Was chivalry the origin of Christian manhood?

In Why Chivalry Is the Catholic Solution to Toxic Masculinity John Horvat II teaches us that Christian manhood wasn’t invented until the Middle Ages.  This would mean that for roughly the first 1,000 years after Christ, Christian men had no rulebook to follow (emphasis mine):

The Church Proposed Chivalry

The problem of toxic masculinity is not new. When men are given over to their passions, it will always create toxic situations of savagery and barbarity. What is new is the depths to which postmodernity plunges men deeper into sin. The new solutions not only go against man’s true nature; they annihilate it.

It was the Church that tamed the human passions and proposed models for men that elevated them to unimaginable heights. The Church proposed chivalry giving men an ideal to channel ill-regulated passions. That ideal would capture the imagination of countless men throughout history that persists even today. Moreover, the Church provides the means of grace which makes the practice of these high ideals possible.

For the first time in history, being a man meant admiring and striving for virtues such as mercy, courage, valor, chastity, fairness, protection of the weak and the poor. Being a man meant adopting an attitude of gentleness and graciousness to all women, a practice unknown to the ancient pagan world that often treated them as chattels. It introduced the idea of honor, service and abnegation even to the point of giving one’s life.

If this were true, imagine how much better the Apostles could have been had they only known chivalry.  But then again, I don’t think they were nobility.  Does this mean they weren’t suited to Christian manhood?

The link to the Catholic Encyclopedia article on chivalry in the quote above describes chivalry as evolving in form across four periods.  The version of chivalry modern readers will naturally think of is the modern remnant of the later two periods, which the encyclopedia explains were not Christian:

Third period: secular chivalry

After the Crusades chivalry gradually lost its religious aspect…

The amorous character of the new literature had contributed not a little to deflect chivalry from its original ideal. Under the influence of the romances love now became the mainspring of chivalry. As a consequence there arose a new type of chevalier, vowed to the service of some noble lady, who could even be another man’s wife. This idol of his heart was to be worshipped at a distance. Unfortunately, notwithstanding the obligations imposed upon the knightly lover, these extravagant fancies often led to lamentable results.

Fourth period: court chivalry

In its last stages, chivalry became a mere court service. The Order of the Garter, founded in 1348 by Edward III of England, the Order of the Golden Fleece (Toison d’or) of Philip of Burgundy, dating from 1430, formed a brotherhood, not of crusaders, but of courtiers, with no other aim than to contribute to the splendor of the sovereign. Their most serious business was the sport of jousts and tournaments. They made their vows not in chapels, but in banquet halls, not on the cross, but on some emblematic bird…

Note that the Catholic Encyclopedia article tells us that idolatry of women is good to the extent that it imposes obligations on men:

…vowed to the service of some noble lady, who could even be another man’s wife. This idol of his heart was to be worshipped at a distance. Unfortunately, notwithstanding the obligations imposed upon the knightly lover, these extravagant fancies often led to lamentable results.

Horvat doesn’t even bother offering a hint regarding which model of chivalry he has in mind to stop weak men from screwing feminism up.  But surely the modern incarnation of the courtly love model must be the one he has in mind, where Christian men are taught to submit to their wives in fear and reverence, and where romantic love sanctifies sex and marriage.  For it would be absurd if he were proposing to tame modern men by reinstating the feudal system and anchoring our society on the martial customs of Medieval heavy cavalry (but this time making all men knights).

H/T Adam Piggott

This entry was posted in Adam Piggott, Chivalry, Courtly Love, Toxic Masculinity, Traditional Conservatives, Weak men screwing feminism up. Bookmark the permalink.

60 Responses to Was chivalry the origin of Christian manhood?

  1. Charles B says:

    >the problem of toxic masculinity

    Whoops, lost me the first five words. That’s a new record.

  2. Charles B says:

    >The problem of toxic masculinity

    Whoops, lost me already

  3. The Question says:

    Looking at the link included describing “chilvary.”

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03691a.htm

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

  4. The Question says:

    Forget to add with this with the previous comment: Understatement of the century.

  5. Basedangemon says:

    For the first time in history, being a man meant admiring and striving for virtues such as mercy, courage, valor, chastity, fairness, protection of the weak and the poor. Being a man meant adopting an attitude of gentleness and graciousness to all women, a practice unknown to the ancient pagan world that often treated them as chattels. It introduced the idea of honor, service and abnegation even to the point of giving one’s life.

    “For the first time in history”?

    So this Catholic has not read Paul, I take it? Fruits of the Spirit? Giving ones life up for “her” just as Christ for the Church? Treating the woman as the weaker vessel? No?

    No familiarity with the philosophers of antiquity would allow such statements either.

    Meh, silly Catholics think they invented everything good. Not that chivalry counts as such.

    Apropos of “toxic masculinity,” this guy gets “rape culture.” Well worth a watch.

  6. donalgraeme says:

    This guy is a disgrace to Catholics everywhere. Ugh.

  7. Spike says:

    I thought Christian men HAD a Rule Book to follow.
    In the Book of Acts, it was the Old Testament. remember the Berean Christians? They did the following:

    “11 Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true ” Acts 17:11 New International Version (NIV).

    When the canon was sealed by the early Church fathers, Christians had the New Testament.
    Where does Horvat get his ideas?

    Re: Toxic Masculinity

    ”They which builded on the wall, and they that bare burdens, with those that laded, every one with one of his hands wrought in the work, and with the other hand held a weapon”. -Nehemiah 4:17

    So, men who were rebuilding Jerusalem had one hand on a trowel and the other on a sword. They were prepared to build their civilization and their culture, and just as ready to defend it.

    And the Bible doesn’t think this is wrong.

    So, where is the masculinity in this case, ”Toxic”?

  8. PokeSalad says:

    Does this mean David’s Mighty Men were toxic?

  9. Junkyard Dawg says:

    @PokeSalad @Spike

    David and David’s men were the epitome of toxic masculinity! Come on now, trowel in one hadn and sword in the other?

  10. Spike says:

    Junkyard Dawg says:
    February 28, 2019 at 10:08 pm
    @PokeSalad @Spike
    David and David’s men were the epitome of toxic masculinity! Come on now, trowel in one hadn and sword in the other?

    -Point proven!
    The question for feminists and their skilled-in-their-pillow-arsenal-wimpodite churchian acolytes is, Will there be men who can do the same when the sun sets on Western civilization?

  11. Frank K says:

    This guy is a disgrace to Catholics everywhere. Ugh.

    Agreed,

    Just for kicks, I looked up the word “chivalry” in the index of the Catechism. It was nowhere to be found. Mr. Horvat is just another TradCon who embraces feminism and doesn’t even know it.

  12. Pingback: Was chivalry the origin of Christian manhood? | Reaction Times

  13. info says:

    “But this time making all men knights”

    So all men should be mongols?

  14. f23 says:

    The encyclopedia passage Dalrock quoted is clearly not meant to be read prescriptively, as if the author were saying what Dalrock has read into it. It is a simple descriptive passage of how this form of chivalry was practiced. The encyclopedia article is certainly not saying that idolatry of women is good but precisely the opposite: “Unfortunately…these … led to lamentable results.”

  15. Opus says:

    I read: John Horvat the second is Vice President and member of the Board of Directors for the American Society for the Defence of Tradition, Family and Property. Which tradition, I wonder, might he be seeking to defend?

  16. Paul says:

    From the link on chivalry:
    “Provence and Normandy were the chief centres of this kind of literature, which was spread throughout all Europe by the trouvères and troubadours. ”

    Even back then MTV had a bad influence on morals.

  17. Opus says:

    “In a town in La Mancha the name of which I choose to forget” – you know the rest. Four centuries ago Cervantes was mocking the absurdities of Chivalry yet here we are four centuries later…

  18. Emperor Constantine says:

    donalgraeme says:
    February 28, 2019 at 8:30 pm
    “This guy is a disgrace to Catholics everywhere. Ugh.”

    Like a lot of things that are neither dogma nor doctrine in the Catholic Church, chivalry has found its way to the hearts and minds of priests and laity.

  19. Emperor Constantine says:

    Sorry OT

    Yet another instance of Dalrock’s law in the wild, this time from our pal Sheila Gregoire.

    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.

    Feminist thesis: Because Proverbs 31 is too demanding of women, it’s a problem for them. Men are evil because they just sit at the city gate and engage in locker room talk about hot women, making women with low SMV uncomfortable. It’s up to men to praise his wife, not matter her level of virtue, and if he doesn’t, she can’t be blamed for the results.

    “What if young, Christian men were trained to change the locker room talk from a discussion of outer beauty to a praising of godly characteristics in the women they know? Because if the way men talk about women is praising their godly character, it will also be how they think about women and eventually treat women.”

    BTW I am 100% in favor of praising Godly women, especially your wife, and I personally do it often. I am not in favor of women blaming men for not living up to the standards of Proverbs 31 without such praise because it’s pretty clear God’s standards are very high for us: “Be perfect, as your Heavenly Father is perfect.” In contrast, feminist “Christians” want to rephrase this as (from Sheila’s article):

    “We are called to love God and love each other. Instead of focusing on making ourselves into the ideal woman or man, we should be focusing on loving one another.”

    We can’t really focus on one or the other: we have to do both. Love and keep working towards perfection with a cross on our back. This is the essence of feminism: collectivism that avoid personal responsibility and places any problems a woman has squarely on the back of the man.

    https://tolovehonorandvacuum.com/2019/03/misunderstood-proverbs-31/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ToLoveHonorAndVacuum+%28To+Love%2C+Honor+and+Vacuum%29

  20. info says:

    @Emperor Constantine

    I don’t understand why the Catholic church at the time have no one repudiate or condemn the perversion that is courtly love.

    Certainly the culture of the upper class is certain to filter its way to all of society.

    Too isolated from cultural currents at the time?

  21. @Info, I think they did, I’m quite confident of it, but my research skills aren’t what they used to be. The adultery thing in particular was a real hell no.

  22. @info, can’t check primaries but Wikipedia says courtly love was condemned as heretical starting in the 12th century. Heretical is even worse a condemnation than I thought.

  23. Jesus Rodriguez de la Torre says:

    The Bible specifies that leaders of the local Churches (Elders and Deacons) should be husbands of one wife. Note that Paul may have been a widower, but in any case was not the leader of a local Church but rather an Apostle/missionary who set up Churches and then left them to be run by others. Peter was certainly married. This was and remains the Jewish view where in order to be in leadership, ordinarily (sometimes required) you have to or have been married.
    This common understanding of marriage being a proving ground for leadership was soon abandoned as Greek Gnosticism infected the Church. Gnosticism while protean in some respects, always taught that matter was inherently evil or at best irrelevant in direct opposition to God ending each day of creation with “it was good.” The fact that God’s first declaration that “it is not good” was that the man had no physical sexual partner as did the other animals is further affirmation of the goodness of marriage sex. Christian MGTOWs please take note of that. That an unusual person might be gifted by lifelong celibacy doesn’t violate the general rule that monogamy is the standard for most.
    Others have commented here as to the disgusting contra-Christian views of many early “Church Fathers” (I hate the term, for the Church has one Father, but it is a useful term). Augustine, Jerome, virtually EVERY one of these men were deeply infected by a misogynous contra-Bible Gnosticism and were elevated to leadership in part because of it. This cancer of the Church started in very early, with Paul warning about some who prohibit marriage. Both the Roman and Orthodox Churches do permit marriage among the professionally religious (look up the Marionite Catholic rite), but they strongly discourage it and forbid it at the higher levels. This is COMPLETELY against the Biblical injunction that leaders of the Church ought to be married and “rule their own houses well”.
    The foundations of courtly love were laid at the first century as Paul warns of, when Greek Gnosticism began to replace Jewish understanding of the inherent goodness of creation. The flesh may be fallen, marred and sinful BUT it will be redeemed because it is not inherently evil.
    Apologies to the Romans and the Orthodox, but your Churches attract homosexual and effeminate men whom the Bible expressly forbid as leaders. It was not merely a pedophile scandal, it remains a HOMOSEXUAL pedophile problem among your “lavender mafia”.
    As to Protestants, we have our own disasters. I am more comfortable in a Roman Church than in a liberal Presbyterian Church.

  24. Jesus Rodriguez de la Torre says:

    I wish to HUMBLY remind everyone that the comments by Jesus Rodriguez de la Torre continue their consistent brilliance and Biblically sound basis. That man’s comments are worth reading.

  25. 7817 says:

    >that mans comments are worth reading

    confused, should I laugh at sock puppet failure or applaud the zfg self congratulation please advise

  26. Dalrock says:

    @Jesus Rodriguez de la Torre

    We are indeed fortunate that you are so humble!

  27. BillyS says:

    “Oh Lord it is hard to be humble, when you are perfect in every way!”

  28. @7817, I cant tell either, so it’s kind of perfect.

  29. JRob says:

    After framing Christian manhood for the masses since 1992, Dennis Rainey is stepping down from FLT radio. Will we “upgrade” like FoTF did James Dobson —-Jim Daly?
    From the transcript.

    Dennis: We have stood on the Scriptures that also teach the marriage covenant is the most sacred promise a man and a woman ever make to another person. We’ve embraced the Scriptures and unashamedly taught that men are to be the leaders of their
    marriages and to put their wives in their place—the place of honor/the place of value—nourishing and cherishing them as God’s
    gift to them, as husbands. Then we challenged men to give up their lives for their wives. Yes, we’ve been politically incorrect as we’ve
    dared to teach what the Scriptures proclaim—that wives are to submit to their husbands.

  30. Charles B says:

    @ Emperor Constantine, the most troubling part of her idea is the thought that you can train men out of their admiration for female physical beauty. That’s not just feminine solipsism refusing responsibility, it’s in denial of reality. True Marxist plasticity of man kind of stuff.

  31. OKRickety says:

    Junkyard Dawg, PokeSalad,

    “David and David’s men were the epitome of toxic masculinity! Come on now, trowel in one hadn and sword in the other?”

    Spike’s point still stands, but there seems to be some confusion here. The men in Nehemiah 4:17 were not David’s men. They probably weren’t even trained for war as they had only recently returned from captivity to Jerusalem.

  32. thedeti says:

    So. There was no such thing as Christian manhood before chivalry.

    Does this mean the scriptures don’t tell us anything about masculinity? Does this mean scripture tells us nothing about what a Christian man is supposed to act like?

  33. John Calvin’s Periodontist says:

    Yes, the Catholic Church: my first stop for counsel and examples of healthy masculinity and totally normal sexuality.

  34. thedeti says:

    JRob:

    Did Mr. Rainey or Mr. Daly or anyone else at Family Life or FotF say anything about what women’s obligations and responsibilities are in marriage?

    Did they say anything about what they mean when they say “wives are to submit to their husbands”? Because, see, usually, when they say that, it has all sorts of conditions attached.

    Wives are to submit to their husbands IF AND ONLY IF:

    –there is also “mutual submission”, meaning her husband also submits to his wife.

    –he is “submitted” to God

    –he is “submitted” to a proper pastor the wife approves of

    –the pastor approves of the husband’s decisions

    –the pastor serves as a de facto appellate court to review, affirm, reverse, or modify the husband’s “decisions” and “leadership”

    –she can always run to her pastor and sic the pastor on her husband whenever the husband is doing something she doesn’t like/is uncomfortable with/her holy spirit doesn’t like

    –he is “leading” her where she has decided she wants to go/is comfortable going

    –his “leadership” is biblical in character

    –they are having the sex she approves of, when, where, how, and the kinds of sex she approves of

    –he is properly creating and leading wife and pastor-approved devotionals and bible studies

  35. OKRickety says:

    Re. “Dennis Rainey Transitioning from his role as host of Familylife Today”

    Also, “FamilyLife Today announces new hosts Dave and Ann Wilson joining original cohost Bob Lepine.”

    I don’t expect improvement with this change to the other  Pastor Wilson. Anyone surprised that it seems to be a package deal including his wife? I was, but just for a moment. After all, we’ve discussed their marriage relationship previously. This just confirms what was already obvious.

  36. thedeti says:

    Wait. Isn’t Ann Wilson the wife with the (non)burning bush through which the Holy Spirit “speaks” to Pastor Dave?

    [D: Yessir!]

  37. JRob says:

    thedeti on March 1, 2019 at 10:30 am

    Winner winner chicken dinner.

    In my line of work, we have a superstition. “Never say we can’t do worse. They always prove us wrong.”

  38. Jake says:

    What’s it called when you assume you have some secret knowledg new knowledge that is a better than the way they were doing it for 95% of human history.

  39. PokeSalad says:

    Spike’s point still stands, but there seems to be some confusion here. The men in Nehemiah 4:17 were not David’s men. They probably weren’t even trained for war as they had only recently returned from captivity to Jerusalem.

    No confusion here, I was referring to Chronicles, not Nehemiah.

  40. Marquess, Mother Mary Pray for We 'Tards says:

    Red-shod marxist pederasts in dresses, ophidian-satanic temples at the vatican (look at an interior shot of nervi hall), globohomo anticlergy taking every, single, possible opportunity to shirk their pastoral duties and scramble divine will: I can deal.

    Xir Lancealittle of Toxic Shock and the Bane of Civilizational Testes: nah. Too much, dawg.

    Martin Luther did nothing wrong.

  41. earl says:

    When men are given over to their passions, it will always create toxic situations of savagery and barbarity.

    So I wonder why giving women rule over men somehow stops that…because reality often shows it doesn’t. It makes a man weaker…but it doesn’t extinguish passions.

    Now if men give over their passions of the flesh for live in the Spirit…this is the change.

  42. earl says:

    What’s it called when you assume you have some secret knowledg new knowledge that is a better than the way they were doing it for 95% of human history.

    Gnosticism…which the Catholic church has declared a heresy.

  43. earl says:

    It was the Church that tamed the human passions and proposed models for men that elevated them to unimaginable heights. The Church proposed chivalry giving men an ideal to channel ill-regulated passions.

    Makes me wonder how well Catholic bro knows Christ. Because that is what the Church actually proposes as the ideal to ill-regulated passions. It’s certainly not human females, feminism, or his idea of chivalry that does it.

  44. ray says:

    OP — ‘But surely the modern incarnation of the courtly love model must be the one he has in mind, where Christian men are taught to submit to their wives in fear and reverence, and where romantic love sanctifies sex and marriage.’

    Right. Who arranges this system? The enemy of humanity.

    Who are the ‘powers and principalities’ of Earth that aid him?

    Well his angels, of course. But also various elements of mankind — no different than Israel under Jezebel, Manasseh, Ahab or Athaliah. The pagan/secular systems in the old world consisted of various national sorcerers, usually allied, sometimes in ‘schools’. As Scripture records, the rites were worshipping of idols, including the many ‘mother goddess’ faces, the baalic cults, sex/blood rituals, molochian sacrifice, and whatnot. Always comes back to worshipping the ‘host of heaven’.

    That leads here

    OP — “Fourth period: court chivalry
    In its last stages, chivalry became a mere court service. The Order of the Garter, founded in 1348 by Edward III of England,”

    Much more than a ‘mere court service’. The blood trail is long here, and includes Queen Elizard, Eddie Kelley, and John Dee, a satanic throne that largely invented modern intel and magick. Two systems entwined.

    These orgs and pseudo-religious ‘orders’, under other covers, also are deeply rooted in America, foundational and modern. Heck most of the CIA was drawn from occult fraternities. Some still is.

    The OOTG is the UK’s highest chivalric order. A network, really, crossing over royalty, business connections, old money, so forth. The orders are masonic, not Christian. Masonry gave the West its modern pagan template and ideals, including Equality and Women’s Liberation. These are occult, not Christian, systems. They’re part of the powers and principalities. Feminism, rampant homosexuality, Marxism, female-worshipping ‘chivalry’, Socialism, all these and more are pre-planned operations. This world’s ruler moving to apotheosis.

    Here’s a page that happened to come up on a quick search of this matter —

    https://www.truthcontrol.com/order-garter

  45. ray says:

    Spike — ‘So, men who were rebuilding Jerusalem had one hand on a trowel and the other on a sword. They were prepared to build their civilization and their culture, and just as ready to defend it.’

    Yep.

    Joshua swept through Canaan and they slaughtered everyone. When Jehu caught up with Jezzie and the ‘royal’ family of Ahab, it was off to Sheol.

    Exodus 15: ‘The LORD is a man of war. The LORD is his name.’

  46. ray says:

    Jesus Rodriguez —

    “Note that Paul may have been a widower, but in any case was not the leader of a local Church but rather an Apostle/missionary who set up Churches and then left them to be run by others. Peter was certainly married. This was and remains the Jewish view where in order to be in leadership, ordinarily (sometimes required) you have to or have been married.”

    Well that leaves Jesus out then. The Jews are pretty unifed on that. For now.

    Christ made Peter the ‘rock of His church’. But the church consists of many things.

    I consider Paul leader of the apostles. Not that it matters, and despite the fact that Peter, James, and John were called to the Transfiguration, and Paul wasn’t. Maybe he didn’t need to be.

  47. ray says:

    Right on time, thanks Jesus.

    https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/a26582936/meghan-markle-royal-baby-fluid-gender/

    (See above concerning masonic guidance of modern secular AND religious society.)

    ‘Prince’ Harry is in line for Most Noble OOTG. Doubtless the little s/he/it, likewise a pre-inductee.

    source — Daily Crow

  48. feeriker says:

    Horvat’s target audience is clearly those who can’t be bothered to read the Bible, or even Catholic foundational teachings.

  49. Mountain Man says:

    Ray,

    Perhaps you already know this, but the last paragraph above seems to leave the question open. Apologies if this is something you already know.

    Paul was not at the transfiguration because he was busy persecuting the Christ-followers, or soon would begin doing so. He had not had his Damascas Road experience yet. The transfiguration occurred before the stoning of Steven, and Paul was converted some significant amount of time after that event.

  50. Marquess, Mother Mary Pray for We 'Tards says:

    “The orders are masonic, not Christian. Masonry gave the West its modern pagan template and ideals, including Equality and Women’s Liberation. These are occult, not Christian, systems. They’re part of the powers and principalities. Feminism, rampant homosexuality, Marxism, female-worshipping ‘chivalry’, Socialism, all these and more are pre-planned operations. This world’s ruler moving to apotheosis.”

    Winner winner, chicken dinner. This is a leap too far for many men, though, as we’re designed to emotionally invest in the hierarchies we serve.

    It hurts to let go. Often, it’s diabolically hard to do so, unless you’re some sort of independent mendicant or hermit-ascetic.

    Which, coincidentally, are the only viable paths forward for– future; the current crop is terminally pozzed– post-‘murikan cathcuck clerics.

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Francis_of_Assisi

    Tonsure not required. Also, robes are gay.

  51. Pingback: Is fascism a form of Christian chivalry? – Dark Samovar

  52. Oldřich says:

    Well, it seems rather obvious to me, that if chivalry is related to anything in the past, the most probable culprit would be fascism, isn’t that right?
    https://darksamovar.wordpress.com/2019/03/02/is-fascism-a-form-of-christian-chivalry/

  53. Domingo Montoya says:

    @ Oldřich
    Are the features you (randomly?) mention in your blog necessarily defining traits of fascism? You seem to be of that opinion, but on what basis? There’s quite a lot of theoretical work on what fascism actually can be (ranging eg from quite indepth analysis of Deleuze to eg rather ‘intuitive’ approach of Pasolini, who actually called consumerist liberal system of his time ‘fascist’ and his argumentation made some good sense), so before making statement like yours, would be maybe worth defining fundamental traits of fascism per se and not attribute automatically to fascism some traits that could be observed in certain political systems traditionally labelled ‘fascist’.

  54. Domingo Montoya says:

    P. S.
    Also worth checking is maybe the Charter of Carnaro/Constitution of Fiume by D’Annunzio, that reportedly greatly inspired Mussolini, read it and try establish whether and if then how ‘fascist’ it really is..

  55. ray says:

    Mountain Man —

    Didn’t know that timeline element, thank you for the clarification. Good close Bible reading.

    My opinion of Paul stands, but it’s only my opinion. Funny because when I first saw Nathan’s uh, intense photo, first thing came to mind was Paul’s face, ferocious and glad, as he strode towards Damascus.

    As to who’s who, all will be settled soon.

  56. BillyS says:

    May be worth looking at. More junk from the APA.

  57. For it would be absurd if he were proposing to tame modern men by … anchoring our society on the martial customs of Medieval heavy cavalry (but this time making all men knights).

    Absurd for him, perhaps! But for the rest of us, why not? (I speak only partly in jest here.)

    Until then, perhaps a martial and a civilian unchivalry should be developed under Wallace’s erstwhile motto:
    Ego nunquam pronunciari mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus.

  58. 7817 says:

    Not to beat the dead horse to much, but Chivalry is alive and well at Warhorn: https://sanity.warhornmedia.com/t/reciprocal-obligations-for-women-under-chivalry/696/2

    I can see why you focus on Chivalry so much Dalrock. It is more a problem in the church than it is outside of it.

  59. Pingback: Trump and toxic masculinity. | Dalrock

Comments are closed.