After due consideration I have decided to adopt the label unchivalrous Christian. The label is more accurate than anti-feminist Christian, or traditional Christian, because antifeminist and traditional Christians almost always stress chivalry as their strategy for fighting against feminism. Yet chivalry is at the core of the problem and is the crucial enabler of feminism. It is chivalry far more than feminism that has corrupted modern conservative Christianity. Worst of all nearly all conservative Christians mistakenly believe that unchivalrous Christian is a contradiction in terms, when the reality is that chivalry as we know it is and was created as the antithesis of Christianity. Adopting this term both identifies where my stance radically differs from other conservatives, and invites a much needed discussion on the astounding differences between Christianity and chivalry.
What am I rejecting by rejecting chivalry?
In both Christianity and chivalry we are redeemed and sanctified by love. However, where Christianity teaches that Christ’s love (agape) and sacrifice/suffering is what saves and sanctifies us, chivalry teaches us that romantic love (eros), especially the romantic love of a woman, is what saves and sanctifies us. In Christianity Christ suffered undeservedly on the cross to sanctify us. In chivalry sanctification is achieved by the man suffering undeservedly at the whim of the woman.
Where Christianity teaches that marriage makes sex and sexual desire moral, chivalry originally taught that the only pure expression of sexual passion occurred within adultery. Later this was further twisted to the modern Christian assertion that romantic love sanctifies married sex and this in turn created the logical case for no fault divorce.
Where Christianity teaches that wives are to submit to their own husbands in fear and reverence, chivalry originally taught men to submit to other men’s wives in fear and reverence. Later this was modified to teaching men to submit to their own wives in fear and reverence (AKA servant leadership).
Where Christianity commends raw sexual passion between a husband and his wife, and even uses animal imagery to describe how this should look, chivalry teaches that romantic love is superior to the Bible’s sexual passion because it is focused on emotion.
Where Christianity teaches that sex outside of marriage is sinful and shameful, chivalry teaches that it is more noble than married sex so long as it is sanctified by romantic love. Chivalry also teaches that women’s sexual desires are inherently moral, that a woman’s sexual desire for a man is proof of the man’s virtue, and that a good man will not slut shame.
What about our courtship rituals?
There are also a number of chivalrous courtship customs which are commonly mistaken as being Christian in origin. This includes the custom of men picking a woman to pursue and boldly declaring their romantic intentions, men giving women gifts and taking them on paid dates, and men kneeling when proposing marriage. Even where these rituals are in themselves morally neutral, like meat sacrificed to idols they carry the risk of leading us back into familiar patterns of sin. As a result, we should be very careful about which of these we choose to embrace and must always be clear that they are not Christian rituals and at best carry no moral significance.
Does rejecting chivalry mean I have to slam doors in women’s faces and shove past them on the way to the lifeboats?
Chivalry has so warped our perspective to that of a 12 year old boy seeking grand romantic gestures that many struggle to understand how an adult man should think. The doctrine of Women And Children First (WACF) is a prime example. If you are ever on a sinking ship, your wife needs you to keep her calm and lead her to safety. She doesn’t need you to abandon her and your children to the great unknown so that you can imagine yourself a dashing hero. WACF has only rarely been utilized in practice, and for very good reason. WACF injects chaos into a terrifying, difficult, and dangerous situation. In the few times that it has been used women had to be forcibly thrown into lifeboats in order to get them to abandon the men who protected them, the men that they loved.
What healthy grown men understand is that at times men will have to make very difficult decisions in order to protect others. This is noble, and we should not do anything to disrespect the memory of men who have done this or cheapen what they have done. Yet this is precisely what we do when we romanticize WACF. When the Costa Concordia sank, despite the captain going to great lengths to delay both evacuation and rescue, all but 32 of the 4,252 souls on board survived. 12 year old boys may look at that and imagine that the women and children banded together to overcome the chaos of a cruise ship sinking at night, despite several thousand selfish men who gave no thought to their safety. But grown men know that the only possible way over 99% of the souls survived is if the men on board worked together to keep the women and children calm and get them safely off the ship.
But 12 year old boys, including grown men stunted in the thinking of a 12 year old boy, want more than to save over 99% of the lives involved. They want a grand romantic gesture, the Full Titanic Experience. This requires large numbers of men to die, even if this means more women and children have to die in the process. After Concordia sank, Rich Lowry of National Review complained that the rescue of over 4,000 souls was terribly dissatisfying because it lacked chivalric flair, a “grace note”. Where were the grand romantic gestures?*
The Titanic went down, they say, to the strains of the hymn “Nearer, My God, to Thee,” as the band courageously played on. It lent a final grace note to the tragedy. Today, we don’t do grace notes.
Lowry fantasizes that the men on board Concordia were cowards who left the women and children to fend for themselves:
A century ago this spring, as the Titanic entered its death throes and all its lifeboats had been launched, Capt. Edward Smith told his crew: “Men, you have done your full duty. You can do no more. Now it’s every man for himself.”…
“Every man for himself” is a phrase associated with the deadly Costa Concordia disaster, but not as a last-minute expedient. It appears to have been the natural order of things…
Guys aboard the Costa Concordia apparently made sure the age of chivalry was good and dead by pushing it over and trampling on it in their heedless rush for the exits. The grounded cruise ship has its heroes, of course, just as the Titanic had its cowards. But the discipline of the Titanic’s crew and the self-enforced chivalric ethic that prevailed among its men largely trumped the natural urge toward panicked self-preservation.
Grown men know this is nonsense. If men (as a group) had done anything of the sort there is no way that over 99% of the souls would have survived a night time shipwreck in cold waters, when the captain of the ship told local rescue teams they weren’t needed and waited until the ship was badly listing to order the launch of the lifeboats.
More Questions and Answers:
- Q: Sure chivalry was corrupted in the later part of the twentieth century, but wasn’t the original form pure and good?
A: No. From the very beginning chivalry’s teaching on men and women was a parody of Christianity. All of the worst parts of chivalry (as we know it) go back to the twelfth century seminal works, including Lancelot, the Knight of the Cart and De Amore.
- Q: Sure the literary genre of chivalry sold sexual perversion from the beginning. But in historical practice in the UK wasn’t chivalry primarily about masculine virtues such as valor, and not obsessing over women’s sexuality or currying favor with women?
A: No. The oldest and highest order of chivalry in the UK is the Order of the Garter. The order was established in the mid 1300s, and commemorates the time a woman dropped an undergarment in front of the king and the king graciously returned it to her with a warning to observers not to judge her. This wardrobe malfunction and the king’s response was deemed so important that to this day all British passports have an image of the garter on the cover along with the king’s admonition not to judge.
- Q: By “chivalry”, do you mean Song of Roland or Japanese Bushido?
A: No. I mean chivalry as we know it, as the term is all but universally used.
- Q: Do you reject all virtues that chivalry promotes?
A: No. Chivalry claims to promote Christianity even though it is a parody of Christianity. I also don’t reject the virtues of courage, keeping your word, being polite, and protecting the weak.
- Q: Why don’t you use the term courtly love instead of chivalry?
A: Courtly love is a term academics invented to describe the core teachings of what we call chivalry hundreds of years after the fact, and most people wouldn’t recognize the term. Moreover, what academics call courtly love is what nearly everyone today thinks of as chivalry. Lastly, unchivalrous is an existing term that accurately communicates a rejection of the morality of courtly love.
- Q: Is there a problem with men kneeling to propose marriage?
A: This tradition flows from chivalry’s inversion of the role of man and woman in marriage. In this ritual the man kneels (submits) to his lady, replacing and mocking the biblical image of a wife submitting to her husband and calling him lord (1 Pet 3:1-6).
- Q: Sure chivalry was corrupted in the later part of the twentieth century, but wasn’t the original form pure and good?
*It is worth noting that the Concordia sank because it ran aground after its captain changed course in order to make a grand romantic gesture, although he denies that it was to impress his lady fair.
I’d personally prefer something catchier, but I suppose it’s more accurate and it doesn’t really matter.
At this point I’ve come to believe that there is no non-sinful way to pursue marriage, children, or sex in the U.S. The government enforces the ultimate end of the chivalrous ideal, and you can’t even lead your family – you could only do so by your wife’s constant permission.
Not that the average guy can afford a family anyway.
Given Romans 13, I tend to think that the only option left for younger single men like myself is to work, give as much as one can to charity, and hope to die young before our civilization can get around to truly enslaving us.
I believe, and I certainly hope, that most Christians who want to put “chivalry” forward as the ideal Christian man, and especially King Arthur and his knights, have failed to read the source material. Per Malory, Arthur was born as the bastard son of Uther after Uther had demanded the wife of one of his lords, who refused the demand. Uther then goes to war against said lord, who fights him while his wife is secured in a second castle. Uther gains a magical disguise which allows him to enter the wife’s castle and impregnate her. He later kills the lord and takes the wife, who, Malory tells us, is delighted to find out that it is really Uther who is the father of her child. This inverts the story of David and Bathsheba: The adulterous king who takes his loyal soldier’s wife is now a hero for it, and the child borne of the act does not die, but instead is destined to become king.
Next, Arthur knocks up his half sister, who bears Mordred. Trying to undo the damage to his throne, Arthur has ALL male newborn children in his kingdom slaughtered, but Mordred escapes. Thus we have another inversion, as Herod the murderer of the innocent is now the hero of the story. These are just two brief examples from Morte D’Arthur, there are of course many more, but when we see David’s sin with Bathsheba and murder of Uriah celebrated, and Herod’s slaughter of the innocents as the acts of a good king, we see just how perverse this whole idea of chivalry truly is.
Of course, upon reflection, our society doesn’t seem to have much problem with either adultery or infanticide, and churchians are all for killing off husbands whose wives decide it’s time to trade up, so maybe they have been reading Malory.
One of the many ways in which “chivalry” has infiltrated normative intersex relationship dynamics is on the issue of “communication” and vulnerability as a form of courage.
I came of age in the 1980s (I turned 16 in 1987) and from the minute I started to become interested in girls to now, I have never heard the end of the false “truth” that men have a problem communicating their feelings to their love. That showing this vulnerability is somehow “truly” courageous. And also since the beginning, I have never known it to be specifically or generally true.
When a woman says to you that you are being a “typical” male and not talking about your feelings, what usually happens? I bet you a bazillion dollars that your mind starts spinning and thinking of some feelings you would like to share. You may even share them. And guess what? If those feelings are even the least bit yucky, or contain a kernal of truth to them that could be addressed by her making even a modest change, they are summarily rejected.
Even if you couch them using the most psychobabbling, “healthy” formatted script you learned from Dr Feelgood in marriage counseling, the minute you express it, you will be resented for even experiencing the feeling at all.
“I feel rejected and small and like a creep when you tell me no after a long beautiful day together.”
A statement like that is the most beta thing you can say to your wife, even if it is EXACTLY how you “feel.” Even if it took all the “courage” in the world to finally say it.
You see, she wants you to profess only good feelings, and in particular, feelings that paint her out to be the matron of courtly love who saved you from your angry, bitter, closed up self. That’s what is meant by communicating feelings, and nothing more.
Don’t ever use this rubric as a means to solve a problem in the relationship. “You said you wanted me to talk about my feelings!” is a non starter.
It’s something I am working on as a book chapter if I ever finish it. I am also interested in whether or not Rollo has written much on the topic of “sharing feelings” as a supposedly “courageous” act. I know he reads here some.
Anyway, it just occurred to me that “courage” which is ostensibly a component of chivalry has been corrupted beyond repair under the current vernacular.
Thank you Dal, this, in my opinion, is one of the best articles you have ever written.
Great post. Chivalry is but one of Satan’s dung hills.
As a minority adherent to chivalry as a martial code of conduct, I will freely admit that “unchivalrous” trips more lightly off the tongue than “anti-courtly love” and is more easily understood. Thanks for your efforts.
Very concise summary of your Chivalry series. Bravo!
This chivalry series has been very personal for me. I look back with shame at my high school and undergrad years as I worked so hard to be a chivalrous and “nice” guy. I did everything a chivalrous, gentlemanly guy was supposed to do and yet girls just weren’t very interested in me. in college, I ended up getting burned by one girl in particular and the experience so jaded me toward women that I began what I call my asshole phase where i treated girls with indifference and annoyance. Much to my surprise then, they responded enthusiastically and with great interest. That opened my eyes to the true nature of women and began my thinking that something was inherently wrong with what i had always been taught. This series has crystallized the problems with chivalry and confirmed all those nagging thoughts.
I have two young sons now and as they get older I will be teaching them the true nature of chivalry and its inversion of the way God created things to be. This blog will be a great resource in that journey. I have no doubt that I will receive much push back from people around me because I can attest to what Dalrock says, that for most Christians, chivalry and Christianity (ironically) go hand in hand.
Thanks again Dalrock, your blog has been a very helpful in peeling back the curtain and exposing the lies that have infiltrated our churches and their teachings.
Apologies for this slightly off-topic comment.
I used the Titanic in my leadership classes for Boy Scouts. It is rich with lessons about ways to handle emergencies.
The boys’ answers were often illuminating, giving me new insights. One year we had a brainstorming session discussing how Captain Kirk would have responded. A Scout answer: “If Kirk was in command, it would not have hit the iceberg.” That was the most powerful answer. Preventing disasters is better and often easier than responding to them.
Bravo. The rejection of chivalry is I suppose also a refusal to empower the second part of Dalrock’s law of feminism (the insistence that men should solve all women’s problems), so it’s a stone that kills more than one bird.
The woman I’ve been involved with who put the greatest emphasis on chivalry was also a) the most promiscuous, b) the least attractive and c) the one with the least emotional investment in her ex-boyfriends, all of whom had been submissively chivalrous and all of whom she had dumped. All this despite being the daughter of an Orthodox priest.
I ended up dumping her (first time I’d done that) after several months of her complaining that I wasn’t romantic enough. It was a pretty red-pilling experience.
That’s exactly it. No woman can ever be held responsible for anything.
Part of the problem I see you running into is that the concept of chivalry has become more or less equated with male behavior which isn’t overly boorish and crass, particularly to those not aware of its history. I’m not sure how one might initiate a layman here, as quite a bit of work must be done to discredit “chivalry” before adoption of the term “unchivalrous” made sense to him. In the meantime, one strategy might be to downplay “chivalry” while refocusing on biblical wisdom.
For instance if someone at church asked me if I were “chivalrous,” I’d probably shrug my shoulders and ask what that even meant. I’d say that my goal is to love my wife and respect her as the weaker vessel, knowing that I will have to give an account to God one day for all I say and do. Steer the conversation away from a wrong idea of marriage to a correct one.
Reblogged this on A Life Un-Lived and commented:
Dalrock, thanks for another great post, and apologies for reblogging: I’ve learned it’s the best way to keep what I’ve written where I can find it.
I do object to the following. “…Christianity teaches that marriage makes sex and sexual desire moral…” I concur with your larger point: that Chivalry reverses the morality of Christianity. However, I think it is a grave error to imply that “sex and sexual desire” are made moral by marriage. Sex and sexual design are moral per se, without any sanctification. I would argue that a man, upon sexually joining with a woman, thereby initiates the marriage, and by returning habitually to that union, confirms his choice.
The assumption of Christian scripture is that Christian men do not fornicate and do not divorce, therefore, when a Christian man chooses his sexual partner, he is de facto choosing his wife. If he divides sexuality from marriage he is fornicating (or he is an adulterer), and the sin thereby is not sex, per se, but sexual partnership without commitment to his sexual partner.
I anticipate my argument may seem too alike Chivalry, so I’ll flip the perspective. If a woman, likewise, is fornicating (or an adulteress), then she also divides sexuality from marriage, when Christian scripture describes these as one and the same thing. Worse, she cannot, per Christian scripture, give herself to more than a single man at one time without becoming a whore – a woman who quits one “marriage” after another by continually violating each “marriage” in turn.
This, as I see it, is the real danger of fornication and adultery: both rip apart what is a single entanglement, the sexual partnership called marriage, into romance and expedience.
The Christian model isn’t sex made moral by marriage; it is marriage as sex and sex as marriage, inextricably, integrally, inseparably wedded.
If a man has had a number of LTRs throughout his life and then marries the ostensible “last one” he had relations with, which one of them is he married to according to the model you put forth?
Asking for a friend.
Rich Lowry reveals his lack of character by fantasizing about mass death over preferable, outcomes where no one dies.
Comment should read “…number of LTRs, ONSs, and other sub-optimal relationship configurations…”
Okrahead January 21, 2019 at 2:37 pm
”These are just two brief examples from Morte D’Arthur, there are of course many more, but when we see David’s sin with Bathsheba and murder of Uriah celebrated, and Herod’s slaughter of the innocents as the acts of a good king, we see just how perverse this whole idea of chivalry truly is”.
This is disturbing.
Apart from the fact that we’ve al read ”Morte de Arthur” in one form or another, the inversion is plain to see.
Any student of Satanism will tell you that their religion is an inversion of the natural, God-given, God-made (and therefore good) order of the universe. Their Masses are blasphemous parodies of the Mass or of church services where the concept of inversion is used.
You have rightly pointed out the blasphemous nature of the Arthurian tales, as Dalrock has pointed to the inversion of biblical principles throughout our relations between the sexes. It doesn’t matter how that inversion occurs. It just matters that it does.
The Red Pill is deeper than whatever is first imagined.
A point on chivalry:
While formal chivalry included these aspects of courtly love, 1300 is a pretty late date for the establishment of any system of a warrior-ethos in Western Europe. France had already centralized by that point (though the hundred years war would be a massive setback).
The formal code of chivalry existed as much to undermine a true warrior-ethos as it did to undermine Christianity. You can see a similar thing happening in Edo Japan, where formal bushido only came into existence when the Samurai class lost its warrior-ethos and became a bureaucratic and literary class.
A warrior-ethos is no substitute for Christianity. But it’s certainly better than a Satanic inversion of Christian beliefs. At least a warrior can come home and tend to his family, after he has grown tired of fighting.
Ummm Scott, if she finds you attractive or hot per say….you could talk about your feelings to the day ended……..and it wouldn’t matter, it would be “cute” and “endearing” to her. Talk about your feelings or your aspirations and dreams, and hopes??????? Well, If she is not attracted to you. You’re creepy, a wimp, and not mature in her eyes of book.
Again men “pedastalizing” what to say, portray, think and feel on the basis of “what women want”
I’ve seen a gazillion men over the decades from my teenage years as I entered the late 1980’s like you, through college, grad school, the nineties, across the country and world. You could sleep with a teddy bear and suck your thumb……and have pink fuzzy slippers to wear around the house….but if you were “hot” by her standards and to her equally shallow friends…..it wouldn’t matter what his “feelings” were. She knows he’s still thirsty and wants sex.
An engineer I knew at IBM. She was just beautuful. My age. Glasses, but striking…..a killer body. A great attitude. We went to the same grad school back in New York (though we did not know each other, I was a year ahead of her and in a totally different department). I won’t give the usual “she was a ten” but she def was on the other side of the curve looks wise.
This was probably in 1993? 1994?
She friendzoned me immeditaly after I approached her. Our friendship ended by her. She hooked up with my “good looking friend” and it really caused strain, because she wanted me to “tell her more about him, and what he was thinking and feeling” and I said “Why don’t you ask him yourself…you were quick to get naked with him, and ditch me that one night to go to his place while we were out…..it’s not my job to tell you about him. You’ve been naked with him. You know him much better than me.”
I had to play the good sport and balance. I get jealous of my friend, and her choosing him over me??? Well, I’m petty, and immature and “that’s why you’re single”. I call her out, call my friend out for using me to get to her (which he did do) and take a stand like a “real man” and not care??? I am still called petty, immature and I didn’t “fight” and “build attraction” and “can’t handle rejection, and that’s why you are single.”
I noticed that when I quit “helping” her with her stupid relationship issues with him, she ended the friendship” with me rather quickly, even though she was the one who “wanted to be friends”
My guy friend? He got what he wanted. Her sexually. He got transfered to Florida and I lost touch with him a year or so later. SHe did say something that struck me about “women wanting men to open up about feelings”
She said: Jay, we hung out at his place……..we talked for hours and hours……..didn’t hear or understand a thing he was saying. I just wanted him to rip my clothoes off and rape me. He could have been speaking chinese and it would not have mattered. You know how good looking he is. If you could be him for a day….you wouldn’t pass it up.”
So much for operning up about feelings 😉 That was “:another brick in the wall” moment for me about women
Pingback: Call me unchivalrous. | Reaction Times
I’m always at a bit of a loss at how to respond to your comments.
This is because on blogs and in real life I try to be an encourager of men.
Generally I see your comments and the basic gist is “here’s an endless list of crap I tried with women that didn’t work and now I’m really bummed out about it. Friggin women.”
So mostly I just want to say, yep. They can be a real pain.
“This is because on blogs and in real life I try to be an encourager of men”
Depends on the man or men I am guessing 😉
Not at all brother, not at all
You take care and I really hope you get whatever you need from this life
I say it all the tine. That’s what I want for everyone here. No shit
I think this is true in one sense, that chivalry has become a generic term for being polite to women. See the definition I linked to for unchivalrous in the bullets of the op for an example. But if you dig a bit deeper you will find that our “generic” definition of a man having good manners really does come from courtly love. We have internalized chivalry so much we don’t even remember that we did so. As C.S. Lewis points out we can’t conceive of a time before it. So the conversation is still right, even if it takes a bit more time to get there. “Polite to women” means serving and deferring to women. It means being a white knight. It doesn’t mean generic politeness in the sense that if you failed to do the same for another man you would be acting rude. In that case we just call it manners.
“Polite to women” means serving and deferring to women. It means being a white knight
Yeah…..this conversation on this topic is way over my head and beyong my IQ level. I hold the door for a woman behind me because her arms are full with a shopping bad, purse and screaming infant is now equated with being a “white knight”
I guess I should let the door close in her face and then let out a loud fart when she opened the door herself
Opus where you mate?! Gotta contact you so I can go back into hibernation 😉
I will add that if you find yourself in such a conversation you can simply explain that you are talking about romantic gestures relating to a knight and his lady. This is the kind of foolishness that you reject. If they are satisfied with that I would probably leave it there. But if they object you at least have hit at the heart of the issue and can explain why said foolishness really is foolish.
Yes. For this is what we do among men. It is also what Christians did before we learned to worship the holy vagina, the source of goodness and manners.
I don’t know if I should laugh or cry Dalrock….if you are being serious or flaming (goading?) me……..I don’t know really what to think or believe anymore as a man of faith concerning any of these matters…………and if indeed is “what we do among men” well I guess there is indeed zero hope for me
“Not that the average guy can afford a family anyway.”
This is not an accident, it is by design.
“Yes. For this is what we do among men.”
It depends. If I see a guy with his arms full, I’ll hold the door open for him. Or if it’s someone with a cane or a walker. I think it is possible to be courteous without being “chivalrous”.
Of course I was poking at you. You accused me of something foolish so I agreed and amplified. But since I have been unclear let me try to be more clear. Do be polite. Do love and serve your neighbor. This can include treating women differently than men. But examine the customs we have inherited and be careful not to confuse chivalry for christianity.
I believe I’ll just get outta here again. I really am confused on all of this. If you just stated this:
“examine the customs we have inherited and be careful not to confuse chivalry for christianity”
Would have been easier for me, and the countless men you want to reach in our faith if perhaps you stated it like this without a massive series on chivalry, dragons, arthurian legend, symbolism, a crash course in medieval european history, practices and other codes and big words that are kind of out my reach (and a lot of men if truth be told). I may have a degrees and am well read on some topics that I have interest in…..and I can speak a foreign language, but that doesn’t mean I am smart or even intelligent.
“You accused me of something foolish so I agreed and amplified. But since I have been unclear let me try to be more clear”
This statement to me is like the “two whatevers” in Mao’s little red book…….I did this, because you stated this and it was foolish, but I have been unclear….
Muddled even more. As I have become more of a Christian now I am more afraid to speak up with men because of statements like that. I really don’t know if they are being serious or not.
I guess it depends on which man is asking and which man or men “deserves” to be listened to in the Christian sphere
Please let Opus know I would like to meet him in London, and take him out for some beef wellington 🙂
I agree with some of the others, that the term “chivalry” comes preloaded with a connotation of men exercising good manners, kindness, and a sacrificial decency towards women. You really don’t get far until you’ve “reclaimed” the word from its almost universally accepted connotation. While in a lengthy blog post, you might get your point across, and it is certainly correct that chivalry inverts God’s order, I think you’d be better served with a better descriptor, even if you had to make up a new word to name it. Less chance of misunderstanding or having your words misrepresented, by those who would like to discredit you.
I once thought I’d reclaim the word “discrimination”. Discrimination is a very good characteristic to have. However the word has gotten an awful connotation. Long story short; it was a fools errand. You can’t change the connotation of the word accept with a handful of people who know you well, and every new person you meet has to enter your personal reeducation training before they begin to understand that you’re not a Klansman. Try explaining that discrimination is a good thing to a Black female coworker at a large and highly affirmative company. That’s not an easy or safe task. It is far easier just to pick a different word like “Discernment”, and use it instead. Reclaiming words is not for me anymore.
I believe we are to endeavor to change the culture towards righteousness and honoring God. However I think revamping polluted words can be a distraction. At the end of the day many are likely going to think that an unchivalrous person is a man who farts loudly when a woman comes by. Why fight that every day, when you can pick a new term not so preloaded with connotations that need to be dispelled?
Those who followed most of Martin Luther’s teachings were called Lutherans. It might just be easier for me just to tell people I’m part of the Dalrockian Reformation of the church, and direct them here to the website.
I’m always at a bit of a loss at how to respond to your comments.
The only winning move is not to play.
Educating Seventiesjason about social interactions is as fruitful as educating Stevie Wonder about the difference between a 128-color monitor and a 256-color monitor.
You’re definitely on to something in establishing a historical link between chivalry, modern notions of romantic love, and dysfunctional marriage norms among Christians. However, I think there’s a simpler explanation: The belief that women are simply morally superior to men (in extreme form, that women are incapable of moral error). Aidan MacLear calls this belief “Sacral Feminism” (
https://aidanmaclear.wordpress.com/2018/12/29/two-feminisms/) and it explains a lot more than just women divorcing their husbands with the support of the church.
It’s instructive to remember that Malory titled his epic “Le Morte d’Arthur”. Which literally translates as “The Death of Arthur”. T.H. White explains this quite well in his great novel “The Once And Future King”. His point was that the greatness of Camelot was based on sin, at the core of the 3 main characters was sinful conduct and that said sins led to Arthur’s downfall. White stepping away from telling the story to talk about the sins was like a 2×4 between the eyes. Brief interludes in his story telling, but during those interludes, he doesn’t shy away from calling a sin for what it was.
I was 14 when I read this story and I have never since been sentimental about Camelot. In my 20’s, I read the original Malory. A bit of a chore that required familiarity with Ye Olde Englishe to complete. My second major was in English so it was less difficult for me than some. I can say one will definitely find that sin expounded on there. However, it’s too bad it took us so long to recognize the real sin of chivalry against Christianity.
You just disregarded your own advice.
By publicly comparing Jason’s social skills to blindness you have begun to play the game you recommend against.
Furthermore what you said is dishonoring to Jason, and did not need to be said. Indubitably some of what Jason says is right, we’ve not walked in his shoes. What works socially for me, doesn’t ordinarily work the same for everyone else. I’m sure Scott is quite capable of coming to an appropriate conclusion on his own. And Scott likely was trying to be helpful, which is right to do toward our brother Jason. Hopefully Jason is wise enough to ignore your comment and not take the bait. Perhaps the winning move is to try to be a peacemaker and separate those who don’t play nice together.(winning for eternity/inviting mockery in the present) If you think Jason to be volatile or sensitive, why push his buttons? Why do you feel the need to insult him? Don’t reply if you can’t be honest about that.
Oh, STFU. I was communicating specifically to Scott. Mainly because he is a very generous soul, and may waste countless hours on a fruitless task. His efforts are better spent elsewhere.
The length of your comment is indicative of projection. Furthermore, I don’t see you helping Jason. You could do that instead of virtue-signal.
I did attempt to offer Jason some advice that I thought might be helpful, a while back, but I did it privately as a submission at his website. I’m not trying to signal virtue, I’m trying to get you to exercise a little more of it.
Romans 12:10 Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor.
Who needs Feminists to dishonor men, when we’ll publicly disrespect ourselves?
A little levity for y’all, courtesy of the Babylon Bee.
Satire is nearly impossible when real life is this absurd, but the Babylon Bee is up for the challenge.
But what about my own private definition of chivalry that is based on a book I read and a movie I saw and a story I wrote and what about that, huh? Huh?
Women made and enforce the modern situation. I still tend to do things like holding doors, but I try to do it only when I would do the same for a man. They overthrew the existing order and I have yet to see one really seek to overturn it back. They can all live with the results until then. No special actions just because someone is female.
Here is the first key passage from The Once And Future King, this is at the end of the 2nd of 4 parts to this novel:
This is what has stuck with me for years …
This is a fantastic post. Like Sharkly and some others, though, I’m hesitant to publicly embrace the term “unchivalrous” given the connotation. For now, perhaps it will be something limited to discussions with close friends/family (and this blog). In other situations, simply mentioning a word like that can trigger prejudice and dismissal.
Scott, I personally don’t mind the chaos as you publicly attempt to exercise your demons but teeing off on the forum’s owner isn’t cool. Just saying bro.
OT: The Mormon church recently changed its temple ceremony to remove the requirement that wives covenant to “hearken” to their husbands so long as their husbands “hearken” to God. No reasons for the removal of this covenant from the ceremony were given, but presumably the removal was responsive to agitation by offended feminists.
I agree with something Eric posted earlier, which is that there is no correct, non-sinful way to obtain sex for men in America in 2019. I’m honestly not sure how to respond to that. On the one hand, the Bible’s directives are relatively clear, but on the other hand, I mean, come on, who doesn’t want to get laid?
I’m not entirely sure how to square that circle. Sex is an absolute necessity, in the sense that, if we stop doing it, we die out. God also commands us to go forth and multiply. On the other hand, the correct way we’re supposed to go forth and multiply simply is not available in 2019. You feel the need to have sex, and propagate your future, on a subconscious level, and yet the only way God tells us you can have that release is through an arrangement that simply does not exist anymore.
I don’t have any answers for that, it’s just something I’ve noticed. Every man will make his own resolution of that. Some will be celibate, some won’t.
I’m not sure I’m tracking “personal demons?”
”I believe we are to endeavor to change the culture towards righteousness and honoring God. However I think revamping polluted words can be a distraction. At the end of the day many are likely going to think that an unchivalrous person is a man who farts loudly when a woman comes by. Why fight that every day, when you can pick a new term not so preloaded with connotations that need to be dispelled?”
We have to be careful about this kind of approach. Because anything that’s to do with Jesus our LORD and Christianity is in the eyes of many already preloaded associated with various isms and abuses and polluted in its meaning.
We will run out of words that would accurately describe the truths that we would seek to convey.
If we cannot use the word ”Jesus” or ”Christ” which would contain ton’s of negative connotations what alternative would be left?
Would we have to use alternative terms for Jesus or any of the doctrines of Christianity?
I respect your choice to use “unchivalrous”, although the dictionary has “rude” for it, which I don’t like, and a negative is not as good a catchphrase as a positive.
For me the most helpful has been the realization of pedestalizing women, often into (semi-)goddess status as being the core issue. Once I removed the pedestal, the relationship between my wife and me slowly started to become more “normal”.
Later I’ve come to realize how the inversion is so much very anti-biblical. And how much it is coupled to anti-authoritarian views, which are tightly coupled to a rebellion to others and to God the Father.
In that sense, men (and women) need to move from wife-fearing to husband-fearing. It’s amazing how many blue pill men actually fear their wives, and how often women are “in charge”. How different a picture the bible shows:
Eph 5 “Nevertheless, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must fear her husband.”
The fear is the Greek phobos, also translated as ‘respect’. In the same chapter it is used in:
“speaking to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, singing and making music from your heart to the Lord, giving thanks always for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, submitting to one another in the fear of Christ.”
See how this clearly flows from the ‘head’ analogy and coincides with ‘submission’:
“Wives submit, to your own husbands as to the Lord, for the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church. He is the Savior of the body. Now as the church submits to Christ, so wives are to submit to their husbands in everything.”
We need to bring back ‘fear’, next to the ‘love’. Without fear, little obedience, without obedience, little sanctification, and who can face God without sanctification?
Hb 12 “Make every effort to live in peace with everyone and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord.”
I recommend reading this to be aware of the sophistry around the “headship” doctrine by this egalitarian:
Plainly in contradiction to Scripture. Through claiming Kephale to not mean Authority. But “source” or “headwaters”. And other ways of twisting scripture.
Claiming that the greek word for Authority is “exousia” but not “authentein” thereby allowing women to teach scripture and have authority over man.
Removing the pedestal is unchivalrous, and the same people you are afraid will think you are rude for calling yourself unchivalrous will think you are rude for not pedastalizing women. Chivalry is the pedestal. With that said, I would encourage you to manage the conversation as you see fit. If it is easier for you to address the problem with chivalry while taking care to not mention what you are exorcising, then I won’t stand in your way. In my own experience trying to oppose something without naming what you oppose is frustrating for all involved. I would far rather spit it out.
I’m not sure I’m tracking “personal demons?”
I think he was addressing 70sjason actually, but I might be wrong.
Posting here appears to be a form of therapy for 70sjason – he’s not interested in actual advice; those of us here with experience here know the deal. Every good-intentioned response will fail to meet his exacting standards. No harm, no foul, but new folks here- engage at your own risk.
Thanks for the link. Although I’m generally a big fan of Glenn Miller, I was disappointed when I first encountered his take on headship in that article.
Editor of TheObserver, Matt Walsh, thinks we fellas should just incorproate ourselves and then “become a chivalrous knight”
”Thanks for the link. Although I’m generally a big fan of Glenn Miller, I was disappointed when I first encountered his take on headship in that article.”
His suggested reading:
”Feminism and the Bible, Mardi Keyes, IVP: 1995. [This small booklet is the best thing I have read on this subject! Outstanding work…I recommend it to all thoughtful folk.]
Apology to Women: Christian Images of the Female Sex, Ann Brown,IVP: 1991. (The best book I have seen on this subject.)
Woman in the Bible by Mary J. Evans, IVP:1983.
A Dictionary of Women in Church History, Mary L. Hammack, Moody:1984. [Incredible book–lists snapshot bios of outstanding extra-biblical women, by period: Ancient Church History (ad 33-590, 47 entries), Medieval (ad 590-1500, 50 entries), Reformation (ad 1500-1650, 70 entries), Expansion and Denominationalism (ad 1650-1800, 80 entries), Revivals, Missions, Further Expansion (ad 1800-present, 580 entries).]
Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity, volume 1, Carroll Osburn (eds), College Press: 1993.”
All of them twisting the word of God to suit their demonic ideology.
The Link I got this from:
Well I guess I’m an unchivelrous Christian too.
I did not pursue my wife. She pursued me. See https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2018/09/13/feminine-wiles/
Paid dates were nearly non-existent. I recall one. We just… were together. All the time. The exception was when she was getting a skittish and acting weird and inconsistent. So I went skiing for a few days, and told her that when I got back, don’t call me or come to my house. Just leave me alone for a week. She told me later that her acting weird was her starting to fear losing me, and when I told her to leave me alone for a week, that made that fear even more real. That was about 5-6 months into our relationship. After she called me when a week was up, that was it and we both knew that we were headed to marriage. That was unspoken though. We never talked about marriage until the day I proposed. She dropped lots of pretty hysterical hints though.
I proposed 6 months later.
I did not get down on one or both knees. She was seated. So was I. I’d heard about guys getting on one knee. I thought I looked like begging.
It’s been 30+ years now. “A long stink’n time”, as she calls it.
“Women made and enforce the modern situation. I still tend to do things like holding doors, but I try to do it only when I would do the same for a man. They overthrew the existing order and I have yet to see one really seek to overturn it back. They can all live with the results until then. No special actions just because someone is female.”
I’ve not put a lot of thought into this, but I do open doors for obviously unattractive women that are carrying something. Attractive women? Nah, they’ve had enough doors opened for them in our culture, literally and otherwise.
I don’t. I want one faithful wife to bond with. Not a community property to have a fun time with. Sex still has implications far beyond the act, along with significant risks that many ignore at their own peril.
That is only true in the context of a committed family relationship. Having children from disconnected sex is one of the major dangers I just mentioned. Want to pay for 20+ years for a fun time? Not a great idea, but not avoidable today, even with a prostitute.
Are you really dumb enough to claim most having sex are looking to propagate themselves? The goal of most today is to have fun without the propagation part, so your claim falls flat.
You are right about the predecided offense. That is why we need to ignore it and promote the truth in love, not cower in the face of possible persecution.
“I was 14 when I read this story and I have never since been sentimental about Camelot.”
Camelot was a powerful meme in the early Sixties, during the height of the Romantic (Pagan) Revival. The play of the same name was a national hit, and despite the fact that the Chosen King of Camelot was ritually and publically slain in ’63 — initiating the Goddess Era — the meme continued for many years in the collective social consciousness.
Ems loves em’s romantic delusions! Juicy n sweet n deadly.
I would also add that the admonition against sleeping around with “whores”, “sluts”, “harlots”, or “loose women” was because they are polluted, disgusting, nasty women who would make you lose your money. It had nothing to do with harming the “hooker with a heart of gold.”
I responded to you here rather than mucking up Dalrock’s comments.
I too read White as a 14 year old as part of my Opus Dei high school’s required list, and it disabused me of many early foundational ideas of courtly love, even if I didn’t really learn the full lesson until my 20s.
Perhaps you’ve done this already, but can you give a concise definition of Chivalry, as you see it?
“But if we reject chivalry, we still want to be nice to women.”
“You can, its called patriarchy.”
Patriarchy from time past, already gave protections to women from war and expecting the husband to provide for his family.
Russia, China, Japan, Korea, India, Mayans. Every civilization (that got beyond mud huts) developed patriarchy as a social technology independently. But they didn’t develop chivalry.
How about Boys Inc.?
Guy writes an article that points out the trouble with lumping all men into one category (the unsatisfactory category), and its central theme is – quote – “men are failing”.
Good job, chivalry guy.
@Paul & Dalrock
Get over it. Western civilization falsely positioned chivalry as the opposite of rude precisely for this effect. Meanwhile, back in the real world, can there be anything more rude than chivalry’s basis, which is (1) adultery and (2) putting the servants in authority over the masters?
Likewise with “authoritarian” and “liberal”. The opposite of liberal just is authoritarian. Conservative is a modifier on liberal (not its opposite) and always has been. With the exception of one friend, everyone reacts to the term authoritarian as if it means evil. It just means authority is good and right, and descends from above. It means hierarchical. Authoritarian republics are entirely possible.
Chivalry and Liberalism have become foundation stones of Western Civilization. The ancient ones were uprooted and replaced. This makes it hard for us to hear when the truth offends our precious sentiments. I love Western Civilization. It is my home and my people, very broadly speaking from a temporal perspective. But from the eternal perspective my home is with Christ and Christ’s people are my people. It is a mistake to think that Christ did not come to save us from the sins of Western Civilization as well as those of other places and times.
To wit, Proverbs 30
20 This is the way of an adulteress:
she eats and wipes her mouth
and says, “I have done no wrong.”
And her chivalrous king replies, “Shame on him who thinks ill of it”.
21 Under three things the earth trembles;
under four it cannot bear up:
22 a slave when he becomes king,
and a fool when he is filled with food;
23 an unloved woman when she gets a husband,
and a maidservant when she displaces her mistress.
Democracy? Check. Welfare? Check. Frivolous marriage? Check. Divorce and remarriage? Check. Sounds like Liberalism to me.
It is a wise admonition.
But I ask you, who are the modern day whores, harlots, sluts and loose women who would “make you lose your money”?
I posit that the harlot is no longer easily recognizable among the general population of modern day women, and that those women who would “make you lose your money” are even less discernible among that same population. Men who decide to devote their lives to the sacrament of marriage are the ones who ultimately lose themselves, lose their money, their children and their sense of self-worth. It is far better for a modern day man to follow the footsteps of Paul, Jeremiah, Nehemiah, Joseph and John.
@constrainedlocus – “I posit that the harlot is no longer easily recognizable among the general population of modern day women, and that those women who would “make you lose your money” are even less discernible among that same population.”
Yes, this is the problem we face not only as a religion but as an entire society as well.
Good girls WERE different from Bad girls even only a few decades ago. Now, our daughters have all become both Madonnas and whores. If I remember the thoughts of Tolstoy correctly, the good thing about all men becoming celibate was that it would make humanity extinct, and thus lead the way for the Parousia.
Proverbs 30:29-31 are instructive too
29 Three things are stately in their tread;
four are stately in their stride:
30 the lion, which is mightiest among beasts
and does not turn back before any;
31 the strutting rooster, the he-goat,
and a king whose army is with him.
Before chivalry, an English king’s army was made up of churls; free men who were called up to fight. Most men were free in this time; perhaps 10% or less were slaves. It is cognate with the names Charles and Carl, which mean manly. I bet they walked like a strutting rooster, or a he-goat. We see bright colors of this idea in our Second Amendment. They have been watered-down as we refuse to give men authority and hold them to account for it, and so trust them less.
@CC : Get over it.
There’s nothing to get over. Dalrock will use “Unchivalrous Christian”, and so can anyone else, but I will not use that name, although I agree with its content, and am thankful for what Dalrock is accomplishing.
Yes, I meant seventiesjason. Pardon me Scott.
@ Cane Caldo
The most clear distinction throughout history, and throughout cultures, between free men on one side, and slaves and serfs on the other, is the authority to own weapons, and the responsibility to carry them into battle.
Whatever you do, always remember that Great is the Artemis of Ephesus, lest your trade come into disrepute.
Imagine that our leaders, instead of mewling and squabbling in D.C., just asked American men to grab their weapons and head to the border to stop the illegal invasion. Even given all the effeminate and anti-American men in the blue regions: How long would it take to shut it down and deter the invaders? How much would it cost the government? A conservative estimate is a week, and something close to zero. Millions would be happy to do it.
It reveals whether our leaders really see us as free or slaves.
@ Cane Caldo
I’d do it. We’d need a few of us Spanish speakers to translate! Am I right?
@CC said: It is a mistake to think that Christ did not come to save us from the sins of Western Civilization as well as those of other places and times.
For those not as well-versed in Biblical thought as you, Christ did not come to save anyone from the sins of Western Civilization or the sins of other places and times. Christ only came to save us from the sins that we ourselves commit. I’m sure you know this. But there may be others who do not.
Someone upthread joked a bit about maybe or maybe not honoring the Biblical requirement that sexual activity occur only within the confines of marriage. I offer the following for some perspective.
Moses gathered the throngs around Mt. Sinai where God addressed the crowds and gave the law to Moses. The thunder of God’s voice frightened the crowd so much that they asked Moses to ask God to never speak directly to them again. Rather, they wanted him to speak through one of the people, someone designated for the role. God complied with the request and never spoke directly to them again. Rather, they were given Kings and Prophets to communicate God’s will to them. (I won’t take the time to find the verses, but they are there.)
The Bible says that, after the resurrection, all will pass before the Judgement Seat and give account for what they did while in the body. I think it is useful to consider that the voice that frightened the Israelites at Mt. Sinai will be the same voice speaking to each of us, one on one. Us being asked to justify our behavior in light of the rules that voice gave us will probably not be a light-hearted moment for us. Particularly if we didn’t take the rules seriously while we were alive.
I never doubted!
I forgot to add above: Now churl, which means man and is still the root of many of our names (Charles, Carl, etc.) is now used to communicate someone rude, or uncivilized. To be manly is to be unchivalrous or uncivilized.
Churls can keep Biblical instruction for men and women. Chivalrous men cannot.
Thanks for the quote from The Once And Future King. It helps me better understand the previous defenses of Malory that I have seen. It isn’t clear to me how subtle Malory was in this regard, but either way I think it is clear that he wasn’t able to change our love for courtly love.
As I understand it in Mort D Artur Lancelot is swept up to heaven when he dies. Is this correct?
@CC Whatever you do, always remember that Great is the Artemis of Ephesus, lest your trade come into disrepute.
I don’t like your sneer. I don’t need your respect, but I think we recently had some discussion about men disrespecting other men and the negative impact it has. You might want to reconsider.
Fair enough. My apologies.
Let me say it this way: Be careful you don’t find yourself as one of those men.
You’ve misread my comment. My only point is that we come pre-loaded with the biological urge to have sex. Normal males with normal testosterone levels want to have sex with a woman. The Bible says the only way to do that is to get married. Biblical marriage is no longer available, because of the laws of man. So, most men have a conflict between their biological desire to have sex, and the commandments that you can’t have sex outside of a Biblical marital relationship.
Really more what I’m commenting on is that there is a great buildup of pressure, pent-up pressure, for a great deal of men. I’m interested in ways that men navigate that on a micro level. Some men learn tricks from PUAs. Some men get hookers. Some men try celibacy, I’m sure. My earlier comment isn’t a recommendation, or even a set of recommendations. It’s more an observation that the only actual Biblical permissible way for men to “release that pressure” is effectively outlawed. I think Eric, from way up top of this comment thread, is right.
I thought I written something that came across as unbearably obtuse and inappropriate and didn’t even see it
@Dalrock. Remember Malory is the one who titles his work “The Death of Arthur”. He was well aware of the downside even if most of his writings centered on the various adventures of the protagonists and their adversaries.
It is Lancelot’s son Galahad who despite his sinful origin is the one knight judged worthy of viewing the Grail and subsequently being swept to heaven, as witnessed by the other two knights of great purity who accompanied him, Percival and Bors. Remember Galahad was Lancelot’s son via Elaine’s deception, when she pretended to be Guenever. Seem to remember that Lancelot himself was shut out of the Grail search due to his sins.
BTW, that’s another irony in the story as pointed out by White: that Guenever herself was infertile (“barren” is the word White uses) while her husband and her lover each had a son by another woman. Seems Galahad was made out to be a momma’s boy, while Mordred grew up with the Orkney brothers and their father Lot and likely became embittered for that experience in addition to being nearly killed by Arthur’s subsequent order to kill male babies of a certain age. Again, White says the sins are part of the narrative, cannot get the whole story without them.
It has been well worth rereading some TH White in the light of red pill and your blog.
Like Sharkly and some others, though, I’m hesitant to publicly embrace the term “unchivalrous” given the connotation.
As Dalrock said upthread: “Removing the pedestal is unchivalrous, and the same people you are afraid will think you are rude for calling yourself unchivalrous will think you are rude for not pedastalizing women.”
Correct, and for that reason I’m perfectly satisfied with being labeled “rude” if this is the definition that society is going to affix to that word.
No, I’m not going to wear it as a badge of honor, but if something considered unpleasant is one of the only correctives to an untenable situation and a term with unpleasant connotations has to be used to describe that corrective, then so be it. “Enema” is a term with unpleasant connotations, but it describes an unpleasant, if necessary corrective. Calling it a “bubble bath” might make it sound more pleasant to sensitive ears and minds, but adopting such a euphemism does not change the nature of what it is or what it does.
Malory’s definitive Le Morte d’Arthur is a repudiation of romantic love and chivalry. Lancelot’s love affair with Guinevere ended a great civilization. Malory is very clear on this. The primary theme of the work is the cycle of sin and redemption, of death and rebirth. Lancelot was redeemed despite his illicit love, not because of it.
Le Morte is full of evil women doing shady things that destroy male camaraderie and male society. It was read by its contemporaries as a warning. It was the Victorians who erred in their interpretation.
If you’re a knight, you’re a brutal warlord who spends half your time training for battle and the other half butchering your enemies. Maybe they could afford a little chivalry without being too degenerate. No place for it in modern society.
LawDog @ 4:31 pm:
“Really more what I’m commenting on is that there is a great buildup of pressure, pent-up pressure, for a great deal of men. I’m interested in ways that men navigate that on a micro level.”
If you can stand then stand. If you can’t stand then aim for the fewest consequences possible and wish you were better. Then try again.
Some problems aren’t meant to have solutions. They’re meant to train & test us.
Right. Also, there is a context here (I’m assuming we are talking face to face).
First, I don’t talk politics, philosophy, or theology willy nilly. You won’t suffer through my thoughts on the world if you happen to sit next to me on a train, airplane, etc, and I expect you to return the favor. There is a level of rapport required before you should talk about anything controversial, and it also has to fit with the flow of the conversation. So the person might be surprised at a point I’m making, but they already know who I am. I’m not making a first impression here, and I’m not coming out of left field.
Second, generally speaking there should be a twinkle in your eye when discussing this topic. Chivalry is truly absurd and that makes it darkly funny. Humor is disarming. Also, chivalry is already starting to be seen as absurd anyway. White knight is more of a pejorative than unchivalrous in most circles. If someone starts to get sanctimonious smirk and tell them you aren’t into the whole white knight thing, with Lancelot fighting for a thot’s honor and kings picking up women’s garters, etc. Depending on the situation you can then either change the subject or (if they really are interested) regale them with hilarious tales of Sir Gawain having a three way makeout session with a dude and the dude’s wife, etc.
For those struggling to make sense of the current scene and to find your way thru the moral thickets to a place of sanctity regarding marriage to a female the single best thing ever put online, by anyone, was by Roissy (CH) on 3/30/12 —- “The reason Beta Males Pedestalize Women.”
Say hello to the read pill…
That harsh sceed is the closest approximation of Gods Own Truth about women that you will ever be allowed to know about. Don’t waste it. Use all of it,,,, for your kids sake.
Another reason to avoid loose women is that they often turn around with a false rape accusation
The feminist lodging the complaint above is the Reverend Rachel Twerk. She’s correct — she and her fellow Commun . . . Reverends should be heretofore referred to a s/h/it. In respect of Inclusion.
Reverend Twerk is joined in her righteous Cause (it’s all for God, remember) by the Right Reverend Jo Bailey Wells. Formerly, Jo Mama Wells. Jo left the mere Reverend nonsense behind and forged upward to achieve (despite the Oppressor Patrirachy) the merited title of RIGHT Reverend but then everybody knows wimmins are never wrong.
Vox Day would, I believe, say, that to describe oneself as an Unchivalrous Christian was poor rhetoric. My preferred method would be to inform my correspondent that his chivalry is not Christian because being heretical (which is what I would also say to those Anglican FeMarxists posing as Bishoptrix) and that he was not preaching the Gospel of Mark but that of Marx (or Mill – John Stuart Mill). From memory Jesus never does anything that might be regarded as Chivalrous – indeed quite the opposite.
Not all Anglicans are bad. We have a local Vicar – African, which is odd as his first language is French (from a French colony – so one would expect Roman Catholic) and thus speaks English with an accent but he is much liked and always has a smile on his face. £23,000.00 a year (paid for by the tax-payer via the State) plus the use of the vicarage and its curtilage rent free is not a bad deal. I have yet to hear him preach.
We had – but he must be retired now – a local Bishop of Pakistani origin. As such he could and did bash Islam on every occasion and could do so without the usual cat calling of being ‘Racist’ or suffering from a ‘phobia’ but I can see no good in allowing females to turn the Anglicans into a radical version of the Women’s Institute. Can they even bake a cake? even I – as a child – could do that!
SNL writer Sarah Beattie urges violence against the Covington School MAGA boys: https://lidblog.com/sarah-beattie/
On Monday, Saturday Night Live writer Sarah Beattie tweeted offered oral sex to anyone who punches the student at the center of the Covington Catholic High School video in the face.
“I will blow whoever manages to punch that MAGA kid in the face,” she tweeted.
I’d never heard of Sarah Beattie.
She publicly offered payment (free sex) for violence against a specific person, and child at that.
Shouldn’t she be facing criminal charges?
Shouldn’t she be civilly sued?
Shouldn’t Twitter delete her account?
What if a white man had offered any kind of payment, should someone punch a specifically named black child?
@CC : Apologies accepted.
@Lawdog Biblical marriage is no longer available, because of the laws of man.
Well, technically it’s still available, but it is in conflict with the laws of many nations, especially with regard to divorce laws and with regard to marital rape laws. You can of course agree between the two of you to follow the biblical model.
@ray The feminist lodging the complaint above is the Reverend Rachel Twerk
“she was worried that patriarchal language might put off non-Christians”
““No academic theologian in the UK would objectively say that God is male, and yet that is the common parlance in a lot of the church and definitely the message that is coming across in lots of the media communications that we’re sending out there”
1. Evidence that women should not be allowed to teach in the first place
2. Feminism has infiltrated UK theologians
3. The church still talks about God as the Father, hence male
4. I’m so tempted to label myself ‘Patriarchal Christian’, if only to slightly stimulate those of the feminist and chivalrous persuasion.
I think you are right. But they are going to call me (and you) something. What would you prefer? Red Pill? (a long, complicated discussion) Misogynist? (a lie) It may not be winning rhetoric, but it beats the practical alternatives and has strong dialectic advantages. And dialectic is the very suggestion you follow with:
SNL writer Sarah Beattie urges violence against the Covington School MAGA boys: https://lidblog.com/sarah-beattie/
That would go a long way toward explaining why SNL hasn’t been funny in decades. Does anyone still watch that show? Is it even still on the air?
That’s a good point.
Anyone here ever tried to talk with anyone at church about the subjects we discuss at this, and other blogs? I have. And I stuck to empirically verifiable subjects, like the fact that women file about 70% of divorces. People recoil like a vampire who just saw a cross.
Now, imagine discussing really complex subjects, like Chivalry, or Authoritarianism, which aren’t empirical, but philosophical, historical, and based on language and definitions that have changed over centuries.
Not worth the considerable effort, in most cases. Best to leave those discussions for close friends who’ll actually give you the benefit of the doubt. Others will simply dismiss you as a “hater”.
Congratulate me, for my blog post on counseling has been dissed by a contributor to “No Longer Quivering”! I’m so honored. Dalrock has of course received their kind attention multiple times, but this is the first time somebody’s devoted a whole blog post to explaining why my views suck.
[D: Congratulations! Well done.]
I wonder how much of chivalry is learned behavior and how much is hard wired into your natural masculinity ?
If the word “chivalry” is non-salvagable, then what word do we use to describe a man’s sense of loyalty or duty to his community, church and country? Inasmuch as the term chivalry is tied to courtly love, it is also loosely tied to certain qualities that are admirable, but considered inextricably linked to the entirety of chivalry. As proponents see it, it’s the cable bundling effect; you don’t get to have one without the other.
An example of admirable behavior are the Spartans at Thermopylae. As you’ve written, they fought and died to earn the respect of their nation, but also out of a sense of honor and duty to it. What word do we use to describe that kind of conduct? Simply calling them “brave” or “courageous” seems insufficient because it’s not specifying the reason or motive.
Congrats. Getting fisked by a feminista on Patheos is a sort of “level up” in the blog world.
Certainly pedestalizing women is learned behavior…and it’s taught throughout our culture.
Anyone here ever tried to talk with anyone at church about the subjects we discuss at this, and other blogs? I have.
It’s amusing and disheartening at the same time. Many of the men I talk to are superior to me in good works and good intentions. They’re pegged at maximum on the chivalry scale and often seem happy that way. I sometimes wonder if I ought not let sleeping dogs lie.
If the word “chivalry” is non-salvagable, then what word do we use to describe a man’s sense of loyalty or duty to his community, church and country?
You answered you own question. How about “loyalty” and “duty”? “Christian duty?” “Patriot”?
Seriously, when was the last time you read or heard any man loyal to his family / church / country referred to as “chivalrous”. Outside of a David French column or some low traffic blog, can you point to an example?
In fact, when was the last time you ran across the word “chivalry” or “chivalrous” in any context other than men doing things for women? Yeah, I know, there’s a blog or three…no, I’m asking about a public usage.
They’re pegged at maximum on the chivalry scale and often seem happy that way.
A compliant and rather plain wife seems to be part of that package, in my limited experience.
I have discovered in the last few years that I cause least offence to everyone when I merely assert that I am not a very religious person. That at least goes down well on this side of the pond, and enables me should I so decide privately to modify my real opinions – we need to be as Theodore Dalrymple wrote recently ‘Free FROM Opinion’ pace Covington!. Having said that I am fuming as to some nonsense and offensively so to me that I overheard on the radio at the Hairdressers yesterday from a ‘let em eat cake’ brave single-mum mixed-race Feminist born into wealth – pleading victimhood of the usual and predictable type but earning more in a year than I have earned in a lifetime – who is a Catholic to Islam convert and lets you know it by way of her Headgear – not all Muslim women wear headgear. Please restrain me from writing to the Controller of BBC Radio 2 (formerly The Light Programme) as we do not have a First Amendment..
Congratulations Heidi. You’re response was so red pilled that some of them were insisting that you must be a man. Unknowingly they’re praising your rational thought process and refusal to be driven about by your own fickle emotions and one sided perspective, like they are.
Pingback: White knights vs churls. | Dalrock
@ Anonymous Reader
“Seriously, when was the last time you read or heard any man loyal to his family / church / country referred to as “chivalrous”. Outside of a David French column or some low traffic blog, can you point to an example?”
Two examples that come to mind are from the books “Great Battles: Decisive Conflicts That Shaped History” and “The Decline and Fall of the British Empire.”
“Great Battles” describes Henry V killing prisoners during the Battle of Agincourt as “violating all the rules of chivalry.”
“Decline and Fall” has an account by an Australian historian who describes the conduct of soldiers during the Gallipoli Campaign as follows: “their chivalry (was) a product of the bush code, which held that ‘a man should at all times and at any cost stand by his mate.”
As I said, chivalry includes courtly love, but isn’t limited to courtly love. Neither of these examples has anything to do with women.
@Sharkly: Thanks; the commenters that seemed to think I was a man amused me the most. And yes, I do prefer “masculine” rationality to feminine feelings-driven rhetoric, however short I fall of that ideal.
I do like that, Patriarchal Christian. Right quick the distinction is made from the standard Christian Cuck, or praps ‘Christicuck’? Though my effort’s a bit thinky and I don’t like jamming His title into one word with the Cuckleberries.
As for UK Christianity, it’s been doomed since Church ‘O England days. I mean please, shove their preening masons and government operatives into something they pretend God inhabits? It’s not even clever or entertaining. Musta been an off-day for satan.
My favorite was that royal (har har) wedding ceremony where the Druid Priest pretended to perform Christian rites in some majorly over-artsy ‘church’. Good for a laugh down here and I expect heaven was roaring too. Although maybe not with humor.
I looked at some of the other crap at patheos.com and was quite surprised. Why do people who are so anti-God, anti-Bible, and 100% worldly, even claim to be Christians? It is like they’re trying to disgrace Christianity by claiming to be a part of it. No doubt they go to church somewhere, and are as welcomed there, as they are when they march in the gay pride parades. It disgusts me. No doubt thrice holy God finds it even more revolting. They spew out vile words to their own condemnation.
Matthew 12:37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
My wife’s new church won’t even speak to her regarding her frivolous divorce, even though I repeatedly asked them to in the name of Jesus Christ. They will be condemned for being ashamed of God’s word.
Mark 8:37 For what will a man give in exchange for his soul? 38 For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.”
Perhaps if my wife had not been so wicked to me, and the churchians had not been so adamant about cheering her every sin against me, I might still be blindly abiding in their whore religion. But pinched between torment, and my fear of God, the Lord plucked me out of there, predestining me to be a slave to his word and a son of the most high God. Praise His holy name!
The word “churlish” in common parlance is an insult. But, clearly, it was originally intended to mean the ordinary everyday man.
Let us restore it to that original meaning through extensive use. Everything and anything we can do collectively or as individuals to correct this ongoing corruption of the English language is a blessing and a medicine to the restoration of civilization.
I might still be blindly abiding in their whore religion. But pinched between torment, and my fear of God, the Lord plucked me out of there, predestining me to be a slave to his word and a son of the most high God. Praise His holy name!
A whole new section of Hell will have to be opened up to house all the churchians and their “pastors” who are currently destined for residency there.
I see you had some really good comments posted on Lori Alexander’s thetransformedwife.com
I’m glad to see you out spreading the truth.
Pingback: Tom Sawyer and Toxic Masculinity | Thoughts That Matter
After reading this article yesterday, I was amazed to wake up and listen to this morning’s episode of the briefing, in which Albert ampules used the example of women and children in the lifeboat first as an example of why we should oppose the drafting of women in the military. https://albertmohler.com/2019/01/24/briefing-1-24-19/
A bit late to this game, but how about the term “post-chivalry”? Seems to me like it would raise the question rather than triggering prejudice at first go. And post-anything sounds modern.
I just see it as fruitless to try to revert to an older definition of chivalry that is only really understood by academics and (now) us.
Pingback: The chivalric rules of love. | Dalrock
Pingback: Friday hawt chicks & links – The learn to code edition. – Adam Piggott
This article has been linked on Instapundit by Glenn Reynolds. Congratulations. It’s a good one for getting that sort of visibility.
This post & the comments following it are among the strangest things that I’ve read in quite awhile.
I could say it all much quicker:
1. Be polite and kind to others.
2. Regardless of what society has tried to pound into the heads of both women & men, a woman does not want a wimpy guy. (Women may not realize this, but it’s true. You must have faith in that and proceed accordingly.)
3. Beef Wellington is yummy.
4. I am not a “weaker vessel.” As most who know me would confirm, in any type of crisis that does not involve a spider, I’m usually the calmest person in the room and am capable of swift, decisive action.
BTW, my husband & I have been married for 41 years. 😊 We’ve had our ups & downs (who doesn’t?) but I think we’re happier than most. Hang in there, guys – don’t give up on us ladies.
I cannot remember when I last read such a pile of tommy rot.
I was brought up in a region where men are men and women love them for it. Chivalry means the showing of respect for women by men. Nothing more, nothing less.
Pingback: The Balance of Force Is…Unfavorable – Daily Pundit
I’ll grant you ‘chivalry’ to refer to courtly love, but I reserve ‘chevalerie’ as referring to a martial code of honor and conduct in war. The one aspect of the term ‘unchivalrous christian’ that I do like is the parallel to the term of art ‘uncaring asshole’ – meaning person both inattentive to norms (ie. chivalry) and not striving for others attention and approval (ie. chivalry.)
more on derivation of ‘chivalry’ and courtly love at urban dictionary: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Chivalry
“I could say it all much quicker:”
Nothing in your post is in any way related to the issues Dalrock is discussing. The length of your marriage has no bearing on the argument or evidence, nor does unsubstantiated claims about your specific personality. Why do you feel the need to change the topic of discussion to focus on you personally and specifically?
(That’s a trick question.)
And you could blow it up tomorrow DesertFlower, with the support of the government and a church.
You also don’t hold the Scriptures highly. They say you are a weaker vessel, whether you want to admit that or not.
@ Rob Ripley
If what you wrote is true, then chivalry doesn’t mean holding women to any standard of respectability. Do you see how that might be a problem?
Rollory, my points 1 and 2 specifically dealt with issues that Dakrock had raised. Point 3 was for fun, because someone had mentioned Beef Wellington earlier in the the thread. Point 4 was because I object to being referred to as a “weaker vessel” when I fear almost nothing & no one but God and I can press 650 lbs on a leg press (can you, BillyS?).
Rollory, my points 1 and 2 specifically dealt with issues that Dalrock had raised. Point 3 was for fun, because someone had mentioned Beef Wellington earlier in the the thread. Point 4 was because I object to being referred to as a “weaker vessel” when I fear almost nothing & no one but God and I can press 650 lbs on a leg press (can you, BillyS?).
DesertFlower, you are the “weaker vessel,” per the KJV version of 1 Peter 3:7. That’s nothing to be embarrassed about.
Desert Flower: “I am not a “weaker vessel.”
The One Who Created You would beg to differ.
I cannot remember when I last read such a pile of tommy rot.
I was brought up in a region where men are men and women love them for it.
Do tell us all where this long-lost civilization from which you hail is located, so that us misguided manospherians can visit it and be corrected and enlightened in the truth.
You are what is known as a ‘Cuckservative’. You grandstand about some imaginary excellence you possess, when in reality, you are the absolute bottom of the ladder in terms of male attractiveness in the eyes of women.
The good news is :
Pickup Artists want to have sex with women.
Women want to have sex with pickup artists.
Rob Ripley gets to pay the bills!
You ARE the weaker vessel. WEAKER . . . get that?
Of course, you (and the sisterhood) know better what you are, than the One who created you, and left you a written record so His will for you would be clear.
In a crisis, you are usually the ‘calmest person in the room’ who responds with ‘swift, decisive action’. In sum, you imagine for yourself that you are what God created men to be. Indeed, in a room of males and females, you usually are the toughest m . . . I mean person in the room. Top dog!
What you are in reality, o desert-er flower, is a woman in rebellion against God. Fix it or be condemned.
Pingback: No true Lancelot. | Dalrock
Having studied the classics in high school along with the poetry of the metaphysical poets, Romantic Era, men like Blake and Coleridge plus other materials written by besotted betas about chivalry, reading this is eye-opening.
Many of us men would have picked up chivalry as a presupposition, which I’ll define here as ”a conclusion reached before evidence is weighed”.
This is the Anatomy of The Blue Pill. Should relationships break down, women behave in an unsavoury manner, calamity come at the hand of Woman as it so frequently does, then the presupposition kicks in and masks the fault mentally.
This would be why so few men have ever escaped Blue Pill conditioning.
I haven’t tried lately, but I probably could (leg press). My muscles are probably better than yours, even at my age. I inherited them however, so it is not all my doing.
I am not into female Russian weightlifters however, so no interest in you. You are certainly a special snowflake, at least in your own mind.
I prefer a woman dedicated to the Word.
The way I see their so-called arguments is that they’ve boxed themselves into a corner. If chivalry truly is a warrior’s code of conduct, then it is not possible for the overwhelming majority of men to be chivalrous. When an overweight office worker stands up for a woman, that’s not chivalry, it’s something else because he doesn’t have the most basic qualifications for being a warrior. No training, not fitness, no commitment to martial readiness in his life. USMC bravado notwithstanding, if you were a warrior at 20 for a few years and are now 50 with no maintenance, you’re not a warrior. You’re just a regular pleb like the rest of us who might have to fight out of necessity.
Underneath the ideals of chivalry as warrior code that some were throwing at you, there is the ideal that a man should be at least a moderately competent warrior so they can be realized. If you aren’t doing that, it should be axiomatic that nothing else you do counts as “living the ideal.”
My Wife and Children First.
Then me, to protect them once we hit land.
Screw anyone else.
Pingback: Warhorn interview: Define red pill, Game, and MGTOW. | Dalrock
Pingback: Why bother identifying the reason the gate was erected? | Dalrock
Pingback: The Centrifugal Force of the Sexual Revolution
Pingback: Warhorn’s projection | Dalrock
Pingback: The Costs Of Reformed Romance | More Than Don't Have Sex
Pingback: XXXV – Chivalry is Dead, Long Live Chivalry – Times-Dispatch of Vichy Earth
Pingback: Chivalry just got even gayer. | Dalrock
Pingback: Charlize Theron has us trapped. | Dalrock
Pingback: I’m with Wade Burleson on this one. | Dalrock
Pingback: "An Apologetic Against Dating in High School" — how conservative Christians encourage the marriage crisis they bemoan - The Chi Files
Pingback: A promise not to disrupt the status quo | Dalrock
Pingback: Unchivalrous Jesus. | Dalrock
Pingback: Doing as they were taught. | Dalrock
Pingback: The gospel of the carousel. | Dalrock
Pingback: Solomon as Lancelot: Song of Solomon viewed through the lens of chivalry/courtly love. | Dalrock