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!
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…