06 February 2013

On Chivalry...

Guys,

In recent days, I've found a new blog that's interesting: Feminine Mystique.   From what I can gather, it's hosted by a young, twentysomething woman who's interested in reestablishing a traditional, patriarchal society.  While I don't agree with everything she says (e.g. MRAs hating women is a common point of hers), I think her heart is in the right place.  I especially love her avatar, or profile pic she uses: Jeannie, from the old show, "I Dream of Jeannie".

Why is that significant?  For those who remember the show, it was a romantic comedy about an astronaut, Major Tony Nelson, and his wife, Jeannie.  Jeannie, was no ordinary woman; no, she was a real GENIE!  After a mission, Major Nelson found himself on an island.  On that island, he found a bottle, which he opened; upon opening it, Jeannie came out of it, finally released.  Because of that, she was forever devoted to Major Nelson, forever calling him Master.  I always liked that!  Barbara Eden's Jeannie was THE ideal wife, because she always sought to please her husband and make him happy.  Though her desire to please Tony was sometimes misplaced (which provided the comedy on the show), her heart was always in the right place.  Jeannie was a beautiful woman with a heart of gold, and she wanted nothing more than to serve and please her man.  IOW, Jeannie was the ideal wife every man would KILL to have!  Edita's choice of avatar was no accident; it symbolizes a lot, all of it right.  Ergo, I'm willing to give Edita TWRA, host of Feminine Mystique, the benefit of the doubt.

Anyway, the most recent post is one she featured a guest post by Jesse Powell, who wrote a post on chivalry.  As a woman seeking a return to traditional patriarchy, chivalry is a favorite, recurring theme of hers.  Jesse Powell, a frequent contributor at Laura Wood's blog, The Thinking Housewife, has chimed in on this topic.  His position, in short, is to extend chivalry to all women.  My position differs from his, as shown in my comment responding to him.  Since my comment was so good, I made a post of it, which is below.  Thanks, and enjoy!

----------------------

Jesse,

I have several problems with your philosophy of automatically extending chivalry to all women. One, feminists have used this against us in the past. Two, chivalry, in the age of knights, was only given to those worthy of receiving it. Sorry, I will NOT throw away my life or health on some skank! Finally, we have to train women that there are some behaviors more desirable than others, and part of that means extending chivalry to LADIES ONLY!

Feminists have used chivalry against us as men; they have appealed to our desire to do right by ‘the little woman’. Men, wanting to care for women and make them happy, CAVED to feminist demands. Look at where that’s gotten us!

Secondly, chivalry in the age of knights in armor, wasn’t automatically extended to everyone; it was only extended to those WORTHY of it. Why is that significant? Because, chivalry shouldn’t just automatically be extended to everyone with a vagaina. You mean to tell me that the skanks on MTV’s Jersey Shore should receive chivalrous treatment? You mean to tell me that the vast majority of women, particularly young ones, who emulate the Jersey Shore skanks should receive chivalrous treatment? You want to surrender your seat in the lifeboat for THAT? You want to throw away your life on someone who’s only going to slut it up, catch one or more nasty STDs, then abort her babies anyway? Come on! If women want to receive chivalrous treatment, then they should uphold THEIR end of the social contract-end of story. I have no problem extending chivalry to LADIES. That said, there’s a huge difference, a great gulf fixed if you will, between a lady and a mere woman. If women want men to extend chivalry towards them, then they need to do THEIR part; they need to be respectful, GRATEFUL for what men do, virtuous, submissive, honest, etc.; IOW, they need to uphold their end of the social contract. You cannot have a contract unless two parties agree to it and live by it.

Thirdly, automatically extending chivalry to all women, especially feminists, is rewarding bad behavior. Is there any difference between feminists and the vast majority of women these days? I wonder sometimes. How can we expect women to behave better if we reward their bad behavior? How can we expect women to behave better if we don’t TRAIN them to do so? And what is training? Is it not, in part, using a system of rewards and punishments to reinforce desired behavior, and eliminate bad behavior? So how does automatically extending chivalry to all women achieve your stated goal of reestablishing patriarchy? Does this not reward bad women for bad behavior? It seems like your idea is counterproductive to me.

My man, chivalry was used against us, and it it was used against us by the feminists. Two, real chivalry (i.e. from the age of knights in armor) was only extended to those who were worthy and deserving of it; applied in a modern setting, that means extending chivalry to LADIES ONLY, not mere women. Finally, by giving chivalrous treatment only to those who deserve it, we can train women to behave in a way that is pleasing to us as men, and motivate them to stop behaving like a bunch of depraved skanks. Thank you, and good day…

MarkyMark

40 comments:

John Rambo said...

Thanks bro, I went over there and posted my Boycott American Women comment, so let's see if she publishes mine too. LOL

MarcoP said...

I've read the discussion and I really can't believe it. This is 100% Man-Up shaming, All-Hail-the-Feminine-Imperative bullshit, while at the same time decrying "MRA shaming tactics". It's Orwellian. These people are saying ALL women MUST receive chivalry, EVEN when they don't acknowledge it or respect it. Why? Because God says so. Oh, and everything is obviously teh menz's fault for not being dominating and/or masculine enough (i.e. "not Real Men™"). Teh menz are not chivalrous enough to ALL women, so women disrespect them, cheat on them and divorce them for cash and prizes. It's YOUR fault so MAN UP, loser. Truly astonishing. I wish I could be as lenient as you in judgment, but this is really absolute crap. Endearing avatar or not.

MarkyMark said...

Marco,

If you read the discussion, then you read my comment which became this post. I did take issue with what they said, and I stated WHY I took issue with what they said.

MarkyMark

MarcoP said...

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. I commented here because those people are just unbelievable. Look at the comments, they have hamsters the size of Australia. Repacking and reframing "Man Up" as "traditional masculinity/femininity". I was blown away, I just had to tell you.

MarkyMark said...

Marco,

You're right. I've also gotten into it with the women over there, because they say that women get hurt more by divorce; that they're justified divorcing husbands because they won't 'man up' and keep her at home; and other stuff. Even when I linked to the Discovery Health Channel's article, The Top Ten Myths of Divorce, which says in BLACK & WHITE that women file for divorce more often; and that they do so because they'll get more; they deny it. At least they publish my dissenting comments...

MarkyMark

Anonymous said...

I went over there because of your article, and also read "Men’s Rights Activists Love Rape and Hate Women".

I don't know if her heart is in the right place or if she is just another Pretender of the Female Imperative, but her head is firmly up her ass.

I don't really give a fuck that her avatar is wearing a nice costume, since she is riding around on her unicorn demanding that men live in her fantasy world.

She and her site are a total waste of time, until she at least acknowledges reality as it exists in the real world, and not as it exists in her and Harpy Housewife's heads.

Anonymous said...

Another thing, you really need to recalibrate your cunt-o-meter.

Go reread equalbutdifferent.blogspot.com from your link list.

Kim is an actual lady. I don't see her shrieking that men should play Russian Roulette with one empty chamber.

MarkyMark said...

Anon 1521,

You're 100% RIGHT about Kim; she IS the real deal! It's too bad she's not posting anymore, but I'm sure she's left cyberspace to be with her husband and family.

As for the other woman, I don't know if I said she was a lady; if I did, then perhaps my cunt-o-meter DOES need to be recalibrated... ;)

MarkyMark

MarkyMark said...

Anon,

I quickly re-read my post, and I didn't say Edita was a lady. The closest I came was saying that her avatar was symbolic of a TV character who symbolized what, for me, would be an ideal wife.

I did say that, WRT chivalry, I have no problem extending it to real ladies, but that's as close as I got; I never said SHE was a real lady.

Yeah, she's a bit shrill and liberal with the shaming language. That may be a function of her age, since she says in her profile that she's in her 20s. Secondly, she is married, so WE don't have to deal with her; someone else already signed up for that...

MarkyMark

Axe Head said...

The TradCon women don't want us try to distinguish between GOOD women and BAD women and treat them accordingly. They want us all to be Don Quixote, Man of La Mancha. If we just treat the Aldonza whores like fine Ladies, they'll all turn into fine Ladies.

Anonymous said...

MarkyMark,

"I quickly re-read my post, and I didn't say Edita was a lady. The closest I came was saying that her avatar was symbolic of a TV character who symbolized what, for me, would be an ideal wife."

Yes, I should have phrased that differently, and I did like that show too, for the reasons that you mentioned.

All that I intended to imply was that Kim was the type of woman whose existence and presence are a net positive, and then some.

Being kind, protective and chivalrous toward her would be a pleasure.

The young woman from The Feminine Mystique does seem to have some good ideas rattling around in her head about how things should be, but she does not present them coherently, or herself as an honest woman.

I agree that MRAs can have some serious defects. For example, at Rancher Welmer's place, some constantly repeat their Pearls of Collected Wisdom, such as: "Women can't invent, plan, organize, or anything else, without the help of men, so women did this to us all by themselves" and "When civilization collapses, we shall be free ... because there can't be serfs without electricity".

On the other hand, she tries to smear MRAs with bogus bullshit, while being at least willfully ignorant of the mountains of contrary facts that have been accumulating over the past 50 years.

By the way, I hope that you start writing more often again. You have some great insights, and I miss reading them.

MarkyMark said...

Anon 1724,

As my mother's estate and associated affairs wind down; as I get over my grief of losing her and my childhood home; I expect that I will write more.

Also on the to-do list is to finish backing up the deleted posts, and to re-post the vast majority of them. I backed up through early 2010, leaving me about two more years' worth of posts to backup. I'm sorry I deleted them; I panicked. In retrospect, it would have been better and easier to just lock the blog for a few days. We live and learn, I guess...

As for Welmer's site, it's cornucopia of MGTOW/MRA stuff featured by a variety of writers; it's like a box of chocolates, because you never know what you're going to get over there! I don't read all their posts though, because I don't have the time; I just catch those that interest me; the comments are good too.

As for Edita, I think her problem is being unclear; as I was reading some of her older posts, and I got a better idea of where she stands on things. As I said, she's a young woman; what do you expect?

MarkyMark

Anonymous said...

MarkyMark,

"Also on the to-do list is to finish backing up the deleted posts, and to re-post the vast majority of them."

I am looking forward to reading them!

"As for Edita, I think her problem is being unclear; as I was reading some of her older posts, and I got a better idea of where she stands on things. As I said, she's a young woman; what do you expect?"

I will go back and read her older posts to get a better understanding.

I read what was probably one of the most inflammatory posts, and assumed that they were all like that, and that she was preaching instead of also trying to learn.

Take The Red Pill said...

Unless I know them personally (relatives or friends) I assume ALL Western womyn under 60 are "like that" and show them absolutely NO chivalry whatsoever. It's absolutely wasted effort -- like "throwing pearls before swine".

MarkyMark said...

Red Pill,

That's basically the rule I follow...

MarkyMark

Christina said...

The TradCon women don't want us try to distinguish between GOOD women and BAD women and treat them accordingly. They want us all to be Don Quixote, Man of La Mancha. If we just treat the Aldonza whores like fine Ladies, they'll all turn into fine Ladies.

This totally made me LoL.

MarkyMark,

I'm so sorry about everything happening to you! First a hurricane and then your mother. I hope you are doing well.

I just clicked over from EW (where else?) Ephesians 5:21 on down is such a HUGE drama fest with the church. It seems that the Chivalry fanatics claim 5:25-26 as their mantra, replacing "wives" with "all women".

The only men that need to "man up" are married men who are told to lead their wives - and ONLY "man up" for their wives. Which is something any man should be able to do if his wife submits to his authority.

I've known men who don't like making decisions for themselves, instead pawning them off on other people. My husband often leaves stuff he doesn't much care about in my hands. But when he does care, if all I do is say "this is what I think, but I'll let you decide" then he is leading. Sometimes, he rebels against that and demands I make up his mind for him - in which case, "man up" is appropriate. Sometimes, I stomp my feet and shrilly yell, "you do what I want!!! NOW!!!", in which case I deserve a solid bitch slap. He has a rather bizarre way of handling me like that that I'm learning to respond to...

So easy.

Men don't have to man up for anyone else. And "manning up" for the wife is certainly a mutual affair (he leads, she submits).

MarkyMark said...

Christina,

THanks for the condolences. BTW, my mother died first (in April 2012); then, as that was winding down, Sandy made life interesting for good measure. That said, I know what you meant, and I appreciate it.

To respond to what you said, Eph. 5:21 on down DOES cause a lot of indigestion, because of our rebellion. I look at the Bible as a sort of "owner's manual" for humanity; we'd be much better off we just followed instructions!

As for how I think marriage should be, I'll simply say this: I think that the captain/first officer model applies; I'd consult my wife, of course, but the buck would stop with me.

MarkyMark

fschmidt said...

MarkyMark, aren't you Christian? Both the Old Testament and New Testament say "love your neighbor as yourself". Chivalry is an expression of this sentiment by men to women. The question then is, who is your neighbor? And the answer is any member of your community, meaning a community that you are truly committed to. So if there were a truly moral patriarchal community, then all men in that society would owe chivalry to all women in that society, but women who violate this benefit should be appropriately punished. Clearly women outside of a patriarchal community deserve absolutely nothing.

I also want to say that I love the Feminine Mystique website. It is better than any men's website that I have seen.

MarkyMark said...

fschmidt,

You're right about what the OT & NT teach WRT loving one's neighbor. That said, I do NOT want to enable feminism, its sympathizers, or depraved skanks (i.e. the vast majority of women today).

Feminine Mystique is an interesting website. I have been spending a lot of time there lately...

MarkyMark

fschmidt said...

But MarkyMark, chivalry is not what enabled feminism. The very opposite is true. Feminism is a result of the selfishness of modern culture and the idea of sexual equality, both of which are the opposite of chivalry. Of course members of modern culture, both men and women, don't deserve chivalry or any other act of consideration because they are essentially worthless selfish beasts. But within a sane moral patriarchal culture, chivalry makes sense and worked quite well for a few centuries.

MarkyMark said...

fschmidt,

That's an interesting point. Could you explain in more detail, please? Thanks!

MarkyMark

fschmidt said...

I am not sure what details to provide. I am not an expert on early feminist literature, but all the writings that I have seen have been based on equal right and none have been based on an appeal to chivalry. Feminism is properly understood as a slut-power movement that primarily benefits both immoral men and immoral women, and harms both moral men and moral women. The equal rights argument is just a rationalization for supporting slutty behavior. But we have seen feminism in various forms throughout history in decaying cultures, most of which did not have chivalry. What all these decaying culture shared was growing selfishness. The Roman Empire and Byzantium under Justinian provide good examples. Here is feminism in Byzantium under Justinian from "The Secret History" by Procopius:

-----------------------------------------------
The ladies of the court at this time were nearly all of abandoned morals. They ran no risk in being faithless to their husbands, as the sin brought no penalty: even if caught in the act, they were unpunished, for all they had to do was to go to the Empress, claim the charge was not proven, and start a countersuit against their husbands. The latter, defeated without a trial, had to pay a fine of twice the dower, and were usually whipped and sent to prison; and the next time they saw their adulterous wives again, the ladies would be daintily entertaining their lovers more openly than ever. Indeed, many of the latter gained promotion and pay for their amorous services. After one such experience, most men who suffered these outrages from their wives preferred thereafter to be complaisant instead of being whipped, and gave them every liberty rather than seem to be spying on their affairs.
-----------------------------------------------

This did not grow out of chivalry, it grew out of selfishness and declining morals.

MarkyMark said...

fschmidt,

Thanks for the the history lesson! That was good stuff.

So, it was the overall growth of selfishness that brought on feminism in the past then?

Feminism HAS happened before, so there's nothing new under the sun. The most notable example I can think of is Sparta, the Greek city-state with its warrior culture. When women gained power there, it was all downhill after that...

MarkyMark

fschmidt said...

I did say that feminism grew out of selfishness and declining morals, but to be fair, it is impossible to show causation in history. What I feel confident in saying is that chivalry did not cause feminism.

On another note, I withdraw my support for Feminine Mystique. I tried to post a comment to the "On Chivalry" article pointing out that the argument for chivalry only works in a society where women can be punished for violating this benefit, and my comment was rejected. It appears that the moderators of this site are just as selfish and intolerant as any feminist in modern society.

MarkyMark said...

fschmidt,

I noticed that they sometimes take a while to post my comments; more often than not, they post my comments even though I often disagree with what they say over there. If they don't post your comment in the next day or so, then they probably won't.

MarkyMark

Anonymous said...

Christina makes a good point, but the order is wrong. First, women submit, then men lead.

This concept that men must lead, then women submit if they lead well enough, is a major heresy that is destroying, no, has destroyed the Christian churches as a viable social force.

The Bible gives submission as an imperative statement to women. It only presents male leadership as an informational statement. No man can lead a woman who is living in rebellion.

At least twice that I know of, the Bible refers to quarrelsome, argumentative wives, and supplies no solution for the husband, except he would be better off to live on a roof or in the desert. That is because there is no solution. She either submits voluntarily, or she does not, period.

Anonymous age 70

MarkyMark said...

Anon Age 70,

Thanks for your knowledge and wisdom, as always...

MarkyMark

Anonymous said...

I just went and read the chivalry article.

That woman is totally devoid of any knowledge or empathy for the male experience in today's society.

And, after reading a couple older postings, I would say she is not one who deserves male chivalry, nor even respect.

In one of her postings, she says something to the effect that all MRA's hate women and love rape. I am not making this up.

In all my years as an MRA, I have never known even one MRA who loved rape, nor condoned it. To resent false rape charges does not mean men love rape.

She used a statement, which I read at the time it was written, by ONE MAN who said he would never vote to convict any man accused of rape, to PROVE ALL MRA'S LOVE RAPE.

I don't even know how to respond to such an outrageous and stupid statement by a woman who also claims she deserves chivalry. It is women like her who make the MRM and marriage strike necessary.

Maybe just point out it is women like here who caused me to write the article on DGM-2 a few years ago, stating my opinion that AW are clinically insane. Which means technically a total lack of grasp of reality.

Anonymous age 70

MarkyMark said...

Anon70,

I saw that posting of hers also, and I tried to dispute it with her. She was taking issue with something Paul Elam (A Voice for Men) said. He said that, in order to COMBAT the serious problem of FRAs; since trying to use less extreme means (i.e. pressure and persuasion of our gov't representatives) failed; that left the time honored, American tradition of jury nullification as an option, so he'd vote to free any man charged with rape to bring attention to the serious problem of FRAs.

I tried to point this out to the young lady, but I didn't get anywhere. I never said that I hated women, nor did I use a hateful tone when making my point. I pointed out that FRAs are a serious problem; that other means to address them have failed; so, in a last ditch, non-violent means to address the issue, Paul Elam said that he would engage in jury nullification. After all, it IS a time honored, non-violent means for the people to protest unjust laws, so Mr. Elam said why not do it? I agree.

I'm torn about Edita; I really am. I think that a traditional patriarchy IS best for society, and am therefore in general support of anyone trying to bring that about. However, her lack of empathy, knowledge, and seeming lack of desire to even LEARN about what a young man faces in modern America ARE, shall we say, disconcerting.

MarkyMark

MarkyMark said...

Anon70,

I think you are right; AW ARE clinically insane...

MarkyMark

fschmidt said...

Isn't the author of the chivalry article, Jesse Powell, a man?

MarkyMark said...

fschmidt,

I was under the impression that JP was a guy, but now that you bring it up, I have to confess that I don't know for sure...

MarkyMark

unmaskingfeminism said...

JP is a man, at least he says so in his piece at FM on why he is a male TWRA.
I did an analysis on his piece here

http://unmaskingfeminism.wordpress.com/2013/02/09/on-traditional-womens-rights-activists-twras/

fschmidt said...

The Feminine Mystique never posted my comment. It's yet another disgusting intolerant bunch of women, and men sucking up them.

unmaskingfeminism's analysis is pretty good. But one point where I disagree is that men cannot sit around waiting for women to take the first step to behave decently. Instead, men must withdraw from mainstream society and set up subcultures (like religions) where women are only accepted if they behave decently. When a woman (or a man) behaves like a modern beast, she (or he) should be tossed out. This is the only solution.

MarkyMark said...

fschmidt,

They haven't been posting a lot of MY comments, either. If you disagree with them, they don't like that...

MarkyMark

P Ray said...

If you're in the West and think "Islam will save us from feminism",
please see this guy "Yusuf Estes" preaching that "All men are responsible for the well-being of all women".

Feminism has had only 2 major goals:
1. To make women the gatekeepers of sexuality with license to decide which man is worthy of attention and
2. To make the relationships between older men and younger women impossible so that the women of step 1. have a sex-starved cohort of men to finance the rest of their life when they're married (no sex for you because God says sex is bad, if you still want sex: :POOF: You're Satan, NO SEX FOR SATAN!

Sophia said...

If I may, I hope that you do not *actually* stomp your feet and yell like a temperamental child. You are a grown woman, are you not? Such antics are beneath adults.

That said, I also hope that your husband does not *actually* slap you. Again, this is the action a child on the playground would take...similar to biting or shoving. Most people SHOULD grow out of it by the time they reach first grade. If they don't, we usually call them bullies.

Then again, perhaps you were just exaggerating and using physical terms when you meant otherwise. In that case, it still seems odd, but at least it's not abusive or childish.

MarkyMark said...

Sophia,

Men WOULD slap women when they got hysterical; it's the only thing that would snap them back to reality. After all, it WAS frequently depicted in old movies, which were a reflection of the society/era in which they were produced.

MarkyMark

TWRA said...

The article that Jesse wrote; does not reflect my opinions on chivalry nor does it reflect the TWRA stance. Here is a more recent update of my opinion on chivalry.

http://modernfemininemystique.wordpress.com/2013/04/15/chivalry-never-existed-debunking-the-chivalry-myth/

I also changed the url of my site, so the links that you have on your site do not bring you to my site. You should update them.

MarkyMark said...

Edita,

Thanks for letting me know, and I have updated the links. Have a nice day!

MarkyMark