 36, not an old foggy and I sometimes get shocked to see these soyboys try to hit on girls, because I just assumed they were gay. Even at church, I was visiting this church a few years back and this “pastor” was so beta and so effeminate I thought this was a “gay marriage” church… but that same day I met his pregnant wife…. so go figure.

    But here at school, most dudes are skinny, feminine, and easy to scare. Even the black guys who are not gay act extremely effeminate, are skinny and have a “mannerism” (for lack of a better term)…. And regardless of race/ethnicity they are all hardcore white knights. Hardcore, even worse than at church or in grade school because they have been required to take classes in feminism and “oppression” (micro-aggressions, bias, privilege, etc) they get even worse.

    The soyboy betas are a just another manifestation of White Knighthood. Christians do it because they see it as “godly” and leftwing soyboy betas do it because, as you say, they hope for some pity sex from the crazy feminist broads and because they have been indoctrinated as cucks their whole lives.

    This goes back to Dalrock’s point: feminism, especially Christian feminism, is so reliant upon white knights and “chivalry” that if men Red Pilled or at least MGTOWed and stopped white knighting for crazy broads, we real men could straighten out this mess our society is in.

    But I wonder given the level of indoctrination I have seen from Millennials at the campus, I wonder if there is even any hope we can turn this ship around.

  14. tweell says:

    Interesting. The Lancelot legend was originated by Chretien de Troyes, a poet attached to Marie de France, eldest daughter of Eleanor of Aquitaine. We know that Eleanor sponsored (paid) multiple writers to create romances, her daughter seems to have kept that going. Eleanor of Aquitaine, the hamster that put Romantic Love and Chivalry on the map!

  15. Anonymous Reader says:

    @Lexet
    Please learn how to quote text or at least use the @ symbol. You might be responding to me on the topic of fitness testing, but it is not clear. Assuming that is true:

    True, but I think it can be fostered to unhealthy levels by social norms, which the chivalry era did (through its tales that lasted until today).

    So?

    Biology plays a role, and culture/norms/values play a role. I believe parental intervention in relationships of yesteryear served as a dam to minimize this behavior, and outsource testing to authority figures.

    So?

    We live in a society where this testing is at an extreme form.

    True. So what do you suggest be done about that? What action do you personally take?

  16. Pingback: Feminism is the parasitic rider chivalry longs for. | Reaction Times

  17. Lexet Blog says:

    Likely not many in past times. I have seen writings as far back as the 1970s discussing courtly love as a way of making an oppressive society momentarily better for women: by showing deference when it generally was never given; although at the same time the legend of primae noctis and common cuckoldry existed.

  18. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Guido the Gimlet of Ghent: A Romance of Chivalry is a hilarious short story parodying medieval romances. It appears in Stephen Leacock’s Nonsense Tales, his collection parodying various literary genres.

    An excerpt:

    The love of Guido and Isolde was of that pure and almost divine type, found only in the middle ages.

    They had never seen one another. Guido had never seen Isolde, Isolde had never seen Guido. They had never heard one another speak. They had never been together. They did not know one another.

    Yet they loved.

    Their love had sprung into being suddenly and romantically, with all the mystic charm which is love’s greatest happiness.

    Years before, Guido had seen the name of Isolde the Slender painted on a fence.

    He had turned pale, fallen into a swoon and started at once for Jerusalem.

    On the very same day Isolde in passing through the streets of Ghent had seen the coat of arms of Guido hanging on a clothes line.

    She had fallen back into the arms of her tire-women more dead than alive.

    Since that day they had loved.

    The full story: http://www.online-literature.com/stephen-leacock/nonsense-novels/4/

  19. Pingback: Feminism is the parasitic passenger chivalry longs for. | Dalrock – A Curious Occurance

  20. Acksiom says:

    >But I think the worst enemy we have is not even the radical leftist feminist. But the weak soyboys that defend those crazy chicks with false hopes, that doing so will lead them to sleep with them.

    Or maybe the worst enemy is guys like you who think even more greedy, exploitative blaming and shaming of men will fix problems being driven by greedy, exploitative blaming and shaming of men in the first place.

    >It’s a quite sad to see men so weak and desperate to find a girl to the point that they become sellouts to this toxic ideology.

    And it’s even “a” [sic] quite sadder to see men so greedy that they’ll double down on the institutional exploitation of their fellow men through blaming and shaming.

    >They truly deserve to be looked down upon.

    Maybe, but if they do, then you deserve it even more.

    >I hope these kind of men only find the worst types of girl to date until they man up and stop defending these self-destructive ideologies.

    And I hope you stop trying to drive down their compensation for taking on their traditional responsibilities and start doing something about the conditions that deny them any better choices.

    You bash these guys because you don’t want to pay them what the social market increasingly allows them to set as their price for doing things the old way. You’d rather run them down to other people than lift them up, simply because you’re greedy.

  21. The Question says:

    @ anonymous_ng

    That was a good read.

  22. Burner Prime says:

    This essay is right and a perfect example is the Z-Man who thinks the grand solution to society’s ills is chivalry: We can win over bull-dyke feminists by opening doors for them whereupon they will magically transform into submissive and feminine flowers – smitten by our manly good manners.

  23. freebird says:

    It’s not just the weak soy boys hiding behind chivalry to gain status in the gynosphere.
    (The Herd)
    It’s is also the most common vehicle for extending social abuse to lessors in the society with less power,status,or standing. (other)

    Take the case of the Blue Knights.
    This man,who is trusted not to lie,will lie in court to please a female prosecutor,to secure his job,to get tail on and off the job, to achieve his own status in the corrupt gynosphere.

    Take the case of a player doing AMOG.
    Many of his tactics to secure pussy are the (*exact) social equivalent of giving out hits on the football field or any other place of competition.
    The AMOG will not only secure his own pussy by doing *Implicity pussy-pleasing things,
    he will over-do-it as a scorched earth tactic of denying other men pussy
    (By implicitly denigrating other men’s manhood,to secure his standing in the gynosphere.)

    Perhaps this is where the readers got the idea that The Game was counter to Christianity.
    Because it is.Xian and most other religions was established to see the beta male succeed not to be plowed under in the competition.

    The conflation here is that writers have said The Red Pill is counter to Christianity.
    It is NOT.

    Feminism would not stand w/o soyboys,maybe.
    Feminism would not stand with the aid and comfort of powerful men,FOR SURE

    This cunting sickness extends into the heart of every man.
    The Power the society used to give to men to level the playing field by the idea of
    sharing and displacement rather than zero-sum mentality is NOW GONE.

    The Church DIED when it decided to put women in power.
    The society DIED when it slams men down.
    All this death being distributed under the pretense of *virtue signaling.

    Being a philosopher can carry the sickness of the soul that comes with seeing Truth.
    This is why suicide is becoming more popular among men (white men)
    aged 50-56 years of age.
    This is the age a man begins to understand life using his own experience.

    The fact is,without the social constraints prescribed by religion we are truly just Naked Apes.
    Nothing more.

    Here’s a big FUCK YOU to the MEN at the top who Benefit from gynocentricity.

  24. freebird says:

    Short hand distillation.
    Comparision to monetary economics hold.
    1.Zero-sum mentality.Competition.has been called taxation and spending (RHINO) also
    has been called socialism.
    2.Creationist. Believes more can be produced.Co-operation.”Conservatives”
    (I have to use that term with caution,it has lost it’s meaning)

    Money,pussy,
    pussy,money.
    You have the supply side denying supply to inflate prices. By slamming demand side.
    You have the demand side “negotiating” by reducing demand by slamming competition.

    Ok,ok enough
    I’m just a stupid hick behind a keyboard,hopefully this inspires some genuine Economist
    to start hyperpolating his own theories.

  25. Hmm says:

    @Earl: ‘Do not put yourself in a woman’s hands or she may come to dominate you completely.’ (Sirach 9:2)

    Amply illustrated (for us Protestants, who place Sirach outside the Scriptural canon) by Samson and Delilah, Jacob and his two wives, and Ahab and Jezebel.

  26. freebird says:

    This is in your interest.The Islamic Party of Ontario is saying the things you should be saying for the same reasons you should be saying them.
    Except they say things that correlate with the 3 “Childrens of The Book,” but in reality have an oppositional view.
    Or do they.
    Maybe it’s YOUR religion that walked away from the Old Testament and left it for Dead.

    Christ is The Word.
    To deny The Old Testament is to deny The Word.
    Engage your principles or lose them.
    https://patriactionary.wordpress.com/2019/01/02/introducing-the-islamic-party-of-ontario/

  27. Anon says:

    Acsiom (in response to Christian Cool)

    This is a difficult game to play, and requires some level of sophistication and long term thinking.

    My wife and I have a very small group of friends IRL who are essentially purple pill. That’s about the best you can do these days unless you are willing (and have the means) to start a red pill commune made up of people we/you meet on sites like this.

    Last night, we were at our friends house and after dinner we retired to the living room and my friends wife said “are you ready for dessert?” He responded “I was just waiting for you to do your wifely duties and bring out the pie.”

    She responded “you will be waiting a looooong time.” To be fair, the comment was in a playful tone, AND this couple is VERY traditional the other 99% of the time. So I wasn’t sure what to make of it. My wife looked over at me with a very discreet sideways eye to see if I was going to say anything, which I did not. She then stood up and asked me which flavor of pie I wanted, and moved to go get it. This is her way of very gently showing that such a comment would not work in our house. Without being bithcy or humble bragging.

    A little later, my friends wife said to him “the kids are dragging their feet on kitchen duties. You need to go crack the whip and make them get it done.”

    Which he did. He got up, went to the kitchen and put on his big voice with “why isn’t this kitchen getting cleaned up?”

    Both she and my wife made some comments about how satisfying that was because “sometimes it takes the dad to get it done.” In theory, this true. But…

    Manly duties? Check. Wifely duties? Loooong time.

    Now, I have some thinking to do. I have not yet decided if I want to bring any of this up with him later, but I probably will. I just need some time to think about what exactly I will say that is not basically “you are doing it wrong.” (And the timing of the comments needs to be perfect). He is a good husband, and a good father. His wife is actually really sweet 99% of the time and dotes on him regularly. I will choose this battle wisely and carefully.

  28. freebird says:

    “It is interesting to notice that this creator of the universe is always a single god, even when many gods are believed in. Equally interesting is the fact that the creator is nearly always a male, although there is no lack of indication of the existence of female deities, and many mythologies make the creation of the world begin precisely with a male god triumphing over a female goddess, who is degraded into a monster. This raises the most fascinating minor problems, but we must hurry on.

    The rest of our enquiry is made easy because this God-Creator is openly called Father. Psycho-analysis concludes that he really is the father, clothed in the grandeur in which he once appeared to the small child. The religious man’s picture of the creation of the universe is the same as his picture of his own creation.”

    “……………He therefore looks back to the memory-image of the overrated father of his childhood, exalts it into a Deity, and brings it into the present and into reality. The emotional strength of this memory-image and the lasting nature of his need for protection are the two supports of his belief in God.”
    https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/at/freud.htm

    Thus you can see that when removing the Father Figure from the Church and family,the very concept of a Supreme Being is completely nullified.

    Thus feminism is the Natural enemy of Christianity,the family,and civil order.
    They must fill the void left by of the removal of The Father ,by witchcraft or assimilation or conversion of the Churches.

    The removal of The Father was the removal of God.
    Men can and will protect a son (or daughter)
    Women cannot and will not protect a son.
    Thus there can be NO God for single mother’s sons. (most of them now)
    Thus there can be NO protection for daughters save the Loco Inparentis
    POLICE STATE
    (Substitute for G-d)

  29. Acksiom says:

    Anon, I was responding to Captain Roark’s male-bashing, not Christian Cool’s me-too-bragging. If you’re trying to make some particular point to me, you’ll need to be a lot more straightforward about it.

  30. Anon says:

    Freebird—

    Exactly right. It’s an expiriment we can all do. Search yourself and you will find the voice of God in your head is the voice of your dad.

  31. Ron Tomlinson says:

    >Persistence in the face of cruel scorning by his lady is the very essence of chivalrous manhood.

    It seems masochistic to me: as if the chivalrous man seeks to be punished by the woman’s scorn in order to pre-empt punishment from God or from his own conscience for any adultery that *may* ensue.

  32. Anon says:

    Acksiom

    My bad on the precision there.

    I was basically agreeing with you.

    As tempting as it may be to ridicule and have contempt for men caught in the matrix, the more effective long term strategy takes skill patience and finesse

  33. Zbignu says:

    Seems like a raw deal to me

  34. cynthia says:

    When you put it like this, it sounds like we’ve deified a type of “battered husband” syndrome.

    For this concept to work – that a man will be rewarded in the long term for short term humiliation- it would seem that his humilation must serve as a lesson to his capricious woman. That she, in turn, is shamed in her haughtiness by his humility and desire to suffer for her. But that is so contrary to how the female mind works, I can’t understand why anybody would imagine chivalry could ever work.

    Why did men (the old court poets, etc) dream up this idea? Is it because men, fundamentally, want to believe that the sacrifices they make in their lives have meaning?

  35. elspeth says:

    @ cynthia:

    Why did men (the old court poets, etc) dream up this idea? Is it because men, fundamentally, want to believe that the sacrifices they make in their lives have meaning?

    I think you’re right. For all the talk of men being drawn to polygyny or polyamory or whatever, it seems as if men are far more drawn to monogamy and the belief in a true love that makes it all worth it than women are. Just my observation.

  36. Anonymous Reader says:

    cynthia
    Why did men (the old court poets, etc) dream up this idea? Is it because men, fundamentally, want to believe that the sacrifices they make in their lives have meaning?

    “Men are the true romantics” — Rollo Tomassi.

  37. Courtly Love, certainly. Not chivalry. Eleanor’s better son Richard I was at his most chivalrous in the Holy Land, where to our knowledge wives and mistresses were absent from the equation.

  38. Sharkly says:

    elspeth says: For all the talk of men being drawn to polygyny or polyamory or whatever, it seems as if men are far more drawn to monogamy …

    If one wife obeys 1 Corinthians 7:2-5, and works diligently, You really don’t need any more. Why take the risk, and why endure the drama, and why pay the cost. And if, on the other hand, you can’t even get one wife to perform properly, what are the chances of managing a team of them so much better that it outweighs all the extra associated costs and negative things that would come with more rebellious and contentious women living in your formerly peaceful bachelor-pad? If you had more than four wives, you’d really need to hire a eunuch to manage them all for you or it would be too burdensome.

    On a separate note, I once heard a polygamist on TV say that 4 was the best number of wives.
    2, always fought and were constantly jealous of each other.
    3, always had 2 wives ganging up on the other 1.
    4, was most peaceful.
    5, or more, and they started ganging up on you to manipulate you.

  39. Dalrock says:

    @cynthia

    For this concept to work – that a man will be rewarded in the long term for short term humiliation- it would seem that his humilation must serve as a lesson to his capricious woman. That she, in turn, is shamed in her haughtiness by his humility and desire to suffer for her. But that is so contrary to how the female mind works, I can’t understand why anybody would imagine chivalry could ever work.

    Chivalry makes much more sense when you think of it as a game of inverting the teachings of Christianity. The Bible tells wives to submit to their husbands in fear and reverence. 1 Pet 3 tells wives to win sinning husbands over through this very submission and demonstration of fear and reverence. Chivalry takes that and inverts it, as a game, ostensibly a mock religion. But now nearly all Christians think the mockery is the original.

    Why did men (the old court poets, etc) dream up this idea? Is it because men, fundamentally, want to believe that the sacrifices they make in their lives have meaning?

    Chrétien de Troyes says the Countess of Champagne dreamt it up, and he obeyed by writing the story she told him to write:

    Since my lady of Champagne wishes me to undertake to write a romance, I shall very gladly do so, being so devoted to her service as to do anything in the world for her, without any intention of flattery. But if one were to introduce any flattery upon such an occasion, he might say, and I would subscribe to it, that this lady surpasses all others who are alive, just as the south wind which blows in May or April is more lovely than any other wind. But upon my word, I am not one to wish to flatter my lady. I will simply say: “The Countess is worth as many queens as a gem is worth of pearls and sards.” Nay I shall make no comparison, and yet it is true in spite of me; I will say, however, that her command has more to do with this work than any thought or pains that I may expend upon it. Here Chretien begins his book about the Knight of the Cart. The material and the treatment of it are given and furnished to him by the Countess, and he is simply trying to carry out her concern and intention. Here he begins the story.

    But this still leaves the question of why men loved it so, and why so many still do. Chivalry is an indictment of the weaknesses of both sexes. It is Adam and Eve and the fall all over again.

  40. ChristianCool says:

    @cynthia says: “why anybody would imagine chivalry could ever work. Why did men (the old court poets, etc) dream up this idea? Is it because men, fundamentally, want to believe that the sacrifices they make in their lives have meaning?”

    That is because men, especially young men, always tend to want to believe in the best of people, especially women. Young men fall in love with women first and allow themselves to become brokenhearted by a woman’s action.

    Young men are the romantics of life, not women. Young men are idealists. Romance and chivalry are the results of dreams and fantasies of young men.

    But fear not – men after change drastically after age 30. Experience grants most men get their PhD from the “School of Hard Knocks” and unlike women, men learn from such experiences. Most men do not make same mistakes over and over again.

    That is why if a man does not marry by his 30s, chances are he never will. Experience teaches him marriage is a terrible deal for them. They grow out of their romantic mindset. I myself was quite the romantic, hero-type back in my early 20s. I matured much faster then most men and by the time I was 24, concepts of chivalry, being a hero to a stranger, and “romantic love” were replaced by the realities of life.

    But worry not! The new generation of young men (Millennials and Gen Z) are growing up never knowing such things as chivalry or romantic love. They are taught women are superior to them, they have no motivation, and they think everyone should be treated equally, so treating women better/privileged will likely die in that generation.

    These young men are being raised and educated under a feminist utopia where hook-ups using a cell phone and fear of being falsely accused of crimes make them take very few risks in life. Things like opening doors or marriage will be a distant memory in the next 20 or 30 years.

    And I am happy to see this will be the case. The whole treating women with such privileged has been a disaster for our society anyway.

  41. The Question says:

    @Dalrock

    “It is Adam and Eve and the fall all over again.”

    To be honest, I came to this conclusion recently. Everything wrong in the West today boils down to the fact that the men act like Adam and the women act like Eve.

    Once you start to look for it, it is everywhere: Women controlling their men who are “leading” by following the woman’s direction. As a bachelor, I sometimes don’t appreciate the extent to which I control my daily affairs compared to a man in a relationship of some kind or, better put, the extent to which a married man’s life is controlled and predetermined by the wife.

    It is also the number one problem I encounter in trying to accomplish pretty much anything with other men in these situations. Everything is predicated upon how the wife/GF feels about it, and those feelings can change without warning and for no reason. And don’t bother trying to tell these men that they need to get a backbone and say no.

    It’s impossible to miss it, but I think people don’t see what’s wrong with it, because the foundation upon which this relationship is based – the chivalry model – is considered the correct one.

  42. Anonymous Reader says:

    J.J. Griffing
    Courtly Love, certainly. Not chivalry.

    Whoosh! What’s that sound over your head? Is it a bird? A plane?
    Maybe one of Don Quixote’s giants?

  43. Anonymous Reader says:

    The Question
    It’s impossible to miss it, but I think people don’t see what’s wrong with it, because the foundation upon which this relationship is based – the chivalry model – is considered the correct one.

    Unthinking, unreasoning deference to women is everywhere. It’s gynocentric, it’s in the water – literally in the case of bisphenols – and in the air.

    It is what we have all been carefully taught, and it’s not easy to see without The Glasses. Strange that reality isn’t obvious, but that is the case.

  44. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock
    But this still leaves the question of why men loved it so, and why so many still do.

    Again, men are the true romantics, women’s biology leans heavily pragmatic.

    Part of romanticism is idealism, and to a lot of men Chivalry ought to be true regardless of what actually is all around them. My reference up thread to Don Quixote is not random…

  45. Lost Patrol says:

    @ J. J. Griffing

    Eleanor’s better son Richard I was at his most chivalrous in the Holy Land, where to our knowledge wives and mistresses were absent from the equation.

    It’s hard to have a war without a woman turning up somewhere. I recently read “The Templars” by Michael Haag. He reports that Eleanor of Aquitaine herself accompanied her husband Louis VII on the Second Crusade, which he led, though apparently not effectively.

    Regarding Eleanor, Haag writes – “…and upon her arrival in the East lost no time in embarking on a flagrant affair with her uncle Raymond of Antioch.”

    The Countess of Champagne that Dalrock references a few comments up thread, Chretiens’s patroness, was none other than Marie of Champagne, Eleanor’s daughter.

    Some of this courtly love and chivalry evolution was a veritable self-licking ice cream cone.

  46. Fiddlesticks says:

    When I was growing up, I heard the chivalrous urban legend below repeated by two different assistant pastors. We Evangelicals love this stuff! Hot blonde s***-tests her pen pal by posing as an old broad.

    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-rose/

  47. Acksiom says:

    @Anon — Thank you for explaining. it seems we’re addressing the problem from opposite levels. You’re focusing on how to lead individual men out of these troubles, and I’m focusing on understanding the conditions that create the troubles for everyone in general.

  48. Paul says:

    @freebird Thus feminism is the Natural enemy of Christianity,the family,and civil order.
    They must fill the void left by of the removal of The Father ,by witchcraft or assimilation or conversion of the Churches.

    @Dalrock It is Adam and Eve and the fall all over again.

    For convenience, I will repeat what I wrote at Bnonn’s blog (sorry if the quote is considered too long) in discussing the significance of the Adam-Eve pattern and its applicability for today’s (corrupted) view on men and women.
    https://bnonn.com/are-women-made-in-the-image-of-god/

    I don’t believe it is by accident only that over the last couple of years I have been delving into man-woman identity against the background of both post-modern feminist abominations, and biblical hints, and started to wonder about the meaning of ‘man’ created-in-the-image-of-God, just as some other Christians are starting to wonder about the true nature of man-woman identity as well.

    That said, I disagree with Bnonn, but just as him, I’m aware I don’t have full answers, yet. Let’s just say that we need all the saints to fully understand God’s wisdom.

    First of all, Bnonn is very selective in his texts. The most important text that put me on the trail of males in the image of God, and females not, is the 1 Cor 11:7 text: “A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.” Although not explicitly stated, it strongly suggest woman is NOT the image of God.

    Second, having Adam translated as ‘mankind’ and seeing ‘man’ as being representative all of humans, including females, and not as Adam only, is missing an important point: the very reason all humans are called ‘Adam’, is that ‘Adam’ as well as being the first created ‘man’ out of the earth, as well as being male, is the very representative of all humans, something that is clearly seen further on in God addressing Adam (not Eve) when talking about the sin of Eve, and in the NT references of the first Adam representing all humans.

    It is very telling how most NT ethics about male and female behavior, about marriage, divorce, head-covering (!), teaching (!), are grounded in the exact Genesis texts we’re addressing. It is very clear these texts not only tell how Adam and Eve behaved, but act as a clear guidance how all males and females should behave. Therefore these texts combined with their application in the NT hold the key to properly understand male-female identity, role-models, and behaviors.

    To go back to the Genesis text, what many commentators and exegetes, including Bnonn, fail to see in the Gen 1:27 quote, is that at the moment this is said, it is only a summary event of what is expanded in chapter 2. “in the image of God he created him” is clearly talking about Adam being created out of the earth, directly receiving the breath/Spirit of God, whereas “male and female He created them” refers to the moment both Adam and Eve were created, with Eve being created both AFTER Adam and OUT OF Adam, two theologically VERY significant events. The “in the image of God he created him” cannot therefore not immediately be extended to the creation of females.

    Therefore the “in the image of God he created him” seems to more properly refer to Adam only, which would better fit the 1 Cor 11:7 text.

    Of course, because Eve, and by extension all females, was created OUT OF Adam, she would naturally share many aspects of Adam’s essence, but obviously not ALL of them. That’s of course why she was created in the first place, because of all the helpers God already created, she was the only one to please Adam, being ‘bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh’.

    More importantly, having a clear distinction between males and females, including males being created in the image of God and females not, establishes at least four important points:

    1. God the Father (!) is male, NOT female, NOR a mixture of male and female, and we can understand more of Him by looking at male qualities. (This is not to say that as the Creator of the female, we cannot likewise learn about Him by looking at female qualities. Furthermore as the female was created out of the male and by God, typical female qualities might be hidden in males and/or God)

    2. Likewise, God the Son (!) is male.

    3. It reinforces the ordering in creation with the male carrying important spiritual responsibility

    4. It denies a false view on male-female duality where we can only ever hope to reach spiritual fulfillment by including ‘the feminine’ in our human identity. This has been the basis of all kind of false views on the feminine being spiritually superior to the ‘brute’ male views of spirituality. That ranges from the Mother Goddess cults, to the fertility cults, to woman-worshipping chivalry, to modern feminism that elevates the female into superior position while destroying the male.

    As a side-note: it’s interesting that biologically speaking we have confirmation of the female-out-of-male order when looking at DNA; only males have an X and a Y chromosome, whereas females only have two X-s.

    and

    As you’re putting too much into the meaning of women NOT being created in the image of God, let’s discuss the significance of it.

    First, I want to establish that because women are created out of men, being “bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh”, they are in many aspects VERY similar to men. Still, it’s obvious both from Scripture and from Creation, men and women are not in all aspects equal.

    The most obvious differences between men and women are the biological differences, which are mainly focused around differences in reproductive design. On the psychological level differences exist, but these usually are less absolute, and often only show up at the statistical level.

    The significance of Adam being created in the image of God and Eve not, is NOT explicitly spelled out in Scripture, so we need to ponder about it. Obviously Adam is not God, and if we look at the meaning of the Hebrew ‘tselem’ or the Greek ‘eikoon’, we find ‘image’, ‘likeness’, ‘replication’. It’s also used of the idols of ‘gods’.

    First of all, only Adam, not the other living creatures are created in the image of God, and of all living creatures, Eve resembles Adam more than any other creature, and therefore also (at most partially) reflects aspects of God. So in which aspects Adam is uniquely like God, but animals and Eve are not? We’ve seen that Adam and Eve are interpreted by Scripture as pattern for all males and females, so by extension we can rephrase: in which aspects males are uniquely like God, but females are not?

    An interesting first take is the following: we know the incarnate Son of God the Father was fully male, as he received the sign of the covenant by circumcision on the eight day. It is very well possible, and it has been historically the position of multiple church fathers, that the pre-incarnate Son of God the Father also manifested on several occasions as THE Angel of the Lord, but also possibly was present in the garden of Eden, where He walked and talked to Adam and Eve, even possibly brought all the animals to Adam to have him name them. We know that God the Son ascended to heaven, and will descend from it again in human form, placing his feet on the mount of Olives. So the human form of God the Son might be continuous throughout human history, with a special situation with his birth through the virgin Mary. From a trinity perspective it might be argued that God the Father is the eternal, invisible, whom no one has ever seen, whereas God the Son is the visible who manifested in space and time and showed himself to humankind. We also know that it was through the Son that all things were created, including Adam and Eve. If we interpret the creation of Adam in this light, and it was indeed the pre-incarnate God the Son present in the garden with Adam, then the creation of Adam in the image of God could also be interpreted as being literally created in the image of the manifestation of God the Son.

    This is not to say, in the above interpretation, that the physical appearance would be the only aspect in which males are created in the image of God. I’ll keep that for another post.

  49. Swanny River says:

    Adam and Eve all over again, but not quite – Revelation 17 describes a temporary end point, “I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of those who bore the testimony to Jesus.”

  50. info says:

    @Paul

    Really reinforces the point of God the Son manifesting in the flesh as male.

    Colossians 1:15
    ”The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. ”

    I don’t know if its a coincidence or not. But every bodily form that angels took on is not as people thought androgynous but clearly distinguishable as young men.

  51. info says:

    @Swanny River
    ”I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of those who bore the testimony to Jesus.”

    That’s how civilizations were represented repeatedly in the OT(Isaiah 37:22)(Zechariah 2:7) and many other examples.

    They are presented as women.

  52. The Question says:

    Now that I think about it, the courtly love/chivalry model explains a lot of weird things I see going on. According to this model, the man has to win the favor of the woman, i.e. he initiates and seeks her out and must continually maintain that favor. That notion has no biblical basis, but it is firmly entrenched into modern Western society.

    Ever notice that for all the talk about feminism and gender equality and women being just as strong and independent as men, there is absolutely no discussion whatsoever about women initiating romantically with men? Feminists don’t discuss it, and it is never encouraged. There is no effort to have women spend three months’ salary on buying the man something he wants.

    I’ve brought up the idea as a suggestion, and it is amazing to see how people respond, particularly those who try to be tradcon and feminist at the same time. The replies include “women aren’t like that,” “that’s not how it works,” “no woman will do that, so deal with it,” and “well, women like being old fashioned by having men ask them out, it’s romantic.”

    I’m sure women don’t like the risk of rejection and all that, but I think it’s also because it violates the chivalry model they’ve been raised on in which they don’t have to do anything; it’s all on the man.

    A friend of mine was once chatting with some woman and asked them what they felt like they needed to do to attract a man. One of the girls honestly said the idea never occurred to her.

  53. freebird says:

    “The woman” refers to the apostate church,Mystery Babylon,The Harlot on the shore.
    Drunk with blood of saints: Blasphemy,possibly actual church Elimination tacts during
    The Tribulation.

    Some cases the church IS the state..

    “I don’t know if its a coincidence or not. But every bodily form that angels took on is not as people thought androgynous but clearly distinguishable as young men.”

    The postulation was that Pre-Genesis (The earth was MADE void and w/o form)
    That fallen angels populated the earth this spurring God to destroy all of creation and begin again starting with Genesis.

  54. “The fatal conservative error is to assume that doing feminists’ bidding will eventually lead to feminist gratitude.”

    Negotiating desire….

    Can’t. Work.😎

  55. Lee says:

    Dalrock
    The root cause of what corrupts sexuality and marriage is transcendence. This satanic inspired spirituality will attach itself to anything it can use, including chivalry. Remember, sexual corruption existed long before chivalry was even on the map.
    The spirituality of the bible and what our society formerly embraced is immanence. The conservative always sounds out of place and even a little creepy because they are mixing and matching two opposing spiritual realities.

  56. gynocentrism says:

    “In my previous post I noted that it took me many years of blogging before I recognized that chivalry and not feminism is the primary corrupter of modern conservative Christianity.”

    Brilliant. That right there is the hard truth.

  57. Derek Ramsey says:

    Dalrock’s Law of Feminism (“Feminism is the assertion that men are evil and naturally want to harm women, followed by pleas to men to solve all of women’s problems”) is rearing its head again in the form of the Gillette ad and this:

    “At P&G, we believe that the requisite skills to succeed as leaders in 2018 and beyond include the ability to be empathetic and inclusive. Given the critical role men play in advancing women and in achieving gender equality

    Men are evil. Fix our problems.

    H/T: Gunner Q

  58. Pingback: What it would look like if the Kendrick brothers made razor blade commercials. | Dalrock

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.